Wishlist: new move class for unreliable tanks

[Mario_Fr]

I have just noticed that in the latest patch (6.0) you will add a new move class (so it`s possible).
What do you think about a new move class especially for unreliable tanks to add a certain breakdown chance for them (I guess breakdown chances are also connected with move class; infantry never get stucked in mud or hedgerows...)?
This could represent such AFV`s as Panther D, Tiger I and II, Ferdinand/Elefant, Jagdtiger, T-34/76 M1940, KV-1 and 2, T-35, early Churchill, Convenanter, Crusader, all "prototype" and what-if tanks etc. which were for some reason or another very prone to breakdowns (actually quite a lot of them were only lost because of that).
My suggestion is that this move class should have a very small base chance for getting immobilised in EVERY hex (also on road, clear, field and trees), that this base chance increases a little bit when they spend more than half of their movement points and is much higher when a tank moves at full speed (maybe 0-5% base chance, 5-7% when spending more than half of MP and 8-15% when going full speed). So you have to be more cautious with this tanks and still there is a chance they can break down at times.

Mario

[Mobhack]

Originally Posted by Mario_Fr

I have just noticed that in the latest patch (6.0) you will add a new move class (so it`s possible).
What do you think about a new move class especially for unreliable tanks to add a certain breakdown chance for them (I guess breakdown chances are also connected with move class; infantry never get stucked in mud or hedgerows...)?
This could represent such AFV`s as Panther D, Tiger I and II, Ferdinand/Elefant, Jagdtiger, T-34/76 M1940, KV-1 and 2, T-35, early Churchill, Convenanter, Crusader, all "prototype" and what-if tanks etc. which were for some reason or another very prone to breakdowns (actually quite a lot of them were only lost because of that).
My suggestion is that this move class should have a very small base chance for getting immobilised in EVERY hex (also on road, clear, field and trees), that this base chance increases a little bit when they spend more than half of their movement points and is much higher when a tank moves at full speed (maybe 0-5% base chance, 5-7% when spending more than half of MP and 8-15% when going full speed). So you have to be more cautious with this tanks and still there is a chance they can break down at times.

Mario

Which might work for a human player that has "read the instructions" - but certainly wont work for the AI which will either have to be coded so it has little or no chance of the bad effect happening or it will disable itself.

It's one of those things that many players simply wont like happening to them, so it would require an option defaulted to OFF and only 1-2% of "die-hard realists" might use it. So unlikely to happen.


Andy

[Mario_Fr]

As for the AI there will be no need to code it, at times breakdowns will occur to these tanks but it`s the same when you play the AI in a desert scenario when it gets stucked in soft sand (and of course the figures where just suggestions, I have not calculated the overall chance of breakdowns then in a scenario of 40+ turns, maybe it would be much too high; stochastic never was a favorite). But I`ll find out.
Well, being one of those "die-hard realists", breakdowns could be turned-off in the preferences by players who don`t like that to happen...
But you`re right, it`s really just about realism. Some AFV`s have had serious mechanical problems (actually it`s quite a long list, lot`s of french AFV`s as well) and it would be nice to see that in this (almost) perfect game.
Your latest update to 6.0 seems to be incredible, by the way. Thanks.

Mario

[cbo]

Originally Posted by Mario_Fr

But you`re right, it`s really just about realism. Some AFV`s have had serious mechanical problems (actually it`s quite a long list, lot`s of french AFV`s as well) and it would be nice to see that in this (almost) perfect game.

How would you quantify "mechanical problems"?

Mechanical problems came in all shapes and sizes and appeared under different types of circumstances. Spark plug fouling, for example, happened when idling a lot, track loss was probably more likely to happen on stony ground while those with tranmission issues probably didn't like grinding along in heavy mud or the constant turning in an urban environment.
Also, a tired old worn out tank would be more likely to have issues than a factory fresh but well run-in example, even if the model as such was reliable - or unreliable.

Nor does it seem to me that many tanks broke down in combat, i.e. the limited timespan and limited space in which SPWW2 battles takes place. Most of the falling apart, regardless of cause, seems to have taken place on road marches to the battlefield or from one battle to another. So not really relevant to the scale and scope of SPWW2.

And then there is the problem of actually defining and documenting what was unreliable. Simply going by conventional wisdom would hardly cut it if you want to implement such a feature. As an example, you mention Panther Ausf. D which certainly had its share of issues, but so had the Ausf. A, at least until early summer of 1944 and it could be argued that they never really solved all the issues with that one.

I've looked a lot at different sets of data regarding reliability and it is impossible to sort out what comes from battle damage, normal wear and tear, general unreliability (what we are looking at here), lack of repair facilities and spare parts etc.
And here we are only talking about the reliability of the well-known and well-documented specimens. But what about Japanese tanks og Italian tanks? What about French tanks in German service?
The problem is, that you will put the best documented cases at a disadvantage because you could perhaps have a go at determining their reliability but with no data for the more obscure items, how would you determine their reliability?

You could easily end up with pseudorealism - something which may satisfy the casual reader of history but in reality would be a complete dogs breakfast of rumour, guesswork, bias and ignorance.

I would stay far, far away from trying something like this

[DRG]

Originally Posted by cbo

You could easily end up with pseudorealism - something which may satisfy the casual reader of history but in reality would be a complete dogs breakfast of rumour, guesswork, bias and ignorance.

I would stay far, far away from trying something like this

I couldn't agree more Claus ( Visit more often.. we miss you )

Don

[Mario_Fr]

Originally Posted by cbo

Nor does it seem to me that many tanks broke down in combat, i.e. the limited timespan and limited space in which SPWW2 battles takes place. Most of the falling apart, regardless of cause, seems to have taken place on road marches to the battlefield or from one battle to another. So not really relevant to the scale and scope of SPWW2.

Well, good point, Claus.

So what about shifting the "possible breakdowns" to the time in between battles, so it would only affect campaign-play.

There could be a small base chance (1% or 2%) for each verhicle for not being operational (due to the circumstances you mentioned) in the next battle. It wouldn`t affect the core cost, the vehicle is still there but you just couldn`t deploy and use it this time.

(Also you could link this with the damage points a vehicle had suffered, so having to repair 5 damage points would increase the chance that it`s not repaired in time for the next battle. Maybe also different base chances for certain time periods, nations or fronts).

And still I would insist that there is a category of vehicles with higher chance for not being operational, this could be maybe 10%. So if you buy 5 Panther D you have a 50% chance that one of them is not operational in your next battle.

Of course it would help if the percentage for base chance and unreliable vehicles could be edited and also which vehicle is in what category.


Mario

[gila]

Well, if want to go realistic on breakdowns then should the heavies be able cross wooden bridge's with no chance of a collapse?

What you could do is to simply decrease thier speed by 1/3,.i do that anyway because they have the greater range and don't need to move all that fast.

[EpoletovSPR]

Excellent idea about decrease in speed on wooden bridges.

[Mobhack]

If the user wants to do such "realism" rules for campaign reliability then he can simply draw cards or roll a die for it himself at battle start. Those that are judged "broken down" he can then voluntarily leave sitting on the baseline, or retreat off it to be 100% sure he wont "cheat himself".

Job done.

Andy

[Imp]

Its outside the context of the game as said if you want to draw cards to see what force actually turns up the battle you are about to play.
Breakdowns, short on fuel, harassed by air or artillery, dysentery, malaria or just got plain lost on the way, the list goes on & on.