One of the things I liked about wrg was that little events like getting bogged or throwing a track happened. Well this could be applied to reflect the reliability of over burdened German gear boxes... Or would this just annoy people?
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
It is already very annoying in Wargame but the time the effect is lasting and bigger maps amplify the annoyance in Wargame.
From a realistic standpoint it's justifiable. But it probably is worth waiting to see if it necessitates this,until after we see how it performs ingame.
We haven't heard anything yet if certain vehicles will have worse chances for mobility crits in rough terrain than others, but I hope it's the case. It doesn't have to be excessive, just something to keep in mind, and something to prevent a player from moving a beast like the Tiger II around all over the place to blunt every attack. Once they got it somewhere they should want to leave it there for a while.
Also it would make the Tank really hard to justify bringing in your deck if it can randomly catch fire without the enemy shooting it.
As there is not much to base any accurate reliability system on, I dont think it would be fair.
The failure rates for many, many, many vehicles are clearly documented by the armies that used them.
Maybe you can drive the price up for better maintained Tanks to lower the risk but still i would rather wait for some secondes for 10 more Points instead to have the Tank break down for 2 minutes after it spawned.
I am aware of readiness rates that are mentioned in mainstream literature, which do not mean at all what I presume you think they mean.
If you have any other material, I applaud your huge disposable income and you can please share it.
This would be pretty disastrous for the poor Greyhound, which would get stuck in the mud as soon as it leaves the road.
BUT GERMAN ENGINEERINGS!
Let's be real. If a Tiger II makes it on the field, it will be like the T-80U + Tunguska + BMPT pain train of the ALB beta. It will draw soooooooo much attention and it should be grossly lethal.
It should also be at least semi-realistically modeled with its faults included.
Let's be real. If a Tiger II makes it on the field, it will be like the T-80U + Tunguska + BMPT pain train of the ALB beta. It will draw soooooooo much attention and it should be grossly lethal.
It should also be at least semi-realistically modeled with its faults included.
Kingtiger Heavy Tank 1942-45, page 36
Alas I fear that if - being generous -
I'd imagine the main limitation on Tigers and other 'rare' tanks will be price and availability, as per the Wargame series. You can have a tiger in your deck, but only one. And it'll cost three times the amount of other tanks to put in the field.
Last edited:
I would be one of the players joining the outcry. It shouldn't be 1:1 but it could be more than normal, just enough that you notice and account for it.
Kingtiger Heavy Tank 1942-45, page 36
So production faults should be included.
I guess you really dont want to ever see a Barbarrosa or Case Blue DLC for this game then.
And if we would take this to absurd levels, Shermans should have 10-15 additional shells and atleast 70% chance to violently burst into flames upon penetration, their engines should have a small chance to burst if you suddenly command them to go at top speed. and other absurd things, like future prospective soviet Lavochkins dropping out of the sky randomly due to CO gassing their pilots.
Circumstantial evidence, if you catch my drift.
Readiness rates are literally meaningless, because they are influenced by so many factors that looking at them out of context is dishonest.
I wouldn't call pointing out the unreliability of German armour absurd. As mentioned above, personally I think they'll balance Tigers through price and availability, but as far as I'm aware reliability and build quality (complexity of design leading to problems in the field) were serious problems for German armour on both Eastern and Western fronts.
They can be killed from the front by anything with a 17-pounder and APDS ammo.
I am not saying it is absurd.
Im saying that :
a.) A literal coin toss you can not influence in game - Whether they properly manufactured your Tiger II,
b.) Another coin toss you can not influence - Whether the battalion could train transport itself past some 75 destroyed bridges and tunnels, and low flying interdiction sorties into the battlefield.
c.) And another largely random feature - battlefield performance in relation to terrain your Tiger would travel over.
Are not fun. If I am alone in this, then I apologize.
And as for reliability goes, it varied wildly.
That is why I was asking for some coherent statistic on what would this look like with your average Tiger, Panther and Pz IV.