Beware: Tiger H is very expensive junk..:)

[PoorOldSpike]

(Old hands will know this of course, but I like to make my posts noob-friendly)
On the purchase screen, if you cursor over the word 'Unreliable' a readout will say "Unit may lose extra efficiency points when moving"-



So I ran this test below by moving an H (on the left) and a VIE (right) up and down the map for a few turns and sure enough the H's strength number has slowly turned from white to yellow and orange because its efficiency has dropped to '4' because it presumably keeps breaking down.
The VIE has no 'Unreliable' trait and is therefore still bright and bushy-tailed-




I first noticed the unsettling phenomenon during a game of Panzerkrieg>Operation Star when I innocently invested big money in a fleet of 5x Tiger H's before I found out that 'Unreliable' means they keep turning orange, here in the Op Star screenshot below two H's have oranged and are totally useless, and are running back to Germany with their tails between their legs, and only by drawing on my superhuman experience gained in 35 years of computer wargaming was I able to somehow salvage the situation and win the game by nursemaiding the H's every step of the way like Nanny McPhee.
I therefore learnt the hard way exactly what the H's 'Unreliable' trait means, so noobs don't make the same mistake, spend your pennies on a different tank but first ALWAYS check to see if its tagged 'Unreliable'. (The Panther D is another 'Unreliable' crate so watch your step!)
Grrrrr...beats me why the OOB designers tagged them unreliable anyway, as historically they weren't all that unreliable. Tiger and Panther fans are going to hate OOB..

[bru888]

It's interesting to note that there are not that many units in OOB that have the "unreliable" trait.

Capture837.jpg (115.45 KiB) Viewed 5568 times

And of these, the Sherman M4's are all the versions that have donned improvised armor; hence they are unreliable. The regular versions of these Shermans are not unreliable.

So that leaves the Type 4 Ke-Nu, the Panther D (not the A and G), the Tiger H (not the E), and the SU-76. The Panther D and the Tiger H are the earlier versions of each series according to the available dates (alphabetical order notwithstanding).

One wonders whether this is an experiment or not. Units.csv changes from one version to the next and from one patch to the next.

I hope "unreliable" is not overused. We will see.

[13obo]

I like the trait to balance out strong tanks early on, but at the moment I think the efficiency hit is too strong to justify purchasing either the Tiger or Panther.

Perhaps tone down the breakdown chance by reducing the % for these units to lose efficiency? I probably still wouldn't buy as I am not a fan of "unexpected" performance of units, but maybe others would get them more often.

[GabeKnight]

Perhaps tone down the breakdown chance by reducing the % for these units to lose efficiency?

I remember Horst making a test and it was about a 50-50 chance of happening with the "unreliable" trait.

[PoorOldSpike]

One wonders whether this is an experiment or not. Units.csv changes from one version to the next and from one patch to the next.

..at the moment I think the efficiency hit is too strong to justify purchasing either the Tiger or Panther..

I remember Horst making a test and it was about a 50-50 chance of happening with the "unreliable" trait.

Firstly Bru, rest assured that all my tests and charts and spiritual insights in the forum are bang up to the minute with the latest vanilla version, for example I did the unreliability tests only yesterday with 5.2.9.

Secondly, yes 13obo, anybody who spends big bucks on the unreliable Tig H and Pan D is wasting their cash.
Luckily the other Tig and Pan models don't have the trait so we can buy them IF they're available in a particular scenario.
Sadly the only ones up for sale in Operation Star are the unreliable versions which is a pity because it's otherwise an excellent scenario and I wish the scenario designer would come in here to explain why he saddled us with junk, I know some mischievous designers like to spring surprises on us, but the joke can wear a bit thin..

Thirdly Gabe, the trait readout is "Unit may lose extra efficiency points when moving", in other words every time you move the unit it may or may not lose some efficiency because it's a random thing.
For example in some runnings of my test a unit would be on its knees in the orange after just a few turns, but when running the test again it might go much further before oranging out.

Suggestion for the next OOB version- Throw the 'Unreliable' trait completely out of OOB, or at least tone it down like 13obo said so that its effects are not so severe..

[bru888]

Firstly Bru, rest assured that all my tests and charts and spiritual insights in the forum are bang up to the minute with the latest vanilla version, for example I did the unreliability tests only yesterday with 5.2.9.

No, what I meant was they are likely to change it again in the next version. Perhaps after seeing this excellent thread and commentary!

Suggestion for the next OOB version- Throw the 'Unreliable' trait completely out of OOB, or at least tone it down like 13obo said so that its effects are not so severe..

Agree. And another thought that occurs from time to time with this game: Eventually, I may take it offline and maintain it for myself. At that time, I will feel quite comfortable removing "unreliable" from units.csv if I think it is overdone. Unfortunately, I don't have the hacking/programming skills to get at the mechanism which would tone down its effects (the idea itself is sound) but I do have control over units.csv.

Not that it's the right solution, to just take the game private in that manner, but it can be done and we cannot always depend on the developers to notice such things as this despite my cheery optimism in the beginning of this post.

[kondi754]

I TOTALLY agree with the developers, when it comes to the Panther (especially) and Tiger tank.

Tiger I (especially in 1942/43) was an extremely "emergency" tank, until the end of the war he acted much better as a static point of anti-tank defense (especially in Italy and Normandy) than in an attack. This was caused by the terrible failures of the drive system as a result of its overloading. The engine also wasn't its strong point...
Experienced mechanics/drivers learned how to safely lead this giant over time, but it wasn't an easy tank in operation and service by the end of the war.
That's why I think that the next models can lose "Unreliable" trait.

When it comes to Panther I think "Unreliable" trait should stay until the end of war.
Read infos below:
"The Panther D (and A)
When the Panther D tank was to be built, Guderian asked for a tank with superior mobility to the T-34. However, what he ended up with was a 45 ton tank with a petrol engine, front wheel drive, and poor suspension. They opted for a complex set of interleaved road wheels, which were quick to clog up with mud, and made it very difficult to change an inner wheel as you would have to take off other wheels. In 1943 no panzer unit equipped with Panther D and early model Panther A tanks were able to sustain an operational readiness rate above 35%. More Panthers were lost to mechanical problems in 1943 than to enemy combat. The transmission system was also poor as 5 percent broke within 100km and almost 90 percent broke down within 1,500km. The final drive on the Panther D was so bad that it could not even turn the tank while backing up. It fuel pumps were also a huge problem, they would often leak and cause massive engine fires. The Panther D and A tanks were so prone to breakdown that they had to transport them by train along with the Tiger I. When some Panther A tanks were first being distributed to the SS-Leibstandarte in Italy, September 1943, they were so poor that every one was rejected for service. In summary, the Panther D was a 45 ton tank running on a chassis built for a 24 ton vehicle with very poor mobility and reliability.

The Panther G
The Panther G tanks were not much better. They had very poor fuel consumption rates (a topic I forgot to mention when discussing the Panther D and A but surly prevailing to those two tanks as well). The Panther G could get 60-80 miles on road and 40-50 miles cross country with about 190 gallons of gasoline (To put that into perspective the M4A3 Sherman could get 100 miles on road and about 65 miles cross country with 168 gallons of gasoline). The suspension was improved slightly but still remained a problem. The suspension allowed it to "turn on a dime" but was badly overstressed and suffered from premature stripping of the third gear. Also its single teeth spur gears would often strip very readily. In 1944 during the time of the Battle of the Bulge, in outfits equipped with Panther G tanks, 35-40 percent of them were unavailable due to mechanical problems. This was probably made greater by the lack of fuel and spare parts at that point in the war for Germany. These tanks would often brake down but were so complex that nobody knew how to fix them. And again, similarly to the Panther D, these were shipped by train as long marches with Panthers were not encouraged."
(from WWIIForums)

"Unreliable" trait isn't a tragedy in my opinion. I had 1 Tiger's unit in PK, which performed very well under proper treatment.
I hope that the Devs will not resign from this solution

[13obo]

That's fair; I quickly opened the wiki page which also mentioned that despite the tank being considered one of the best of ww2 due to great armor/gun, it was plagued by unreliability. Maybe it would help put the unreliability into perspective when comparing it to other tanks? You said (and Wikipedia said smth similar) that the panther D had initial reliability of around 35%, what's the statistic for say a T-34 of the same period?

[bru888]

kondi, that's great stuff as usual from you. Given that detail, I change my stance on this "unreliable" issue. It does seem to be an accurate depiction of historical fact. Thank you.

[Korvessa]

I don't know if this is possible, but what if you tied it to the experience of the crew?
So that the more experienced the crew was, the less likely it was to have breakdowns?

[kondi754]

That's fair; I quickly opened the wiki page which also mentioned that despite the tank being considered one of the best of ww2 due to great armor/gun, it was plagued by unreliability. Maybe it would help put the unreliability into perspective when comparing it to other tanks? You said (and Wikipedia said smth similar) that the panther D had initial reliability of around 35%, what's the statistic for say a T-34 of the same period?

T-34 was even worse, it had even more faults than Tiger, it was comparable to Panther
With the difference that the German tanks had high-quality armor and armament, while the T-34 had steel armor of a very poor quality.
M4 Sherman also struggled with engine problems over a period of time.

BUT T-34 or Sherman were much simpler, clearly lighter, so towing and repairing on the battlefield or in workshops just behind the front was much easier than Panzerwaffe tanks.
Therefore, I think that there can't be "Unreliable" trait for T-34 or M4.

Thanks, Bru, for your kind words.

I like the idea of Korvessa.

[PoorOldSpike]

..I change my stance on this "unreliable" issue. It does seem to be an accurate depiction of historical fact..

Ah, but Germany ditched the Tig H and Pan D as they were unreliable junk and brought out new improved models, so the OOB developers (bless their little cotton socks) are therefore being non-historical by lumbering us with them, grrrr...

[bru888]

Ah, but Germany ditched the Tig H and Pan D as they were unreliable junk and brought out new improved models, so the OOB developers (bless their little cotton socks) are therefore being non-historical by lumbering us with them, grrrr...

Well, it depends on the timing. OOB has those "unreliable" Panther and Tiger models as first in line of availability; it just depends on how long they are "available" in units.csv until they are replaced by later models. I wonder if kondi could advise on this . . .

[PoorOldSpike]

Well, it depends on the timing. OOB has those "unreliable" Panther and Tiger models as first in line of availability; it just depends on how long they are "available" in units.csv until they are replaced by later models. I wonder if kondi could advise on this . . .

Good point, the Operation Star scenario is set in Feb 43 and the only Tig and Pan versions available in it are the H and D, both of which have the "unreliability" trait, so on second thoughts I was wrong to growl at the scen designer, because at that time of the war only the H/D versions were presumably available so he was right and I was wrong, and if he'd care to visit me I'd be happy to let him feed the pigeons on my windowsill to make it up to him.
Also, when I bought them in Op Star I forgot to check their stats on the purchase screen or I'd have seen they were tagged "unreliable" and could have bought Pz IV-longs instead, duh..
At least this thread serves as a reminder to us all to check the stats of everything when we're shopping around..

[kondi754]

Ah, but Germany ditched the Tig H and Pan D as they were unreliable junk and brought out new improved models, so the OOB developers (bless their little cotton socks) are therefore being non-historical by lumbering us with them, grrrr...

Well, it depends on the timing. OOB has those "unreliable" Panther and Tiger models as first in line of availability; it just depends on how long they are "available" in units.csv until they are replaced by later models. I wonder if kondi could advise on this . . .

@Bru
I have to think about it once again.
Or maybe the answer is the connection of "reliability" with the terrain on which the tank moves. Marshy terrain, forest, sand, snow and other "difficult" terrain - higher probability of efficiency loss. In addition, for Tigers and Panthers, some part of the bridges wouldn't be available.

[charterjc]

The problem I have with it is my testing shows they seem to loose efficiency almost every time the tanks move making them useless except as defensive tanks. Which, I am never on the defensive more than a few turns at most. The trait says "May loose efficiency when moving" so I think the percentage chance of loosing efficiency should be lowered so that we might actually use these tanks in the game. I never buy a tank with this trait because they are worthless. The Pnz IVF2 is a much better machine despite the lower stats as I don't have to worry about loss of efficiency every time I move.

Again it would be nice to change this stat just a little to make them viable in game as they are not a viable option to play with as they are now. I Understand they were unreliable in real life but all tanks suffered from reliability issues to some extent or another. I think this trait nerfs these units just a little to much. Please adjust the frequency just a little. Maybe 30/70 instead of 50/50.

Thanks

[GabeKnight]

Maybe 30/70 instead of 50/50.

+1

[kondi754]

The problem I have with it is my testing shows they seem to loose efficiency almost every time the tanks move making them useless except as defensive tanks. Which, I am never on the defensive more than a few turns at most. The trait says "May loose efficiency when moving" so I think the percentage chance of loosing efficiency should be lowered so that we might actually use these tanks in the game. I never buy a tank with this trait because they are worthless. The Pnz IVF2 is a much better machine despite the lower stats as I don't have to worry about loss of efficiency every time I move.

Again it would be nice to change this stat just a little to make them viable in game as they are not a viable option to play with as they are now. I Understand they were unreliable in real life but all tanks suffered from reliability issues to some extent or another. I think this trait nerfs these units just a little to much. Please adjust the frequency just a little. Maybe 30/70 instead of 50/50.

Thanks

But thanks to this the game is more difficult and if the game is more difficult then it's more fun.

Besides, it wasn't like one Tiger or Panther broke down and the other worked without faults.
All these tanks (until the end of the war) were simply too heavy
I believe that their combat capabilities should be further reduced by, for example, the unavailability of most bridges for these units. I believe that only railway bridges should be "passable" for Tigers and Panthers
I read many analyzes of battles of the German army from 1943-45 where their heavy tanks were used and often the greatest difficulty for staffs of a given division or corp was to find the proper bridge for them or even find a bridge that could be strengthened by specialized units of pioneers.

[edb1815]

The problem I have with it is my testing shows they seem to loose efficiency almost every time the tanks move making them useless except as defensive tanks. Which, I am never on the defensive more than a few turns at most. The trait says "May loose efficiency when moving" so I think the percentage chance of loosing efficiency should be lowered so that we might actually use these tanks in the game. I never buy a tank with this trait because they are worthless. The Pnz IVF2 is a much better machine despite the lower stats as I don't have to worry about loss of efficiency every time I move.

Again it would be nice to change this stat just a little to make them viable in game as they are not a viable option to play with as they are now. I Understand they were unreliable in real life but all tanks suffered from reliability issues to some extent or another. I think this trait nerfs these units just a little to much. Please adjust the frequency just a little. Maybe 30/70 instead of 50/50.

Thanks

But thanks to this the game is more difficult and if the game is more difficult then it's more fun.

Besides, it wasn't like one Tiger or Panther broke down and the other worked without faults.
All these tanks (until the end of the war) were simply too heavy
I believe that their combat capabilities should be further reduced by, for example, the unavailability of most bridges for these units. I believe that only railway bridges should be "passable" for Tigers and Panthers
I read many analyzes of battles of the German army from 1943-45 where their heavy tanks were used and often the greatest difficulty for staffs of a given division or corp was to find the proper bridge for them or even find a bridge that could be strengthened by specialized units of pioneers.

I am new to OOB. Still working through Blitzkrieg with much lighter tanks and none with the unreliable trait. For anyone who wants a good book covering German panzers on the Eastern front at an operational level I would recommend "Tank Warfare on the Eastern Front" Vol. I 1941-42 and Vol. II 43-45. The author really highlights logistics and tank production as well as tactics. For example in one instance at Kursk a battalion of new Panthers was rushed to the front but 90% broke down before combat. I don't have the book in front of me but as someone mentioned the Panther was rushed out with an inadequate transmission and engine (over Guderians' objections) with serious consequences for combat efficiency. The Tiger was reliable when compared to the Panther.

As for the bridges that can be an issue with any tank. When I was stationed in Germany someone drove a M113 APC over a 3t bridge with inevitable consequences! But yes that was a big issue in the Ardennes in particular for the Tiger II.

[Admiral_Horthy]

The Unreliability feature is a two edged sword... I don want to badmouth it, since it is a factor that makes difference... adds detail. But, here come the ever existing BUT.

Such factor is a serious depriving in OOB environment, and the biggest problem is that it affects only the selected units.

Let's say, the T-34 has .... 60% reliability... the Panther D has 30% (just examples). The difference is only 30% but the T-34 will never break down.
If reliability is a factor we want to fiddle with, then it should be introduced to all units ... yes to infantry because they catch typhus and diarrhea . Then we have to introduce logistics, maintenance and medical units and drag them along. Is this a good idea?
Notoriously unreliable units may get this feature, but again other tech can be equally POS if there are no maintenance and supply units available... A lot more equipment can be "Unreliable" by this viewpoint, like the french walking bunker type infantry tanks, but again do we want to introduce reliability factor?

1. I think this should better be linked to combat action. OR should happen less on good terrain.
2. OR should happen less alltogether. Take the above example, let's mark the 50% reliability the margin for being poor and give the percentage above that a chance for breakdown (50-30 =20)
3. Have a maintenance class unit within X hexes at the end of the turn that removes chances of breakdown for the next turn.
4. Have these units as unique figures for specific battles where it's really important to have this feature (early access units, everybody is unfamiliar how to use fight or maintenance them). Have their "bugfixed" variants available soon after for normal use.