AFV Reliability

AFV Reliability (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the West

Message

SigUp -> AFV Reliability (12/8/2014 3:45:03 PM)
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?

carlkay58 -> RE: AFV Reliability (12/8/2014 6:20:37 PM)
Yes, looks like the manual is wrong.

Denniss -> RE: AFV Reliability (12/8/2014 7:01:09 PM)
The value for vehicles was revised and reversed.

Joel Billings -> RE: AFV Reliability (12/8/2014 7:35:35 PM)
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.

Joel Billings -> RE: AFV Reliability (12/8/2014 9:46:01 PM)
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.

SigUp -> RE: AFV Reliability (12/9/2014 1:12:58 PM)
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?

jaw -> RE: AFV Reliability (12/9/2014 6:00:36 PM)
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).

Joel Billings -> RE: AFV Reliability (12/9/2014 6:12:44 PM)
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.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.90625