Will BTS model initial versions of PzV?

[Grisha]

During Kursk, the initial Panthers used were equipped with very unreliable engines. Will BTS model these in CM2, maybe giving it a very high bog rate, regardless of terrain, for say 1943?

[ 04-11-2001: Message edited by: Grisha ]

[Jeff Duquette]

Good topic for discussion Greg…although I would like to extend the discussion to all tanks in general. The Red Army had numerous problems in 1941 with all makes of tanks with respect to keeping them running. Zaloga in Red Army Handbook indicates that the vast majority of Soviet tanks lost in 1941 was not from German fire, but from break downs; lack of spare parts, lack of mechanics, lack of fuel, etc.

Tanks are notorious for throwing tracks or blowing engines etc. etc. at inopportune moments (maybe not the uber M1A1 or Leopard-2…were talking mortal tanks here). You’re not always in the motor pool when these little inconveniences occur. A great deal of this can be a function of a tank crew training and their attentiveness to their machine (IMHO). Getting off your tank during extended halts, and walking around the vehicle to examine the tracks on a regular basis can save a lot of heart ach.

The question in my mind is: should vehicle unreliability be kept at an operational level (i.e. out of the scope of CM tactical engine), or should there be a chance of tanks breaking down in the middle of games? I suspect the latter approach would piss a lot of folks off…I only lost cause my STUG III threw a track back on the map edge and never made it into the battle (whaaaa!). The first approach in which vehicle unreliability is handled at an operational level could be elegantly handled at CM’s level by simply tweaking game rarity\availability of various vehicles. In a point based scenario this means a jacked up value for unreliable vehicles to reflect the mechanical difficulties associated with getting these beasts onto the battlefield. My two cents.

[Homba]

I'd say you probably paid for a serviced and running tank at the start of a battle. Having a tank start broke-down, or break down on the first turn, is not much fun, and could even be decisive to the outcome. This must be considered before something is instituted where tanks start breaking down left and right. If they are prone to engine problems, this should be reflected in the price, and the player should also be able to mitigate the effect by (for example) only using the MOVE command, rather than Move Fast (which might be more likely to cause problems). Breakdown chance should start very low, and then creep up based on total distance moved (rather than what turn it is in the game). Again, I think the player should have some way to mitigate this by "gentle handling" of the tank.

The above is only directed to pure engine problems, not throwing tracks in bad terrain, or engines *freezing* in extreme temperatures. I am always fascinated to read about the Germans having to build bonfires under their tanks to thaw the motor oil. Will there be a BUILD BONFIRE command in CM2? hehe

My two cents.

Homba

[Skipper]

For soviets in 1941, this was largely due to the fact that tank formations (mechanised corps) had to travel a lot (500-1000 km) before entering combat. This was really a lot for a tank at that time (heck, it still is today).

I second the opinion that if you have a tank in the beginning of a scenario, it shouldnt suffer engine breakdown - it doesnt travel all that much during the engagament, so the chances are very slim, and that would be detrimental to the game balance.

Grisha, I guess you might put a smile in your original post

[Mattias]

Yes, it is basically a game scale issue. At CM level mechanical breakdowns should not be included.

However, the idea of letting the "fast" move, certain types terrain or combination thereof pose a risk for immobilisation has some appeal to it.

Considering how it is done in ASL it could well be included and possibly lead to an even more realistic behaviour.

As long as it is not a matter of a constantly looming threat that is not predictable I think it could add even more flavour.

M.

[Cos]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Homba:

I am always fascinated to read about the Germans having to build bonfires under their tanks to thaw the motor oil. Will there be a BUILD BONFIRE command in CM2? hehe

My two cents.

Homba<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can't wait for Tiger to start creating mods bonfires

[jgdpzr]

Speaking of building fires under the tanks, the Russians had to do the very same thing. In fact, they probably had even greater difficulties in getting their T/34s to crank because of the diesel engines. Where the Germans really suffered was with the interleaved roadwheels on the big cats. Those complex assemblies tended to freeze solid if snow or ice were allowed to accumulate or stay over night. All in all, combat on the frigid steppes was a tanker's nightmare in so many ways.

[Panzer Leader]

Hey jgdpnzr,

I just happpened to read that same thing in my Encyclopedia of World War 2 Weapons, yesterday. It turns out that the Tiger first appeared in Russia in the winter of 42, and that the freezing mud between its interleavened tires caused all sorts of problems.

I would guess they will make an "early" version of the Tiger, with perhaps a greater chance of becoming mired and/or immobilized, though in an abstracted way.

[Mannheim Tanker]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette:

Tanks are notorious for throwing tracks or blowing engines etc. etc. at inopportune moments (maybe not the uber M1A1 or Leopard-2…were talking mortal tanks here). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hehe...modern tanks are not immune to this either. I still have pictures of my M1A1 laying helpless in the mud with the track thrown clear off.

[Scipio]

.

[ 11-19-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]</p>

[Jeff Duquette]

I also like the feature in which a vehicle can immobilize itself via moving to fast through difficult terrain. I think that feature is included in the game engine already? However, mechanical breakdowns, thrown tracks and the like aren’t simply a function of driving fast through difficult terrain. You can throw a track during a road march…with ideal ground conditions. Just turn real sharp while zipping along at 25 mph in a M48A5 (25mph is zipping for an M48)…presto 60ton immobile bunker (not that I have ever experienced such a thing personally )

As far the bogging in CM is concerned…it is a nice feature, but it is not a reflection of what is really being discussed here. Bogging, at least the bogging I have experienced in the game has only occurred when ground conditions are soft, or (I think) when you get to close to swamp tiles.

Mechanical reliability is a real issue with most of the German Uber-Tanks…before, during, and after Kursk. As I am sure one of the hard-core Panzer grognards can tell you, German MkV’s and MkVI’s (b & e) were notorious for their mechanical unreliability. Keeping the things running was a battle in and of itself.

Which brings me to my next leap…considering the mechanical attrition rate, and how difficult it seemed to be to get uber-tanks onto the battlefield, the few that did actually make it into combat must have been real “havoc-reekers”. I think game designers in general tend to tone down the true potency of these vehicles in the interest of play balance.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Mannheim Tanker Said: Hehe...modern tanks are not immune to this either. I still have pictures of my M1A1 laying helpless in the mud with the track thrown clear off.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Was the air low in your road wheels when you threw the track? Cause that will do it sometimes.

[Mace]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette:

As I am sure one of the hard-core Panzer grognards can tell you, German MkV’s and MkVI’s (b & e) were notorious for their mechanical unreliability. Keeping the things running was a battle in and of itself.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

PzKpfw V Ausf D (not .

Yep, the initial batch used to not only throw tracks, but suffered from transmission problems and an engine that was prone to catch alite, scaring the sh*t out of the tank crew.

Mace

[lcm1947]

Instead of them worrying and paying attention to this type of thing I'd rather see them use and put in use a lot of the idea's that have appeared on this board. There has been some excellent ideas and I sure hope somebody is paying attention. Althought they sure did an outstanding job on CM without help.

[Capitalistdoginchina]

I think Jeff was right, losing tanks to mechanical failure on roads or good terrain would not be pleasant in Combat Mission. Although it reflects realistic battle conditions i think most players would not like to lose their tanks to a random mechanical failure.

In other games like Formula 1 Grand Prix i always turn off realistic failures like punctures and engine failure. There is nothing worse than racing for 3 hours only to limp off with a random failure when you are only a few laps away from winning.

In CM the same logic applies ..... I would be pretty pissed if several of my key units suffered random failures. At the moment it is modelled quite well for mud or snow...but it would be hard to swallow if your tanks were on roads and suffered a thrown track. For purposes of the game play random mechanical failures should not be implemented.

Just my opinion.

CDIC

[Michael Emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette:

The question in my mind is: should vehicle unreliability be kept at an operational level (i.e. out of the scope of CM tactical engine), or should there be a chance of tanks breaking down in the middle of games? I suspect the latter approach would piss a lot of folks off…I only lost cause my STUG III threw a track back on the map edge and never made it into the battle (whaaaa!). The first approach in which vehicle unreliability is handled at an operational level could be elegantly handled at CM’s level by simply tweaking game rarity\availability of various vehicles. In a point based scenario this means a jacked up value for unreliable vehicles to reflect the mechanical difficulties associated with getting these beasts onto the battlefield. My two cents.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My own two cents' worth is that yes it should be kept at an operational level, but rather than fiddling with the costs, the player would purchase unreliable tanks and other vehicles as usual, but there would be a chance that a random number of the tanks you had purchased would not appear in your OoB at the start of the game. This would represent breakdowns on the way to the battlefield.

Michael

[Jeff Duquette]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Michael emrys said:

My own two cents' worth is that yes it should be kept at an operational level, but rather than fiddling with the costs, the player would purchase unreliable tanks and other vehicles as usual, but there would be a chance that a random number of the tanks you had purchased would not appear in your OoB at the start of the game. This would represent breakdowns on the way to the battlefield.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That would be an interesting approach. A little uncertainty on the part of players knowing what their exact OoB will be. I like this idea way better than the stuff I originally posted regarding inflation of points.

Do I buy 2 MkIV’s that are pretty much assured of being present in my OoB…or do I buy a Panther that has some probability of not making it onto the battlefield due to mechanical problems…but if it does make it onto the map than it can stomp some serious arse.

[von Lucke]

IIRC it's already been said that CM2 will include the option of purchasing units based on "rarity" (as opposed to the present "combat effectiveness").

Having a Panther D cost 500 pts; or a Tiger I 400 in Winter '42, but 200 in Spring '43, would simulate this pretty well.

[Freak]

I think that modeling heavy breakdowns in CM may be a bit much for fun gameplay. Are there accounts of this happening to the early panther tank in a battle situation? After all CM is only simulating warfare on the tactical (squad) level. I think that unless its a personal self made scenario, these breakdowns will be anoying as heck. Maybe the early panther tank will have to cost 100 - 150 instead of the usual 200 range. Not a bad deal if your using it defensively

[Mannheim Tanker]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette:

Was the air low in your road wheels when you threw the track? Cause that will do it sometimes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hehe...thanks for the trip down memory lane, Jeff! I had forgotten that joke. Another one that we used to play on the newbies was to have them tap on the armor with a hammer looking for "soft spots" We even had a 2Lt looking for replacement bulbs for the "turn signals". LOL!

[Pvt.Tom]

Bulbs for the turn signal, that's a good one

[istari]

Good discussion. Two further possibilities for how to model mechanical reliability and failures in a tactical game:

1) Simply make it an optional feature. Give players the choice before battle of whether they want the uber-realism of a Panther D bursting into flames while driving the first 500m. It could be a simple % for each vehicle (% chance of bogging per turn due to mechanical failure) that varies by historical reliability, and could be enabled or turned off as players desire.

2) Expand the list of actions that risk "bogging", and make it dependent on crew skill. Thus travelling at "Fast" speed on a road and taking curves in your T-34 should have a risk of throwing a track (read "Bogged") dependent on whether crew is Green, Veteran, etc. Would force players to consider how they move their vehicles around the battlefield based on the skill of the driver, which is exactly how real tank ops work as well.

Chris