mg Posted September 27, 2000 Share Posted September 27, 2000 Ive found out that it IS possible to place atguns inside a building when creating a battle in the scenarioeditor. This is how you do it: First place the gun on the map using the previewoption, then place a building (ive only used heavybuilding yet)over the gun. It takes some patience to set it up but i guess it could be worth it. If someone is interested i have some screenshots of this wonderful experiment /mattias Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pascal DI FOLCO Posted September 27, 2000 Share Posted September 27, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mg: Ive found out that it IS possible to place atguns inside a building when creating a battle in the scenarioeditor. This is how you do it: First place the gun on the map using the previewoption, then place a building (ive only used heavybuilding yet)over the gun. It takes some patience to set it up but i guess it could be worth it. If someone is interested i have some screenshots of this wonderful experiment /mattias<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is an unexpected realism issue : given sufficient prep time, any AT gun could be manned inside buildings (with some HE to enlarge door openings perhaps ). Even when not voluntarily done so, CM is ALWAYS realistic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Reece Posted September 27, 2000 Share Posted September 27, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pascal DI FOLCO: This is an unexpected realism issue : given sufficient prep time, any AT gun could be manned inside buildings (with some HE to enlarge door openings perhaps ). Even when not voluntarily done so, CM is ALWAYS realistic <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'll bet the minute it's fired the building will take damage,blow up,or catch on fire,just like when a schreck or zook is fired from a house Dick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Oberst Posted September 27, 2000 Share Posted September 27, 2000 Panzerschrek and bazooka can start the fires due to the backblast of the rocket propellant. I would see no problem hiding a 50mm or a 75mm AT gun inside a building. After a few rounds your visibility might stink, but certainly no reason to light up the building. You'd probably want the tip of the barrel outside the structure though, to avoid any shock waves rattling the ceiling. This is all theory. Anyone know of military practices, and pros and cons? Too early to spell correctly... [This message has been edited by Herr Oberst (edited 09-27-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Reece Posted September 27, 2000 Share Posted September 27, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Herr Oberst: Panzerschrek and bazooka can start the fires due to the backblast of the rocket propellant. I would see no problem hiding a 50mm or a 75mm AT gun inside a building. After a few rounds your visibility might stink, but certainly no reason to light up the building. You'd probably want the tip of the barrel outside the structure though, to avoid any shock waves rattling the ceiling. This is all theory. Anyone know of military practices, and pros and cons? Too early to spell correctly... [This message has been edited by Herr Oberst (edited 09-27-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> All very true, I agree with you in theory.My point is that most likely the code doesn't differentiate as it should, because AT guns were not modeled to be in buildings.I'm saying that because of this,firing the gun inside the building will most likely yield the aforementioned results.Best way to find out is to test it, but I can't do that right now due to my current location. Dick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schugger Posted September 27, 2000 Share Posted September 27, 2000 That is really amazing what you folks manage to dig out I'd made some testings with a 50mm Pak and a Churchill VII ( without ammo ). You might imagine how many " Plings" and "Plongs" it took before something happened. However, the building were the Pak was located did not take any damage and it was a light one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Reece Posted September 27, 2000 Share Posted September 27, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Schugger: That is really amazing what you folks manage to dig out I'd made some testings with a 50mm Pak and a Churchill VII ( without ammo ). You might imagine how many " Plings" and "Plongs" it took before something happened. However, the building were the Pak was located did not take any damage and it was a light one.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That is great news,a real boon for scenario designers.Have you tested it with the other AT guns,76,88,etc., yet? This will be a real plus to scenario design,a large building could be turned into an awesome bunker complex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
:USERNAME: Posted September 27, 2000 Share Posted September 27, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Herr Oberst: You'd probably want the tip of the barrel outside the structure though, to avoid any shock waves rattling the ceiling. This is all theory. Anyone know of military practices, and pros and cons? [This message has been edited by Herr Oberst (edited 09-27-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I wouldnt worry about the ceiling being rattled. I would worry about the concussing of the crew. That muzzle would have to be out a window/door. One of the purposes of a shield for weapons with a muzzle break is to protect the crew. That blast from the muzzle is dangerous. German tankers would poke a muzzle into a building and fire to clear it. Didnt matter if it was HE or AP, the blast in a enclosed space is awful. I used to work with a guy that was under a M60 105mm main gun when it fired. He had permanent ringing in his ears for life. Lewis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maastrictian Posted September 27, 2000 Share Posted September 27, 2000 This is a very cool idea MG. Doing some very non-scientific off-the-cuff tests I found the following: 1. This really works! Not only can you put guns in buildings, but they get the standard protection (exposure is appropriate), They are harder to spot, and they can fire. The end of the gun does not need to be outside the building, but, as with infantry, the gun needs to be relatively close to the edge of the building. The gun never took casualties from its own fire. 2. It might not be that great an idea. The building they are in, while providing protection also "catches" shots. While an AT gun in a fox hole on flat open ground at 500m had many shots land infront or behind it. The gun in a building got hit by every shot simbly because every shot hit the building and affected the AT crew. OTOH, an AT gun in a building would likely be pretty much immune to small arty 105 and below. Didn't test that last bit, it only just occured to me. (note: "building" in this post means "heavy building") --Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted September 27, 2000 Share Posted September 27, 2000 I love it. The best part is, a building does not have a firing slit to be penetrated, so it is likely that a building will provide better cover than a pillbox!! Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Reece Posted September 27, 2000 Share Posted September 27, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: I love it. The best part is, a building does not have a firing slit to be penetrated, so it is likely that a building will provide better cover than a pillbox!! Jeff<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Carrying this a bit further, when the gun finally does go,there has to be collateral damage to MG's nearby,etc.Anybody tried this with a small SPGUN as yet, like the 105HC? This could be a great thing to use sparingly in scenario design. Dick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holdit Posted September 27, 2000 Share Posted September 27, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by :USERNAME:: I wouldnt worry about the ceiling being rattled. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's easy for you to say. You won't be the one that has to replaster the ceiling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juardis Posted September 27, 2000 Share Posted September 27, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dick Reece: I'll bet the minute it's fired the building will take damage,blow up,or catch on fire,just like when a schreck or zook is fired from a house Dick<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Nope. In the Nijmegen scenario, one of your tanks appears in a heavy building. I cannot move it out, I cannot destroy the walls. I can, and did, shoot from it. I destroyed one tank, I destroyed 2 buildings in an attempt to get a clear LOS to where the real battle was. So, not only can you put an AT gun in a building, you can put a tank in one as well. Of course, you'll never get it out either (unless maybe you use another tank to destroy the building...hmm...didn't think to try that) ------------------ Jeff Abbott Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mg Posted September 27, 2000 Author Share Posted September 27, 2000 Ok, further testing now shows that you can place pretty much ANYTHING inside a building. I even tried placing a Tiger inside and it works fine. One problem, though, is that when you place armor inside the building, the building wont get transculent(sp), anyway you cant see it, but its there. With guns thats not a problem, they is shown like regular squads. /Mattias This works for all (i think) terrain tiles, Ive tried rough, wood, tallpines and even a burning building (got a little dissapointed when the tank remained unaffected by the flames, it tried to move out from the building but didnt take any damage that i could see). [This message has been edited by mg (edited 09-27-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IntelWeenie Posted September 27, 2000 Share Posted September 27, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: I love it. The best part is, a building does not have a firing slit to be penetrated, so it is likely that a building will provide better cover than a pillbox!! Jeff<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ...until the building collapses! Still, this looks pretty good if you're only worried about small arms and small (less than 75mm) tank guns. Hmm, the Pak40 in the casino basement at Ouistreham (from the movie "The Longest Day") comes to mind. ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SF Posted September 27, 2000 Share Posted September 27, 2000 any problems with the gun changing facing? of more than like 15-20 degree's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Madmatt Posted September 27, 2000 Share Posted September 27, 2000 This isn't really anything new guys. I first talked about the possibilities of doing this with bunkers months ago. You can place a bunker and then go back to the editor and drop a building on top. I did this for a POTD that showed a a church that had a AT bunker on each corner. Charles left this in when I first noticed it for exactly this sort of freedom it gives Scenario Designers. There are some other secrets in the Editor, you will just need to find them! Madmatt ------------------ If it's in Combat Mission, it's on Combat Mission HQ! Combat Mission HQ CMHQ-Annex, The Alternative side of Combat Mission CMHQ-Annex Host of the Combat Mission WebRing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milt Smegma Posted September 27, 2000 Share Posted September 27, 2000 >>There are some other secrets in the Editor, you will just need to find them! Why keep them secret? please enlighten us so that we will be able to create better scenarios... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpinard Posted October 2, 2000 Share Posted October 2, 2000 Matt, what other secrets? Please, pretty please, give us another secret! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScoutPL Posted October 3, 2000 Share Posted October 3, 2000 Anybody else thing this is extremely gamey? Not that AT guns werent placed in buildings, they certainly were, but with certain constraints. Size of the building vs. size of the gun being the most obvious. Some of those larger guns had 6-8 man crews and a butt load of ammo, caissons, and other support equipment. Look around your living room sometime. Can you imagine putting an AT gun that was at least 20 ft+ in length in there, and still have room to serve it? We wont even go into Tanks and pillboxes. Knock down a wall or two in any structure and you're going to have the roof falling on your head. Take out a wall to provide a wider covered arc (otherwise you're limited to a window or doorway) and you just ruined the element of surprise because your building will look different from all the others. I know there are alot of guys who get their jollies from figuring out how to beat the program, and probably a few on this particular post, but for anyone who may be concerned about reality checks this definately needs to go in the ask the scenario designer where he falls on historical/ahistorical issues file. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest *Captain Foobar* Posted October 3, 2000 Share Posted October 3, 2000 Scout, the only way another player could exploit this against you, is if HE makes the scenario and asks you to play it against him. I only play blind scenarios, so I'm not worried. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts