Tanks losses due to "accident" - why?

VR designs has been reinforced with designer Cameron Harris and the result is a revolutionary new operational war game 'Barbarossa' that plays like none other. It blends an advanced counter pushing engine with deep narrative, people management and in-depth semi-randomized decision systems.

Moderators: Vic, lancer

User avatar
Khanti
Posts: 723
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2007 3:02 pm
Location: Poland

RE: Tanks losses due to "accident" - why?

Post by Khanti »

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]
═══
There is no such thing as a historically accurate strategy game. Every game stops being accurate from the very first move player make. The first unit that moves ahistorically, first battle with non-historical results, means we ride into the unknown. 
Oberst_Klink
Posts: 4919
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 7:37 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

RE: Tanks losses due to "accident" - why?

Post by Oberst_Klink »

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
My Blog & on Twitter.
Visit CS Legion on Twitter & Facebook for updates.
User avatar
Bamilus
Posts: 979
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 3:01 pm
Location: The Old Northwest

RE: Tanks losses due to "accident" - why?

Post by Bamilus »

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?
Paradox Interactive Forum Refugee
User avatar
Bamilus
Posts: 979
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 3:01 pm
Location: The Old Northwest

RE: Tanks losses due to "accident" - why?

Post by Bamilus »

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.
Paradox Interactive Forum Refugee
Post Reply

Return to “Decisive Campaigns: Barbarossa”