Weapon Failures?

[pad152]

Weapon Failures?

Due to the hi-tech nature of the some of the weapons in SF, what will we see in the area of weapon failures?

[flamingknives]

Steve has mentioned the capacity to set subsystem failures on vehicles, such as turret traverse, thermals, overhead weapons systems etc.

[aka_tom_w]

I would really like to see the dud rate modelled.

They have said in the past there is no good relevant information or data on the failure rate of dud rate of weapons and equipment for their old CMx1 WWII games. (Where they did not model the dud rate of ordinance.)

Maybe there is more technical info this time around.

Weapon and equipment failure and the dud rate for explosive ordinance really should be modelled. If the actual failure rate is known then my guess is to model that rate or % into the game engine should not be all that hard.

(maybe)

-tom w

[patboy]

Originally posted by pad152:

Weapon Failures?

Due to the hi-tech nature of the some of the weapons in SF, what will we see in the area of weapon failures?

May be CMSF tanks could run over ennemi soldiers to kill'em. I tried to do that with any version of CM without succes

Pat

[MikeyD]

I can't see how you can accurately model the RPG-7 without including a high dud rate. Otherwise that darned pesky weapon would be the 'Queen of the Battlefield'! :eek:

[Dillweed]

Not to mention jams on the M-16/M-4...

Yeah, I remember steve saying that one of the prime advantages of the stryker is its reliability over say the Bradley or the Abrams.

[Peter Cairns]

Although things do breakdown regularly in combat, i think a lot of basic stuff today is pretty relable compared to WW2, so if breakdown was to be put in, I'd rather it was abstracted with units slowing for part of a turn or dropping in firepower for a short while, rather than actual breakdowns.

I'd hate to have the focus of the game move from being a field commander to being the local handy man.

This comes in to the territory of the old remanning guns debate, where if it was included it was feared that it would make people to "Gamey" and start to have people utilies something that was rare far to often.

Peter.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

Although things do breakdown regularly in combat, i think a lot of basic stuff today is pretty relable compared to WW2...

I'm not sure what you have in mind. A lot of equipment used during WW II was pretty simple compared to today, and a lot of it was overbuilt with wider margins of safety. A lot of stuff was also easier for the average GI to service in the field, so that if it did break down, it could be brought back to function quickly. Of course, things like Panther tanks were an exception.

But nowadays, in search of increased efficiency and an imperative to hold down costs, some of those margins have been narrowed. So, it all depends on which items we are talking about.

Michael