Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

AFV Reliability

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the West >> AFV Reliability Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
AFV Reliability - 12/8/2014 3:45:03 PM   
SigUp

 

Posts: 1062
Joined: 11/29/2012
Status: offline
quote:

All aircraft and AFV/Combat vehicles have a reliability
rating which ranges from “really good” (lower numbers)
to “really bad” (higher numbers). An example of a
5 would be an armoured car and a 45 would be a
Panther D AFV.

This is from the manual regarding the reliability rating, which I know of WITE. With aircraft it seems to follow that way. However, for AFVs I'm a bit at a loss. Going into the equipment menu or the industry menu I see the reliability rating of the Panther D given as 8. An armoured car has a reliability rating of 98. Looking at this it appears that for ground equipment the reliability rating is the other way round, that higher numbers are better. So, is the manual wrong in this regard?
Post #: 1
RE: AFV Reliability - 12/8/2014 6:20:37 PM   
carlkay58

 

Posts: 8650
Joined: 7/25/2010
Status: offline 		Yes, looks like the manual is wrong.

(in reply to SigUp)
Post #: 2
RE: AFV Reliability - 12/8/2014 7:01:09 PM   
Denniss

 

Posts: 7902
Joined: 1/10/2002
From: Germany, Hannover (region)
Status: offline 		The value for vehicles was revised and reversed.

(in reply to carlkay58)
Post #: 3
RE: AFV Reliability - 12/8/2014 7:35:35 PM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline 		Yes the manual is wrong and we're looking into the exact change that was made. Sorry that this change from WitE somehow got made but not documented. Well let you know what we find out.

_____________________________

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard

(in reply to SigUp)
Post #: 4
RE: AFV Reliability - 12/8/2014 9:46:01 PM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline 		I found out that the aircraft reliability is the same as WitE (high number is bad), but the AFV reliability was changed quite a big. This is what I found out from the team:

We revised the field that was the reliability rating in WitE to represent both reliability and survivability in WitW by splitting the two digit number for reliability into two ratings, the first digit representing reliability and the second digit representing survivability.

The higher the reliabilty (first digit of reliability rating), the lower the chance the AFV will be damaged while moving. So a 9 as the first digit is an AFV least likely to break down during movement.

The higher the survivabilty (second digit of reliability rating)the less likely the AFV will be destroyed in combat as opposed to just being damaged. So a 9 as the second digit is an AFV with the least likely chance of being destroyed due to a special survival check when hit.

The driving reason behind the change to AFVs was to model the susceptibility of early Shermans to ammunition fires. Survivability essentially represents the likelihood that the AFV crew will survive being hit. The damaged result turning into a destroyed result reflects the crew being killed by the hit; in many cases the AFV itself could be repaired from damage that had killed the entire crew.


Please be aware that this survivability check is just one small part of the combat formulas and in no way means that armored cars will live longer on the battlefield than an armored car. Thanks for bringing this up and we'll add the correction to the next readme file.



_____________________________

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 5
RE: AFV Reliability - 12/9/2014 1:12:58 PM   
SigUp

 

Posts: 1062
Joined: 11/29/2012
Status: offline 		Ah okay, thanks. So to make sure that I get this right, the Panther D's rating of 8 means that it has a high survivability, but it's reliability is (like it was the case historically) terrible that it's even below 1?

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 6
RE: AFV Reliability - 12/9/2014 6:00:36 PM   
jaw

 

Posts: 1045
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SigUp

Ah okay, thanks. So to make sure that I get this right, the Panther D's rating of 8 means that it has a high survivability, but it's reliability is (like it was the case historically) terrible that it's even below 1?


Reliability Table works like this:

Rating/Chance of being damaged
9 = 5%
8 = 10%
7 = 15%
6 = 20%
5 = 25%
4 = 30%
3 = 35%
2 = 40%
1 = 45%
0 = 50%

Therefore the Panther D with a 0 rating has a 50/50 chance of breaking down whenever a unit containing it moves normally (not rail or sea).


(in reply to SigUp)
Post #: 7
RE: AFV Reliability - 12/9/2014 6:12:44 PM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SigUp

Ah okay, thanks. So to make sure that I get this right, the Panther D's rating of 8 means that it has a high survivability, but it's reliability is (like it was the case historically) terrible that it's even below 1?


Yes, it's a 0 for reliability.

_____________________________

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard

(in reply to SigUp)
Post #: 8
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the West >> AFV Reliability Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.344