Reliability rating needs reversing

[Der Kuenstler]

From the manual:

"Basically reliability is better
the lower the shown value
and reflects the difficult in
maintaining the plane and its
vulnerability to operational
losses. Endurance reflects how
long the plane can operate just
using its current fuel and built
in armament (so this will vary according to the chosen load
out). Here the higher the number, the better the plane’s
performance."

To me this is counterintuitive and unnecessarily hard to remember - reliability should be rated low numbers to high like endurance is.

[DarkHorse2]

+1

Or even be consistent.

I agree 100% though and would prefer a straight "higher number is better" approach across the board for all element values, where ever possible.

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.

Older aircraft with low durability and low reliability have a greater chance of being written off.

All aircraft have a reliability rating which ranges from “really good” (lower numbers) to “really bad” (higher numbers).

So in this case, the Pzr IVe has a reliability of 65 when moving and 50 when in combat. By contrast, the notoriously unreliable Panther D has ratings of 45 and 40:

[Der Kuenstler]

So in this case, the Pzr IVe has a reliability of 65 when moving and 50 when in combat. By contrast, the notoriously unreliable Panther D has ratings of 45 and 40:

[/quote]

Heh heh - don't even get me started on those befuddling numbers - at least put a forward slash in there - throw the new guy a bone! (should be 65/50)

manual.png (251.53 KiB) Viewed 761 times

[Der Kuenstler]

From the manual:

"Basically reliability is better
the lower the shown value
and reflects the difficult in
maintaining the plane and its
vulnerability to operational
losses. Endurance reflects how
long the plane can operate just
using its current fuel and built
in armament (so this will vary according to the chosen load
out). Here the higher the number, the better the plane’s
performance."

To me this is counterintuitive and unnecessarily hard to remember - reliability should be rated low numbers to high like endurance is.

I just thought of an easy solution to this inconsistency that should only take 5 minutes to fix. Just change the word "reliability" to "unreliability" or "frailty" and then the high number would = bad, low number = good, and make more sense.