Hand gun vs Chemical WeaponFollow

No, blind people have to roll a d% and beat a 50 since everyone is considered to have concealment from you. However, if you take Blind-Fight, I think you can roll twice and take the better result.

Or it's an easy scapegoat reason for you instead of taking a second look at what you post. After all, how could you possibly be wrong, ever?

That's sarcasm.

Does that work?

In the civilian world paintball markers are notoriously inaccurate as compared to firearms.

Alma's?

Am I missing something here or what?

Take the method of delivery out of this. It really doesn't matter in this instance.

An explosive/non-explosive weapon has a much more predictable effective radius than a WMD (be it nuclear, biological, or chemical). A WMD is more vulnerable to change, because it is influenced more by environmental factors than conventional ammunition.

If you are given a target and you use both weapons on said target, and hit the very edge radius of it. Both will affect outside your intended target's radius. Do this multiply times. In the same spot. Which one do you think is going to be easier to predict the effective radius of due to real world variables? Both will vary, but one varies more.

If something is more predictable then doesn't it follow that it more accurate, exact, precise...?

No I'm not Alma..

I just seems that the accuracy of something like that, no matter the size of it, still varies. You can hit a target but be less accurate than someone that got a bulls eye.

I know you guys love making up arguments against me, but this quote blatantly contradicts that ridiculous claim.

Even using Alma's wacky definition of accuracy, If your target was some guy in hiroshima and whatever else happened with the blast was irrelevant, your kill rate would be ~26%. If you had that sort of accuracy with a sniper rifle you'd get reassigned.

This thread makes me hate everyone.

Your desired answer is nothing remotely similar to what I originally was talking about though. I was responding to something Smash said about chemical weapons being preferred because they are "cheap". I said that it's not that they are cheap (they're quite expensive payload to payload when compared to traditional explosives), but that due to their wide spread of damage they can be effective even when put atop inaccurate delivery systems.

Look at how many thousands of rockets were fired from Gaza into Israel recently. How many people were killed? Not very many compared to the number of rockets fired. Why? Because the rockets they use are inaccurate. And when you have a relatively small explosive blast on that rocket, that level of inaccuracy means that most of your rockets will land in empty fields, and roads, and parking structures, and whatnot, and very few will hit near any sort of target you're trying to hit.

Putting a chemical weapon payload on the exact same rocket does not make the rocket any more accurate. It does, however, make the weapon as a whole more effective. Why? Because due to the properties of a chemical weapons payload it does not need to be as accurate to be effective.

Please tell me you get this.



Sigh. Except it's not the payload that is accurate, but the delivery system. You're asking the equivalent of whether a bullet is accurate. It's a dumb question. It depends on what weapon fires it.



Honestly? That's evidence of me not having a freaking clue what point you thought you were making with that question. Comparison how? For what reason? What parameters are we comparing? A knife is sharper than a gun. See! I just compared them. What the hell that has to do with what we're talking about, I don't know. Perhaps if you actually try to make a point, I'll spend some effort trying to counter it. But I'm not going to sit here and guess what you're trying to say.

Sure. But defining the intended target area in such a way so as to account for the inaccuracy of the weapon somewhat defeats the purpose of using a word like "accurate" in the first place.

I could go to a shooting range and decide that the entire piece of target paper is my target and thus declare my shooting to be 100% accurate. But that's a useless declaration isn't it? We usually want to know how close to the center of the target each shot got and use that to determine accuracy. That same method is used to determine accuracy for any sort of projectile weapon. Yes, even those with large radius effects will still have a center of the effect and a center of the targeted area. The closer to the center of the target area, the more "accurate" the weapon delivery was (and the more likely we're going to contain the effect to just the area we wanted to hit). Handwaving away the fact that my rocket hit 200M to the left of the center of the target because the payload has a 300M radius isn't sufficient in this case. Presumably that spot I selected as the center of my target area was chosen because it's... wait for it... at the center of the area I want to target. So there may be an equal spread of folks I want to kill in all directions from that point, or some other reason why I choose that as the center. I want the effect to spread from there, not some point 200M to the left of there. So maybe because of that inaccuracy, I gas a big empty field off to the left, but miss a large set of buildings off to the right.


Accuracy in this context is always about getting the center of the projectile as close to the center of the target as possible. That's it. Don't over complicate things.

Accuracy is a gradient.