AVF Reliability

A complete overhaul and re-development of Gary Grigsby's War in the East, with a focus on improvements to historical accuracy, realism, user interface and AI.

Moderator: Joel Billings

Post Reply
User avatar
jzardos
Posts: 677
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2011 1:05 pm

AVF Reliability

Post by jzardos »

I'm trying to understand the reliability numbers for AFVs but the documentation in the WitE2 Ebook on 21.2.8 mentions 2 digits first being breakdowns on movement (higher is better) and second digit is survivabilty (higher is better). However, the problem is I see 4 digits and not 2. [&:]

For example a Panther D is 4540. So what does that mean? is 45 the breakdown number and 40 survivability? If so, is that 45 and 40 out of a 99 max?

thanks
Denniss
Posts: 9316
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Germany, Hannover (region)

RE: AVF Reliability

Post by Denniss »

ORIGINAL: jzardos

For example a Panther D is 4540. So what does that mean? is 45 the breakdown number and 40 survivability? If so, is that 45 and 40 out of a 99 max?
It seems you got it.
WitE dev team - (aircraft data)
WitE 1.08+ dev team (data/scenario maintainer)
WitW dev team (aircraft data, partial data/scenario maintainer)
WitE2 dev team (aircraft data)
User avatar
jzardos
Posts: 677
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2011 1:05 pm

RE: AVF Reliability

Post by jzardos »

ORIGINAL: Denniss

ORIGINAL: jzardos

For example a Panther D is 4540. So what does that mean? is 45 the breakdown number and 40 survivability? If so, is that 45 and 40 out of a 99 max?
It seems you got it.


I still must have something wrong because a Panzerjaeger II is 7060 and a Tiger 5550. I can understand the breakdown being more likely on a Tiger when moving, however, the 60 to 50 3rd and 4th digits means the Panzerjaeger II is more survivable than the Tiger? Which seems to contradict all the known literature on the Tiger. Also, the Panzerjaeger II is an open top vehicle so it's even more vulnerable. I must not be understanding something about this?? [&:]
Karri
Posts: 1219
Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 4:09 pm
Contact:

RE: AVF Reliability

Post by Karri »

I think it should be two numbers (both two digits), and not two digits. The second number is not survivability, it's reliability in combat, which uses a "special survival check". Not sure what that check is exactly. perhaps just a % chance of being damaged instead of destroyed? Notice that this doesn't mean the Panzerjaeger has a higher chance of surviving combat, just higher chance of being damaged instead of destroyed. The Tiger still has way better armor ratings.
User avatar
jzardos
Posts: 677
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2011 1:05 pm

RE: AVF Reliability

Post by jzardos »

ORIGINAL: Karri

I think it should be two numbers (both two digits), and not two digits. The second number is not survivability, it's reliability in combat, which uses a "special survival check". Not sure what that check is exactly. perhaps just a % chance of being damaged instead of destroyed? Notice that this doesn't mean the Panzerjaeger has a higher chance of surviving combat, just higher chance of being damaged instead of destroyed. The Tiger still has way better armor ratings.


What you are saying doesn't match rulebook. I do agree about the number of digits as there are clearly 4 for the reliability rating on AFVs. Dennis's answer was not very satisfactory IMO.

21.2.8. AFV and Combat Vehicle Reliability
All AFV s and other combat vehicles are rated for their
reliability. This is checked when they are moved, with those
that fail the reliability check becoming damaged.
To reflect initial production “teething” problems, AFV/
Combat vehicle reliability will be less when they first come
into production and then improve until they reach their
standard reliability rating. The reliability rating of obsolete
(out of production) aircraft is treated as higher than their
normal reliability rating, which will make them more
susceptible to attrition.
The reliability rating of an AFV is actually two different
items.
The first digit represents the reliability of the AFV when
moving (if only 1 digit is shown the 1st digit is assumed to
be 0). The higher the number, the less likely the AFV will
become damaged during movement.
The second digit is survivability, and the higher the
survivability the less likely the AFV will be destroyed in
combat during a special survival check as opposed to just
being damaged.
User avatar
abulbulian
Posts: 1105
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 5:42 pm

RE: AVF Reliability

Post by abulbulian »

I'm wondering if the rules didn't get updated since the concept of just 2 digits for the AFV reliability rating. Thus the 2nd digit for the PzJaegar II would be a 0 and the second digit for the Tiger would be a 5. Thus, a PzJaegar II is not survivable at all with a 0 and the Tiger is much better with a 5. Just a thought. If so, I have no idea what the 3rd and 4th digits represent.

- Beta Tester WitE and ATG
- Alpha/Beta Tester WitW and WitE2

"Invincibility lies in the defence; the possibility of victory in the attack." - Sun Tzu
Denniss
Posts: 9316
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Germany, Hannover (region)

RE: AVF Reliability

Post by Denniss »

must be an error in the manual then. There are clearly two digits per reliability type for AFVs so four overall
WitE dev team - (aircraft data)
WitE 1.08+ dev team (data/scenario maintainer)
WitW dev team (aircraft data, partial data/scenario maintainer)
WitE2 dev team (aircraft data)
Karri
Posts: 1219
Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 4:09 pm
Contact:

RE: AVF Reliability

Post by Karri »

ORIGINAL: jzardos
ORIGINAL: Karri

I think it should be two numbers (both two digits), and not two digits. The second number is not survivability, it's reliability in combat, which uses a "special survival check". Not sure what that check is exactly. perhaps just a % chance of being damaged instead of destroyed? Notice that this doesn't mean the Panzerjaeger has a higher chance of surviving combat, just higher chance of being damaged instead of destroyed. The Tiger still has way better armor ratings.


What you are saying doesn't match rulebook. I do agree about the number of digits as there are clearly 4 for the reliability rating on AFVs. Dennis's answer was not very satisfactory IMO.

21.2.8. AFV and Combat Vehicle Reliability
All AFV s and other combat vehicles are rated for their
reliability. This is checked when they are moved, with those
that fail the reliability check becoming damaged.
To reflect initial production “teething” problems, AFV/
Combat vehicle reliability will be less when they first come
into production and then improve until they reach their
standard reliability rating. The reliability rating of obsolete
(out of production) aircraft is treated as higher than their
normal reliability rating, which will make them more
susceptible to attrition.
The reliability rating of an AFV is actually two different
items.
The first digit represents the reliability of the AFV when
moving (if only 1 digit is shown the 1st digit is assumed to
be 0). The higher the number, the less likely the AFV will
become damaged during movement.
The second digit is survivability, and the higher the
survivability the less likely the AFV will be destroyed in
combat during a special survival check as opposed to just
being damaged.


Which part doesn't match? The thing about the special survival check? It's not explained further so if you have a better guess, do share it. I think I'm pretty close to truth though. It definitely isn't an overall chance of surviving combat.
User avatar
loki100
Posts: 11708
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 12:38 pm
Location: Utlima Thule

RE: AVF Reliability

Post by loki100 »

ORIGINAL: Denniss

must be an error in the manual then. There are clearly two digits per reliability type for AFVs so four overall

no error, the examples are exactly as described ie reliability move/combat, as in the text, the possibility of vehicle being <10 reliability is retained as set out (pretty sure there are none in the game but it opens the door to a 1916 scenario?)

The combat value is invoked if an element is flagged as 'destroyed' in combat (/100), if it passes this is reduced to 'damaged'

Image
Attachments
20210929_155224.jpg
20210929_155224.jpg (409.78 KiB) Viewed 298 times
Denniss
Posts: 9316
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Germany, Hannover (region)

RE: AVF Reliability

Post by Denniss »

No, there are four digits overall with two each for reliability type.
There's no single-digit reliability rating type anymore in WitE2 for ground elements.
This was changed from WitW which had 2x1 digit and WitE with a single rating.
Aircraft still use the old system from WitE.
WitE dev team - (aircraft data)
WitE 1.08+ dev team (data/scenario maintainer)
WitW dev team (aircraft data, partial data/scenario maintainer)
WitE2 dev team (aircraft data)
User avatar
abulbulian
Posts: 1105
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 5:42 pm

RE: AVF Reliability

Post by abulbulian »

Thanks Loki,

It was late last night when I responded, but after looking at it I found the key as you pointed out (highlighted)in the rule text. I would only change the part where it mentioned first "digit" and second "digit" to "two digit numbers'. It is confusing because a digit is defined as one number 0-9.
- Beta Tester WitE and ATG
- Alpha/Beta Tester WitW and WitE2

"Invincibility lies in the defence; the possibility of victory in the attack." - Sun Tzu
Post Reply

Return to “Gary Grigsby's War in the East 2”