Tomanbeg
Posts: 4385
Joined: 7/14/2000 From: Memphis, Tn, CSA Status: offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Frank W.: [ One thing that bothers me about the way SPWAW handles this sort of thing is that vehicles will almost always be immobilized by buildings, which is a bit ahistorical. There should be a chance of immob, but right now the chances are waaaay too high, making the tactic useless. Tanks, esp., should have a better than 70% chance of NOT being immob by a building.
yep sir.
i think the same way. perhaps the "stability" of the tank should be taken into consideration. say: a tiger, Brummbaer, SU152 or so should be better in breaking walls without taking heavy damage. but for small ones i find the current rates okay.
i think mostly the tracks of the tanks will be damaged. i remember that the T34 had very stable tracks....
Back when 2.3 was being re-coded there was a small number of voices clamoring for a breakdown rating by vehicle. IIRC it was decided to do breakdown by nationality, not vehicle. So how to determine what vehicles have hi breakdown numbers? Plus while shedding or braeking a track might be one criteria, T34's in 40 and '41 left the factory with extra axel assemblies strapped to the rear deck. At least I can find references to this in some books on the subject. I can't 'prove' it however. So it is easy to understand why Matrix left the lid on that can of worms. T.
_____________________________
"The 15th May, 1948, arrived ... On that day the mufti of Jerusalem appealed to the Arabs of Palestine to leave the country, because the Arab armies were about to enter and fight in their stead." – The Cairo daily Akhbar el Yom, Oct. 12, 1963. [IMG]http
|