Price of Hunters |
|
nealhunt
|
Post subject: Price of Hunters  Posted: Wed May 24, 2006 10:10 pm |
|
| Purestrain |
 |
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
|
|
Lord I: Semaj's numbers on the last page are correct. It's 5/9 chance of scoring at least one hit.
_________________
Neal
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
J0k3r
|
Post subject: Price of Hunters Posted: Wed May 24, 2006 11:10 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
 |
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 11:18 pm
Posts: 876
Location: Edinburgh, UK
|
| Quote (Ilushia @ 24 May 2006 (18:14)) | | I dunno if AT 3+ is OK or not. But I'd consider 75 points a good price for it at AT 3+/AA 3+. |
what about AA3+/AT4+ and a price cut by 5-10 pts? 
Btw I agree with what you are saying about AA weapons being good against tanks too, particularly since its thin armour will stop the hunter being used recklessly. I just think that introducing a 60cm AT3+ weapon will be a big shift for the SM- currently the only way to get that is with a warhound.
_________________
"Do not offend the Chair Leg of Truth; it is wise and terrible."
-Spider Jerusalem
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Ilushia
|
Post subject: Price of Hunters Posted: Wed May 24, 2006 11:32 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 10:50 am
Posts: 1189
|
| Quote (J0k3r @ 24 May 2006 (23:10)) | | Quote (Ilushia @ 24 May 2006 (18:14)) | | I dunno if AT 3+ is OK or not. But I'd consider 75 points a good price for it at AT 3+/AA 3+. |
what about AA3+/AT4+ and a price cut by 5-10 pts? ?
Btw I agree with what you are saying about AA weapons being good against tanks too, particularly since its thin armour will stop the hunter being used recklessly. ?I just think that introducing a 60cm AT3+ weapon will be a big shift for the SM- currently the only way to get that is with a warhound. |
The trouble with dropping the price is then you get weird pricing. At +65 or +70 points it'll be difficult to get an even multiple of 25 out of the army using them. Which means you'll almost always wind up wasting some points in anything you take one with.
On the subject of range: Currently the only way to get 60cm AT3+ is to take a Reaver or Warlord. But each of those get 8 shots with those weapons every turn and vastly more survivability then this thing has. So I think it won't make a HUGE difference in ability. It'll add a little more anti-tank ability to the Marines, but they'll still have to worry a lot about being destroyed by those same tanks they're hunting if used this way.
On the subject of allowing Hunter-squads, that'd be kinda neat. I'm not sure they're survivable enough for this though. How big of a unit would you make them? 4 per unit? That'd give a LOT of AA fire in one place, and make them a fairly big target, IMHO.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
J0k3r
|
Post subject: Price of Hunters Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 10:24 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 11:18 pm
Posts: 876
Location: Edinburgh, UK
|
| Quote (Ilushia @ 24 May 2006 (23:32)) | | The trouble with dropping the price is then you get weird pricing. At +65 or +70 points it'll be difficult to get an even multiple of 25 out of the army using them. Which means you'll almost always wind up wasting some points in anything you take one with. |
Thats a good point I hadnt considered. Your probably right that it wont make a huge impact. Ill give it a playtest at AA/AT3+ next time I play and let you know the results.
_________________
"Do not offend the Chair Leg of Truth; it is wise and terrible."
-Spider Jerusalem
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Bombot
|
Post subject: Price of Hunters Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 11:36 am |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2005 1:06 pm
Posts: 348
Location: Reading, UK
|
|
66% is something, and is probably the relevant statistic for comparison - it's the expected hit rate. ?Well, it's 66.6666... but for this exercise I can't be bothered with the decimal places.
One Hydra has two rolls so there are four possible outcomes:
Nether roll hits - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?44%
Roll 1 hits; roll 2 misses - ? ?22%
Roll 2 hits; roll 1 misses - ? ?22%
Both rolls hit ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 11%
0*44% = 0%
1*22% = 22%
1*22% = 22%
2*11% = 22%
Add that up and you get the expected hit rate of 66%.
[EDIT] - However, if you only view a single flak unit as a blast marker placer then 55% is probably the figure you should have in your head.
_________________
"The Hoff isn't just a person - he's a state of mind, a kind of higher power"
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
semajnollissor
|
Post subject: Price of Hunters Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 2:46 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
 |
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2005 6:38 pm
Posts: 1673
Location: Chattanooga, TN, USA
|
|
Okay, so what are you defining as "hit rate?" It seems like you calculated the correct probabilities, then weighted them according to the number of hits. However, I don't think that gives anything meaningful (the probabilities themselves are already weighted, I don't think you can weight them again). Just because the 11% outcome has double the value doesn't mean you can double it's probability.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Bombot
|
Post subject: Price of Hunters Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 3:07 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2005 1:06 pm
Posts: 348
Location: Reading, UK
|
|
I'll clarify (hit rate was a bit woolly). 0.66 is the expected number of hits scored per Hydra. What it shows is that if you have 3 Hydra you should expect 2 hits.
The 55% percent applies if you are looking for the chance of one Hydra scoring one or more hits.
_________________
"The Hoff isn't just a person - he's a state of mind, a kind of higher power"
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
nealhunt
|
Post subject: Price of Hunters Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 3:50 pm |
|
| Purestrain |
|
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 10:52 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Nashville, TN, USA
|
|
Bombot: As far as I can tell, you've just calculated the average number of hits (.66...) and converted it to a percentage. It seems to me that's kind of like saying the average of 5 and 15 is 1000%.
You can arbitrarily define "hit rate" however you want. It's not like it's a defined statistical term. But you need to explain what you think it's measuring.
_________________
Neal
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Bombot
|
Post subject: Price of Hunters Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 4:00 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2005 1:06 pm
Posts: 348
Location: Reading, UK
|
|
Yeah, it was early in the morning and my memory of statistical terms was hazy. I haven't done this stuff for a while.
0.66 is the expected number of hits per Hydra (it would be 0.5 for the Hunter). And it is typically the statistic that is most relevant for this kind of comparison.
_________________
"The Hoff isn't just a person - he's a state of mind, a kind of higher power"
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
semajnollissor
|
Post subject: Price of Hunters Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 4:09 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
|
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2005 6:38 pm
Posts: 1673
Location: Chattanooga, TN, USA
|
|
I dunno, that still seems like bad math. Strictly speaking, multiple events in these cases (1 hydra with 2 shots, or 3 hydras with 6 shots) are governed by binomial probability. Of course, as a rule of thumb, you can just say that since you have a 1/3 chance of hitting for each shot, you should expect roughly 2 hits given six shots. But really that's only the most likely outcome when performing the same number of events?over and over again. Basically, it neglects the fact that you are nearly as likely to get 1 hit or 3 hits during any given set of 6 events (shots).
Here are the probabilities given six shots, each with a 1/3 chance of hitting:
0 hits: ?8.78%
1 hit: ?26.34%
2 hits: 32.92%
3 hits: 21.95%
4 hits: ? 8.23%
5 hits: ? 1.65%
6 hits: ? 0.14%
Based on these number, you can really only expect to get [exactly] 2 hits about 33% of the time, whereas you can expect to get 1, 2, or 3 hits about 80% of the time. (Note that about 91% of the time you'll get at least one hit. Thats why you can't really rely on getting the average number of hits.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Bombot
|
Post subject: Price of Hunters Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 5:27 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2005 1:06 pm
Posts: 348
Location: Reading, UK
|
|
I think binomial probability is more useful if you want to find out the probability of a specific outcome, or if the chance of something happening at all is significant. In this scenario we don?t. We either want to know:
a) if I have an equal number of Hunters and Hydras, which will give me the most hits (use 0.5 vs 0.66 ? the expected number of hits).
or
b) if I have a single Hydra and a single Hunter, which has the better chance of hitting at all, e.g. to give a blast marker (use 50% vs 55%)
So clearly either way the Hydra is better. The chance you might get 1 hit or 3 hits, etc with three Hydras is all factored into the expected number of hits.
True, if you?re trying to compare which is better out of 6 shots hitting on a 6 and 3 shots hitting on a 5+, expected number of hits doesn?t tell you diddly squat. Binomial distribution would then tell you which is better but first you have to define what you mean by better
_________________
"The Hoff isn't just a person - he's a state of mind, a kind of higher power"
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
dafrca
|
Post subject: Price of Hunters Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 5:30 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
 |
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 6:02 pm
Posts: 10956
Location: Burbank, CA, USA
|
You people are giving me a headache. All this math. You would think I was in one of the Finance meetings or something, oh wait, I do have to go to one today. 
Serious, this has been an interesting read.
dafrca
_________________
"Every Man is a But Spark in the Darkness"
- Cities of Death, page 59
Come fight me, if you dare...... http://dd-janks.mybrute.com
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Lord Inquisitor
|
Post subject: Price of Hunters Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 9:26 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 1216
Location: Norfolk VA USA
|
| Quote (nealhunt @ 24 May 2006 (17:10)) | | Lord I: ?Semaj's numbers on the last page are correct. ?It's 5/9 chance of scoring at least one hit. |
My mistake - it has a 4/9 chance of scoring no hits, and 5/9 chance of scoring at least one hit. (Forgot the (1-p)!)
Which means that the Hydra is more effective against aircraft than the Hunter, hmmm.
I would, again, point out that while the AA capabilities are similar, the Hunter restricts the viable flack-free routes across the board more for aircraft than the hydra - especially considering the free BM for being shot at - by virtue of covering more area with flack.
Lord =I=
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Ilushia
|
Post subject: Price of Hunters Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 9:39 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 10:50 am
Posts: 1189
|
| Quote (Lord Inquisitor @ 25 May 2006 (21:26)) | | Quote (nealhunt @ 24 May 2006 (17:10)) | | Lord I: ?Semaj's numbers on the last page are correct. ?It's 5/9 chance of scoring at least one hit. |
My mistake - it has a 4/9 chance of scoring no hits, and 5/9 chance of scoring at least one hit. (Forgot the (1-p)!)
Which means that the Hydra is more effective against aircraft than the Hunter, hmmm.
I would, again, point out that while the AA capabilities are similar, the Hunter restricts the viable flack-free routes across the board more for aircraft than the hydra - especially considering the free BM for being shot at - by virtue of covering more area with flack.
Lord =I= |
This is true. The hunter does cover a larger area. But most of the time all it's going to do is place a single blast marker and fail to actually do any damage (The Hydra's the same way really unless you have lots of them). But why, then, do you have to pay 3/2 as much for the Hunter as the Hydra? The 60cm range is quite nice, no doubt, but is it really worth a 50% increase in price? A Hydra's total diameter of coverage is 120cm. So it covers a circular area 120cm wide. The total area of that circle is not actually very relivant as any plane which passes over any part of it will get hit. But only get hit once. The Hydra covers an area 90cm wide, smaller to be sure. 2 Hunters will cover a line which is 240cm wide, or if you bring them close enough to overlap in the middle they'll cover something 180cm wide. Three Hydras will cover a line roughly 270 cm long or if moved to overlap (with three this means the central most one will overlap with both) they'll cover roughly 180cm wide.
Is the range of the Hunter better? Yes. Is the range of the hunter better on a per-cost rating? I'd say no. Three Hydras can cover an area larger then 2 Hunters. ANd if covering a smaller area will do so more effectively. It's also much harder to destroy 3 hydras then 2 hunters as they'll be more spread out (usually). I just don't think the current Hunter is worth 50% more then the current Hydra is.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Lord Inquisitor
|
Post subject: Price of Hunters Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 10:00 pm |
|
| Brood Brother |
|
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 1216
Location: Norfolk VA USA
|
|
The total area is relevant: it is the area of the board that would need to be avoided in order to avoid flack. Every time I play with or against aircraft, one of the critical factors in which target to attack is ground flack and which routes to take in order to avoid flack. I feel this is a very important factor as it influences the opponent's movements.
And if you look at the numbers, two hunters can cover almost 20% more area than three hydra, although agreed that if concentrated they are more effective.
There are other factors - hydra are better in a FF, while hunters have significantly better armour. They have comparable AT abilities, while the hydra has some fearsome AP power.
Overall I would agree, point for point, the hydra is preferable. But the extra armour and range of the hunter should not be forgotten.
What do people think of my suggestion that Whirlwind formations could comprise a mixture of whirls and hunters (they're the same points)? I think I'd be tempted to plump for a formation of hunters...
Lord =I=
|
|
| Top |
|
|
