04-26-2012, 02:11 AM,
(This post was last modified: 04-26-2012, 02:12 AM by Kool Kat.)
|
|
Kool Kat
Lieutenant General
|
Posts: 2,491
Joined: Aug 2006
|
|
I'm not crazy about "Immobilization!"
Gents:
I understand and accept vehicles becoming immobilized as a result of enemy fire.
But, I have a harder time accepting immobilization... simply as a result of moving? What exactly is the percentage chance?
Case in point. Recently had a perfectly "good" Panther G moving from one clear hex to another become immobilized! No enemy fire. No obstacles. No mines. Just rumbling alone... minding its own business... and than stopped dead in its tracks! ;)
Here's what the SB user manual states:
"Secondly, as a Vehicle moves across the ground, there is a certain chance that the movement will cause the Vehicle to become Immobile. For a given movement from one hex to another with a movement cost of C and the Move Immobile Factor parameter data value F, the probability of the movement causing the Vehicle to become Immobile is C * F."
So, am I just the receiver of "bad luck" on the battlefield? It's got to be a really "small" percentage chance for movement-only immobilization to occur - correct?
Regards, Mike / "A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week." - George S. Patton /
|
|
04-26-2012, 04:55 AM,
|
|
TheBigRedOne
Retired Squad Battles Forum Moderator
|
Posts: 1,955
Joined: Jan 2006
|
|
RE: I'm not crazy about "Immobilization!"
(04-26-2012, 02:11 AM)Kool Kat Wrote: "Secondly, as a Vehicle moves across the ground, there is a certain chance that the movement will cause the Vehicle to become Immobile. For a given movement from one hex to another with a movement cost of C and the Move Immobile Factor parameter data value F, the probability of the movement causing the Vehicle to become Immobile is C * F."
So, am I just the receiver of "bad luck" on the battlefield? It's got to be a really "small" percentage chance for movement-only immobilization to occur - correct?
Partial bad luck, perhaps, but it also depends on the terrain, as that effects the movement cost. If you're on road, less of a chance. Even in clear terrain, if the conditions are soft or muddy, you stand a greater chance of getting bogged down/stuck/losing a track, etc...
|
|
04-26-2012, 05:09 AM,
|
|
Ozgur Budak
Warrant Officer
|
Posts: 273
Joined: Oct 2004
|
|
RE: I'm not crazy about "Immobilization!"
I see your Panther Mike. It looks like pure bad luck.
|
|
04-26-2012, 05:17 AM,
(This post was last modified: 04-26-2012, 05:18 AM by TheBigRedOne.)
|
|
TheBigRedOne
Retired Squad Battles Forum Moderator
|
Posts: 1,955
Joined: Jan 2006
|
|
RE: I'm not crazy about "Immobilization!"
And if he sees your Panther, he can kill it. Get 'em out of the tank!
;)
This will teach them not to do proper preventative maintenance on their vehicle prior to battle...
|
|
04-26-2012, 06:43 AM,
|
|
RE: I'm not crazy about "Immobilization!"
Mike
This represents the possibility that a vehicle will break or bog down. I believe that formula in the rules is actually incorrect. I believe that it is the cost of the hex divided by the immobility constant and then modified by the vehicle's reliability factor. I asked Rich if this was correct during Falklands, but never got an answer. For a normal, dry condition scenario, this would equate to about a one in a thousand chance (0.1%) to breakdown for each open hex entered for an A rated vehicle (movement cost of 6 divided by constant of 6000 modified by reliability of 0.97 to 1.00). Different ground conditions cause the movement factor to increase also causing the chance for a breakdown to increase. In addition, the scenario designer can change the constant value in the pdt to simulate poor conditions (I believe it is 4000 in Falklands to simulate the boggy ground there as well as high movement costs for wheeled vehicles).
Other Tiller games such as Panzer Campaigns, include this type of loss. The Panthers assigned to GrossDeutschland during Kursk are a good example of why this type of rule is included. The engineering bugs had not been worked out of the powertrain when they were sent into action and as many as 90% of those not disabled by mines broke down.
Hope this helps you understand the risk and the reason for this rule.
Jeff
|
|
04-26-2012, 10:58 AM,
|
|
Kool Kat
Lieutenant General
|
Posts: 2,491
Joined: Aug 2006
|
|
RE: I'm not crazy about "Immobilization!"
(04-26-2012, 05:17 AM)TheBigRedOne Wrote: And if he sees your Panther, he can kill it. Get 'em out of the tank!
;)
This will teach them not to do proper preventative maintenance on their vehicle prior to battle...
No worries! :)
I'll just go up to the menu... select the "crew bails out" button... and watch them scamper off to their friendly lines! Oh, wait....
Regards, Mike / "A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week." - George S. Patton /
|
|
04-26-2012, 11:03 PM,
|
|
TheBigRedOne
Retired Squad Battles Forum Moderator
|
Posts: 1,955
Joined: Jan 2006
|
|
RE: I'm not crazy about "Immobilization!"
Good Heer soldiers stay with their tank firing to the very end!
|
|
|