Shadrak
02/03/16 04:40 PM
70.194.213.229
|
Conversion doesn't seem to work...mismatch between formula and TechManual...
Elephant gun from my calculations should be .14 damage...TechManual shows .11
How is this?
I have PV of 5/4
I have DV of 6�4.5
PV�DV/50 is .675
Times1/5 is .135
What am I doing wrong?
If I don't add the 1 for burst, it comes out right, but rules indicate the 1 is the minimum.
|
Shadrak
02/03/16 04:42 PM
70.194.213.229
|
Magnum revolver using the calculation is .21 (after throwing out the 1 for burst)...
Tech Manual shows .18
|
Cray
02/03/16 05:33 PM
72.189.109.30
|
Which printing of ATOW do you have? It should say in the front credits section.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Shadrak
02/03/16 10:08 PM
65.185.48.96
|
I have the 2012 version of the A Time of War Companion with the conversion formula.
I checked it...I have the most recent of all.
Here is what I have for an Elephant Gun:
Tech Manual says .11 damage
The conversion is as follows:
Elephant Gun:
Penetration/Damage: 5B/6
Magazine Size: 2
Burst: No
Calculation is as follows:
PF=AP/4=5/4= 1.25
DF=Damage*(3.5+1[no burst])= 6*4.5=27
Reload Factor=2/10= .2
Conversion:
(1.25*27)/50*.2=(1.25*27)/250=33.75/250=.135
So, according to the calculation, the damage should be .14, not .11
I have found this on almost every conventional infantry weapon in TechManual.
If I recalculate DF with Burst modifier fractionally it is:
6*(3.7)=22.2
Calculation becomes 1.25*22.2/50*.2 or .111
Did the developers fail to follow their own rules and ROUND UP to 1?
|
Shadrak
02/03/16 10:18 PM
65.185.48.96
|
OK....I got it...
The developers have totally ignored their own rules...non-burst weapons are treated as a 0, not as a 1.
Any chance of getting a developer to make a change?
|
ghostrider
02/04/16 04:18 AM
98.150.102.177
|
It is possible it was a typo that wasn't caught.
Or they knew what they wanted, but didn't do the math themselves. Like software installation. They only try it on a system that has certain files upgraded that are needed to actually upgrade and install their own software.
Then again, it isn't the first time they changed their ideas.
I seriously doubt they will change it. The costs of changing the print in future copies for one error is not enough to bother with, sadly. If there is other things the need to be changed, then they should.
Dungeons and dragons had such a typo in the original advanced hand book, where under psionics, it says half eleven, not half elven. Books printed 10 years later still have that error in there.
Now on the other side, I think it is amusing as it seems proof readers for alot of games need to be fired or learn how to do their job correctly. 
|