Re: Rule problem?

> > Your argument was a variance in the weapon.  So either you're good
> > enough to adjust to that variance or the weapon is useless in
> standard
> > space combat as well.  Either way, the end result is I can hit Bral
> at
> > 60 miles easily under the current rules.
>
> What you don't seem to understand is that in weapons of the
> technology
> level we're talking about there is *always* a variance in the weapon,
> and it's different with each shot. Steps are taken to reduce such
> variances, but there are always variables which can't be completely
> removed, or which can't always be predicted. You also seem to be
> ignoring the fact that I've repeatedly said that of course you can
> hit
> Bral at 60 miles, but you'd be missing a lot as well.

There's a variance in every modern rifle.  So what?  As for how often I
will hit Bral, I disagree.  I will hit far more often than not.  Like
90% of the time or better.  So it's still an effective bombardment
technique.  I don't care where on Bral I hit (though ultimately I'll
have a preference, just like I prefer to hit the magazine of an enemy
ship vs. just the bow but either will do) so all I have to do is hit.

> > Really?  So exactly what are the chances of a large weapon at range
> > hitting a ship that's sitting absolutely still while it's doing the
> > same?  That's exactly the scenario we're discussing.  I still
> assume
> > that if neither ship is moving and I'm in range I can hit every
> time.
>
> You're dead wrong. I'm sorry, but you really don't seem to know a
> great
> deal about the weapons we're talking about. They are quite accurate,
> but
> that's a relative term. You could get these weapons accurate enough
> that
> at range they will hit a stationary target more often than not, but
> at
> best (ie with expert weaponeers, and high-quality weapons) you'd be
> looking at hitting about 75-80% of the time.

You're dead wrong.  I obviously know much more about the weapons than
you do.  You hold to this tired philosophy but even your own math
proves you wrong.  Firing a mere 1500 yards with a ballista and no
friction or gravity to account for when I'm absolutely stationary and
so is my target and I do not have a defective weapon my chance of
hitting will be 99%+.  You seem to be completely unable to grasp that
these weapons are accurate.  They have to be or they will never hit at
all.  As your own math proves.  You have this idea that hitting is a
matter purely of luck, regardless of other circumstances.  That's an
ignorant and foolish view (though the SJ weapon THAC0 rules could lead
one to it).  Engineers and mathematicians have learned how to handle
projectile targeting.  They did a long time ago and they do now.  Now
it's scientific, then, I imagine it was as much practice and intuitive
skill.  Regardless, if the weapons are viable they must be able to hit
reliably, otherwise other weapons would be developed.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com