Why DO houses blow up?

[PvK]

I mostly agree with Shandorf. I don't mind the visual because graphics are just icing to me. I don't think the rate of building collapse is necessarily a problem either (despite having recently levelled one house with a single 150mm HE hit, and another with a turn of 20mm quad flak area fire).

The casualties do seem like a problem to me. Like several others who have posted here, I've noticed that buildings are generally a dangerous place to put troops. I think the casualties tend to be more than would occur in practice - as is, they seem about right for buildings that really do suddenly explode without warning. While a building might sometimes all fall down at once, I tend to think it would usually be more gradual, giving men time to not get taken out, by means of scrambling out or to safer positions.

The main thing is that towns are like booby trap terrain rather than cover terrain, which does not seem right to me. Troops did use buildings for effective cover in WW2 - in CM, I wouldn't recommend it. When I have tried to use houses as cover, they generally have taken noticeable more casualties from buildings falling on them than from the incoming fire itself.

PvK

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

[Pascal DI FOLCO]

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

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So as a frog I can reply that there's less cheese in French houses than hamburger sauce (highly explosive)in US ones..

I do agree to an extent with the original post : buildings are just too fragile in CM.

I repeatedly blow up CHURCHES with a half dozen 75-88 hits - did you see French churches ? Most of them are 2-500 years old with 1m+ wide walls !!

The same go with farms, many of them have very sturdy walls.

I also wish that "destroyed building" be a different terrain/texture than rough... something with partial walls should be more realistic.

But the explosion and colateral damage seems OK to me.

[Jarmo]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pascal DI FOLCO:

I repeatedly blow up CHURCHES with a half dozen 75-88 hits - did you see French churches ? Most of them are 2-500 years old with 1m+ wide walls !!

The same go with farms, many of them have very sturdy walls.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, now that you mention it, yes.

Many of the about 100 years old buildings I've seen really do have

a meter thick walls. A "typical" old church might have a wall

built of 50cm thick stone blocks.

But would that withstand a direct cannon fire? Dunno.

[aka_tom_w]

In all of this discussion I have never heard of any one on this BBS quote from a GREAT book I read a million years ago when I was in high school. It is out print now and it was a paper back.

It was titled:

"Hell Has No Heros"

and it was a GREAT account of a DD Sherm after it hit the beach on D-Day. I sounded like true life experience to me, but I didn't know any better at the time.

ANYWAY they author who I thought was the TC of the tank in question wrote that it was EASY to take down ANY building, they did it EVERY day and they knocked down buildings by shooting ONE AP round first to make a hole in the wall and then loaded a HE round and shot it through the wall and that HE round would find its way into the house and knock it down or light it on fire, if the first HE round did not do the trick the second HE round through the same hole the AP punched would do the trick. If it was a big house they would load another AP round first and make another hole then fire MORE HE through that hole. I rememeber they commented that houses in villages came down pretty easy.

I like the way houses explode in CM I think this is an area of the game that is VERY well modeled with respect to realilty except that I think that tanks should expend one round of AP when aiming at a house BEFORE starting to pump HE into it but that is just because I read about it in "Hell Has No Heroes"

Comments?

-tom w

[Jeff Heidman]

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

Well, in CC they don't crumble to the ground.

This way, you could use the house as cover which was what it was meant for.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Funny, I thought houses were meant to live in! I had better talk to my contractor...

Are you aware that in the military it is generally considered a BAD idea to hang out in buildings? There is a reason for that. They tend to fall down on your head at the most inconvenient times...

Jeff Heidman

Jeff Heidman

[ahauschild]

I think alot of this depends on the type of house we talking about. The few models presented in CM do not really scratch the wide variaty of buildings. There is the regular wooden 1 or to storie cotages, these should blow up and have the rubel light on fire very easily. Then there is for instand german Fachwerkhauses. They where made with a heavy interlocking wood frame with the spaces filled with a mixture of mud and mesh. They again should burn easily, but will alot of punishment before actuly colapsing. The fillings blew out but the actuly wooden frame stayed intact very long.

Then we have red Brick houses. Now these babies where dangerous, the whole wall of bricks could drop on top of you with just a few hits. Then we have some older houses or villas from feudal days. This babies where mini bunkers. They had lots of very heavy large rocks putting them together, they would hold out quit long against artillery and AP rounds. The same is true for churches, these babies are ranging from small village churches, made of wood (rare) to generaly churches that have been around for 100ths of yeards. These babies again had very very effective large stone walls, with many interlocking arches and such, Actuly even after the bombing of most majore german town from the RAF and Airforce, the old churches remaind for the most part standing, they may have lost a section of wall, or the roof, but the actual majority of the walls stayed. Then you have the multy storie Buildings, again some of them could take some realy heavy punishments, other you hit the right corner and took out the support would tummble and burie all that was within it. I think we should not worry about the house rules at this time, untill we get more variety of the houses avalible to the game. Plus i would love to see the actual ruins of the buildings show up a bit more realistic. Such as 2 to 3 walls down, but one still standing, this way the visual effect of bombarding a town will be alot more devestating. Right now i just see a bunch of gray squares and it does not feel like i just caused the destruction of a families home, but if the building actuly looked like a house, with possible walls and such missing, then i would actuly feal bad about bombing the next civilian village.

Just my 0.02 pfennig on the subject.

[Dr. Brian]

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

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.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. In CM, you would be crazy to stay inside. But you know what? If it was for real, and I was in your hour house, and a Sherman with a 75mm was landing HE shells through your front door, I'd get the hell out of there. FAST!

Do you really think its safe? Do you really think any sane person would stay? Okay, our little sim soldiers are not sane, but they can be modelled that way.

Just my 0.02.

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

Doc

God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

[ahauschild]

He he, just occured to me. Infantry is screwd in houses, they collapse, screws in woods, you get airburst from Artillery, screwed in the open, well, for obvious reasons. Hmm...It must suck to be Infantry. Their only defense is, dont be seen.

Sounds about right.

[Dr. Brian]

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

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.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that's an excellent suggesstion. however, Buildings should not be invincible to collapse.

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

Doc

God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

[kverdon]

I'd like to add my vote. I think that the Tac AI should bail troops out of a house that hits ** the same way it does when a house catches on fire. This should not be too hard to implement.

thanks,

Kevin

[Maj. Bosco]

The infantry running out of buildings is a good idea but there might be some problems with implementing it in a way that would please people. Most obvious is that most of the time when infantry are in a building that's taken enough fire to collapse they're at the very least shaken and usually panicked to routed. So, even if they thought about it they probably wouldn't get up because they'd be too busy taking cover. Another problem would be that with the bigger shells, the 105's and up it only takes one or two shots to seriously damage/knockdown a building. I'm sure the day after the infatry running out of buildings patch was implemented there would be a batch of threads of the hamster-like qualities of CM infantry and their inability to stay in a house. Finally on a realism note the infantry don't have the option of looking to see how many asterixes are next to the buildings name. They just have to estimate it from inside a dusty, crumbling room, almost certainly under fire. Considering what must happen to the walls and ceilings of the buildings even before they suffer any true structural damage it must look like most buildings are going to fall down after the first hit. Remember, the walls don't hold houses up, the support beams do. You can knock all four walls out of most houses and still have a fairly sturdy frame. As for the casualties, I think they're pretty realistic, possibly even lenient, right now. I don't think the light cottages and the heavy stone buildings should inflict the same but in general if a building collapses on you you're probably not going to be in any shape to continue fighting.

[Guest Big Time Software]

PvK wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The casualties do seem like a problem to me. Like several others who have posted here, I've noticed that buildings are generally a dangerous place to put troops.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As they should be. The casualties are based on random % chance. The more men you have, the higher the chance that someone is going to get hurt. And that is also another important point here... CM casualties for count incapacitated, not dead. This would include guys who get a leg or arm broken, as well as being pinned down by debris.

Your point about a house not always coming down at once is well taken. CM2 should model this better. But I have seen houses destroyed and not ONE single casualty being taken by the enemy unit inside. I recently had this happen for an enemy .50cal team. Hell, they were back up and firing in a couple of seconds after the house came down. So what you are asking for is actually already modeled. The house came down and the enemy team wasn't hardly affected by it. Such a thing just has a lower chance of happening and no visuals to go along with it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The main thing is that towns are like booby trap terrain rather than cover terrain, which does not seem right to me. Troops did use buildings for effective cover in WW2 - in CM, I wouldn't recommend it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But CM models reality, not misperceptions. Check out a German Squad manual and it specifically states not to create defensive positions in houses exposed to direct HE fire. There is a reason for this, and it is very solidly shown in CM.

The reason why it might not "feel right" to some (beside the obvious carry over from other wargames that don't do it right) is that street fighting was often conducted without direct HE support. Play an urban battle with Infantry only and report back on how well houses do on the defensive. I have played such games and I can tell you they make excellent defensive locations. But put one HE support weapon into the mix, and wherever it goes it will cause the defender problems. And that is the way it should be.

Steve

[Jeff Heidman]

Fair warning to anyone who plays in a PBEM game with me:

I will absolutely target the houses I think your infantry is hiding in, assuming I have the resources to do so.

Steve is right on. A house is NOT a safe place to park yourself, unless you are in an urnban area and the choice is the house or the middle of the street.

Read a book on the Arnhem fight. The Germans eventually started driving Tigers and King Tigers directly up to the buildings and systematically knocking them down with direct HE fire. It's the most effective way of making sure you have gotten all the pesky paras taken care of without the need to send in your own infantry to take them out.

Jeff Heidman

[Col Deadmarsh]

Even though I want to start every reply off with, "Yeah, but in Close Combat...", I won't do that. I realize that CM strives to be as realistic as possible and apparently history shows that these buildings come down quite easily. I can accept this.

My problem with this is that I choose what looks like a safe location for my men and then 60 seconds later, I find out a tank who wasn't even in LOS has moved into sight, shot a couple of rounds, and killed half my squad...all in one turn.

Now, I'm sure neither BTS or anyone else with a copy of the game wants to go to 30 second turns for more control. So, since I can't have that kind of micromanagement, I'm lobbying for this "Common Sense Tac Ai" thing to be put into effect. This would mean that infantry being pummeled in a building by a tank or tanks with large guns, make a wise decision and get themselves to safety so they can live to fight again.

To be honest, I'm worried that flat maps with little to moderate tree coverage, where men have to hide in buildings because there's no other place to hide, are gonna be killed too easily by tanks.

It seems as if men are already seen too easily by the enemy in this game...but that's another thread.

BTS, I'm lobbying for something to be done about this before we draw parallels from the weakness of infantry in this game to the infantry in CC3.

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

No, it can't wait till CM2.

[Col Deadmarsh]

bump

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

No, it can't wait till CM2.

[David Aitken]

Colonel_Deadmarsh wrote:

> To be honest, I'm worried that flat maps with little to moderate tree coverage, where men have to hide in buildings because there's no other place to hide, are gonna be killed too easily by tanks.

Once again, it seems like you expect CM to make safe or feasible something which, in reality, would be equally dangerous or unfeasible.

> It seems as if men are already seen too easily by the enemy in this game...but that's another thread.

And you think that hasn't been discussed to death before?

> BTS, I'm lobbying for something to be done about this before we draw parallels from the weakness of infantry in this game to the infantry in CC3.

What would be the point in that?

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".'

[Guest Germanboy]

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

My problem with this is that I choose what looks like a safe location for my men and then 60 seconds later, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And that is the key point here. You think it is safe based on what? That it looks nice? The fact seems to be that houses are not safe locations in CM and they were not in reality. So basically your impression is wrong. I have to fully agree with Jeff here. If I am to attack a village, I open up on houses before I even see the enemy. That is not gamey in my book but SOP, b/c if you are daft enough to have your men in the houses, you deserve what you get.

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

Andreas

[L.Tankersley]

I think his point was that the TacAI won't automatically retreat his men out of the dangerous building when it comes under direct HE fire. Personally, I think that's a lot to ask, and if it could be implemented I'm sure it would lead to lots of situations where people would complain about their troops fleeing a building only to be cut down in the road by small arms fire.

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

Leland J. Tankersley

[Guest Scott Clinton]

Fear not Colonel_Deadmarsh, I see your point.

He is concerned when he sets up a squad in a nice house, with no enemy in LOS and two seconds into the turn a Sherman 105 rolls into view 200m away and starts blasting! 30 seconds later his squad is dead and he had zero chance to save it.

The house was safe prior to this turn because there were no enemy in LOS. IMO he is asking that 20 seconds into the turn when it becomes clear that the enemy is about to bring the house down with direct 105 fire the TACAI move the squad out ASAP.

I tend to agree, but that is a tough call. What if the enemy is really targeting the unit and not the house and then squad abandons its cover to run into scattered trees or open? Tough call for an AI IMO.

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

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scott Clinton:

He is concerned when he sets up a squad in a nice house, with no enemy in LOS and two seconds into the turn a Sherman 105 rolls into view 200m away and starts blasting! 30 seconds later his squad is dead and he had zero chance to save it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Err, but isn't it a battlefield? With people shooting and things going kaboom when and where you least expect it? I mean, you can play SimCouchpotatoe if you want to avoid that...

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

Andreas

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by L.Tankersley:

I think his point was that the TacAI won't automatically retreat his men out of the dangerous building when it comes under direct HE fire. Personally, I think that's a lot to ask, and if it could be implemented I'm sure it would lead to lots of situations where people would complain about their troops fleeing a building only to be cut down in the road by small arms fire.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree, that is a lot to ask and loosing a squad of infantry in a building like that example of the Sherm 105 coming round the corner 20 secs into the turn is, in my opinion, just the cost of doing business on the battlefield when you don't know where all your enemy's units are. Surprise! then Whack, an infantry unit in a building gets it, that's just plain misfortune on the battlefield.

It seems to me like that it is indeed a heck of alot to ask of the AI, I think buildings usually last more than a minute anyway and I have found you can usually get your infantry out in the next minute's turn.

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 10-03-2000).]

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 10-03-2000).]

[Turret Ring]

Man! Are we spoiled or what. BTS has done such a great job with aftermarket patches and the encouragement of third party mod efforts, that some of us expect to be able to simply suggest changes and have them adopted in yet another patch. Now if it's all about offering suggestions for future developement of CM2, CM3, or CM4 I'll jump on the bandwagon too......

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

"Then we shall fight in the shade." (Greek general's comment upon being told that the Persian archers could blot-out the sun with their arrows.)

[Mannheim Tanker]

Bruno wrote a while back: "Mine blew up when the wife left..."

I hear ya bro! LOL...I prefer to say that my house was "liberated"!

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

"Gun damaged are rare on Shermans because they die like red shirts on Star Trek" - Slapdragon

[Simon Fox]

I like the suggestions re the TacAI abandoning collapsing houses though I acknowledge it might be difficult to implement. It is all tied in with the fairly simple way the TacAI currently views 'cover' since it seems to be concerned with terrain type rather than LoS blockage, hence the issue of walls as pointed out.

As a stopgap measure I wonder if a collapsed building could be modelled as rubble encompassed by a low wall. This would enhance the value of rubble as cover and concealment as currently it is quite hard to hide in. It would also be nice if the 'dust cloud' hung in the air and obscured LoS.

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

"Fatso-the battlers' prince"

[Guest Germanboy]

Hmm, I don't get the main premise here I guess. So let's say you have your men in a nice cushy reverse-slope position, and at the beginning of the round, no enemy is in sight and you are all cosy and comfy. Suddenly someone starts dropping observed mortar fire onto your position (let's say, after 30secs) and also the platoon that unbeknownst to you sneaked (sp?) up behind you opens fire onto what has now become a foreward slope position, making it untenable. Would you also argue that the AI should take the men the hell out of there? After all, that was unanticipated. If not, what makes it fundamentally different?

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

Andreas