Vehicle "Mechanical Reliability" --- in CMBB?

[Spook]

I suspect that the topic has been broached earlier in CMBB discussions, although my prior search didn't avail much.

Anyway, seeing as I didn't see specific mention of "mechanical breakdown probability" for vehicles in the listed new features of CMBB, is this something that is nonetheless part of this game? If not, is it planned later?

[Zarquon]

I think there's no place for a feature like this in a game like CM. On a 60 seconds / 30 minutes time scale the probability would have to be very low.

On second thought, there are those stories about unreliable vehicle units (like early Panther D's or A's at Kursk). Assume a unit loses 50% of its tanks in a single day due to breakdowns (extremely unlikely). Assume the tanks move for 6 hours that day. 50%/360min = 0,14% chance of breakdown/turn. Divide by 2 when moving on road, double when moving fast cross-country. In a 30 turn battle, moving every 2nd turn, this adds up to a 2% chance of a breakdown (1-(1-0,0014)^15, hope my high-school math doesn't desert me here).

That's my *rough* estimation for a *very* unreliable vehicle. A worst case scenario. In most cases, it would be more like 0,00.....1%. Is it worth the time and research effort to include this in a game? How do you rate the breakdown chance for vehicles anyway (imagine the forum mayhem). Would it be fun to see your KV-1 break down in turn 2 of a 1500 pts QB?

[Mud]

Hm, it could be folded into rarity or as a bias for preallocated casualties...

[Moon]

Besides what Zarquon mentioned above, if something like this was to happen, it might seriously unbalance a game by sheer chance. Combine these two (chance and game balance issues) we decided to leave it out. One can of course always simulate breakdowns by stripping platoons of one vehicle etc. in a battle.

Martin

[Spook]

The example of the Panther D serves my point, Zarquon. As a tank model, it utilized a very underpowered engine.

Have this tank move on a dry road, at low speed, then you'd have low probability of losing the engine. Try to push the tank up a significant slope, or through soft/muddy ground, and the chance for failure would likely increase very sharply over the "1%" average.

Certainly, any vehicle going over soft/muddy ground is at risk to bog anyway. But if that's accounted for in the CM system, and if a vehicle with a historically measured poor engine or drivetrain magnifies the risk of breakdown in such terrain, then it's not insignificant. Especially with other features now added, like of air temperature in CMBB now impacting on MG jamming in pronounced ways.

The "kludge" would be to rate down such vehicles in their off-road ability. Or, rather in the case of certain tracked vehicles, perhaps create their own off-road ratings.

[Spook]

Or, as Mud as suggested, vehicles with higher-than-average unreliability could have their rarity factors compensate.

Seeing your latest post, Moon, I can recognize the argued rationales. Still, I feel as that if someone is going to push an underpowered vehicle like a Panther D up a steep slope or into soft ground, he should be ready to pay the historical piper, game issues aside.

Or have it, like other things, as an gameplay option.

[Zarquon]

I agree, it would be nice to have this. But it's a very minor point. In the end, it's a question of a) the time needed to code this and do you really want a feature that adds slightly more randomness to the game, however realistic it might be? I believe, the more realistic a game gets, the more random events like this are influencing the battle. Then it becomes more of a simulation than a game. For example, a platoon that does not move at all when ordered to do so because the radio malfunctions. Etc. etc. For me, the fun comes from making plans and seeing them executed while the other player does the same. That way, CM has more in common with chess than with a WWII simulation, but that's fine with me. Too much random events lead to frustration.

[Spook]

In many ways already, the CM system already does dance on the "simulation" line, although mainly on features like armor penetration or such that are transparent to gamer manipulation. And yes, CM must ultimately remain a game in its "accesibility."

Vehicle mechanical reliability is still desired by me in the CM system someday, though not so crucial to CMBB as that I would cancel my preorder without it.

[Zarquon]

Still agreeing with you. But reliability depends on many, many factors. Crew experience, maintenance cycles, actual wear (age), weather conditions and tiny details of the construction itself (insert 1001 additional factors here).

From a business point of view you'd have to hire someone with a degree in mechanical engineering and let him do literally months of research and analysis, with scarce facts to build upon. You'd have to provide numbers for all 300+ vehicles. And if you do it for the vehicles, you'd have to do it for other equipment as well.

Of course you and me could make some less educated guesses in an afternoon or two ("never heard of a StuGs breaking down much, so they'll get an "A" rating, who cares"), but as far as I see it that's not the way BTS could do it if they want to keep their reputation.

In the end you'd spend $??.000 for research and programming on this *minor* point, knowing all the while that a few grogs would silently appreciate the effort, while hundreds of potential(sp?) customers would scream "Hey, they made my (insert favourite tank here) go 'boink' for no reason in a crucial moment!".

From a game design point of view, it would add mostly random frustration to the game and lower the fun factor.

So, even if there was no more important work for BTS to do, they'd probably never do it.