Building Destruction damage to units.

[Chupacabra]

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

I don't care if we have to sacrafice a little reality for better play....

Why would this be so bad? CM is not 100% realistic.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think CM should move towards being more realistic, not less so. IMO more realism makes for better play, not the other way around.

People have offered you several suggestions on how to avoid the problem you're complaining about without changing the game -suggestions which, I might add, have been verified by RL military folks on other threads. Try placing your infantry in such a way that the enemy physically cannot fire DF HE at your troops without exposing itself to your own AT weapons. Easier said than done, of course, but...

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

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 Colonel_Deadmarsh:

I don't care if we have to sacrafice a little reality for better play<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do, and many others too. Why not rocket tanks, and space-backpack driven flying Super SS men? Sure, not exactly realistic, but I am certain there will be someone who might find it easier to play that way.

I totally agree with Cumbaya that CM should get more realistic, not less so. Any other suggestion is just a way to have a Sudden Strike clone faster than you can say 'Close Combat'.

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

Andreas

[Mother Theresa]

Yes, I understand that they way to fix the problem is not to do it, none the less it is an issue that i think needs to be addressed. Esp. if we are going for more realism (which I prefer, in balance to a fun game as well) And it is unrealistic to lose all the men in a building when it is being hit by HE fire and they know that the building is going to collapse but just sit there and wait to die.

[Guest Germanboy]

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

And it is unrealistic to lose all the men in a building when it is being hit by HE fire and they know that the building is going to collapse but just sit there and wait to die.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you just have to see this bit as an abstraction - the building is obviously not okay and suddenly collapses, I think we have established that. The damage is gradual, and so you could assume that the damage to your men is gradual too. The problem is that at the moment CM does not model gradual damage, because otherwise if your troops were incurring casualties, they would be affected and might just hightail. What you have instead is the whole process of gradual damage to building and troops compressed into the split second of collapse. This is an abstraction that can be overcome by an adaption in tactics (leaving apart the realism issue for the moment) quite easily. I sincerely doubt we will see a change to this in CM1, but I expect and hope that for CM2 buildings are one of the main areas of improvement. And IIRC it was stated by BTS before that that was the case.

So basically you could see this as a challenge to map designers as well, to provide maps in which this feature only plays a very small role, by e.g. providing other cover within small towns (it is not an issue in larger towns or cities, IMO).

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

Andreas

[David Aitken]

Chupacabra wrote:

> I think CM should move towards being more realistic, not less so.

Germanboy wrote:

> I expect and hope that for CM2 buildings are one of the main areas of improvement.

This about sums it up. No-one is claiming that buildings in CM are already perfect, and should not change for this reason. But there are limits to the level of realism which BTS have been able to incorporate at this stage, and we've got to accept that. There is no easy way to overcome the collapsing building issue, and making buildings less realistic (stronger or whatever) is not the solution. Yes, CM is not 100% realistic. But it is unrealistic only in what it lacks – as far as is feasible, all included features of the game are as realistic as possible.

The issue will be resolved in CM2, when progressive building damage will hopefully be modelled. In the meantime, we'll just have to accept the abstraction of building damage. It is not as wrong as you think – it is simply abstracted. You can minimise tricky situations through proper tactics – and on the rare occasions that a tank suddenly materialises and starts shelling a building where your men are hiding, and on the rare instances of this that the building doesn't survive into the next orders phase – that's just bad luck, an inherent part of war.

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.'

[Papa Khann]

I think the buildings themselves function just fine as regards their durability.

Though I do sort of like the suggestion to key the morale status of infantry inside a building getting pounded by HE to their current situation. Makes perfect sense to me that if a ton of HE was dropping on the building I was in, I would probably start to feel like I was having a very bad day and consider "downgrading" myself to "Panicked" or "Routed". Could this be tied to the overall condition of the building (damaged or heavily damaged) and also to whether or not the building was currently under HE fire?

Is so, it's possible that infantry could run out of a building under those conditions and perhaps not get killed by falling debris while feeling just fine about it (morale wise).

Papa

[Col Deadmarsh]

Exactly Papa. I think this would be the best course of action and would satisfy both the realism nuts and the others who are bothered by the fact that they do not have enough control over their men.

Surely there could be a patch that could fix this for CM1 so we don't have to wait. This way, everything remains realistic--the buildings fall down when they should and the men move out when they feel they are in danger.

Also, a random factor could be integrated into this that would increase/decrease the chances of them getting out of the building--experience of team, under/not under command, etc. These factors would determine whether or not they remain in the building. The ones who are less experienced/not under command would be "pinned" and find that the house has come crashing down before they could get out. I think maybe if this happened a small amount of the time, it would work well.

BTS, I'd really like to see this in a future patch for CM1.

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

Yeah, but in Close Combat...

[Jeff Heidman]

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

BTS, I'd really like to see this in a future patch for CM1.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No thanks. Of all the things that can be worked on, this ranks pretty low on the list of prioities. I would much rather they spent that time on doing it right in CM2.

The problem is minimal as it stands now. Really, the problem you have is with the 60 second turn more than anything else. You want to be able to effect things that happen during that 60 second turn more than you can. Well, sorry, but that is not going to happen.

Further, I think some people are exagerating how often it actually occures that a previously unknown tank moves into LOS of a building you have troops in and destroys it, all in one 60 second turn. In my experience, about the only time I have seen a previously undamaged building (especially a heavy one) get destroyed within a single turn is when it is subject to large caliber (150mm+) artillery fire, and there is no problem with that.

Jeff Heidman

[Mother Theresa]

That is all I was asking for, some reaction from the troops inside to save their own lives. A change of unit status would do it.

-MT

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

"Out of fuel, become a pillbox. Out of ammo, become a bunker. Out of time, become hero's"

[Guest Germanboy]

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

That is all I was asking for, some reaction from the troops inside to save their own lives. A change of unit status would do it.

-MT

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have to agree with Jeff here. Low priority issue. Also, not being a programmer, I wonder how easy it will be to connect unit morale to the status of the building they are in. I would much rather have them work on a complete rework of the whole issue for CM2 (which I suspect will be necessary) than continuing to do piecemeal stuff on CM1 (for free, don't forget, since they are unlikely to be able to charge for this).

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

Andreas

[jshandorf]

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

I think you just have to see this bit as an abstraction - the building is obviously not okay and suddenly collapses, I think we have established that. The damage is gradual, and so you could assume that the damage to your men is gradual too. The problem is that at the moment CM does not model gradual damage, because otherwise if your troops were incurring casualties, they would be affected and might just hightail. What you have instead is the whole process of gradual damage to building and troops compressed into the split second of collapse. This is an abstraction that can be overcome by an adaption in tactics (leaving apart the realism issue for the moment) quite easily. I sincerely doubt we will see a change to this in CM1, but I expect and hope that for CM2 buildings are one of the main areas of improvement. And IIRC it was stated by BTS before that that was the case.

So basically you could see this as a challenge to map designers as well, to provide maps in which this feature only plays a very small role, by e.g. providing other cover within small towns (it is not an issue in larger towns or cities, IMO).

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But couldn't you abstract the troops getting out of the building by atleast letting a few of the guys survive instead of killing all of them? In that way it could atleast represent a few of them getting lucky, etc.

Personally, having units bail when a house reaches 75% is a good idea in theory but I can think of a few cases where this would really be a pain in the butt.

I think that having units bail when a house recieves a mass amount of damage that pushes it above 75% or when a building reaches 90% percent damage otherwise is a better solution. This would represent large HE shells slamming into the building and doing catastrophic damage (big jump above 75%) and also a building being picked away from flak guns and even grenades (gradual damage which would result in the troops bailing at 90%).

On a side note I was playing a game with MT where we saw a HE grenade destroy a house. Pretty funny actually but if you could imagine the condition of the house so that this is possible... It's a wonder the troops stayed in there.

Jeff

[Guest Germanboy]

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

But couldn't you abstract the troops getting out of the building by atleast letting a few of the guys survive instead of killing all of them? In that way it could atleast represent a few of them getting lucky, etc.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But despite the 'test', I regularly see survivors. Not too many, and they are a bit less than happy, but survive they do. I guess that is already in there. Higher stories are of course a different issue altogether, but you could argue that they would take longer to bail anyway, so they would incur more losses on the way out (if they make it at all).

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

Andreas

[Mother Theresa]

Do your own testing, and let me know if ANYONE ever survives being on the top floor, and watch there status at most go to 'cautious'. I think it is very unrealistic for them too take that much dmg from the building collapse, as well as very unrealistic for them to not react to the situation.

-MT

[Guest Big Time Software]

Anybody that cares about this issue should first read the rather recent thread noted on Page One of this current thread. We have gone over all this ground before.

Strengthening buildings, unrealistically, is totally out of the question.

Giving units some magic protection until the next turn is totally out of the question.

Jumping right on this issue and making a patch is also out of the question. Many more important things to do right now, the main one being TCP/IP.

Enhancing the simulation of buildings is, as has been stated many times before, one of the major goals set forth for CM2.

A rule about moving units out of 75% destroyed buildings would effectively make NO unit able to occupy said building ever. Order the unit in, and it will move out. So this is not a solution.

I'm not sure it was mentioned in the previous thread, but we have on the fabled "The List" an item that would automatically bump up the unit's unit status, thereby increasing its chance of moving out, when in buildings at 75%.

But... bottom line is to follow standard WWII doctrine in regards to occupying buildings. If the building is a likely target for heavy weapons, do not occupy it. The soldiers and officers in WWII understood the pitfalls of such tactical deployment, so should the player.

And Super SS Saucer men are also out of the question

Steve

[Guest Germanboy]

From 'The recollections of rifleman Bowlby' by Alex Bowlby (p.97).

The scene: summer 1944, south of Florence, the company has just moved through a village. He is in Four Platoon.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Whilst the rest of the company dug in Five Platoon went out on a fighting patrol. The crunch of bursting grenades made me wince, but the patrol returned safely, bringing a prisoner with them. They had surprised an enemy platoon dug-in round a farmhouse, and had killed or wounded several of them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> (Emphasis by me)

From the previous description of the terrain, and my (scarce) knowledge of this area of Italy, I think it is a fair assumption to make that this was a single farmhouse and not part of a village. Obviously the Germans thought that being in the farmhouse was a bad idea.

Anecdotal evidence I know, but still better than saying 'But in Close Combat' ot just telling others that they don't know what they are talking about.

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

Andreas

[Guest Andrew Hedges]

I don't think infantry commonly considered intact buildings as good defensive locations. I've read numerous accounts of the Battle of the Bulge, and even when the Americans were defending villages, including Bastogne, they always seemed to be in foxholes on the outskirts of the villages. I think this is significant because (1) it was really cold outside; and (2) Americans in December '44 did not have to worry (much) about air attacks (meaning that they didn't avoid buildings simply because they would be convenient Luftwaffe targets).

Obviously if you're fighting house-to-house, you have no choice but to fight house-to-house. But other than that, I don't think houses are, or should be, great defensive locations, for all kinds of reasons, some of which may or may not are modelled in the game. I do think it is realistic that troops can't always leave buildings before they collapse -- in most cases I would suspect that there is just one door on the side you want to exit from, and quickly running 10 men out the door will take some extra time...not to mention if the building houses a whole platoon.

Hmm, I suppose realistically almost any amount of damage would make it more difficult to leave the building; certainly a building could be 50% damaged and have all the exits on one side blocked.

[Maastrictian]

A reality check:

First of all, with the building damage indication you can now move your troops out of a building when it starts to get in trouble. If you wait to long to get out that is a command decision that *you* made. You don't want that command decision taken away from you.

Second, lets recall that the "top floor" represents the 3rd and 4th floors (that's american figuring), not the second. After falling 8 to 12 meters I find it fairly reasonable that everyone on the top floor is out of the battle. They might not all die, but they all will likely have broken bones, bad cuts etc, that will make them unable to fight.

--Chris

[dmart]

Hear, hear, to BTS reply of 10-11 and Maastrictian of earlier today. Quit the whining about losing troops in collapsing buildings. First, as indicated everywhere, the troops are not necessarily "killed," as so many writers like to claim; they are incapacitated, whcih means although possibly alive, they are unable to fight. YOU make the command decision to occupy the upper level with your troops. Just because you FAIL to anticipate an enemy course of action, you want a "take over" to remedy YOUR BAD DECISION: i.e. a second chance to get your troops out. Four or five 75+mm shells impacting in or against a building would definitely reduce it to rubble in a short time. If that short time falls within the Mad Minute, you rightfully lose.

[Alexander]

My personal thoughts on buildings in CM:

1- It's too routine to enter and exit buildings, especially in supposed unfriendly territory. You assume these guys aren't sauntering in like the meter man; they're smashing doors and windows, threatening occupants, if any. Maybe this should be more time consuming than depicted. Less so to exit.

2- Modelling progressive damage opens up a can of programming challenges. Can you aim for the top floor? Or take out the whole thing with a lower hit. IMO, a light structure that's 75% gone, we're talking bare frames, shouldn't take out an entire platoon if the last couple of beams come down.

3- BTS would help matters if they opened up the building bitmaps to mod-makers. Can we get away from the 'square' look?

4- As it stands, house-to-building combat in CM seems to possess an elegant simplicity. I don't care for ideas like adding rooms or windows.

OTOH- GIs, European cities, often advanced from room to room and bldg to bldg blowing holes in the walls with bazookas. That would be cool to model. Could you do this with 'fausts?

[PeterNZer]

BTS, please do NOT model my units runing wildly from damaged buildings!

I can imagine it now, the enemy parks his assests a few hundered meters from a town i'm in and proceedes to shoot up each building in turn, and then i'd watch as my overpriced SS Hamsters ran from building to building in panic. It would be like kicking an anthill and for players it would be VERY frustrating.

Remember, you as the commander are saying to your men 'occupy that building!' and any well trained soldiers will do so DESPITE you.

Sure, the conscripts and so on will run, but that may also loose you the battle, (especially if it's a key location and the shelling is just to keep your heads down before the troops rush your location).

There are so many reasons why making the tac AI take these kind of decisions is BAD.. hard to list them all.

If you are in a town, on defence, keep your men back! Don't put yourself in a position where you can loose men, if you do, you DESERVE to loose them. I love shelling people in buildings, makes my day when the other player is foolish enough to put his men in a silly position.

More annecdotal evidence:

Janes sited a reason why the KLA was a poor revolutionary army was that they didn't know how to fight in towns. The regularly sat inside buildings instead of in foxholes around buildings resulting in heavy losses since the Serbs simply shelled the buildings to rubble.

video from Grozny shows that there were trencehs and foxholes dug at the sides of streets by the rebels near where perfectly good houses stood. These guys know how to city fight.

On defence I do one, sometimes two things.

1) let the enemy get into town.. they often get muddled and easier to counterattack since their forces often lack cohesion and coordination, (a kinda "we're here now what?" factor)

2) Surprise attack in certain locations to catch the enemy unawares. Often attacking well forward of my defences.

Another way of avoiding the 'turn o death'. If you're going to move your guys into a building that may be shelled, pause them and move them in towards the end of the 60 seconds. That way if the building looks like it's going to get shelled you can get them out again.

PeterNZ

[Peterk]

I've found that heavy buildings can usually withstand at least a minute of shelling (unless more than one tank is ganging up on it) while light buildings may crumble in the first minute. There is uaulyy time to abandon a heavy building if you think that it is about to go.

If you try not to use light buildings as long-term defensive outposts you'll usually be OK. You can also try the tactic of placing a near worthless decoy in a bulding to draw fire so it blows, and then move your real defense into the rubble.

p.

[russellmz]

http://carlisle-www.army.mil/cgi-bin/usamhi/DL/showdoc.pl?docnum=24

on page 2 there is a description of a soldier who was with 20 other guys in a building. too many, the enemy shelled the building and it collapsed with everyone inside.

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

"They had their chance- they have not lead!" - GW Bush

"They had mechanical pencils- they have not...lead?" - Jon Stewart on The Daily Show

[Doug Beman]

From Deadmarsh

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So you want to be not responsible for the consequences of your actions?

DjB

[Guest Germanboy]

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

http://carlisle-www.army.mil/cgi-bin/usamhi/DL/showdoc.pl?docnum=24

on page 2 there is a description of a soldier who was with 20 other guys in a building. too many, the enemy shelled the building and it collapsed with everyone inside.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now don't we just love it when the 'Fanatical Batallions of Fact'™ root out foolish misconceptions.

So you want to be not responsible for the consequences of your actions?[/quote}

Doug, that was exactly what I thought. Of course it is always easier to claim that being allowed to screw up with no consequence is realistic.

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

Andreas

[Chupacabra]

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

Doug, that was exactly what I thought. Of course it is always easier to claim that being allowed to screw up with no consequence is realistic.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't forget, in America, our juries award multi-million dollar settlements to dumbasses who spill their coffee in their laps.

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

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