marcusm Posted September 9, 2000 Share Posted September 9, 2000 Ok this has probably been discussed earlier but I'm still curious why it isn't possible to enter a small building with a tank if you wish to. In ASL it was possible thereby turning into a rubble (or immobilizing the AFV). Same goes for placing AT guns in buildings. It's possible in both CC and ASL. Marcu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted September 9, 2000 Share Posted September 9, 2000 I always thought it would be cool to put AT guns in small houses. ------------------ And if we abandon any platform, I can assure you it will not be the Macintosh. -Steve My website! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IPA Posted September 9, 2000 Share Posted September 9, 2000 Yes, I'd like to see both in CM. If it's too difficult to model inside buildings, then at least a patch allowing, these units to enter or if not, to be set up in rubble tiles (in the case of AT guns no movement allowed for the remainder of the battle). This has been discussed at length, I think a couple of weeks back. I think it was concluded that this would not be added (correct me if I'm wrong). IPA ------------------ "Surrender? Tell them to go to hell." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcusm Posted September 9, 2000 Author Share Posted September 9, 2000 What was the motivation behind that? I have personally seen a AFV crash into a stone building and continue. Marcus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IPA Posted September 9, 2000 Share Posted September 9, 2000 Sorry, I've got to check back. My mail was a quick reply, based on on the spot recollection. Though I've never personally seen an AFV crash through a building(watch out, the risk of damage to tanks when ramming issue might get mentioned again), it's a taken that for prepared positions, AT's or Tanks were set up inside buildings in ambush. I have several photographs of this in my WWII library, as I'm sure many other posters do. For crying out loud, who remembers Donald Sutherland crashing through buildings in a sherman near the end of "Kelly's Heroes"?! (Not really a very convincing source though ) IPA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilhammer Posted September 9, 2000 Share Posted September 9, 2000 Consider construction oriented demolition. Look around as you drive. My firm builds CVS drugstores all over the South East, and we typically demolish two or three buildings at each site, and this usually involves nothing more than a track hoe type excavator and a tracked Front End Loader. You sometimes take the FEL and just drive into the building to KO it, or use the hoe to grapple and pull the walls down while the FEL scoops the remains up. A typical masonry 1 story buiding about 5000 sqft in size can be demolished in about 5 minutes, and then you have about 30 minutes to clean it up. Thes vehicles have roll cages or glass/plexi cabins. Surely a fully armored tank could just drive write down the aisles. Many a WW2 combat story involves a tank hidden in a building with just a hole or a window for spotting and poking the barrel through. I am hopeful we will see it in a future install of a future CM game. [This message has been edited by Wilhammer (edited 09-09-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcusm Posted September 9, 2000 Author Share Posted September 9, 2000 Even easier with wooden buildings. Guess this is a tech decision. The CM buildings doesn't have partial rubble depiction. Marcus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark IV Posted September 9, 2000 Share Posted September 9, 2000 There is definitely a difference between pulling a building down with a backhoe, and ramming it with a tracked vehicle. Even pushing one over with a blade is executed slowly and carefully. Before a battle, anything's possible (I've seen photos of tanks concealed in buildings, too). During one, it's an iffy proposition, because the odds of throwing a track or damaging something else are high. Not saying it couldn't happen, but maybe the crew would have to go through the kind of morale checks an infantry squad does before it lets loose a Panzerfaust. Even then, the odds of immobilization would be high, especially on the heavier buildings. Tanks are made to resist things, not really to smash them. Tanks with dozer blades, on the other hand, could push over light single-story buildings, but all this sounds like a lot of code for a marginal feature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IPA Posted September 9, 2000 Share Posted September 9, 2000 For me, if crashing through buildings is considered too marginal a feature to add, then that sounds fine (the iffy proposition comment accepted). However again, what I would like to see is for the defender in the setup phase to be able to place AFV's and AT guns inside buildings with a no further movement penalty. Currently for the Defender, infantry automatically digs in,AFV's can dig in, mine fields and barbed wire can be laid, preset target references point designated. This all implies that CM is simulating that the defender has a certain amount of time to prepare defensive positions. So surely the same should apply to AFV and AT guns "dug in" to buildings (Carefully). The significance of the defensive advantages are surely not in question. IPA ------------------ "Surrender? Tell them to go to hell." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Michael emrys Posted September 9, 2000 Share Posted September 9, 2000 This subject came up, IIRC, about a year and a half ago. If you want to brave the wilds of the search engine, you can probably come up with the relevant threads. One point I recall was the risk of driving into a building that has a basement. Think about it. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcusm Posted September 10, 2000 Author Share Posted September 10, 2000 What should you search for then? I can think of million threads or so covering "AFV" . In any case, there's no other logical explanation than pure technical for ommitting those two features. Marcus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIA Posted September 10, 2000 Share Posted September 10, 2000 On the second day of the Team De-Sobres (sp?) operation I was suprised to find one of my shermans inside a building, I didn't see him during the setup so for the duration of the battle I had a blind and immobile tank. Most of my armor was destroyed that fateful day so I thanked my lucky stars that I had something to go hunting with that night, I sent him up the northern road with a Greyhound taking point, He was taken out by an unidentified infantry AT weapon and the Greyhound went on to destroy a Panther and a Tiger ( sitting beside each other blocking the road ) on the last round with forequarter hits! :0 ------------------ Manipulatum In Audare Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Michael emrys Posted September 10, 2000 Share Posted September 10, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by marcusm: What should you search for then? I can think of million threads or so covering "AFV" .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Might try Armor+Buildings. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In any case, there's no other logical explanation than pure technical for ommitting those two features.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Depends on whether you consider a disabled tank a "technical" issue. Here's the thing: even the placement of an AT gun in a building was historically a rare thing. BTS had to make a choice on what things to include and what to omit in the time they had available to design, code, and debug the game. They already had to deal with a howling pack of impatient potential customers (namely us) as it was. If they had put in every niggling item that we could possibly think of, we'd still be screaming, "It's been two ****in' years and still no CMBO!" You can't have it both ways. Maybe some day there will be time enough to include every possible eventuality from WW II. As for now, I feel that BTS has done an acceptable job of triage. They have included nearly all of the likely things that could happen in the time and place that the game occurs, and enough of the unlikely ones to give it flavor and keep play from becoming quickly stereotyped. I say this not to squelch criticism or inhibit suggestions for improvements, but just to try to keep matters in perspective. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oddball_E8 Posted September 10, 2000 Share Posted September 10, 2000 take it easy dudes... BTS will probarbly include it in CM2 or 3... til then just drink some wine, eat some cheese and catch some rays... you know... ------------------ Wof, wof, wof, wof... Thats my other dog impression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gen. Sosaboski Posted September 10, 2000 Share Posted September 10, 2000 I thought I had a Panther come through at least part of a light buidling as was defending (US forces), after he came charging down a road and got Ko'd by a 40mm AA gun. Couldn't stop and slammed right into the house where my surpised rifle squad chopped up the crew and infantry riding piggyback. Wish I saved the screenshot. Truly impressive watching it from ground level from the squad's view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IPA Posted September 10, 2000 Share Posted September 10, 2000 Check out this reply from BTS, way back in March 1999 (Thread was called "buildings", there are dozens of others). "ATs can be put inside buildings, but only ruined ones. This is realistic. Tanks can do this as well, but they will be hit with a MASSIVE time delay to get themselves out, and a decent chance of throwing a track. Tanks can crash into buildings, and cause damage, but can not drive through them. Hollywood and unrealistic games might have tanks driving through buildings (not shacks like in Russia!) and trees, but that is total nonsense. The chances of the tank getting stuck were a near certainty, it had to be done slowly (i.e. AT fodder!), generally multple runs at the building were needed, and it would fall into the basement if there was one." I guess it was never fully implemented (this statement was made very early in the development), but at least it was considered. IPA ------------------ "Surrender? Tell them to go to hell." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts