Quote from: JoeNuttall;855374...
 Thanks Trechirion. That's a reasonable approximation. It works for zero elevation, and for something directly overhead, but is a little over restrictive for things in between.
It should be just one yard added/subtracted either way, but that's the range to the target, not the horizontal distance. For example if you have range 110 yards and are aiming at something 50 yards away, 40 yards up then you should have the range reduced by 40 yards to 70 yards, but the distance to the target is approx 70 yards (actually 64) so it is just in range. In GURPS you would have had your horizontal range reduced to 30 yards so it would be out of range.
...

I don't understand what you wrote in your example. "You have range 110 yards" means that's your max range? "aiming at something 50 yards away, 40 yards up" I would think means it's 40 yards higher elevation than you, and 50 yards horizontally away, but from what you write later, it sounds like you mean the aimer is higher than the target, and I can't make sense of the numbers you later mention, either way.

In GURPS if you're 50 yds horizontal and 40 above your target, effective range is 50-(40/2) = 30 yds. If instead you were below your target, your effective range would be 50+(40/2) = 70 yds.

Quote from: Skarg;856806I don't understand what you wrote in your example. "You have range 110 yards" means that's your max range? "aiming at something 50 yards away, 40 yards up" I would think means it's 40 yards higher elevation than you, and 50 yards horizontally away, but from what you write later, it sounds like you mean the aimer is higher than the target, and I can't make sense of the numbers you later mention, either way.

Sorry for not being clearer. Yes, the example was max range 110 yards, aiming at something 50 yards away, 40 yards higher elevation than you. This reduces your max range by 40 yards, to 70 yards. But you have to measure the actual distance (by Pythagoras) not the horizontal distance, so the target is not actually 50 yards away but 64 yards away, which is just in range.
That bit's all just standard projectile equations.
 

Quote from: Skarg;856806In GURPS if you're 50 yds horizontal and 40 above your target, effective range is 50-(40/2) = 30 yds. If instead you were below your target, your effective range would be 50+(40/2) = 70 yds.

Looking at it again – the second part (my interpretation of GURPS) was wrong, but isn't yours as well? According to Trechriron (if I read it correctly) wouldn't GURPS make the range to the target 50+40=90 yards?

Oh whoops, yes the GURPS rule is subtract half the vertical distance when the firer is above the target, but add the full vertical distance when the firer is below the target.

However, GURPS never invokes the Pythagoerean theorem to determine the actual distance for max range purposes. You just use the effective range given by the add dV or subtract 1/2 dV, for max range purposes too. Of course it's a quick/easy rule that gives fairly good results but is designed to be mainly easy and give the right kinds of results without being to complicated.

Quote from: Skarg;856991However, GURPS never invokes the Pythagoerean theorem to determine the actual distance for max range purposes.

No-one would use pythagoras at the gaming table, but you can get a reasonable approximation of the distance to the target as long + half short. So 50 yards along, 40 yards up is approx 50+20=70 yards away.
It's useful primarily as that gives you the range penalty.

Quote from: Skarg;856991You just use the effective range given by the add dV or subtract 1/2 dV, for max range purposes too. Of course it's a quick/easy rule that gives fairly good results but is designed to be mainly easy and give the right kinds of results without being to complicated.

If your max range is 100 yards, then in reality you cannot hit anything higher than 50 yards up, and then only if it's directly above you. In GURPS you can hit stuff twice as high as that.

I'd say it's worthwhile making the rule *slightly* more complicated as the result is out by a factor of two, but not much more complicated.

I only asked as I was wondering how GURPS did it in case it had a way of doing it that I preferred to the one I've been using.

Quote from: JoeNuttall;857000No-one would use pythagoras at the gaming table, but you can get a reasonable approximation of the distance to the target as long + half short.

I use Pythagoras at the gaming table, even when there's no map.

Eric Solomon's Games Programming has a discussion of linear approximations to square root in two dimensions; some have slightly lower errors but aren't usable for manual computation. Long + half short is certainly much better than D&D's long.

Quote from: rawma;857073I use Pythagoras at the gaming table, even when there's no map.

That should be your signature ;-)

Quote from: rawma;857073Eric Solomon's Games Programming has a discussion of linear approximations to square root in two dimensions; some have slightly lower errors but aren't usable for manual computation. Long + half short is certainly much better than D&D's long.

I meant no-one would be actually calculating square roots. Long + half short is a good approximation and quick enough to be used, but I don't think Pythagoras had 3, 4, 4.5 triangles! Or do you whip the calculator out?

Note that if you'r measuring distance on a grid, Long + Half short is just the good old "diagonals are 1.5" rule. 3 along, 4 up is 3 diagonals and 1 straight, so 3*1.5+1 = 4.5. OR 4 (long) + 1.5 (half short) = 5.5. But I find it easier.

If I was writing a game system, to be frank, I'd include both specific ranges in yards and abstracted. To suit different play-styles. It might be as easy as including a small table next to the Ranged Weapons list that explains the different range "bands".

Good point about max range for projectiles being half vertical. The GURPS approximation is trying to provide a simple mechanic that gives modifiers in the right direction, while doing several things at once, so it won't be a match for every situation. More commonly it's not the max range that's the issue as much as having a range to use for the to-hit modifier, and in that case, one might not want to use double the vertical (or would one?). Also, some weapon's max range isn't limited by gravity (e.g. lasers) so would want an adjusted formula.

Actually, the case which stood out to me as wanting house rules was firing at targets with greater downward vertical distance than horizontal. In that case, while the max range can be zero or even negative, surely the effective range for to-hit purposes would go up with vertical distance down to target.

I'll go unearth my house rules and any advanced/optional public rules too - I need to refresh on this anyway.

As for horizontal grid ranges, I use a measuring tape or ruler to directly read the range, when there's any question (usually the range is small enough that the hex grid is accurate or close enough).

Quote from: JoeNuttall;857123That should be your signature ;-)

I prefer to unleash math with no warning.

QuoteI meant no-one would be actually calculating square roots. Long + half short is a good approximation and quick enough to be used, but I don't think Pythagoras had 3, 4, 4.5 triangles! Or do you whip the calculator out?

The numbers are small enough, and you only need the nearest integers, so why would you spoil things with a calculator?

QuoteNote that if you'r measuring distance on a grid, Long + Half short is just the good old "diagonals are 1.5" rule. 3 along, 4 up is 3 diagonals and 1 straight, so 3*1.5+1 = 4.5. OR 4 (long) + 1.5 (half short) = 5.5. But I find it easier.

Apparently D&D designers believed that enough players wouldn't be able to count if they had to include halves, so they used long + 0*short. (Given the painful amount of time for some players to add up three dice of damage, I suppose they might be right.)

But long + 40% of short would be slightly closer still (although lower than the correct value sometimes) and fifths aren't much worse than halves, are they?

Also note that long + half short on a square grid is more accurate in the worst case than counting on a hex grid in its worst case.

Quote from: Skarg;857174Good point about max range for projectiles being half vertical. The GURPS approximation is trying to provide a simple mechanic that gives modifiers in the right direction, while doing several things at once, so it won't be a match for every situation.

Yes, it's doing double duty - the max range and the to-hit penalty. As you then point out, for targets a long way below this fails as it reduces the to-hit penalty (when it should also increase).

The good news is you can just steal my solution (link in my sig) and drop it into GURPS ;-)

Quote from: Skarg;857174Also, some weapon's max range isn't limited by gravity (e.g. lasers) so would want an adjusted formula.

Yes, lasers would have no max range change. Then there's the effect of gun-sights, and then how good they would be against moving targets...

Quote from: Skarg;857174As for horizontal grid ranges, I use a measuring tape or ruler to directly read the range, when there's any question (usually the range is small enough that the hex grid is accurate or close enough).

Actually thinking about it, I always use a ruler, since I don't use grid based movement!

Quote from: rawma;857244I prefer to unleash math with no warning.

Your players will be quaking in their boots!

Quote from: JoeNuttall;853498The laughable range is the range of an Axe in AD&D - only 30 foot indoors. I don't think Gary thought long and hard about what he was trying to simulate here, he just went with the first rule that seemed OK and then everyone else has kept with it.

I've seen the whole thread on this, as well as watched that video and a couple others.  Could I point out a couple of things?

Quite aside from Bren's comment about them missing that rather large target half the time, this is about as far from a sound combat simulation as it gets.  These guys are toeing the line, taking their time about throwing -- often several seconds between shots.  No one's "opposing" them.  No one's hacking at them or shooting things back at them, and they're not having to dodge or juke while aiming.  The targets are stationary, and making no defensive moves.  It's pretty quiet all around, and there's no din of battle.  Their footing is about as good as it gets short of a rubberized floor.

And did anyone notice the force of the throws?  Those hits are just BARELY penetrating a soft target, to the depth of just a little more than half an inch.  A fit man could stand there bare chested and not take incapacitating damage, and I figure that any armor stouter than a biker jacket would repel the edge completely.  

These are not remotely valid guides to how an axe-thrower will fare in melee combat.

30' for a hard throw, one that will reliably damage the foe, one that will reliably hit, that's not so bad a WAG.

For my own part, I prefer the original GURPS missile rules, the ones that were superseded in BSIII for the current version.  Missiles have point blank range (where you get +4 to hit), an increment in yards for which every increment is a cumulative -1 to hit, and a "half-damage" range that tends to be (increment x 5).  Failure to take at least a round to aim (called a "snap shot") gives a -4 penalty.

Nice, clean, simple, playable, no math required.

Even if I almost every time I prefer abstract positioning I prefer distances in meters. I find saying "it's about 6 meters from you" or "about 30 meters from you" any more troublesome than saying "it's near" or "it's medium range". On the contrary, I think it helps in having everyone on the same page.

I slightly dislike feets and yards, though.

Quote from: Ravenswing;857435Quite aside from Bren's comment about them missing that rather large target half the time, this is about as far from a sound combat simulation as it gets.  These guys are toeing the line, taking their time about throwing -- often several seconds between shots.  No one's "opposing" them.  No one's hacking at them or shooting things back at them, and they're not having to dodge or juke while aiming.  The targets are stationary, and making no defensive moves.  It's pretty quiet all around, and there's no din of battle.  Their footing is about as good as it gets short of a rubberized floor.

These are not remotely valid guides to how an axe-thrower will fare in melee combat.

I think that's all true but that doesn't affect the range thrown.

Quote from: Ravenswing;85743530' for a hard throw, one that will reliably damage the foe, one that will reliably hit, that's not so bad a WAG.

The max range in AD&D for an axe is 90' outdoors, 30' indoors. For clarity, we were arguing about whether that reduction due to ceiling height is realistic, whereas you're arguing that it should always be 30 feet.
 

Quote from: Ravenswing;857435And did anyone notice the force of the throws?  Those hits are just BARELY penetrating a soft target, to the depth of just a little more than half an inch.  A fit man could stand there bare chested and not take incapacitating damage, and I figure that any armor stouter than a biker jacket would repel the edge completely.

I doubt it! Axes are sufficiently weighty that they won't be slowed down that much by air resistance and they're being thrown pretty hard to go that distance.
I think exactly the same arguments would imply you can't throw javelins very far and they're not very dangerous.
 

Quote from: Ravenswing;857435
For my own part, I prefer the original GURPS missile rules

Nice, clean, simple, playable, no math required.

The maths in the thread is for a different situation (shooting at something with a different elevation).
There was also discussion of working out the range to your opponent – using a ruler or counting squares (with diagonals being 1.5) – which applies to the rules you cite as much as any others.

Quote from: JoeNuttall;857456The max range in AD&D for an axe is 90’ outdoors, 30’ indoors. For clarity, we were arguing about whether that reduction due to ceiling height is realistic, whereas you’re arguing that it should always be 30 feet.

I am "arguing" nothing of the sort -- I hope you'll forgive me for insisting that I'm capable of stating what I mean without anyone putting words into my mouth.  What I stated was that a 30' max effective range as a WAG wasn't out of line.  

I did NOT go from there to deconstruct what I think the range realistically ought to be, nor did I address reductions due to ceiling height ... and I'm as capable as anyone else of reading the posts, thanks.  I'd want to actually research it first, rather than give folks whatever number fits my amour propre.
 

Quote from: JoeNuttall;857456I doubt it! Axes are sufficiently weighty that they won’t be slowed down that much by air resistance and they’re being thrown pretty hard to go that distance. I think exactly the same arguments would imply you can’t throw javelins very far and they’re not very dangerous.

Did you watch any of those videos?  Those show actual results, rather than any What-I-Believe-Based-On-No-Real-Evidence malarkey.  I really don't give a good goddamn how hard those axes are being putatively thrown, they are penetrating only very shallowly, and plainly the force very quickly dissipates in the course of throws at such extreme range.  Air resistance obviously matters quite a bit with such an unbalanced, unwieldy weapon, and I expect effective combat range is quite a bit shorter.

A javelin, by contrast, is a well-balanced, perfectly symmetrical airfoil which presents a surface of just a hair more than an inch wide.  You don't have to worry about revolution rate (i.e., how you manage to hit the target with the blade rather than the handle of a thrown hatchet or knife, something that's a good bit harder with variable targets than you might think).  Serious injuries do happen in javelin competitions, which is why most states now ban javelin throws from high school track competitions.

Quote from: JoeNuttall;857456The maths in the thread is for a different situation (shooting at something with a different elevation).

Erm.  Something else is what you might prefer to argue about, but the OP didn't say anything about aiming at different elevations.  If you'd like a separate thread devoted to nothing but elevation differences, feel free to start one.

Quote from: Ravenswing;857721Erm.  Something else is what you might prefer to argue about, but the OP didn't say anything about aiming at different elevations.  If you'd like a separate thread devoted to nothing but elevation differences, feel free to start one.

I think at every point we're talking at complete cross purposes here.