Tanks losses due to "accident" - why? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Decisive Campaigns: Barbarossa



Message

brian.here@yahoo.com -> Tanks losses due to "accident" - why? (7/16/2018 8:20:31 PM)

Most of my German tanks are lost because during battle they retreat and then they have what is called an "accident." I have lost hardly any as "killed." I still win the battles (it is still June). Does anyone know why so many tanks are lost due to this retreat then accident action?
Should I adjust the retreat percentage? It looks like my panzers will be widdled away to nothing due to accidents.

Thank you!



lancer -> RE: Tanks losses due to "accident" - why? (7/16/2018 10:08:32 PM)

Hi brain,

Tanks accumulate mileage and suffer mechanical breakdowns (p.195 of the manual under 'Wear and Tear').

This is separate, however, to 'accidents' which are a feature of the combat resolution system.

Vic will have to answer this one as it's part of the underlying game engine. Whether they occur randomly or there are contributing factors I'm not sure.

I'd exercise a degree of patience as he's busy with his new game (Shadow Empires - Scifi) and only occasionally drops by the forums.

Cheers,
Cameron (Designer)



Vic -> RE: Tanks losses due to "accident" - why? (7/17/2018 7:55:43 AM)

Hi,

If a tank is in involved in combat there is a small chance it will be taken out of action due to other reasons than regular exchange of fire.

Combat is a nasty business, especially for the rather sensitive heavy tracked equipment as tanks. During combat tanks are often traversing much more difficult terrain than the roads they use during regular movement. A tank could drive over a mine, slide into a ditch, suffer a mechanical breakdown, get caught up in a local counteroffensive while it has run out of fuel or ammo causing the crew to abandon the tank.

Furthermore it models freak enemy successes in taking out tanks or panicking their crews by unconventional means (i.e circumstances where armour thickness and range play no role because enemy is literally on top of tank or disabled the tracks).

It is an amalgam rule that models all those diverse kind of reasons that tanks might get lost during combat engagement.

Gameplay wise this rule serves to make you use your panzers as a precision tool and not as a hammer. If you use your 'surgical' knife as a hammer repeatedly it will slowly go blunt. Furthermore it avoids unrealistic invincibility where every single tank can just kill multiple dozensfold of other tanks or a thousandfold of infantry.

There is a chance on an accident every time a tank 'individual' scores a serious hit (KILL or RETREAT) on an enemy target.

Hope this clears things up a bit on this rule.

Best wishes,
Vic





brian.here@yahoo.com -> RE: Tanks losses due to "accident" - why? (7/17/2018 11:24:01 AM)

Thank you Cameron and thank you Vic. I appreciate you getting back with me so quickly especially while you work on Shadow Empires (Vic).

The feedback makes sense. I like Vic how you describe why it is happening ("Combat is a nasty business...") as it helps with immersion into the game. Oh, and what a game and what immersion you guys have created!

I can't thank you enough for creating such a wonderful game. I also, thoroughly enjoy the reams of statistics that are tracked each turn. I am a numbers guy so it really helps.

BTW - is there a tab in the statistic report that tracks the fuel allocated from the interior each turn (besides the logistics report each turn)? I know it does for each Army Group, but I was wondering if I could see something like:
6.22 25,000 bbls
6.26 22,000 bbls
6.30 19,800 bbls



Khanti -> RE: Tanks losses due to "accident" - why? (7/18/2018 7:14:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vic

Hi,

If a tank is in involved in combat there is a small chance it will be taken out of action due to other reasons than regular exchange of fire.

(...)

There is a chance on an accident every time a tank 'individual' scores a serious hit (KILL or RETREAT) on an enemy target.

Hope this clears things up a bit on this rule.

Best wishes,
Vic


This chance is not small. In fact from my observations chance is exactly 50%.

Well, it's not a problem of this game, it is in ALL Vic's games [;)]

You can look at the editor. Go to SFTypes. Check SFT Statistics 2. Look for line ChanceOnDeathIfMakeHit.

For all infantry based units it says 0% and none of them ever will be accidentally removed from play.
For all armor based units it says .05%.

But it's not 5%. It's de facto 50%.
To have it like 5% you need to edit every armor SFT to .005%.

I did it for my own copy of Vic's games and that works fine.

The other subject is mechanical breakdown of units (not in combat). For that part you have field maintenance for one turn (being idle).



ernieschwitz -> RE: Tanks losses due to "accident" - why? (7/19/2018 6:50:09 AM)

quote:

Well, it's not a problem of this game, it is in ALL Vic's games


No it's not. Advanced Tactics Gold does not have this problem ;)



Khanti -> RE: Tanks losses due to "accident" - why? (7/19/2018 6:16:57 PM)

Strange thing but you're right. This feature was added after ATG. Thanks for pointing this out.[sm=sign0031.gif]



mikematotski -> RE: Tanks losses due to "accident" - why? (8/8/2018 11:29:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Khanti

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vic

Hi,

If a tank is in involved in combat there is a small chance it will be taken out of action due to other reasons than regular exchange of fire.

(...)

There is a chance on an accident every time a tank 'individual' scores a serious hit (KILL or RETREAT) on an enemy target.

Hope this clears things up a bit on this rule.

Best wishes,
Vic


This chance is not small. In fact from my observations chance is exactly 50%.

Well, it's not a problem of this game, it is in ALL Vic's games [;)]

You can look at the editor. Go to SFTypes. Check SFT Statistics 2. Look for line ChanceOnDeathIfMakeHit.

For all infantry based units it says 0% and none of them ever will be accidentally removed from play.
For all armor based units it says .05%.

But it's not 5%. It's de facto 50%.
To have it like 5% you need to edit every armor SFT to .005%.

I did it for my own copy of Vic's games and that works fine.

The other subject is mechanical breakdown of units (not in combat). For that part you have field maintenance for one turn (being idle).


Hi

Im new to this game and read through some of this posts. I can see that a subject is up here about breking down tanks, is this figures accident every time a tank 'individual' scores a serious hit (KILL or RETREAT) on an enemy target = 50% correct.
I cant find where to look at the this figure you mentioned in your posts, can you explain how to change ChanceOnDeathIfMakeHit.

Thanks in advance.

Cheers
Mikematotski



mikematotski -> RE: Tanks losses due to "accident" - why? (8/30/2018 9:11:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Khanti

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vic

Hi,

If a tank is in involved in combat there is a small chance it will be taken out of action due to other reasons than regular exchange of fire.

(...)

There is a chance on an accident every time a tank 'individual' scores a serious hit (KILL or RETREAT) on an enemy target.

Hope this clears things up a bit on this rule.

Best wishes,
Vic


This chance is not small. In fact from my observations chance is exactly 50%.

Well, it's not a problem of this game, it is in ALL Vic's games [;)]

You can look at the editor. Go to SFTypes. Check SFT Statistics 2. Look for line ChanceOnDeathIfMakeHit.

For all infantry based units it says 0% and none of them ever will be accidentally removed from play.
For all armor based units it says .05%.

But it's not 5%. It's de facto 50%.
To have it like 5% you need to edit every armor SFT to .005%.

I did it for my own copy of Vic's games and that works fine.

The other subject is mechanical breakdown of units (not in combat). For that part you have field maintenance for one turn (being idle).


Hi guys

Anone know how to change the parameter ChanceOnDeathIfMakeHit? I tried to find it but no luck.
Thanks in advance.

Cheers

Mike



Khanti -> RE: Tanks losses due to "accident" - why? (9/28/2018 2:33:43 PM)

First: do you have Editor enabled in game?
Second: when you start scenario you can: start game, edit or simple editor.

Use EDIT.

Then go to the top, click SFT (editor of troops), go to right STF Types table.
There is number 7 Light Tank. It does not matter what is it - its' ARMOR, so it counts.

Click on statistics 2 of that item.

And the rest was written earlier.



Oberst_Klink -> RE: Tanks losses due to "accident" - why? (9/28/2018 6:26:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Khanti

First: do you have Editor enabled in game?
Second: when you start scenario you can: start game, edit or simple editor.

Use EDIT.

Then go to the top, click SFT (editor of troops), go to right STF Types table.
There is number 7 Light Tank. It does not matter what is it - its' ARMOR, so it counts.

Click on statistics 2 of that item.

And the rest was written earlier.

I should consider an appropriate 'accident' rate for this tin can I added...

Klink, Oberst

[image]local://upfiles/28259/8D5D0C02002C404294C6C50368ECA675.jpg[/image]



Khanti -> RE: Tanks losses due to "accident" - why? (9/28/2018 6:37:54 PM)

AFAIK the whole game uses the same accident rate. The problem is it is miscalculated (too high to be real thing).
You can consider lowering all tables.

5% is .005% in Vic's games.



Oberst_Klink -> RE: Tanks losses due to "accident" - why? (9/28/2018 6:43:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Khanti

AFAIK the whole game uses the same accident rate. The problem is it is miscalculated (too high to be real thing).
You can consider lowering all tables.

5% is .005% in Vic's games.

Dziekuje! I am still experimenting and adding some minor-Axis tanks for tests. I am glad I found some open-source graphics... I am too lazy (not skilled) in map making and graphics stuff; but good at tutorials (I think). Glad more people come back to Vic's masterpieces.

Klink, Oberst



nikdav -> RE: Tanks losses due to "accident" - why? (9/28/2018 6:56:48 PM)

Perhaps Vic consider all the tanks as "Panthers" and so i think 50% is too optimistic, during 1943 75% of all PzV Panther were lost for accidents [&:]



Oberst_Klink -> RE: Tanks losses due to "accident" - why? (9/28/2018 7:15:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: nikdav

Perhaps Vic consider all the tanks as "Panthers" and so i think 50% is too optimistic, during 1943 75% of all PzV Panther were lost for accidents [&:]

Well... it wasn't that bad. Yes, 'we' threw them into battle (Kursk?) too early. We should consider the 'accident' rate as... 'prone to break down' rate. Anyway. You like my tin can I added? ;)

Klink, Oberst



mikematotski -> RE: Tanks losses due to "accident" - why? (10/1/2018 6:30:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink


quote:

ORIGINAL: Khanti

AFAIK the whole game uses the same accident rate. The problem is it is miscalculated (too high to be real thing).
You can consider lowering all tables.

5% is .005% in Vic's games.

Dziekuje! I am still experimenting and adding some minor-Axis tanks for tests. I am glad I found some open-source graphics... I am too lazy (not skilled) in map making and graphics stuff; but good at tutorials (I think). Glad more people come back to Vic's masterpieces.

Klink, Oberst

Hi
Thanks for you answer. Is it possible to have different rate between the veichles values.
Are the program use the general value or the veichle specific?

Cheers



Oberst_Klink -> RE: Tanks losses due to "accident" - why? (10/1/2018 2:59:23 PM)

I am checking this out this afternoon. I also noticed a mistake in the formula table...
Att soft should be: 10+cal./mm)/4+speed(km/h)/2, not 20.

Anyway; I am still playing around with the editor and I hope I can produce a test scenario
where instead of 7.Flieger.Div an Italian Arm.Div will be ready at the Volhov. Naturally,
I'll share the .LIB files and all the other stuff, too.

Klink, Oberst



Khanti -> RE: Tanks losses due to "accident" - why? (10/7/2018 8:40:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mikematotski

Hi
Thanks for you answer. Is it possible to have different rate between the veichles values.
Are the program use the general value or the veichle specific?

Cheers



It uses item specific stats. So you can adjust any value for all SFTs. So yes every tank can have different accident rate.
Anyway *I* hate when programm kills my tanks of no reason so I tend to use flat 5% for all (.005%).



Khanti -> RE: Tanks losses due to "accident" - why? (10/7/2018 8:43:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink
You like my tin can I added? ;)

Yes. Very handsome.
Gute Arbeit.



mikematotski -> RE: Tanks losses due to "accident" - why? (10/8/2018 7:11:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Khanti


quote:

ORIGINAL: mikematotski

Hi
Thanks for you answer. Is it possible to have different rate between the veichles values.
Are the program use the general value or the veichle specific?

Cheers



It uses item specific stats. So you can adjust any value for all SFTs. So yes every tank can have different accident rate.
Anyway *I* hate when programm kills my tanks of no reason so I tend to use flat 5% for all (.005%).

Hi

Thanks for the answer.

I think the soviet armor as a armor weapon was tactical used a little different than the germans. The Soviet was not so keen that the armors survived a battle and they trusted to get new armored vehicles produced and therefore handled armor units different than German armored units. For the germans they were very keen to have the armor vheicles survived and to be used to fight another day due to there limited production capacity. So for the soviet maybe the factor 50% is correct while its a bit high for germans while for the germans its SFT value should be much lower.

Cheers



Khanti -> RE: Tanks losses due to "accident" - why? (10/8/2018 2:49:31 PM)

When you look at the tips in the editor it says that 0.05% is 5%, but in fact it's not. So I assume the creator wanted to have slight chance to auto destroying some units in game (in earlier DC series games armored and air units are affected, in Barbarossa only armored, as there is no real planes here).

German tanks replacements are also diminishing, which is contrary to what I believe was in RL. As you look at replacements table you will see that with every replacement wave there is overall less tank replacements (15->10->5->-5->5 / 22->15->15->10->10 / 5->5->5->5->5). So instead of heavy losses diminishing German motorized armies there are supernatural "accidents" and lowered factory output that kills your profits ;-)

And I'm not talking about other things that affect the armored units like combat losses and mechanical breakdowns (based on mileage).

So overall: 50% destroyed tanks WITHOUT enemy fire is something rather weird. These tanks are not broken down (for repairs) but just killed (removed from play).


PS: Suggested Ger tank replacements (as I have done in my copy of std scenario)

PzII 15->15->10->5->5........[+10]
PZIII 22->15->15>15->15....[+10]
PZIV 5->5->10->10->10.......[+15]



Oberst_Klink -> RE: Tanks losses due to "accident" - why? (10/8/2018 4:00:28 PM)

I am still evaluating the combat value table... I will try to get the excel sheet ready this week, incl. auto-calculation for new types one wishes to include in further scenarios. I did notice quite a few discrepancies though... I am sure Cameron will be able to clarify them.

Klink, Oberst



Bamilus -> RE: Tanks losses due to "accident" - why? (3/25/2019 4:24:43 PM)

I understand from posts above that accident losses are set by default to 50%. While I agree that's excessive (since the tanks are just removed permanently), I'm wondering if anyone cam confirm that lowering the value won't significantly impact game balance over course of entire game. I'd hate to start a game, make these setting changes, and then find out it imbalances game because game is supposed to be balanced around a 50% accident rate. Can anyone who has played a full campaign add some clarity?



Bamilus -> RE: Tanks losses due to "accident" - why? (4/23/2019 2:46:45 PM)

Welp, played a first game on normal and won sudden death victory without modifying. This leads me to believe that editing the value would make the game incredibly easy.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.03125