Titan Posted May 2, 2000 Share Posted May 2, 2000 With all the cool things that have been thought of to date,one thing i will mention is that i havent seen anything regarding Vehicle Reliabilty in the respect of mechanical breakdowns It had an impact during the war,and i know CM is a very accurate game even to the point where weapons jam etc,but tanks did break down.For example the pantherA was very unreliable,and these things could have an impact during a game.So it would make a difference whether i had Panther A or a panther D. Also it would give you another important decision to make during the course of a battle in the respect of ,do i move fast with such and such a tank and risk throwing a track (even though ive played the demo i cant remeber if this happens so forgive if it does ) or risk a higher chance of a mechanical failure. ------------------ "Some people don't see the light until they first feel the heat" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tom w Posted May 2, 2000 Share Posted May 2, 2000 That's a good point In the Demo I have driven tanks into the woods and got them immbolized. That does not address your reliability issue though. Please read on. Tanks in CE can get bogged in because the conditions are damp.That's realistic to me. You bring up a good point and for realism I'm sure it would not be that hard to code a modifier that does a look up and reliability table for each specific AFV, every time it moves, but do we really want this? Yes it would make the "feel" perhaps more realisitic but it adds ONE more element of LUCK to the over all balance of the game. What if you are unlucky enough to have say 2 or 3 or 10% - 20 % of your AVF's fail the relibility check during the heat of battle. There would be SCREAMING from those who lost battles to poor luck or basically bad dice rolling on the reliabilty look up table when an unsually large portion of their armour fails, mechanically, in a battle.It adds another element of luck that I'm not sure most war gamers would truly aprreciate. Lets just say that this reliablity check is already been accounted for and all the AFV's that actually drive on to the battlefield and into the scenario itself are all ready the GOOD ones and the unreliable AFV's didn't make it and were left out of the scenario, as they failed on the road racing to the battle feild. (more realistic in my opinion). Perhaps in a campaign that involves a great deal of road driving from one battle to the next maybe then a check could be made for those AFV's on a long drive to the next battle. It is my (limited I admit) understanding that most reliability failures took place on the way to the battle and not so many mechanical reliability failures occured during actual tank battles.I suggest this because most of the time a tank is NOT actually in battle, most of the time it is waiting for battle or driveing to get to a battle, so I suggest this is when most mechanical failure would/should occur, outside of the 30 or 40 minutes of the GLORY (?) of battle that is simulated here. Perhaps for CM 2 and the Russian front this concern could be addressed, certainly for WINTER conditions and freeze ups and frozen rounds that did not fit in frozen gun barrels this is an issue. But I would hope the frequency of this mechanical failure would not be unrealistically high or have too large an impact on the play balance of a scenario. Hell, in my opinion the tank that gets bogged in is a wonderful random event, that is delightfully coded into the game, it is punitive to the player with the stuck AFV but it does not hurt that much because the player knows there is the potential that the AFV could un-bog its self and continue unscathed, just delayed. BUT to risk the complete (unrecoverable) loss of an AFV in battle to a mechancial failure, should be, modeled (if at all) in the code as a highly unlikely event. I did read your post completely and I know you are suggesting differing reliabilty look up tables for each type of AFV based on what their actual historical reliabilty was. If you or anyone can give Charles at BTS, highly acccurate data or stats with the percentage of time a specific type of AFV was recorded to have mechanical failure in combat, I'm sure they "could" write vehicle reliabilty look-up tables "if" they wanted to include this mechanical reliabilty check feature in CM 2 How's that? -tom w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
przy Posted May 2, 2000 Share Posted May 2, 2000 You are way too smart . I got a headache just reading that message. [This message has been edited by przy (edited 05-02-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted May 2, 2000 Share Posted May 2, 2000 Read more battle accounts... You will see that only in truly extraordinary circumstances did a vehicle ever break down during the middle of a fight. Breakdowns and reliability are issues on the route to and from the battlefield but not really on the field of battle. In CM the assumption is that if a vehicle can make it to the battlefield then it simply isn't going to break down moving the 400 or 500 metres it will move in the next 30 or 40 minutes . It's a very reasonable assumption backed up by mucho historical evidence.. certainly it is possible for vehicles to break down in the midst of combat in real life but it is so rare as to be one of those things which can be left out without damaging the core veracity of CM IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titan Posted May 3, 2000 Author Share Posted May 3, 2000 Ok thanks,just thought id bring it up and get alittle feed back. And from the answers it seems that within the scope of CM'S battle's it aint worth having, just a thought thats all ------------------ "Some people don't see the light until they first feel the heat" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts