Building Destruction damage to units.

[Mother Theresa]

This has got to be changed and SOON!!

I have played a lot of games against the ai and pbem, and sometimes a building with occupied units has been destroyed and caused dammage to the units inside. I have taken some cassualties from it and always accepted the amount there was, usually it was to a squad that was in the heat of battle and had already take a few casualties on the way. Until this last pbem game where I had a 105FO in Top middle and a .50cal on the top right of a light building. They had taken no fire and both were ok in alert status. At the start of my movie a few stugs begin to fire indirect fire to the left corner of the building, over the course of the 60 seconds, my FO status went to Alert but neither unit had taken a hit. Then the building explodes (and yes I know it is just a graphic to represent collapse) and both my FO and .50 cal take 100% losses. I thought this was a bit excessive since the .50 cal was 15 meters from where the shells were destroying the building. So I created a scenario to do some building destruction damage tests. I created a line of buildings, sever tall heavy, several light, and placed squads, hq units, .50 cal, and fo in various places inside. I then had 4 stug IIIGs shoot at them from about 750 meters. Here were the results:

1st Heavy Tall Building: 2 12man squads on top floor rear, 1 .50 cal bottom rear, 105 FO bottom rear. Inderect fire caused 3 casualties to one squad and caused it to go cautious, the other top floor squad alert. No other casualties or change in status till house was destroyed. Building damage. Both top squads eliminated, FO 1 dead (of 2), .50 cal. 5 wounded of 6.

2nd THB: .50 top rear, 1 squad top rear,1 fo top mid, 1 hq top mid, 2 squads bottom rear. ID fire took 1 on HQ, Building explosion killed ALL on top floor and half of each squad on the bottom.

3rd THB: Same as building 1, building caught fire so I could not see building dmg.

4th THB: 2 squads top rear, 1 hq top mid, 1 squad bottom rear. .50 cal bottom rear, FO mottom mid. No ID wounds, building goes..ALL upstairs die. 8 Wounds to bottom squad, 2 wounsd on the 50, FO Elimated.

All and all I did this to about 20 Buildings, NEVER...i repeate, NEVER did anyone on the top floor live. And the bottom floor always took at least 40% wounded.

I tried the same test with the units just out in the open, and took only 15% of the wounds I did in the building, course it wasn't the guns that hurt me in the buildings either....it was the buildings themselves.

Now I am not saying that exploding buildings should not dmg people, I am all for that, just don't think it should kill as many as it does.

-MT

[Turk]

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

All and all I did this to about 20 Buildings, NEVER...i repeate, NEVER did anyone on the top floor live. And the bottom floor always took at least 40% wounded.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sounds right to me.

What do you expect to happen when a building is blown up out from under you?

The only thing I would like to see is some kind of indication of how damaged a building is. It does not need to be exact, maybe "fine" "damaged" and "about to go".

[Pvt. Ryan]

There is an indication of a building's status. One * indicates moderate damage, and two ** indicates get the hell out cause the sucker's gonna go. You can see the status by clicking on the unit inside the building, but I am not sure if there is a way to check an unoccupied building other than with the LOS or move tool.

[argie]

Dear Mother,

Is well known that in CM if you have troops in the upper floor of a collapsing building, you lost it...

Is an intended feature and is very accurate... Remember that casualties are not all KIA, but disabled for the time of the battle. That could be something like twisting an ankle when you suddenly falls from the upper floor to the lower with the roof falling over your head

When a building falls, all inside it suffers...

Ariel

[Oddball_E8]

You do know that the "top floor" represents the third and fourth floor right?

dont know about you but i definately wouldnt want to be there when a building collapses...

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

Wof, wof, wof, wof... Thats my other dog imitation.

[SF]

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

There is an indication of a building's status. One * indicates moderate damage, and two ** indicates get the hell out cause the sucker's gonna go. You can see the status by clicking on the unit inside the building, but I am not sure if there is a way to check an unoccupied building other than with the LOS or move tool.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Shift G will display building damage.

[Chupacabra]

Even if you're on the bottom floor, would you like to have several tons of bricks, beams, or plaster dumped on you? Doubt I would, and I'm a masochist.

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

Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

[Guest Germanboy]

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

This has got to be changed and SOON!!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I totally agree. I just did an experiment (don't try this at home), where I asked some friendly builders (they were very helpful, following yesterdays game England v. Germany) to drop a ****load of bricks, mortar, wood and roof tiles onto me from the fourth floor (about 20m) after setting off 105mm rounds 15m away from me for about 60sec. Obviously I just walked away from it completely unscathed and I would still be able to take on the cream of English football hooligans, otherwise I would not be posting here now. Conclusive evidence that this like so many other features is totally wrong (may I mention the burning houses after you fire a Schreck inside issue, or the fact that the well-trained olympic gold medal winners that made up the average German HMG team can not run?).

In the immortal words of Capt. Stransky:

BTS, please fix or do somefink. I want a game what works.

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

Andreas

[Mother Theresa]

I understand what is involved in top story of buildings and that damage should accure when the building is gone, my point is being that it is utter and complete. One second all is happy and fine, one more shell and EVERYONE dies. Not a few die as the building falls apart, which would cause them to at least panic and possibly flee the building before it kills them all. I know the code for it is probably a huge blast damage attack against all units when it goes, coudln't it be a smaller blast attack each time the building gains a * so that your inf, could and would react to the building getting ready to explode?

"Is well known that in CM if you have troops in the upper floor of a collapsing building, you lost it...

Is an intended feature and is very accurate... "

Accurate??? Oh, they never used buildings as cover in World War 2? It is not accurate, a large heavy building does not just collapse when that one extra shot hits it but is perfectly fine cover until then.

[Chupacabra]

It's an abstraction. Would you feel better if the squad was wiped out by the tank shell instead of by having a building dropped on it?

And yeah, putting infantry in buildings which can be fired upon by direct HE is a bad idea. If you're sticking your troops up there for every freaking gun in France to shoot at, may I suggest that you try something different? Like, say, the second row of buildings?

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

Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

[Guest Madmatt]

Since we can not currently graphically show progressive damage to buildings we have recently (in the 1.05 patch) added two indicators that will give you a approximation of the current damage level any building in the game has sustained.

You must have Warning Labels on to see the textual indicator which reads Damaged at approx. 50% damage and Severely Damaged when a building is at approx. 75% damage.

You can also target any structure and you will see a single astrix "*" for 50% and two "**" for 75% damage to the building.

The damage indicators represent units being able to notice things like teetering walls and critical structual intergrity instability (roof about to cave in) caused by direct and indirect fire.

As others have said, placing your units in buildings that are under direct fire is not a wise tactical decission. Units placed on the upper floors even less so.

Madmatt

[Guest *Captain Foobar*]

Yeah...if you are defending a town, it is good to have a FEW units on the outskirts of town, to spot who is coming in, and be ready, but having your main-line of resistance in the first row of buildings is very very very bad.....

And if you think you are going to have to fall back to another line of defense, those guys in the 2nd floor rarely make it out of there. Well, at least mine dont. I seem to wait to the last possible moment before falling back, and that extra 30 seconds for the top floor units gets them caught out in the open.

[David Aitken]

Mother Theresa wrote:

> It is not accurate, a large heavy building does not just collapse when that one extra shot hits it but is perfectly fine cover until then.

This is what you're misinterpreting. As others have said, Combat Mission does not, as yet, simulate progressive building damage. As a building takes fire, it loses integrity, but this is not simulated graphically. In other words, it is NOT "perfectly fine cover" under HE fire – it just LOOKS this way.

In reality, after a couple of shots the building would start to crumble. The front wall would collapse, exposing your units inside. In other words, CM currently gives you an ADVANTAGE – it allows your men to fight from a damaged building up until the moment it collapses.

Don't be confused by this – you take a lot of casulaties when the building finally gives way, but this is a fair abstraction of the casualties which, in reality, you would have taken while the building gradually disintegrated. The way to avoid these casualties is to act realistically – as soon as a building starts taking HE fire, get your men OUT. It would be a very unhealthy place for them to be in reality, and although in CM it SEEMS safe until the last moment, as you well know it is NOT a good idea to leave your men inside.

David

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

'...With mortar shells raining down everywhere, he said, "Come along, Padre".' When Egen showed reluctance, Tatham-Warter reassured him. 'Don't worry,' he said, 'I've got an umbrella.'

[Col Deadmarsh]

Rest assured Mother, I am in complete agreement with you. I have been bitching about this from day 1.

I realize that buildings are not supposed to withstand the shelling of a tank but the problem is, I don't have the time to get my men out of the building when I see it's being shelled. I can put a team in a house in one turn where there is no danger, then come back the next turn and find out a tank has wheeled into LOS and taken out that building with my men still in it.

Lemme tell you, this is not fun. Maybe it's realistic that a light building wouldn't be able to take more than 4-5 shots from a med-heavy tank but I have a problem with this since I don't have control over my men all of the time.

People, is this realism? Imagine the following conversation taking place:

~~~

Seargant: Men, your orders are to go into that building, use it for cover, and stop the enemy advance.

Private: What about that tank that's in the area? If it sees us in there, we'll be dead meat.

Seargant: Well, what do you think's the sensible thing to do in that circumstance?

Private: To get out of the house ASAP, Searge.

Seargant: No silly, you hide under the nearest overhead beam you can find, grab something and hold on really tight, and when the structure comes crashing to the ground with you in it, you hope that you're not one of the 80% of your squad who dies in there.

Private: Oh...uh...ok

~~~

People, we need to either do one of two things: 1)Either make the buildings stronger so the player has a chance to give orders on the next turn to get his men outta there when he sees the house is taking hits...

or

2)Have less casualties when the builings come down. This way, the player is not heavily penalized for having them in there when the situation became dangerous between turns.

If something isn't done about this, it just becomes a guessing game instead of a game of skill. I put those men in that house and I was lucky enough not to have that tank nearby come into LOS...

vs.

I put those men into that house, the tank came into LOS, shelled the house, and I lost a couple of men but was given the chance to keep them in there next turn and try to kill the enemy platoon advancing towards the house or to get out of there now and preserve what I have left of my squad.

CM is at the first option. I believe the second option will give the players more options and make this an even more skillful game because of those options.

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

Yeah, but in Close Combat...

[Guest grunto]

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

I understand what is involved in top story of buildings and that damage should accure when the building is gone, my point is being that it is utter and complete. One second all is happy and fine, one more shell and EVERYONE dies. Not a few die as the building falls apart, which would cause them to at least panic and possibly flee the building before it kills them all. I know the code for it is probably a huge blast damage attack against all units when it goes, coudln't it be a smaller blast attack each time the building gains a * so that your inf, could and would react to the building getting ready to explode?

"Is well known that in CM if you have troops in the upper floor of a collapsing building, you lost it...

Is an intended feature and is very accurate... "

Accurate??? Oh, they never used buildings as cover in World War 2? It is not accurate, a large heavy building does not just collapse when that one extra shot hits it but is perfectly fine cover until then.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

dude you just don't want to put that many units in a building in a pbem. two-story light buildings are literal death traps _especially_ in pbem games. From the first time I saw how easily a light building is trashed by 75mm, let alone 105mm HE fire, I've avoided putting more than one unit in each light building if possible. I would never put an FO in one. A .50 cal would probably be put somewhere else too. Those light buildings are just too 'volatile' if there is even a single enemy 75mm on the board.

Heck yesterday I took out 2, 2nd level (4 story) heavy buldings using 3 37mm AA halfracks (sdkfz7/2). Each building blew up in less than one turn of fire from the 3 37s combined. There were definitely some American infantry casualties there... not alot but the spectacular collapses are simply worth creating as movie footage =laugh=... plus those pesky 2nd level buildings are blocking LOS =grin=

If I'm in a pbem and I know that I can collapse a building fairly quickly with a concentraction of HE fire - and there are 2 or more of those little 'cross' or 'star' symbols - that building suddenly becomes a priority target.

Now that it has happened to you once I'll bet that it won't happen to you again in a pbem. That was a very good turn for your opponent from the sound of it.

Now you can argue whether the buildings are unrealistically represented with regard to HE fire in cmbo, and that if a pbem player takes advantage of the way it is now (light buildings easily knocked down) then it could be considered 'gamey' behavior.

on the other hand for my tastes cmbo is realistic enough that i don't want to start making gentlemans' rules about blowing up buildings or jeep charges. in other words i don't want to make pbem agreements concerning the various topics of discussion on this board.

i say blow the buildings up, charge with the jeeps. to be honest most of the battles i've participated in have seemed 'realistic' to at least some degree.

i do know that some of my pbem opponents and i will get into last-turn flag charges with massed crews and other bottom-of-the-barrel troops, but to me that's part of the game.

concerning the way the game can change from realistic to 'gamey' at the end; i see it as a situation where early on, cmbo battles tend to be more realistic, but as things get desperate at the end some 'gameyness' can ensue. it doesn't bother me either way.

think of all of the problems and disasters (little and big) that you face in cmbo as contributing to your experience and ability to take preventative measures against situations such as the blown buildings, going forward.

so if you want to start a 'do the buildings blow up too easily?' or (as i believe you'd mentioned) a 'should the buildings have a staged instead of sudden collapse feature?' thread that's fine with me.

for the time being though you need to accept that a lot of pbemers will knock down your buildings.

remember... 2 or more 'symbols' representing units and that building is a prime target for my local HE assets.

i'm sure many other pbemers have the same policy.

besides, those building collapses are just 'too cool,' dude

=laugh=

Andy

[TexasToast]

Perhaps the AI should move troops out of buildings that are heavily damaged and under fire - kind of like when the building catches on fire, but less frantically. This seems like the kind of thing the troops would do without waiting for direct orders, eh?

[Ben Galanti]

Colonel_Deadmarsh,

I think you left out a third option which I think would be the best. That is to have units leave houses when they are at the '**' damage level. Or, at least, squads on the upper floors should be heading out. I would say that code could be similar to the way units flee a building that catches on fire. Now, they may very well get gunned down when they run outside, but I think it's a bit more realistic then just sitting there while the building falls down around their ears. Now, if a unit is pinned or something, it might not be able to leave in time, but I'd see that as acceptable too...

Now, you could then still have an argument about whether buildings fall too quickly, but I think that a lot of the problems could be relieved if units would split from damaged buildings. It might lead to a situtation where a unit will disobey you (you tell it togo into a ** building), but I don't think that's all bad either. "No way in h*** I'm going in there Sarge, that buildings a deathtrap!"

Another question, do * are ** buildings give a different amout of cover then undamaged buildings?

Ben

[Guest Germanboy]

Colonel_D and MT, where is your proof that it was SOP to put troops into intact buildings in a position to receive medium-long range HE fire during any time since the Roman legion abandoned the Pilum in favour of the Ballista when attacking fortified positions? Because if you don't have any, your arguments boil down to 'I want it b/c I think it is realistic' or 'It must be realistic b/c this is how it was done in CC'. And no, rubbled bulidings and city-fighting does not count.

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

Andreas

[Mother Theresa]

I think most of you are TOTALY missing the point of my discussion. Yes buildings will come down under HE fire, granted. But why is the squad that is in the building, taking no casualties and no change of status not concerned with the amount of damage the building is taking? If he was anywhere else in the game he would run like hell after the second or third shot.

"This is what you're misinterpreting. As others have said, Combat Mission does not, as yet, simulate progressive building damage. As a building takes fire, it loses integrity, but this is not simulated graphically. In other words, it is NOT "perfectly fine cover" under HE fire – it just LOOKS this way"

I don't need it represented graphicly, graphics are not why I like CM. (although they are pretty good beside the fact) If it is not provinding cover from the HE shells, then my units should be taking damage or at least RECOGNIZE that they are underfire and that there is a threat to being where they are. The fact that the unit takes NO damage until he takes it all at once from that last shell to damage the house shows where the dmg is coming from. It just doesn't make sense that in 60 seconds, a unit will be fine in a building, take indirect fire (from any of the sources mentioned, HE, high .cal weapons..whatever) and not do anything until the house collapses and they all die. And the fact that it is a guaranteed death, NO chance of survivial, if anyone has had a unit live from the top story of a collapsing house I would love to see it.

"Colonel_D and MT, where is your proof that it was SOP to put troops into intact buildings"

Are you seriously asking this question??

Ummm sargent, we can't enter that building, it is against or SOP.

Have you watched ANY documentary stuff on world war 2 at all? House strong points were a staple to holding villages and towns and farmhouses. They didn't sit outside in the woods (well they did that too) because when they armor attacks the house will be blow up in less then a minute and everyone inside won't notice it and die.

[Guest Germanboy]

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

House strong points were a staple to holding villages and towns and farmhouses. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are talking about something different here, because CM does not model buildings turned into strongpoints. This is something that will probably be addressed in CM2, but it was not intended to model the sort of mini-fortresses, AFAIK. We are talking ordinary buildings here. And towns - well, if you defend on the inside, more likely than not the tanks will not be safe, because they are within LATW range. Kind of mitigating the problem.

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

Andreas

[Chupacabra]

As I, and other people, have said,

DON'T PUT INFANTRY IN BUILDINGS WHICH ARE EXPOSED TO DIRECT FIRE HE.

I promise, follow this simple instruction, and all the rest of these complaints will go away.

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

Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

[Mother Theresa]

I love everyone's solutions to the issue, don't put inf. in buildings that can take direct HE fire.

You're right, that suddely answers the issue of units not doing anythng when the building is being attacked.

Like answering a bug with a certain tank NEVER firing and answering it with "don't purchase that tank".

I don't consider destroying buildings a gamey issue, or whatever. Would just like to see the inf. do something more than sit there and die with no chance of survival.

They don't need to model mini fortresses, just make the inf. react to the situation, to give them SOME chance of survival, and make the chance of death in a building collapse not absolute.

[David Aitken]

First of all, this has been discussed in the past few days, in the thread Why DO houses blow up?

Mother Theresa wrote:

> Would just like to see the inf. do something more than sit there and die with no chance of survival.

What do you expect them to do? Run outside? Abandon the only cover they have, and run straight out into the open to be cut down by enemy infantry? The AI doesn't know which side of the building is safe, if any, so it can't make the decision for you. Maybe they'd be better of staying put, but only you can make this decision.

Colonel_Deadmarsh wrote:

> I put those men into that house, the tank came into LOS, shelled the house, and I lost a couple of men but was given the chance to keep them in there next turn and try to kill the enemy platoon advancing towards the house or to get out of there now and preserve what I have left of my squad.

This is another example of the prevailing misinterpretation. You want the choice of leaving your men where they are to defend the building, or withdrawing them. If your men try to make a stand under direct HE fire, the building will collapse on them, and they will take heavy casualties.

This is unrealistic in that, in reality, it would be even more dangerous to make a stand from a building under direct HE fire. Rather than gradually losing integrity, as in CM, in reality the front of the building would collapse very quickly – the place where your men are fighting from.

In other words, if you've got infantry and the enemy has tanks or heavy mortars, don't put your men in a building which is in view of these weapons, or is likely to become such. If they must be there, hide them. The enemy may shell the building anyway, but at least you won't provoke him. But you can't fight from that building under shellfire.

The AI can't make decisions for you – it doesn't know whether it's safer staying put or getting out, or which exit route would be safest. It's up to you to ensure that your men don't find themselves in a bad situation. If you try your best, and something bad happens, that's war.

Just think about it in reality – a tank and a platoon of men are advancing on a building. A squad opens up from the building. The tank shells it. What should the squad do? Stay put and be crushed by falling masonry, or run out and be mown down by the enemy infantry? It's a bad situation in reality too, and in CM, you've got to try and avoid it.

David

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

'...With mortar shells raining down everywhere, he said, "Come along, Padre".' When Egen showed reluctance, Tatham-Warter reassured him. 'Don't worry,' he said, 'I've got an umbrella.'

[Col Deadmarsh]

David said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In other words, if you've got infantry and the enemy has tanks or heavy mortars, don't put your men in a building which is in view of these weapons, or is likely to become such. If they must be there, hide them. The enemy may shell the building anyway, but at least you won't provoke him. But you can't fight from that building under shellfire.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't wanna fight under shell fire. Forget about what I said earlier about firing on another squad while my men are being pounded inside by their tank. I confused you there with that line.

All I meant was, I want the buildings to hold up longer so I can get my men out the following turn. See, that's the problem. As of right now, I don't have enough control over that.

I take a guess that his tank won't move into my LOS and shell building. Sometimes I'm right, sometimes I'm wrong. Only the problem is, when I'm wrong, I lose the entire team because I guessed wrong. This shouldn't happen. I should be allowed to make a decision to move them somewhere else.

As of now, I don't have the necessary time to do that because the buildings are so brittle. I can't react to what transpired during the turn because I was not given the time to do so.

I don't care if we have to sacrafice a little reality for better play. I think the buildings need to be stronger so I can move out my men if the situation becomes dangerous--this meaning, I thought the building was safe, but 20 seconds into the turn, it's taking mass hits from a tank.

Why would this be so bad? CM is not 100% realistic. Why not give us more control over infantry by making them safer in buildings which will give us an option the next turn as to where to move them...

By the way, even if the AI were to decide to move them out when the building was **heavy damage, could running out of the back of the building be any worse than having the building crush them to death? How would this make it worse? If they stay inside, they will die anyways.

Now, put that in your pipe and smoke it...

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

Yeah, but in Close Combat...

[Mother Theresa]

In my original tests, I placed some units at the front of the house so that they would take dmg from the incoming fire, as a result they ususaly broke after the first few rounds hit and ran out of the building to the nearest cover. The took some minor cassualties as they ran from the house but when they made it, they were still enough left to be a fighting force. Eventually they regained their moral and back to the battle. So the AI thought it was a bad situation for the troops to be in and bugged them out. I am glad the AI moved them out, would be upset if it did not. Now the guys in the back of the house know that the HE fire is destroying the building, I think they might notice the large shells playing demolition men, and a few have even changed status to 'cautious' or 'alert' But..they don't see this as a real threat, even when the building is at ** and there is NO chance for survival if the building goes up (still one of my biggest problems with it) and the incoming fire continues. Why can't the inf react to that, and up their status.

So thinking in reality, they soldiers should know that that HE fire at the front of the house is a threat to them in a MAJOR TOTAL DEATH(or wounding) way and react occordingly, move out.

-MT