Buildings cover in MG... too good ?

[LRC]

Did anyone notice a change in building cover with the new MG.

I just played "Sacrifice for new religion" and I find that rifles/mg (at range 100m) are good only for suppression when unit are in some buildings.

[akd]

AFAIK, building cover was not changed in any way for MG. Small arms suppression increased in an earlier patch, so you may just be noticing that occupants are less likely to be exposed to incoming fire in windows.

Old world building construction (stone or multi-layer brick) is very resistant to rifle and pistol caliber fire.

[womble]

... rifles/mg (at range 100m) are good only for suppression when unit are in some buildings.

That has always been true, for some buildings, IME. It takes HE to kill or break units in the larger modular buildings. Especially if you're firing up at higher storeys.

[Holien]

Not too good IMO...

I think the right building would be the best place to defend from and a real hell of a place to take unless you have HE chuckers to encourage the defenders to leave...

Just my 2p...

For me this game is getting better an better with each release and this recent improvement and HMG fix have really moved it up a notch....

[SlowMotion]

Talking about chucking HE: I think it would be great if we could give a command to throw hand grenades and similar things to places where a unit does NOT have LOS. Like behind a bocage or wall. Now especially bocage gives too good cover IMO.

I don't think many real soldiers would stay behind hedgerow if they think enemy can start putting MG area fire to it. Or throw hand grenades.

[Michael Emrys]

It seems to me that possibly some of the new buildings in MG may be more robust than was the case with earlier iterations of the game, or in FI. For instance, I recently saw a three story stone building take multiple direct hits and multiple near misses from a battery of 8" guns with the only result being (finally!) the roof collapsed. Now, I could see it withstanding mortars of even light artillery, but 8" guns and howitzers are serious fortification busters.

I don't know how representative this is of the game in general, but I thought I'd pass it along.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

I don't think many real soldiers would stay behind hedgerow if they think enemy can start putting MG area fire to it. Or throw hand grenades.

Effectively hurling hand grenades over/through hedgerows may not be as easy as you are thinking. Especially if the troops on the other side are dug in.

Michael

[SlowMotion]

But now hedrows and similar LOS blocking things are like a magic shield that gives defending units much more protection than really was the case. If you think about the title of this thread, which one protects more IRL - a building or hedgerow? I surely wouldn't seek cover behind a hedgerow even if the threat was armed with just a pistol, let alone some automatic weapon.

[ASL Veteran]

But now hedrows and similar LOS blocking things are like a magic shield that gives defending units much more protection than really was the case. If you think about the title of this thread, which one protects more IRL - a building or hedgerow? I surely wouldn't seek cover behind a hedgerow even if the threat was armed with just a pistol, let alone some automatic weapon.

I think you might be confusing a garden hedge with a Normandy Hedgerow / Bocage. A Normandy hedgerow has a very large earth embankment topped by dense foliage that usually requires demolition charges to breach.

[mjkerner]

My P-truppen, especially the Germans it seems, have no trouble chucking hand grenades over bocage when close enough. And mg fire works very well in suppressing units behind it. I rarely use tank main guns on bocage anymore unless I can get a shot through an opening. Use Target Light.

[Michael Emrys]

I think you might be confusing a garden hedge with a Normandy Hedgerow / Bocage. A Normandy hedgerow has a very large earth embankment topped by dense foliage that usually requires demolition charges to breach.

And probably more often than not a stone wall at its core. They were ready-made fortified earthworks.

Michael

[MikeyD]

About buildings, I recall while doing building skins scouring Normandy area realtor listings online looking for a photo example of a stick-construction building with clapboard siding. All I could find was stone & brick, stone & brick. The only wartime era wood buildings I could locate were the old heavy beam & masonry type. And even they have stone & brick between the wooden beams! When I moved on to CMFI it was the same problem, not one wood building in Sicily (reliably pre-1946) of stick construction. Originally CMBN buildings stood up to small arms fires about as well as a modern American house would. But after player feedback the building material was taken into consideration and the structures turned into mini fortresses.

Bulge battle and eastern front? THEY should have proper wood buildings! Though rural eastern Europe does have some mighty sturdy 'log cabin' walled homes that look like they could take abuse.

[slysniper]

Buildings are pretty good defence now, as they should be. In general they seem about right.

Much better than when the game first came out, most players did not like them then. between then and now there has been many adjustments.

But I am glad they had the weak building protection in the early version. It taught me many things about how to use my units better in that type of enviroment. Now it is easy to get the defensive value out of buildings.

But are they too good, no I do not think many would agree with you on that.