Why DO houses blow up?

[Lorak]

LOL.. Just a cesspool web site? Nay Lad. We're going to start a whole Cesspool web ring! Then we will Sart our oun Game!

"Cesspool Mission: Beyond the taunt"

And Our sound files wil be... ummm interesting.

....a quite foggy night, a lone squad making it's way to a woodline. All of the sudden the silence is rent by the sound a machine gun fire... " ahhh! you bloody twit! You've taken off me leg! May the pebbles of a thousand hamsters infest your filthy gob!"

Yes... twill be lovely...

web site indeed.

Lorak

------------------

"Do not wait to strike till the iron is hot; but make it hot by striking."--William Butler Yeats

Cesspool

[Col Deadmarsh]

David said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What has that got to do with it? You're suggesting that because you paid money for the game, BTS must continue working on it until you're happy?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No Dave, just until they fix this problem. Is it okay with you if I express an opinion? I didn't know I needed your approval first.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You paid for the groundbreaking, incredibly detailed, absorbing and generally wonderful game you already have. You'll get fancier buildings in CM2.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't care about fancier buildings. The buildings and explosions look great. I just want to be able to place my infantry in a house without it getting blown to bits before I can move them out of danger.

As it is right now, no house is safe. Every one of them crumbles to the ground when hit and this is not realistic, nor does it provide a better gaming experience.

------------------

No, it can't wait till CM2.

[Sgt.Morgue]

The building's blowing up graphic is a little to much , but it is better than when they use to just become rubble.

As far as colapsing to easy , i don't think so , being an x-tanker and having blown apart

many buildings and bunkers with a tanks main gun , i feel the number of rounds needed to destruct the buildings in CM is about right. Wooden buildings come down easy with a few hits , stone or brick buildings also with just a few more hits , only heavy reinforced concrete can take a lot of rounds from a tanks main gun and remain standing.

just my 2 cents worth of real life experince.

[Jagdwyrm]

As far as houses not taking much damage from 75mm HE ...well try it on your house and see how long it lasts all it takes is a support beam going and by by building

[Supertanker]

I have to agree that the current explosion is much better than the lack of explosion in the beta. Also, remember that the "shockwave" is meant to represent the expanding dust cloud, and it does not carry any damaging effects. Could it be better? Probably. Would I rather see TCP/IP done first? Yes. Do I care if they ever change the house explosion graphics? No.

Not having blown up any houses with a cannon, I will defer to Sgt. Morgue on the perception of durability. With regard to casualties, RTFM, as the one story buildings represent a one or two story building, and the two story buildings represent a three or four story building. If your men are in a four story building when it collapses, they are in for a world of hurt.

[David Aitken]

Colonel_Deadmarsh wrote:

> No Dave, just until they fix this problem.

> I just want to be able to place my infantry in a house without it getting blown to bits before I can move them out of danger.

> As it is right now, no house is safe.

Safe? What do you expect? Houses aren't designed to withstand high explosive, you know. Of course they're not safe.

> Every one of them crumbles to the ground when hit and this is not realistic, nor does it provide a better gaming experience.

Why shouldn't they crumble to the ground? Why isn't this realistic? Granted, CM isn't 100% realistic, but where did you get the impression that a house should be a safe place when someone is shelling it?

I think the problem here, is that when a shell hits a house, it looks like no damage is taken. Then, some time later, it suddenly gives way. What you've got to understand is that with every shell, a large chunk of that house is going to disappear – it's just a complicated thing to represent in the game. If you could see what's happening to the house in reality, you'd start to think about moving your men as soon as the first shells hit.

David

------------------

They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach."

[Col Deadmarsh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Why shouldn't they crumble to the ground? Why isn't this realistic? Granted, CM isn't 100% realistic, but where did you get the impression that a house should be a safe place when someone is shelling it?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, in CC they don't crumble to the ground. Now, at this moment someone is ready to reply that CC wasn't realistic. Well, maybe not but at least you could hide an infantry team in the back of a building while a tank shelled it. Granted, you had to stay in the back and you still ran the risk of a shell making it's way to the back of the room but you were given the option of taking this chance if you wanted to hold your position.

In CM, you are crazy to stay in a building when a tank has a firing line on it, even if you're in the back because by the next turn, the house will be gone and so will your men that were inside.

If this were real time, I could simply move them out of harm's way when the tank started shelling the structure but since it's turn-based, now I only have the option of hiding them in trees or on a reverse slope or behind the building which doesn't make sense either if I'm trying to hold that position.

Does anybody else feel this way--that buildings should just be damaged most of the time when hit and not explode and crumble? I'm all for some buildings being demolished but I think it should only happen a small percentage of the time. This way, you could use the house as cover which was what it was meant for.

Maybe it's more realistic for houses to crumble like that but since this is turn-based, I think a little realism should be sacraficed for good game play.

If every house is to crumble, then I propose that the infantry team makes a common sense decision and tries to move out of the house when it becomes **heavily damaged. That way, they are still with you on the next turn.

------------------

No, it can't wait till CM2.

[Combatboy]

I think the bilding explosions are cool, so why mess with them?

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:

Well, in CC they don't crumble to the ground. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's really funny, if I were into sigs, that would be my new one...

Now I seem to recall somebody posting a long time ago, someone who claimed to possess real life experience or at least had read a lot about it, that generally being in houses to take cover is a bad idea. I have ever since held it with that and my men thank me for it. Houses just attract fire like horse-**** does flies. Hide around them, behind them, God knows where but not inside them. And as far as I can see you have not provided any evidence that it was SOP now or then that infantry has to hide in houses to hold a position, so maybe you are doing something wrong? Just a thought.

------------------

Andreas

[Kitty]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by patboivin:

It would be nice if we could drive a tank through a house to make it collapse.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, i agree. =)

Kitty

[Red Devils]

All the cheese that those frogs eat leaves alot of gas build up in french houses. I think that's why they blow up.

------------------

I'm sorry, we haven't the

facilities to take all of you prisoner. Was there anything else?

[This message has been edited by Red Devils (edited 10-02-2000).]

[Doug Beman]

Why do houses blow up? Have you ever been around after I've had Mexican?

DjB

[Col Deadmarsh]

BTS, can you comment on this topic of houses blowing up and inform us if anything is thought of being done about it to make it safer for infantry to occupy them.

If not, I'm gonna send all my men over to the war in Close Combat 2. They'd have a better chance of living in that game.

------------------

No, it can't wait till CM2.

[Schugger]

I have to say that I'm also not very happy about the building issue in CM. One minute is a very long time and even the heaviest building can be destroyed in that course of one turn if the fire is heavy enough. I'm not unhuppy of the graphical representation or the devastating effects for infantry located in a collapsing building, I just think the problem is that the Infantry does not realize that the roof is going to fall on their nuts.

A possible solution is maybe that the TacAI decides to withdraw the Infantry from the building when it's condition changes to heavy damage. After all, a routed squad is better then an eleminated one.

[Quark]

Houses DO NOT EXPLODE. What we are seeing is the representation of the DUST CLOUD forming when a building collapses.

[Runyan99]

I too agree that something feels not quite right about the collapsing building thing. I find I spend a lot of time worrying about which buildings are going to collapse when, and how that is going to affect the battle. As the defender, I am deathly afraid of setting up in wooden buildings, escpecially of the 2-storey variety.

I'm not sure that these concerns are 100% historical, in that they seem important to an unrealistic degree. A whole battle can turn on a couple of collapsed buildings.

------------------

"Artillery is a terrible thing. God, I hate it."

Pvt. David Webster

101st airborne 1942-45

[Mikeydz]

First of all... Just how man squads are you stuffing into these buildings?? If you have more than 2 squads in any building, then you are asking for it.

Most buildings, even light ones, will not blow up within 1 or 2 shots, unless you blast it with a huge gun.

And to claim that CC's representation of houses that can never be brought down, no matter how many rounds it take, being more realistic is just silly.

Houses provive good cover from small arms fire, but I know that if a Sherman rolled up to my house and started lobbing rounds into it, I'd be out the back door fast.

[Guest Michael emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Schugger:

A possible solution is maybe that the TacAI decides to withdraw the Infantry from the building when it's condition changes to heavy damage. After all, a routed squad is better then an eleminated one.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's a thought.

Michael

[Col Deadmarsh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I have to say that I'm also not very happy about the building issue in CM. One minute is a very long time and even the heaviest building can be destroyed in that course of one turn if the fire is heavy enough. I'm not unhuppy of the graphical representation or the devastating effects for infantry located in a collapsing building, I just think the problem is that the Infantry does not realize that the roof is going to fall on their nuts.

A possible solution is maybe that the TacAI decides to withdraw the Infantry from the building when it's condition changes to heavy damage. After all, a routed squad is better then an eleminated one.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now there's a good solution. If it is indeed realistic that these buildings would fall to a few shots from a tank, then at least let the Tac AI move these men outta there.

Having a team of men see that a building is going to collapse on them and then not doing anything about it is NOT REALISTIC. So, if total realism is what we're going for here, then let's have those men make a common sense decision to get themselves to safety. they do that when a tank is firing at them when they're hiding in trees. It only makes sense to have them do the same thing here.

I'm still in favor though of making those buildings stronger.

------------------

No, it can't wait till CM2.

[virtualfreak]

Im pretty sure that most houses will blow up if you fire two 105mm rounds at it.

And that does not make a house very safe to 12 squad either.

[Mark IV]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:

If not, I'm gonna send all my men over to the war in Close Combat 2. They'd have a better chance of living in that game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is possibly the least efficacious threat you could have made.

[David Aitken]

Colonel_Deadmarsh wrote:

> I'm still in favor though of making those buildings stronger.

This is hardly going to make things more realistic. The issue is that buildings don't take gradual damage – they remain intact under bombardment and then suddenly collapse. This is as likely to be an advantage as a disadvantage. Fire one shot at an average building, and the façade is going to collapse. Fire another shot, and you'll bugger up the insides. A couple more shots and the building will collapse.

In other words, if you have infantry fighting from a building, this quirk of CM will be in your favour – instead of being annihilated when the façade goes down, they have a chance to continue fighting, and then withdraw before the building collapses. In reality, the only moderately safe parts of a building under shellfire are the basement and the back, places which your men can't fight from, so they might as well not be indoors at all.

CM allows you to fight from a building in the face of artillery, and I think if it were entirely realistic, you would find buildings even LESS useful under these circumstances. The bottom line is, buildings aren't the safe haven you make them out to be.

David

------------------

...the pilot was able to circle and make a safe belly landing. According to O'Neal, 'this guy jumped out and ran up to me, shouting, "Give me a gun, quick! I know right where that Kraut s.o.b. is and I'm gonna get him".'

[Schugger]

It seems like that most people do not want to make buildings stronger and I find their stability/fragility realistically representated in the game. You can destroy a heavy building in one turn but you need to concentrate a lot of firepower to do that.

I don't have any idea how difficult it is to make the infantry's TAC AI a bit more smarter, but on several occassions I've watched my infantry acting very unwise.

One example is artillery fire ( on the recieving end of the barrage, of course). Sometimes you can see the spotting round and you can order your threatened squads to withdraw from their position in your next order phase. This was exactly what i tried to do in my last PBEM where I had located a british rifle platoon in woods ( not a good position because of the treebursts). So I ordered the platoon to withdraw backwards in open terrain and it was out of the woods when the shells landed. A few of them landed near my retreated infantry ( not causing any casualities) and they started to run back into the same wood again. Needless to say that the platoon looks like Spaghetti Bolognese after the barrage.

One other example is the positioning of infantry behind stone walls. I find it extremly difficult to hold a position there under fire and often they brake away to take cover somewhere else.

Well, stone walls might not give the best sort of cover but it should offer more protection like scattered trees.

Perhaps the infantry's behavior in a situations like this has got something to do with the "Located in" bar in the status screen. It shows "located in: Open terrain" ( usually the worst sort of cover) and not for example behind stone wall.

[Guest Big Time Software]

OK, missed this one for a while...

I think most of what has needed to be said has been, especially noting 1st hand experience of Sgt. Morgue.

Houses are designed to withstand rain, wind, snow, etc. NOT high explosives slammed into them at high velocity (or at least higher than someone throwing a rock). So the notion that houses should magically remain standing after such punishment is silly. Even more silly is brining Close Combat's titanium reinforced buildings into this discussion

Check out some pictures of villages that were fought over and you will see collapsed buildings. Read some 1st hand accounts and you will find out that these collapsing buildings caused casualties (I have one here that wiped out a whole platoon save 2 men). Check out some tactical training manuals from the day and you will also find that the use of buildings for defense is not recommended if they can be easily shot at by direct fire HE. We have done all of this and feel quite confident that the buildings in CM are not too fragile.

David's point about the way buildings are simulated now does, in fact, favor the unit in the building. When we redo the way buildings work in CM2 we will hopefully be able to have partial, and visual, damage to buildings. We will also most likely make the TacAI more aware of the dangers of remaining in such a building.

Steve

P.S. Yes, that is a debris shockwave, and no it doesn't have any affect on the game.

[Shandorf]

Whoa, I didn't expect this kind of a response. Anyway...

The graphic of the house blowing up is fine with me. I realize it is just the representation of the house collapsing.

The only thing I ever found odd about it was the number of casualties you take. It seems that the more men that are alive in he squad the more casualties you take.

For example.. I have NEVER seen a fresh squad take less than 50% casualties from a collapsing building but for most squads that are already down to say 1-5 men only take 1-2 casualties most of the time. Which is less than 50%.

I would think that the number of casualties should be more random that's all.

Jeff