Rooftop use

[PCI SgtRock]

One thing that has bothered me a bit with many tactical wargames is the lack of ability to use rooftops. For example, I would like to be able to place a 60mm mortar on top of a 2/4 story building with a flat roof, or place a sniper in the belltower of a church. I've heard of historical cases where even small anti-tank guns were placed on rooftops when the defense had a long enough time to prepare. I can't confirm these, though.

In any case, such capabilities would provide some interesting choices, tactically. Rooftop mortars, guns, and machineguns would have a much longer reach, but would sacrifice overhead cover.

Thoughts?

[Major Tom]

If you are using that sniper in a bell tower analogy from S.P.R., then you must know that any poorly trained sniper wouldn't be caught alive in one. They would be caught dead, but not alive

Bell towers may give you a good view, but, they are such a target. Even the lowliest private would think that would be the best place to snipe from. And this is what makes it such a horrible place, everyone would look there.

Of course, this doesn't mean that those of us playing CM don't have the option about placing our guys there. I suppose that it was only done for simplicity sake. It would probably make programing the game a little more difficult having a spot that can't be filled by a squad of men, let alone a HMG or bazooka team, but only a sniper. Plus, how often do we get snipers anyway? Frankly, I haven't had much use for the one we are given!

I don't know about that roof thing. It was kind of bugging me too. However, the only instance I can think of where there were actually soldiers fighting on a rooftop was on the "longest day" (If we are using movie history as actual history). This was where that Free French group was assaulting that fortified Casino, with the AT gun at its base and the 2x 20mm AA guns on the roof with a bunch of MMG's and troops. However, this building was so high up that nobody could shoot down on them. The main reason that I can think of why troops would not go up on a rooftop, even with a mortor, is, that there is absolutely no cover up there. Sure, there might be a slight wall, but, you might as well be hiding in a freshly cut field! No cover from above. Indeed, I have also found trying to position mortors very difficult. This is why I perfer FO, you can hide them wherever you want! But, I try to avoid buildings alltogether, the tend to fall on your head too easily!

[howardb]

Major Tom a sniper in the bell tower is so obvious that it's actually safe. No enemies would think a sniper would be so stupid as to hide in a belltower so they wouldn't even look for one there

[Doug Beman]

They know that we know that THEY know that WE KNOW that placing a sniper in a bell tower is totally stupid and that NOBODY would ever do it, UNLESS they KNEW that we knew that they knew that we knew that they knew that placing a sniper in a bell tower is stupid, in which case it's the OBVIOUS PLACE!

DjB

(hope you got the Princess Bride reference there)

[This message has been edited by Doug Beman (edited 12-11-99).]

[guachi]

Inconceivable!!

That's what Fezzig (or whatever his name was) said all the time, right?

Jason

[Fester]

Actually he said

"INCONTHEEEVABLE!"

great movie BTW

[Berlichtingen]

Bell towers are bad for snipers for another reason... they make good artillery referance points and good OPs. Its your first target when approching a town.

[Guest Pham]

With regards to the rooftop question, it seems to me that spreading a platoon out along multiple rooftops and placing ambush markers on the street would be a pretty effective trap(if the enemy actually enters the street). Also, will CM have flat rooftops even if they're not functional? Just wondering, as I don't think all rooftops in Europe were pointed.

Also, with church steeples, wouldn't you(as a CO)at least send one man up to give him a good view of approaching enemies? I'd think that LOS from a tower would be great even if you didn't want to snipe from it.

"Hallo, my name is Inigo Montoya. You kill my father. Prepare to die."

[Supertanker]

Normally, it would be foolish to place the sniper in the belltower (not much in the way of a stealthy route of escape, among other problems), but in this case, I am smiling because know something you do not know: I am not left-handed.

[guachi]

There are times when I'm playing CM and I keep thinking to myself "What I wouldn't give for a wheelbarrow and a Holocaust cloak."

Jason

[Scott C]

But we can't use wheelbarrows and Holocaust cloaks - we need to put down our weapons and try to kill each other like civilized people.

[PCI SgtRock]

OK, as long as we've got some serious topic drift here, let me point out that having 6 fingers on my right hand has never caused any problems with sighting an M1. On the other hand, that damn sword still doesn't fit me right. And don't get me started on Montoya!

I tossed off the sniper comment as one example. I'm far more interested in just being able to place mortars, anti-tank weapons like PIATs and bazookas, etc. on rooftops. Mortars and guns for the addtional reach, anti-tank weapons for the top armor attack.

It's part of what can make street fighting so deadly. And so much fun for us grognards.

[Bullethead]

>>>>>>>> I tossed off the sniper comment as one example. I'm far more interested in just being able to place mortars, anti-tank weapons like PIATs and bazookas, etc. on rooftops. Mortars and guns for the addtional reach, anti-tank weapons for the top armor attack. <<<<<<<<<<<<<

Hmmm, I'm not disappointed with a lack of rooftops. Except for things with backblasts like bazookas, there isn't any real advantage to being on the roof to offset the disadvantages of being more easily seen and having no overhead cover.

If somebody was annoying me with a rooftop MG or mortar, I'd sure bring my mortars to bear on that roof. It would be like the targets were in open ground .

As for bazookas, shaped charge weapons are like any other anti-tank round--they work way better when the hit the armor square on than they do at an angle. So unless you're shooting straight down at a tank below, you could well be worse off aiming your bazooka at the top from the roof or upper floor than you would be shooting into the side at ground level (and maybe the round would slide out the tube if you aimed down too much--don't know about this ).

-Bullethead

[PCI SgtRock]

No, not really. The Japanese did some great work defending Manila, for example, using satchel charges against M10s and such. Height advantage meant everything then.

Besides, if the game mechanics properly represent what happens when using a rooftop, shouldn't we be able to do so? (both height advantage AND lack of cover)

[Bullethead]

SgtRock said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>No, not really. The Japanese did some great work defending Manila, for example, using satchel charges against M10s and such. Height advantage meant everything then.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, for tossing bombs into passing open-top vehicles, being on any floor above street level lets you do that. And it would probably be more accurate the lower down you were.

Interesting note: I haven't seen anybody throw down frags from the top floors of buildings yet, whether at troops or vehicles. Is this because the targeting routine measures the slant range down and assumes that's too far to throw a grenade, failing to consider geometry?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Besides, if the game mechanics properly represent what happens when using a rooftop, shouldn't we be able to do so? (both height advantage AND lack of cover)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dunno, being on a roof just doesn't make tactical sense to me in the vast majority of cases. All you could lug up there are infantry weapons and most of these do better down at street level. Shaped charge weapons don't hit the armor at such an angle, MGs and rifles can fire all the way down a street with grazing fire, etc. Besides, being on a roof puts you on the skyline and makes you an easy target, besides your lack of overhead cover. So I wouldn't put units up there even if I could.

-Bullethead

[Ken Talley]

I am going to have to take the contrary viewpoint here. I think rooftops offer substantial tactical value whether for snipers, artillery observers, squads or MGs. One major advantage is the extended LOS. A second major advantage is the ability to instantly enter complete cover by pulling back from the edge of the rooftop. A rooftop is ideal for snipers becuase it needs vision and ability to escape. A sniper takes its one or two shots and then has an easy escape. To counter a hidden observer on a rooftoop, you have to know what rooftop he is on and he doesn't have to be on the highest rooftop. And there are many rooftops in a substantial town or city. A squad/MG opens fire on the enemy and then as enemy fire builds up, again an easy escape. There are certainly advantages to fighting from ground level but it should be supplemented by units at upper levels. Also I think of the upper levels as much for delay and harassment as actually holding the building. I believe the major advantage of a unit on a rooftop is control of when to start an engagement and when to end an engagement combined with LOS.

Ken

[This message has been edited by Ken Talley (edited 12-12-99).]

[Bullethead]

Ken said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I am going to have to take the contrary viewpoint here.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey, no problem. I agree that we should be able to put troops on roofs just for the sake of realism--you can get there in real life so you should be able to in the game. However, it's not something that I think is that important. IOW, I'd like to see it ONLY for the sake of realism completeness--I don't see this as adding any really useful tactical stuff to the game.

For instance:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>One major advantage is the extended LOS.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think there's much LOS benefit to be gained by being on a roof as opposed to a top floor. Say you're on a roof in the middle of town with buildings of roughly similar size all around. You're still not going to be able to see into the back yard of the building across the street, or into any other dead ground between buildings. You're just going to see a sea of rooftops. OTOH, if your building is significantly higher than those around it, being on the roof doens't add significantly to the LOS you have from the top floor. Same if you're on the edge of town looking out across the country.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>A second major advantage is the ability to instantly enter complete cover by pulling back from the edge of the rooftop.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But you can do this on the top floor, too. Just move back away from the wall.

Also, being able to do this sort of thing on a roof assumes a flat roof with a parapet around the edge, like a big office building. Not something you find in villages or small towns, which is where it seems to me the bulk of CM battles will take place. In these settings, you're looking at steeply pitched roofs to shed snow, not something you can move around on very easily . So in the great majority of CM battles, rooftop movement wouldn't be possible anyway, even if it was in the game.

-Bullethead

[tss]

I think rooftops offer substantial tactical value whether for snipers, artillery observers, squads or MGs

Only until the first enemy fighter plane happens to pass by.

- Tommi

[C Colapietro]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If you are using that sniper in a bell tower analogy from S.P.R., then you must know that any poorly trained sniper wouldn't be caught alive in one. They would be caught dead, but not alive <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As this is something I have always wondered about, I asked a friend of mine that went through US Army sniper training. His response confirmed my thoughts on this - if the vantage point of an obvious spot offers enough advantage and the situation calls for it, something like a bell tower would be used. It depends on how important it is to remain hidden, what the assumed enemy threat level is, and what kind of friendly support there is.

A great sniper position, or MG position, or Bazooka position etc is obvious for a reason - its the best place to be for effective fire (from a purely offensive standpoint).

The question reminds me a bit of the pre-Vietnam argument against using helicopters in direct combat situations - they can be easily spotted and shot down by small arms fire. This makes sense in theory, but in practice it is a little more difficult when the waist-gunner is raining fire down on the top of your head in your 'concealed' position.

Sometimes the best defense is a good offense...

[Guest Big Time Software]

CM does not simulate roofs in terms of unit being able to be placed on them. I've been to Europe several times, gone to a fair number of countries (even lived in London for 6 months) and I have got to say that pre 1945 buildings with flat roofs are quite rare from my observations. Even in cities this is the case. There are some major structural reasons why, namely to let rain and snow run off instead of pool/pile. Since the chances of finding such a building in 1944-45 are very low, and CM does not have the luxury to have dozens of building types, we do not allow units on roofs.

For the special case of bell towers, we couldn't support that for CM. To do this would have required that the entire building code be chucked out. There are a couple of threads on why this was not only undesirable, but impractical (hint... it increases LOS calcs), so if you are interested in more detailed reasons, try searching on "buildings"

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 12-15-99).]

[MOS was 71331]

The old Strategy and Tactics (S&T) magazine once had a man-to-man infantry game on a hex map with buildings with walls running along the hex side -- and giving them some unusual shapes. The men had two postures, erect and prone, they could be exposed or hidden, and they could occupy a hex with a window wall. This led to a rule which started, "If an erect man exposes himself in a window..."

------------------

Airborne Combat Engineer Troop Leader (1966-1968)