Wiggum15 Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 (edited) Hi ! After playing some scenarios i have the feeling that Rubble gives more cover then the building itselfe. I dont have any facts, tests or savegames but i just have the feeling that this is the case. For example i had russian infantry in rubble getting shot at with HE-I for many turns and two strafing runs from a Attack helicopter, they survived ! What do you think about rubble ? Edited March 31, 2015 by Wiggum15 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emccabe Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 I think it might , honestly I thought I was the only one who noticed this 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoMac Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 And I hope Rubble does gives more cover...as it should. Joe 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiggum15 Posted March 31, 2015 Author Share Posted March 31, 2015 Not sure if it should, at least not against strafing runs from a Attack helicopter or airburst rounds. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCE_Spr Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Definitely would provide more concealment. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IICptMillerII Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 I do not know exactly what it is like in game, but I do know that the rubble of buildings generally does provide more cover and concealment than the building itself. (Concealment when in the rubble) The battle of Grozny in the First Chechen War is a great case study of this. The Russians bombed and shelled the city to ruins and then moved their tanks and infantry in, but it actually gave the Chechen fighters better positions to ambush the Russians due to all of the rubble. Stalingrad is another example, if a bit older. The city was flattened, but this ended up aiding the defenders more. The Soviets learned a lot during that battle that went on to influence how they fought in urban conditions for the remainder of the war and after. they essentially wrote their urban warfare doctrine based on what happened in Stalingrad. It does seem like it should be the other way around, but there are a lot of battles that you can look into as case studies as to why rubble is actually better cover/concealment. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan/california Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Rubble is denser, with more small pockets, and enough ventilation to reduce overpressure issues. The physics make sense to me. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiggum15 Posted March 31, 2015 Author Share Posted March 31, 2015 But ingame there are differend buildings. Iam for example talking about wooden buildings. Rubble from this kind of structure should give very little cover. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IICptMillerII Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 But ingame there are differend buildings. Iam for example talking about wooden buildings. Rubble from this kind of structure should give very little cover. A good point. What weapon systems are you using? I would imagine that wooden rubble would still be pretty good protection from most small arms fire, but would likely not be very effective against a direct tank shell or artillery landing on top of the destroyed structure. Can you elaborate? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thewood1 Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 I suspect that there might not be a distinction between rubble from different types of buildings from a cover standpoint. From a concealment standpoint, probably not a huge amount in real life. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiggum15 Posted March 31, 2015 Author Share Posted March 31, 2015 A good point. What weapon systems are you using? I would imagine that wooden rubble would still be pretty good protection from most small arms fire, but would likely not be very effective against a direct tank shell or artillery landing on top of the destroyed structure. Can you elaborate? The nasty stuff, 30mm HE-I. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IICptMillerII Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 I suspect that there might not be a distinction between rubble from different types of buildings from a cover standpoint. From a concealment standpoint, probably not a huge amount in real life. I believe that this is the case. The game simulates all rubble in the same manor. I am not a developer so there is no way of knowing for sure, but this suggestion does seem the most likely. It could be that this is addressed in future updates/modules, but for now it looks like you may have to clean out those destroyed buildings the old fashion way. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sublime Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 I do not know exactly what it is like in game, but I do know that the rubble of buildings generally does provide more cover and concealment than the building itself. (Concealment when in the rubble) The battle of Grozny in the First Chechen War is a great case study of this. The Russians bombed and shelled the city to ruins and then moved their tanks and infantry in, but it actually gave the Chechen fighters better positions to ambush the Russians due to all of the rubble. Stalingrad is another example, if a bit older. The city was flattened, but this ended up aiding the defenders more. The Soviets learned a lot during that battle that went on to influence how they fought in urban conditions for the remainder of the war and after. they essentially wrote their urban warfare doctrine based on what happened in Stalingrad. It does seem like it should be the other way around, but there are a lot of battles that you can look into as case studies as to why rubble is actually better cover/concealment. Stalingrad was the first thing I thought of when you said this. The German aerial bombardment turned out to really screw them up when trying to seize Stalingrad. A classic military blunder. It makes sense in a lot of ways when you think about rubble vis a vis buildings - in buildings you have walls and windows and doors for men to shoot out of. So if your firing on people in a building you have an idea of where they're going to fire from, whereas rubble is just a random shape of... rubble where men could be firing from any spot or behind anything. The building in question also has to be taken into account. I *never* use barns or those tiny little side sheds by buildings in game they're absolute death traps. Even in the WW2 titles your men are swiss cheese in them and I honestly would rather have them in open ground a little spread out than in one of those buildings. However the polar opposite is the gigantic Soviet era concrete modular buildings like you see in the factory area in the fourth (and for me last) US campaign mission. Those provide great cover - **SPOILER** * * * * * * * A good example in the US fourth mission is being warned of an impending Russian barrage which turns out to be the shellacking from hell. That said in those buildings with everyone on hide to keep their head down I suffered relatively light casualties - about 5-10 men with light wounds and another 5-10 killed or incapacitated. Of course the few US troops I had keep their heads up got it bad, and there was a couple of buildings that were concrete and went up say 14 stories. Anyone in the first ten stories had no damage whatsoever except for one freak incident where a sniper was killed by a round slamming into the side of the building (artillery) instead of the top. The group with the most dead and heavily wounded was the SAW team on the 13th floor, presumably with less overhead cover. And the Ukrainians in the mission. The poor bastards really took a beating and all the UKR vehicles in the mission got wiped down by the Russians even in ambush positions. I got insanely pissed when a BMP I had behind a building in a keyhole position to shoot at very close to a 90 degree angle any Russian armor passed by was killed. A Russian BMP rolled up. Slammed the brakes. Turned the turret and blasted the green UKR BMP to pieces and the UKR BMP never even actually ID'D the Russian BMP. -sigh- 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IICptMillerII Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 Stalingrad was the first thing I thought of when you said this. The German aerial bombardment turned out to really screw them up when trying to seize Stalingrad. A classic military blunder. It makes sense in a lot of ways when you think about rubble vis a vis buildings - in buildings you have walls and windows and doors for men to shoot out of. So if your firing on people in a building you have an idea of where they're going to fire from, whereas rubble is just a random shape of... rubble where men could be firing from any spot or behind anything. The building in question also has to be taken into account. I *never* use barns or those tiny little side sheds by buildings in game they're absolute death traps. Even in the WW2 titles your men are swiss cheese in them and I honestly would rather have them in open ground a little spread out than in one of those buildings. However the polar opposite is the gigantic Soviet era concrete modular buildings like you see in the factory area in the fourth (and for me last) US campaign mission. Those provide great cover - **SPOILER** * * * * * * * A good example in the US fourth mission is being warned of an impending Russian barrage which turns out to be the shellacking from hell. That said in those buildings with everyone on hide to keep their head down I suffered relatively light casualties - about 5-10 men with light wounds and another 5-10 killed or incapacitated. Of course the few US troops I had keep their heads up got it bad, and there was a couple of buildings that were concrete and went up say 14 stories. Anyone in the first ten stories had no damage whatsoever except for one freak incident where a sniper was killed by a round slamming into the side of the building (artillery) instead of the top. The group with the most dead and heavily wounded was the SAW team on the 13th floor, presumably with less overhead cover. And the Ukrainians in the mission. The poor bastards really took a beating and all the UKR vehicles in the mission got wiped down by the Russians even in ambush positions. I got insanely pissed when a BMP I had behind a building in a keyhole position to shoot at very close to a 90 degree angle any Russian armor passed by was killed. A Russian BMP rolled up. Slammed the brakes. Turned the turret and blasted the green UKR BMP to pieces and the UKR BMP never even actually ID'D the Russian BMP. -sigh- Exactly. I think the only issue (bug possibly) is that all types of rubble provide the same cover advantage, where in real life a bombed out urban area would provide much better protection and concealment that a single destroyed wooden house would. However I have not noticed this to be a problem at all. I would rather have rubble provide good cover as a standard then not. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 But ingame there are differend buildings. Iam for example talking about wooden buildings. Textures are just textures. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiggum15 Posted April 3, 2015 Author Share Posted April 3, 2015 DOes the game modell differend buildings add all ? (wooden/brick) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AttorneyAtWar Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 DOes the game modell differend buildings add all ? (wooden/brick) Yeah it definitely does, stone buildings are far tougher than barns and all that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Warrior Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 Oh yea. Don't think it dose. Read about the battle of Monte Cassino during WW2. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiggum15 Posted April 3, 2015 Author Share Posted April 3, 2015 (edited) Im still not convinced that rubble should give more cover then a intact building. Just because there are examples of troops dug in rubble and putting up a hardcore defense does not mean that rubble gives you more cover against bullets, artillery fire or airstrikes. Oh and i think thats the whole point, rubble can be great cover if you have time to dig in and fortify your positions but thats not in the CM scale. So when i level a building soldiers who are in that rubble should not be as protected and dug in as the green devils in Monte Cassino... Edited April 3, 2015 by Wiggum15 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thewood1 Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 Oh yea. Don't think it dose. Read about the battle of Monte Cassino during WW2. I'm sorry, what are you talking about? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 Air burst some artillery over rubbled buildings and then get back to us on whether or not they provide better cover. DOes the game modell differend buildings add all ? (wooden/brick) Different building models / sizes offer different cover. Textures are just textures. The same modular building can have brick or wood textures. Cover offered does not change. You cannot determine cover offered by a building based on its material texture. I haven't tested this thoroughly, but I think there are two parallel and overlapping hierachies: 1. barns --> houses --> commercials --> modulars --> churches 2. small --> large 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mord Posted April 3, 2015 Share Posted April 3, 2015 I'm sorry, what are you talking about? I think what he is saying is that if you don't think rubble provides decent protection, read about what the Allies dealt with at Monte Casino. Mord. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.