tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3092603842974378319.post983274595195660954..comments2024-01-24T11:36:17.328-08:00Comments on Explore: Beneath & Beyond: Mass TargetsJoe Nuttallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02395295081337987607noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3092603842974378319.post-66826920354605623782015-09-09T02:29:08.106-07:002015-09-09T02:29:08.106-07:00Thanks Leland for your comments.
I think we agree...Thanks Leland for your comments.<br /><br />I think we agree on the angle of incidence (in my post I have it as 48 degrees at max range, which is even steeper than 45 degrees, due to wind resistance) but I agree that if you had more dispersed targets than this you’d have less chance of hitting, which would be an extra penalty. For example, double the separation = one quarter the density = -6 penalty. This implies that open formation is best against missile fire, but then it opens you up (literally) to cavalry charge. Sounds like there’s some complex trade-offs.<br /><br />On variation in y versus x due I decided it wasn’t worth investigating, though as I have the code I could always look another time if I’m still interested.<br /><br />On targeting individuals, I was going to explain that when the chance is <50% then even if you’re targeting that individual then the statistics say it’s actually entirely random who you hit. So the system I outlined is correct – except - you’ve prompted me to spot a deficiency in the method I outlined – if you target someone then because of the arbitrary number aspect of my solution you end up with a different chance of hitting that individual when he’s in the crowd and when he isn’t, and it could in fact be easier to hit him in the crowd.<br /><br />So you’ve prompted to me to try harder :-)<br /><br />What we have to work with is as follows - you know the chance of hitting the individual, and the chance of hitting the crowd. The chance of hitting the individual is much worse than hitting the crowd (due to the range penalties). You want the chance of hitting the individual to be unchanged by the presence of the crowd, and you don’t want to change the chance of hitting the crowd just because you’re aiming at an individual in the crowd. So the revised system is this - roll to hit the individual, if you miss then reapply exactly the same roll as an attempt to hit the crowd.<br />That's simple, and seems to give exactly the results that you'd want.<br /><br /> <br />Joe Nuttallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02395295081337987607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3092603842974378319.post-16807300756544995562015-09-08T11:23:37.862-07:002015-09-08T11:23:37.862-07:00I read this a while ago but haven't had time t...I read this a while ago but haven't had time to put a coherent comment together. Thanks for the additional detail on your thinking; I think a big difference in our notions was that in my mind I was thinking of (1) longer-range fire such that the incident angle of the incoming missile was closer to 45 degrees; and (2) targets being more dispersed than you have (perhaps even more than the "loose phalanx").<br /><br />Something else to consider: I believe it's true [citation needed] that generally speaking error in missile fire is not distributed with the same variance in range and angle. That is, the impact pattern doesn't approach a circle so much as an ellipse, with the major axis along the line of fire (errors in range/elevation tending to be larger than errors in azimuth/alignment). But that's probably more detail than is really worth modeling, particularly in the absence of concrete data, and even if true may be a small effect for experienced archers.<br /><br />W.r.t. the single important figure, I was thinking that the important figure was distinguishable in some way ("shoot the guy in the black armor with the death's head helmet!") such that you're shooting at one guy with normal ranged attack penalties (ignoring the effect of a mass target), but if that shot misses there's still a chance that the shot happens to hit some hapless underling nearby. I agree if there's no particular reason to target that one guy then a random check is sufficient.<br /><br />In any event, thanks a lot for amplifying your thinking on this issue.Leland J. Tankersleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17257381741308085613noreply@blogger.com