Infantry Not Close Assaulting/Grenading Tanks From Bldgs

[Sublime]

I'd had experience before GL where I mistakenly would place infantry in buildings expecting them to throw grenades on tanks or attack them from buildings. Obviously this never happened and in reading the British side briefing for Men with Suspicious Hats the briefing notes that infantry will not CA tanks from inside buildings - it has to be done from the street.

Now with schrecks or bazookas, I will take my chances with a street run. Even though I wont be happy about it. And Im with the crowd for fausts being used in buildings. But I really think that this should be looked at/reconsidered. Infantry I think should be able to CA tanks from buildings - if nothing else for balance's sake and since the throwing of the grenade is an abstraction anyways what does it matter? Perhaps the chance of infantry attacking could be lowered unless the tank is stationary, and perhaps in conjunction to their height relative to the tank (higher chance if the tank is stationary and they're above it..)

Just a thought.

[mjkerner]

Even though he's defending against my FJ attack in that scenario atm, I completely agree with Sublime. I hope they integrate CA from buildings, at least with grenades and satchel charges. BFC is gonna have to by MG, right?

[MeatEtr]

I disagree, think about, go stand at your window and imagine a tank about 20m away or so. Now can you really get a satchel or grenade on it? You may be able to get a grenade to land near the tracks. I'm guessing satchels probably weigh considerable more too, fat chance getting that thing near the tank.

The abstraction effect makes sense to make it impossible from within the safety of a building. Since the tossing of grenades/satchels is essentially the action of the soldiers climbing up on the tank and placing the charge where it can disable or destroy it.

But as a fan of the old CMx1 days of CA from a building existed. How about a middle ground, reduced effectiveness and range when throwing grenades/satchels from a building. But then we'd have people complaining about their pixel truppen wasting satchels/grenades. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

But the good thing about CMx2 over CMx1 in this regard is that you can split off a AT team from within the squad to make the daring CA of the tank.

[Jack Ration]

Would be interesting to experiment the satchel throw, or non-throw, with a leader present. My general observation is if you want the troops to do something really hairy you need a leader to give them some encouragement!

[womble]

I disagree, think about, go stand at your window and imagine a tank about 20m away or so. Now can you really get a satchel or grenade on it? You may be able to get a grenade to land near the tracks. I'm guessing satchels probably weigh considerable more too, fat chance getting that thing near the tank.

Think again. How hard is it to drop a satchel charge onto the engine deck from Level 2? Realise that demo charges can be thrown at least 30m when the pTruppe is outside. Accept that close assault has any number of abstractions included in it already. Not being able to CA from within a building is inconsistent with the range and possibilities of CA when your troops are outside the building.

[76mm]

This issue obviously depends on the nature of the urban area--in the center of many old european towns and cities, the streets are narrow enough that you could essentially drop a satchel charge, not throw it. On the other hand, in other areas where streets are wider, you might have to leave the building (and then again, for whatever reason the tank could be right next to the building).

[poesel]

I can report one(1) incident of a soldier throwing a grenade out of a house at a tank (he missed, though). I was a bit (positivly) surprised especially since I had ordered him to stay out of the house for exact that reason. He may have been a bit stressed.

So has that really changed in GL or was that a one time bug? I really would like to know because that obviously changes a LOT.

[Sublime]

Meatetr - as i stated the grenade throw is heavily abstracted anyways. I think it really needs to be done for BALANCE as I said. As it is, since we're playing a game, infantry can't do all the things infantry would do in real life to take cover, peek around corners, etc. This means if you're in the open street you'll almost certainly be gunned down 90% of the time without a PIAT/Faust/Schreck/Zook.

And Poesel - are you sure? That's interesting. Before this i always assumed infantry would simply attack tanks that way. But now I think I cant remember infantry ever attacking a tank from inside, and I remember a memorable CMFI scenario where an opponent (new) bought a super armor heavy force. I bought a infantry/ATG force. Brewed up a few tanks. He rushed his into town, I was gleeful thinking he was done. Well my men shot rifle grenades.. which did nothing to shermans. The shermans were literally sitting outside the houses with my men, who did nothing.. for several turns. I had to surrender. I ran about half my men out in small groups to CA tanks, all were killed... quickly.

[SelfLoadingRifle]

Many years ago, I had to throw Molotov Cocktails at an old open topped scout car (non-runner) as part of my FIBUA (fighting in built up areas) training. We lit and threw our Molotovs from a first-floor window. The scout car was about 20 yards away. I recall that it was quite a difficult exercise.

I managed to connect, but (alas) was not quite accurate enough to score a bullseye and lob it through the open top.

My extremely limited experience would suggest that chucking things accurately at vehicles from buildings is rather hard, even when they are not shooting back at you.

Happy days!

SLR

[76mm]

We lit and threw our Molotovs from a first-floor window. The scout car was about 20 yards away. I recall that it was quite a difficult exercise.

I agree that throwing a molotov cocktail (or grenade, etc.) twenty yards from a first floor window would be very difficult. But dropping one from the second or third floor into a scout car right beneath you on a narrow European street would be much easier.

[poesel]

And Poesel - are you sure? That's interesting.

Yup - next turn he did it again and this time he hit.

Proof:

Hey BFC - if you change something to what we want it doesn't hurt to tell us

[Sublime]

Wow! Ok now this is bizarre! Why would the design notes for the scenario in the latest iteration of CM say otherwise?? I wonder if it's only possible from first floor...? Or somehow only Germans?

[MeatEtr]

Think again. How hard is it to drop a satchel charge onto the engine deck from Level 2? Realise that demo charges can be thrown at least 30m when the pTruppe is outside. Accept that close assault has any number of abstractions included in it already. Not being able to CA from within a building is inconsistent with the range and possibilities of CA when your troops are outside the building.

I try not to think too much, it hurts ! But don't you think there should be some distinction from a unit CAing from within a building and in the open? IMO they should not be treated the same. Like I mentioned already, they should be capable of it but at reduced effectiveness.

But anyways, based on poesels screenie, it is possible. Apparently at reduced effectiveness and certainly at reduced frequency. Since at least I don't ever recall seeing it myself.

[ASL Veteran]

Wow! Ok now this is bizarre! Why would the design notes for the scenario in the latest iteration of CM say otherwise?? I wonder if it's only possible from first floor...? Or somehow only Germans?

The design notes start off by saying "As of this writing" so it must have been changed at some point after the note was added.

[Sublime]

ASL - Makes sense. But still strange. GL is the latest release. You'd think as of this writing would imply around the release or soon before. Thats a pretty major change. Especially in the scenario mentioned as all you have as Brits defending is

SPOILER &***********************

Piats and infantry to CA. The briefing specifically warns you they wont CA from inside buildings. I still want some grog to volunteer to do a test so we all know one way or another. Im not doing it, just so everyone gets that off their minds

[Ranger33]

This is one of my big irks with the engine and one the reasons I'm not playing the WW2 games for now. In CMSF it's absolutely suicidal for an armored vehicle to drive down a narrow street with buildings on each side. In CMBN/CMFI, a single tank, even without supporting infantry, is practically invincible in that situation, unless facing PIATs. Two tanks? Forget about it. You might as well pull all your infantry out of the town.

[Sublime]

Well its iffy. It seems now that maybe infantry do CA from buildings. However Ill take on tanks in an urban enviroment all day with fausts and schrecks. Or even zooks. A quick order perpendicular to the tank - from one bldg to another. Most of the time one of the team members will stop, shoot, and start running again. Works pretty well.

[akd]

Yup - next turn he did it again and this time he hit.

Proof:

[url=http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/827/housegrenade.png/

Hey BFC - if you change something to what we want it doesn't hurt to tell us

Troops will throw grenades at open-top AFVs from buildings. This is not new. Humber LRC must be considered open-topped.

[sburke]

I have been playing around quite a bit with urban environments. If you have a good map that isn't just a bunch of buildings plonked down in a row, infantry can actually do fairly well. And an AT rifle grenade is capable of doing damage. I recently had one inflict a crew casualty which then caused the tank to back down a street right into the sights of a shrek.

Another reason not to have an auto map generator.

[Battlefront.com]

This is one of my big irks with the engine and one the reasons I'm not playing the WW2 games for now. In CMSF it's absolutely suicidal for an armored vehicle to drive down a narrow street with buildings on each side. In CMBN/CMFI, a single tank, even without supporting infantry, is practically invincible in that situation, unless facing PIATs. Two tanks? Forget about it. You might as well pull all your infantry out of the town.

Hyperbole aside, it's not useful to compare Modern to WW2 when it comes to anti-armor capabilities. Might as well say "the reason I'm not playing WW2 games for now is my rifle Squads can't kill a King Tiger at 3500m first shot with 90% accuracy".

As a direct result of WW2 both sides of the Iron Curtain spent considerable amount of effort on extremely effective anti-armor weapons that could be handled by every day grunts. The latest, Javelin, didn't come out of thin air. Neither did the M-72 or the RPG-7. They came about specifically because of deficiencies in WW2 on the Allied side more so than the German side. Though both sides saw the need for improvement.

When playing CMSF you see what those improvements are. Each and every Squad in CMSF is inherently capable of killing about 3-6 AFVs at decent ranges. And that's with standard weaponry. The only Squad type in WW2 that has any chance of doing that on a regular basis is German ones armed with ample supplies of Panzerfausts. If you don't think that sort of basic difference in capability should show up when playing Modern vs. WW2... well... I dunno what to say!

In WW2 AFVs ran into trouble in urban environments only when they ventured in without adequate infantry protection. Because if the enemy infantry couldn't get in real close, then they had little chance of causing harm. And "real close" doesn't mean being able to chuck a single hand grenade out a 3rd story window at a tank that's going 10mph down the street. I'm talking about infantry being able to dash out of a building and put a prepared bundle of explosives on the back deck of a moving tank or something similar.

In Modern times this is also true, but the amount of infantry that you need to protect AFVs goes up dramatically because it's not good enough to suppress a weapons team or one Squad that happens to be close and has the balls to direct assault. Nope, you need to basically suppress EVERY enemy unit all the time at significant ranges too.

So yeah... WW2 AFVs *should* have a *much* easier time in an urban environment compared to Modern times. At least when all tactical situations are equal.

I'm not saying that CM's WW2 environment is perfectly simulated (it isn't), but it isn't that far off the mark. Unless you think WW2 should be about the same as Modern, in which case we're simply going to have to disagree.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Note that there are very few examples of German armored formations engaging in poorly supported thrusts into urban environments. There are quite a few, especially in the East, of Allied forces getting spanked hard in urban warfare. Vets of those battles will say that it was the Panzerfaust that made all the difference. If someone wants to do a fun experiment, play an urban battle where the defender has only a handful of Allied infantry and realistic amounts of AT weapons. Have the attacker be the same Allied force type, but combined arms with realistic proportions of infantry and tanks. See how well that goes, then have the same two players playing the same roles on the same maps with the same attacking units but the defender having the equivalent in German forces. Compare and contrast

Steve

[Vanir Ausf B]

WW2-era infantry certainly did have less potent anti-armor options than their more modern counterparts, but there are nevertheless two issues that artificially restrict them.

1) They cannot fire fausts, schrecks or bazookas from buildings. In reality these could be and were fired from buildings.

2) They cannot shoot around corners. Watch any footage of urban firefights in any era WW2 to the present and guys popping out around a building corner to fire and then back into cover is one of the most commonly seen images.

[poesel]

I'm talking about infantry being able to dash out of a building and put a prepared bundle of explosives on the back deck of a moving tank or something similar.

IME 'dashing' at a tank even a short distance never works. Fast movement will alert the (buttoned) tank crew. Without gun depression limits the tank can usually kill the attackers before they can throw 2-3 grenades - if they throw any at all. Sometimes they are so afraid of the close by tank that nothing happens and they just get killed.

OTOH crawling at a tank works much better. They also get killed but they tend to throw more grenades. Unless of course the tank drives away and the assault team mindlessly ends up in the middle of an empty street - crawled or ran. Very embarassing if the tank spots the team...

I would love to have the ability to dash a team with a grenade bundle at a tank and have them execute that maneuver. But currently you have to hope for the TacAI to throw the grenades.

Steve, would you care to comment if anything about 'grenades from buildings at tanks' has changed in GL? Or is it just what akd said and the target is an open topped vehicle?

[Sublime]

It's definitely the open topped vehicle thing. Ugh =(

Steve - any chance of a compromise? Since the CA is an abstraction couldn't there be a lower % or something (almost like how MG's take a lot longer to deploy in buildings) to simulate a man running out or popping around a corner? I feel there must be a compromise with no peeking around corners, and since our troops dont have the advantage of all the debris and other options they would in real life?

[womble]

Make the abstraction percentage vary with distance between cover and target; if the tank's parked right up against a window, side on, it takes a lot less courage to heave a mine onto its rear deck than if you've got to expose your tender bodily particles to fire while crossing the street... More chance of it going in the right place, too, if it's closer.