Tanaka Posted August 12, 2000 Share Posted August 12, 2000 Hi ...I´ve been experiencing some odd action concerning building destruction. The case is: #1 - The CM models the buidings as an whole. The result can be, when a small gun (20 to 57 mm), hits a building for 60 sec in one EDGE, ALL building collapses. #2 -In CM there are any restraints to keep a player from destroying all buildings in the map (unless it runs out of ammo). This is a bigger problem in small and medium maps, because it is too easy to guess where the enemy forces are. I have seen the tactics of turning the scenery bald as a pool table. As you can imagine, this can be pretty annoying if your forces are mainly INF... The only solution is to place the men in the open behind the buildings and as you can guess, next is very difficult to advance. I don't think that the allied army were going around destroying every house, churche and alike every time they think there is a german inside --Yes, the USA would love the reconstruction $$$ As the things stand the best urban unit is the tank... as far as we keep it at safe distance from the enemy. I´ve always thought that the infantry was the queen of the city battle, not in CM I don't think the way that CM faces the building destruction can be changed (as a whole). But I would suggest that some how the armour of the buidings is increased. This will slow down the destruction of the buildings and prevent the destruction of the all scenery. In CM2 I hope that the buildings don´t go down as a whole ... we all know that the master walls in most of the cases don´t go down (see Stalingrado/Cassino/London/Dresden ... ) Thanks for your atention and your toughts would be welcame João Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted August 12, 2000 Share Posted August 12, 2000 I'm not sure many people would be willing to waste all their HE levelling every building on the map. And even then, rubble makes very good cover - any units inside a building when it collapses will take a few casualties, but afterwards the rubble is still a very attractive place to hide (and if you're playing Mark IV or TeAcH, just pile everyone into the rubble and they won't take a scratch! Sorry, couldn't resist). =P This is what is known as a gamey tactic. I'm not really sure it would be of much advantage to the person doing it, so you needn't really worry. The only problem would be if you're playing an unrealistic map where buildings are the only cover. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFCElvis Posted August 12, 2000 Share Posted August 12, 2000 "There are a lot of Krauts in that town. We have to get them out at all costs. Level the town if you have to but get them out." It could happen. In most cases though using your armor for nothing execpt trying to level buildings and nothing else is not using your resources to their fullest. But it is a very valid way flushing out your enemy. The closest I ever can to doing what you describe was I knocked own a couple of buildings to open up my LOS for the building I really wanted to target while I was moving infantry into postion. It worked very well. ------------------ "To conquer death you only have to die" JC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckeye Posted August 12, 2000 Share Posted August 12, 2000 The modelling of building damage is abstracted. The assumption is not that the entire building is obliterated, but that it crumbles gradually. The rubble left behind may include walls, and does obstract LOS at least partially. Remember, what you see in the graphics is just an abstraction. ------------------ "Don't lie to me, Gustav! You're a stinkin' Mac user!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted August 13, 2000 Share Posted August 13, 2000 Hi Joao, Brazilian by any chance? The simple solution in a typical fight is, don't hide in buildings. This is not as unrealistic as it seems, I believe. In a small village, a building has a target marker on it. I always spray them with HMGs, and if I have infantry support tanks, or arty, I just try to level them anyway. In the Commonwealth forces, that seemed to have been SOP (so-called 'Peppershots'). So you don't want to be in the buildings as defense. Your opponent still has to assume that you are in there and will waste ammo on it if you are not. To me, this is not a gamey tactic. By destroying the buildings, I destroy probable hiding and OP locations. I have read a lot of accounts UK practice, and this is as close as I get to having a prep barrage in CM. In a city fight, there are too many buildings to destroy, so this is not a problem, IMO. ------------------ Andreas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fangorn Posted August 13, 2000 Share Posted August 13, 2000 Being the player who made João post this message, I think I'll give my opinion: The fact that building destruction is indeed abstracted causes some problems. I only have LOS to a small corner of the secound level of a building, but I've destroyed all the building. I'm sure that will change in CM2. Best advice for now is to run as quick as you can when the building you're begin to get hit, and hide behind the building. David, From my experience, the infantry will suffer heavy casualties when the building collapses. It's the easier way to kill infantry in the game (IMHO). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaka Posted August 13, 2000 Author Share Posted August 13, 2000 Hi ... Thanks for your comments Now on I will only play in large and huge maps with low points ... This ,I think , will reduce the random fire. I still think that a bit more armor in buildings would improve village fight... Germanboy ---> sou Portugues João [This message has been edited by Tanaka (edited 08-12-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Formerly Babra Posted August 13, 2000 Share Posted August 13, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tanaka: Hi<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ohayo Gozaimasu, Tanaka-san. Hajimema****e? ------------------ It's a mother-beautiful bridge and it's gonna be THERE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted August 13, 2000 Share Posted August 13, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Formerly Babra: Ohayo Gozaimasu, Tanaka-san. Hajimema****e? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Tanaka-san ha, nihonjin janai to omoimasu. Saishou, burashirujin datta to omotta kedo, porutagarujin da itte, nihongo shaberareru ha chotto muzukashii to omoimasu. Gochirou sama de****a... Sorry for the really bad Japanese, it has been years. ------------------ Andreas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peterk Posted August 13, 2000 Share Posted August 13, 2000 > This is what is known as a gamey tactic. > I'm not really sure it would be of much > worth Au contraire, I can remember reading quite a few times that the US in particular would systematically level larger buildings to get rid of spotting locations. And at Arnhem, at the end of the battle, the German's destroyed buildings one by one with tanks at point-blank range to force the British out into the open. If your tanks are unopposed and don't have more pressing targets, I see it as a very effective use of your assets and not gamey at all. Plus, it's fun to watch buildings blow up! p. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts