The 2 are directly related (with the latter arguably falling within the former), but since the game is actually going to include both stats, I have a couple of concerns/questions, which address a number of stereotypical concepts. Concepts... such as, "the German 'big cats' were virtually immobile, and were constantly breaking down.... whereas the T-34 was a race tank, and could outlast the Energizer Bunny."
MOBILITY
The player should be able to influence mobility with adequate investment. Regardless of the fact that the Tiger II was actually almost exactly as fast as the Pz IV, people tend to not realize this since so many games have 'modelled' the inherent 'unreliability'. Now, in HoI3, we're in charge of a lot of things that should be able to influence the performace of the machines in that wind up in the field. For example, the Tiger II was never actually given the more powerful engine it was designed to have, instead it was given the Panther & Tiger E engines, since they were available. Now, IF the German player doesn't find himself in a horrible 1944 scenario, and IF he actually chooses to make the proper IC investment, then he (or any other player) should not be required to have SLOOOOW tanks. You don't design a tank to be slow. Think about it. You just wind up in that situation, because your nation is getting beaten to a pulp.
RELIABILITY
Why was the T-34 so fast and reliable, compared to the 'big cats'? Well, a large part of it was that the USSR chose to invest a lot of "IC" into supplying their tanks in the field with replacement engines & parts on a fairly routine basis. USA did the same, because they also could afford to do so. See, when you know you have a nice supply of fresh engines & drivetrain parts constantly coming down the pipeline to the vehicles in the field, you can tune them a bit higher, and run more care free. So, a bit more power... and, let's just refit every so often, and HEY!... superb reliability! We never break down, because we have a massive industrial might backing us up. It's like those Verizon commericals... with all those network guys right over your shoulder. Historically Germany did not enjoy this advantage for most of the war (only in the early stages perhaps), but they could have scrapped a few other projects, and things would have been different.
So, long story short, each nation should be able to influence it's mobility (which includes reliability -- but if you want to break that down separately, then the same applies)... by way of investing more into that area. Investing what? A sound design process doesn't hurt, but really what matters is good ol' fashioned industrial manufacturing capacity. That's really what's going to win the war. That's why when people talk about "IC expansion is a pain, get rid of it", they have no idea what they're talking about... they're suggesting we cut a vital part of the game out.
All this talk about custom units is great... really great. I'm just trying to make the point that HOW you use your industry, makes a huge difference as to what your troops wind up with in the field. It's decisions like this, that the player should be able to control/influence. For example, if the USSR or USA decide NOT to allocate a strong level of industry into 'reliability' (AKA building more engines & parts, and the means to refit vehicles in the field on a routine basis), then yes, it should be totally possible to have a Red Army with a bunch of T-34s that are not as mobile, and not as reliable. And, a US Army that is not capable of racing around so fast (which of course, they shared w/ the Soviets via so many Lend-Lease vehicles & replacement parts... effectively motorizing the whole Red Army as well). And likewise, if Germany can actually get it's act together (which should not be easy), they should not always be doomed to suffer from 'slow tanks', and 'unreliability'.
Something to take into consideration, since these aspects are apparently going to be directly represented in the game. Speed is a pretty important factor in this game, we already know. I'm interested to see how reliability plays a role. But no doubt, one needs to invest industry to get good results. There shouldn't be some default settings for a designated 'magic' tank, that all you have to do is get it, and bam! -you're in like Flynn. When actually, there were reasons a certain historical tank enjoyed great mobility/reliability, or, suffered. Reasons that relate directly to industrial output.
Bottom line: IC is everything, even in playing a strong role to determining what the 'mobility' and 'reliability' stats are. If I can decide I want an X-mm tank gun, and X-type of suspension, then I should also be able to build the 1,000+ hp engine for the Tiger II, and build a whole bunch of them, so Tiger II's can race around with impunity, and also with reliability. Granted this should not be cheap by any means, but the option should be there. Suppose I actually make intelligent moves, and plan wisely. I should not be ending up with the historical Tiger II, from 1944. And, if I play as the USSR/USA, and plan like a total MO-ron, then I shouldn't be getting all the historical benefits they enjoyed, with regards to these stats.
MOBILITY
The player should be able to influence mobility with adequate investment. Regardless of the fact that the Tiger II was actually almost exactly as fast as the Pz IV, people tend to not realize this since so many games have 'modelled' the inherent 'unreliability'. Now, in HoI3, we're in charge of a lot of things that should be able to influence the performace of the machines in that wind up in the field. For example, the Tiger II was never actually given the more powerful engine it was designed to have, instead it was given the Panther & Tiger E engines, since they were available. Now, IF the German player doesn't find himself in a horrible 1944 scenario, and IF he actually chooses to make the proper IC investment, then he (or any other player) should not be required to have SLOOOOW tanks. You don't design a tank to be slow. Think about it. You just wind up in that situation, because your nation is getting beaten to a pulp.
RELIABILITY
Why was the T-34 so fast and reliable, compared to the 'big cats'? Well, a large part of it was that the USSR chose to invest a lot of "IC" into supplying their tanks in the field with replacement engines & parts on a fairly routine basis. USA did the same, because they also could afford to do so. See, when you know you have a nice supply of fresh engines & drivetrain parts constantly coming down the pipeline to the vehicles in the field, you can tune them a bit higher, and run more care free. So, a bit more power... and, let's just refit every so often, and HEY!... superb reliability! We never break down, because we have a massive industrial might backing us up. It's like those Verizon commericals... with all those network guys right over your shoulder. Historically Germany did not enjoy this advantage for most of the war (only in the early stages perhaps), but they could have scrapped a few other projects, and things would have been different.
So, long story short, each nation should be able to influence it's mobility (which includes reliability -- but if you want to break that down separately, then the same applies)... by way of investing more into that area. Investing what? A sound design process doesn't hurt, but really what matters is good ol' fashioned industrial manufacturing capacity. That's really what's going to win the war. That's why when people talk about "IC expansion is a pain, get rid of it", they have no idea what they're talking about... they're suggesting we cut a vital part of the game out.
All this talk about custom units is great... really great. I'm just trying to make the point that HOW you use your industry, makes a huge difference as to what your troops wind up with in the field. It's decisions like this, that the player should be able to control/influence. For example, if the USSR or USA decide NOT to allocate a strong level of industry into 'reliability' (AKA building more engines & parts, and the means to refit vehicles in the field on a routine basis), then yes, it should be totally possible to have a Red Army with a bunch of T-34s that are not as mobile, and not as reliable. And, a US Army that is not capable of racing around so fast (which of course, they shared w/ the Soviets via so many Lend-Lease vehicles & replacement parts... effectively motorizing the whole Red Army as well). And likewise, if Germany can actually get it's act together (which should not be easy), they should not always be doomed to suffer from 'slow tanks', and 'unreliability'.
Something to take into consideration, since these aspects are apparently going to be directly represented in the game. Speed is a pretty important factor in this game, we already know. I'm interested to see how reliability plays a role. But no doubt, one needs to invest industry to get good results. There shouldn't be some default settings for a designated 'magic' tank, that all you have to do is get it, and bam! -you're in like Flynn. When actually, there were reasons a certain historical tank enjoyed great mobility/reliability, or, suffered. Reasons that relate directly to industrial output.
Bottom line: IC is everything, even in playing a strong role to determining what the 'mobility' and 'reliability' stats are. If I can decide I want an X-mm tank gun, and X-type of suspension, then I should also be able to build the 1,000+ hp engine for the Tiger II, and build a whole bunch of them, so Tiger II's can race around with impunity, and also with reliability. Granted this should not be cheap by any means, but the option should be there. Suppose I actually make intelligent moves, and plan wisely. I should not be ending up with the historical Tiger II, from 1944. And, if I play as the USSR/USA, and plan like a total MO-ron, then I shouldn't be getting all the historical benefits they enjoyed, with regards to these stats.
