Urban warfare

[Bartokomus]

it's funny; i always played at veteran in pbem for years until a friend demanded iron mode and now i can't go back. i like the added difficulties...

[MarkEzra]

All QB City Maps are on me. I made them when CMBN was in very early Beta and wall terrain and flavor objects were under development... That's my excuse and I'm sticking to it. So they do suck and need to be re-worked. At the beginning of the CW module I made some new city maps. Those maps and a bunch of others (over 25 total) were completely lost in an error filled computer crash of my own making... For those who are not familiar with the game editor: even a small city map takes days...not hours to complete. In my line of work volume is always the number one priority. If you don't think so just ask the guys who purchased CMSF v.1.0 with it's pitifully small number of maps. There are some new city maps coming in CW and they do have some improved infantry cover... walls trees, ect. But I'm still not satisfied. Arnhem will give me a chance to improve my work. In the mean time: players can modify QB Maps.

[Sgt Schultz]

Here are those rubbled buildings with walls added. Pathing should be tested before installing on maps that will be used in combat.

Oh, and by the way ... these work. AT teams survive, fight and kill from these positions. They are worth the effort to install on your favorite MOUT maps.

--

[RikRaw]

They look very peculiar.

[Childress]

What's needed for the OMG/Arnhem module are destroyed buildings with a wall or two still standing.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Here are those rubbled buildings with walls added. Pathing should be tested before installing on maps that will be used in combat.

Oh, and by the way ... these work. AT teams survive, fight and kill from these positions. They are worth the effort to install on your favorite MOUT maps.

--

Nice lateral thinking. The only trouble is, as soon as I see any rubble with intact walls within them I'll blast the area with HE from my tanks to ensure there's no infantry within them. The beauty of allowing Panzerfaust armed infantry the ability to fire from buildings (as I contend should be the case), is that the enemy never knows which building, if any, there might be AT equipped infantry lurking within. Your clevel modelling of modified rubble simply waves the red flag... over here!... over here! It simply shouldn't be necessary.

Regards

KR

[JonS]

The only trouble is, as soon as I see any rubble with intact walls within them I'll blast the area with HE from my tanks to ensure there's no infantry within them. ... Your clevel modelling of modified rubble simply waves the red flag... over here!... over here!

Not really, as long as every pre-rubbled building is given the same treatment.

[Broadsword56]

And with a bit of artistry, you can alternate high and low wall sections, leave spaces, etc., to look a bit more uneven and more like partially standing walls instead of above-ground swimming pools (a doff of the helmet to Schultzie, this is a brilliant concept!)

[Killkess]

In one of the earlier discussions it was mentioned that the Fausts had a weaker propallent charge than the "starter" charge of an RPG7. That realy makes me wonder why BFC allowed RPGs to be shot from realy overcrowded buildings in CMSF but dissallows the same for a 2 man team in CMBN.

[stikkypixie]

In one of the earlier discussions it was mentioned that the Fausts had a weaker propallent charge than the "starter" charge of an RPG7. That realy makes me wonder why BFC allowed RPGs to be shot from realy overcrowded buildings in CMSF but dissallows the same for a 2 man team in CMBN.

Could it be that propellant technology has changed over the years? Just saying stuff that comes to the top of my mind.

[MikeyD]

Awhile ago I had located a cool weblink to a PDF of a Normandy-timeframe US manual on urban combat techniques. But I'll be darned if I can relocate it. Anyone who is familiar with the site I'd appreciate seeing the link again. It *might* cover to do's and don'ts of zook use in buildings.

About CMSF, I know they specifically model the interior-firing-safe model AT-4CS which fire a saltwater countermass out the back. You really don't want to fire a standard AT-4 recoilless rifle in a building.

The little M72 LAW is said to have a 'danger' backblast area of 15m and another 25mm 'caution' zone behind that. Total backblast area extends a full 70m. I believe CMSF fields the special FFE "fire from enclosure" version for the game. Otherwise those weapons whould be under restrictions too.

[dieseltaylor]

The little M72 LAW is said to have a 'danger' backblast area of 15m and another 25mm 'caution' zone behind that.

Who would think an inch makes that much difference ? .......

- well in this particular use : )

[Sergei]

About CMSF, I know they specifically model the interior-firing-safe model AT-4CS which fire a saltwater countermass out the back. You really don't want to fire a standard AT-4 recoilless rifle in a building.

I doubt that. The US Army version is called just M136 AT-4, and the manual doesn't mention anything about CS. Meanwhile the British ILAW is, according to the manual, a CS variant. I don't think CMSF was ever meant to model what could be fired from indoors and what couldn't, hence everything can, including SMAW and RPG-29. I don't think you'd want to fire an RPG-29 from indoors in real life... a 105mm rocket that burns out while inside the launcher tube. And even SMAW has a backblast that is dangerous up to 90 meters.

The comparison of CMSF and CMBN in this regard simply isn't fruitful. CMSF came first and therefore it also doesn't have as many features as CMBN, like tanks being able to crush low walls. Or different AT weapons having limitations on indoor use.

[Sgt Schultz]

Nice lateral thinking. The only trouble is, as soon as I see any rubble with intact walls within them I'll blast the area with HE from my tanks to ensure there's no infantry within them. The beauty of allowing Panzerfaust armed infantry the ability to fire from buildings (as I contend should be the case), is that the enemy never knows which building, if any, there might be AT equipped infantry lurking within. Your clevel modelling of modified rubble simply waves the red flag... over here!... over here! It simply shouldn't be necessary.

Regards

KR

I completely agree that we should be able to use AT weapons from buildings. Until such a time is upon us, we work with what we have. I ask for tweaks, then find a work-around until it is no longer needed.

You are of course correct that if these positions were just sprinkled here and there it would be a give-away.

I have started designing all my structures in such a way(half-tile placement) that almost ALL buildings on the map can be wall-wrapped in at least one place.

This can lead to very nice fighting positions being created by the enemy through artillery attacks on standing buildings. These fall, sometimes leaving the wrapped walls behind. Just like in RL.

We cannot fire AT from structures. Yet. It is up to the map makers to help give the defenders a chance, until Charles & Co can help us. Tactics can only take you so far, and can cost uneeded casualties.

-------

Now of course, once we DO gain the ability to fire AT from inside, we will all have to discard a lot of hard-learned tactics that will no longer be applicable.

But we will have such nice fortified structures to fire from.

And nothing lasts forever, not even a good firing postion...

[Hilts]

Firstly, thanks to all who offered tips and advice. I don't know if AT weapons were fired from buildings or not but I would like to bet that alot were as desperate times usually call for desperate measures. What I do know is that in my opinion urban warfare is not as much fun or as realistic in BN as it was in AK/BB due mainly to the inability to fire AT weapons from buildings. I don't think it has made the game more realistic because it seems evident that one or two gamey tactics have to be employed to get around the problem.

Anyway, here's the situation then. I have a squad of five men in a street, one of whom has a pzfaust on his back. Directly around the corner I know there is a Sherman facing away down the street. I am unable to say whether he is buttoned up or not due to smoke (not that it makes that much difference). I want to try and get a shot off with the pzfaust up the tanks rear. We all know that I can't simply move to the corner of the building to shoot so it's going to involve running out into the middle of the road and trying to get a shot off before the tank rotates it's turret and blows my squad to oblivion. The question is what movement order to give? Crawl, hunt, run? Do I need to issue a target arc? Do I need to pause and then run back and will my PF soldier get his weapon ready and fired before the tank fires or will they just fire small arms as has happened previously? Cheers.

[GreenAsJade]

There have been pages and page about whether we should be able to fire AT from inside a building, yet this all misses the point... all misses the terrible flaw in CMBN for urban: you can't peek around a corner and fire.

The problem is nothing to do with firing from within a building. Solving one unrealistic problem with an unrealistic solution isn't the answer.

Making the troops able to fire around the corner... just like Hilts is asking for... _that_ is the missing "realism".

GaJ

[Hilts]

There have been pages and page about whether we should be able to fire AT from inside a building, yet this all misses the point... all misses the terrible flaw in CMBN for urban: you can't peek around a corner and fire.

The problem is nothing to do with firing from within a building. Solving one unrealistic problem with an unrealistic solution isn't the answer.

Making the troops able to fire around the corner... just like Hilts is asking for... _that_ is the missing "realism".

GaJ

Agree +1 .......It's possible to drive a tank to corner, peek around and fire down a street, why can't we do it with a two man schreck team or a sniper?

[para]

There have been pages and page about whether we should be able to fire AT from inside a building, yet this all misses the point... all misses the terrible flaw in CMBN for urban: you can't peek around a corner and fire.

The problem is nothing to do with firing from within a building. Solving one unrealistic problem with an unrealistic solution isn't the answer.

Making the troops able to fire around the corner... just like Hilts is asking for... _that_ is the missing "realism".

GaJ

+1 That would make me very happy

[Vanir Ausf B]

Agree +1 .......It's possible to drive a tank to corner, peek around and fire down a street, why can't we do it with a two man schreck team or a sniper?

I think it's because we can't place infantry in an exact spot like you can vehicles. I have a hunch that the action spot system may make peeking around corners for infantry difficult to implement. I don't know how you would do it without requiring a specific command, but bigger brains than mine may think of a way.

[A Canadian Cat]

Making the troops able to fire around the corner... just like Hilts is asking for... _that_ is the missing "realism".

GaJ

+1 as well

[A Canadian Cat]

The question is what movement order to give? Crawl, hunt, run? Do I need to issue a target arc? Do I need to pause and then run back and will my PF soldier get his weapon ready and fired before the tank fires or will they just fire small arms as has happened previously? Cheers.

Here is my 2 cents. First split the squad - split off the AT team. Send the team running into the smoke. Have them move through the smoke. That way they will stop once they are clear of the smoke. Give them a face command towards the tank on that way point then add a pause to that way point. I would vote for 10 to 15 s pause. I worry that 5s would be too short. Then have them fast to cover.

The rest of the squad can help too. Try to have them flank the tank. If they can get far enough alone the side they can distract the tank and button it up. Plus of this goes well it would be good to have some available fire power to deal with any Rambo tank crews:-)

[A Canadian Cat]

I think it's because we can't place infantry in an exact spot like you can vehicles. I have a hunch that the action spot system may make peeking around corners for infantry difficult to implement.

True, that makes it difficult. But I think it can be done. Right now when you position a squad against the wall of the building they are in an excellent hiding position. I think if we add the ability to let the face command do a sensible thing we could easily get guys peaking around the corner.

So, right now if your guys are in a building and you give them a face command outside the building in the street to the left they will position them selves such that they look out the windows on the left side of the building. Give them a face to the street on the right and they look out the right side windows.

What I would suggest is make the face command for guys outside a building in the action spot next to the wall do something sensible too. If you give them a face command down the street on the left they then shift, along the wall, to the left and have two or three guys peak around the corner. Facing down the street. Same for a face command into the street on the right side - they shift right and two or three guys peak around the other corner. Now if you split your AT team off the squad they can be given the face command and now your two man AT team are peaking around the corner. Woe to any tank that comes by:)

[Hilts]

What I would suggest is make the face command for guys outside a building in the action spot next to the wall do something sensible too. If you give them a face command down the street on the left they then shift, along the wall, to the left and have two or three guys peak around the corner. Facing down the street. Same for a face command into the street on the right side - they shift right and two or three guys peak around the other corner. Now if you split your AT team off the squad they can be given the face command and now your two man AT team are peaking around the corner. Woe to any tank that comes by:)

[slysniper]

Here is my 2 cents. First split the squad - split off the AT team. Send the team running into the smoke. Have them move through the smoke. That way they will stop once they are clear of the smoke. Give them a face command towards the tank on that way point then add a pause to that way point. I would vote for 10 to 15 s pause. I worry that 5s would be too short. Then have them fast to cover.

The rest of the squad can help too. Try to have them flank the tank. If they can get far enough alone the side they can distract the tank and button it up. Plus of this goes well it would be good to have some available fire power to deal with any Rambo tank crews:-)

I tried something similar to this and did not like the end result.

I had two enemy tanks pass infantry hiding behind bldg. , I then smoked the tanks and after the smoke was developed, moved the infantry out to use its faust, so it was likely a 4 or 5 man team. Figured they would be able to get a ass shot before the tank would spot or pivot. The infantry moved up to the next action spot with the hunt command but never spotted either tank. The tank spots the infantry, turns and machine guns them down. So smoke was in play, 4 or 5 guys cannot spot or find a Sherman, but that buttoned up tank spots the infantry in the smoke and has time to turn without the grunts seeing a thing.

I just pretend, just like I did in the cmX1 days what might have really happened there. But the game still has features in its programming that makes some aspects very unrealistic. That tactic should have worked. But spotting numbers are too high for tanks vs infantry and too low for infantry vs tanks.

And I cannot figure why these things were not a easy fix in the programming, it should just takes some type of number adjustment. But the Beta video for this next release so far appears that they have not adjusted or changed these type of issues.

I sure hope they still do not think they have it right.

[Macisle]

As some others have said, I don't think this is a question of backblast weapons being allowed to fire in buildings (they shouldn't be allowed to). It is a question of map design. Current maps do not reflect the amount of cover and concealment in urban terrain. Just as importantly, they tend to give vehicles lots of maneuver room.

I've never used the scenario editor before, but I jumped in tonight to start work on an urban combat test map. I just had time for a couple of buildings, but my plan is to make a full street segment to work with. I've got to log off and hit the hay, but here is a screenie from my first test.

Macisle