How do you play as the Americans?

[Stalin's Organ]

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

I dislike playing in villages, though, since the explosive buildings are so unrealistic. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just a point here - buildings in CM do not explode. The shock-wave yuo see on the screen is dramatic effect only and does not inflict any damage on anything.

[Pak40]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalin's Organ:

Just a point here - buildings in CM do not explode. The shock-wave yuo see on the screen is dramatic effect only and does not inflict any damage on anything.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, and I personally don't look at it as a shock wave, just the inevitable cloud of dust and debris that would occur due to a building collapsing.

[Stalin's Organ]

But back to the main question - how do I play Americans?

Badly!

They're just too expensive and I don't get enough of them - they die as easily as cheaper but less "glitzy" allies, but there's fewer of them to kill in the first place.

[lcm1947]

Boy, a lot of good comments and advice and I myself will try them. The one point I will make however is this: German troops can take out American tanks so easy it's not funny (if you are the Americans that is ) so be careful about allowing them to trap you or box you in. I find that while you are trying to out flank a tank the German troops will charge your tank and more then likely knock it out, out to say 125 meters even. Meters might be off a hair but you get the point. On the other hand it's extremely difficult to get American troops to knock out any of the German tanks. I've tryed it over and over and just get my troops shot up badly. Now the bazooka's are OK but I can never get close enough it seems to even shoot the thing. The German tank or troops spot him and ruin his day real soon. I am learning however if you place that bazooka team where they can hide until a tank passes by then it's a good chance you might get a chance to shoot but it's hard. Anyway, my two cents.

[Wreck]

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

buildings in CM do not explode. The shock-wave you see on the screen is dramatic effect only and does not inflict any damage on anything.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I realize that. "Explosive buildings" was a reference to the fact that buildings can be easily knocked down, and that such knocking has a terrible effect on infantry inside. The buildings might as well be made of gunpowder.

The fact that you can drop a building with a handful of HE, is to my mind the largest problem with CM as a simulation. In the real war, buildings were not shunned as highly dangerous deathtraps. Quite the opposite. Similarly, an enemy-held village in the real war was a tough nut to crack. In CM, a platoon of average tanks can level a village in minutes.

[Enoch]

I don't think I have much of a problem with the way CM models the destruction of buildings. Think of how many 75mm shells it would take until your house collapsed. I'd say 5 or so shots would pretty much reduce my house to a pile of rubble.

I know it was only a movie, but in "The Longest Day" where French Commandos call in Tank support to reduce a German strong point. I think the tank puts about 3 or 4 shots into the Cassino before it largely collapses.

My 2 cents.

[CMplayer]

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

I don't think I have much of a problem with the way CM models the destruction of buildings. Think of how many 75mm shells it would take until your house collapsed. I'd say 5 or so shots would pretty much reduce my house to a pile of rubble.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

After a game I ran some tests and a

WIRBELWIND could take down a large

heavy building in about a minute

and a half.

I have no idea if this is realistic

but it sounds strange. I could see

it putting a lot of ugly holes in

the facade, and ruining the flower

boxes, but _demolishing_ a 3-story

stone structure in 90 seconds?

regards,

--Rett

[Enoch]

This thread talks a bit about building destruction. Remember also that the CM depiction of a building collapse does not neccessarily mean the whole building collapsed. Could be just a wall or two came down. The end result is that the building is no longer habitable.

4 20mm cannons firing on a building could do a lot of damage in 90 seconds, in my opinion.

[ 06-26-2001: Message edited by: Enoch ]

[Agua]

Need to get Maxx (John Carvella) to chime in on playing US (I think he's off playing EU heavy duty presently). He's a master at using the m8 hmc and zooks in dense cover. These things are cheap as hell (58 for reg, 73 vet??) and carry 4 "c" rounds. You can purchase so many of them they can pummel your infantry and anytime you send something in to take one of em out, it will just pop smoke, back into cover and one or two from another clump of woods will just continue the clobbering from another direction. They can take out anything short of a Panther or Hetzer from the front as well (and a panther can be taken from the front side). In heavy cover, he'll purchase a lot of zooks and just run them out on wide-wide arcs in several directions and always seems to be able to pop up wherever your armour is presently situated.

[CMplayer]

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

This thread talks a bit about building destruction. Remember also that the CM depiction of a building collapse does not neccessarily mean the whole building collapsed. Could be just a wall or two came down. The end result is that the building is no longer habitable.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The end result is also that the building

no longer blocks LOS at the second story

or above. I call that effectively

collapsing the whole building. As pointed

out in the thread you redirected to,

there is already a *, and ** code to

warn of stages of building destruction

before it actually falls down and squishes

the guys in it.

The LOS issue is quite important if you

are planning a defence where certain

positions need to be shielded from long

range direct-fire HE. Make sure to know

in advance that his AA is more efficient

than professional demolition crews at

opening up vistas in city blocks composed

of large stone buildings.

This isn't a complaint, since there are

other examples of time compression in

the game. I just wonder if it is funny

that a wirbelwind, because of its high

rate of fire, is a more efficient building

killer, in relative terms, than, say

a StuH. The problem could be that building

damage is simply added up, based on all

the blast values that have been incurred

on the building. Whereas some small blasts,

should be seen as being under a threshold

level which doesn't cause serious structural

damage (within CM's time-frame) though

it might make the living room look like

hell. High rate of fire wouldn't help if

you were tossing firecrackers; somewhere

there ought to be a cutoff.

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

4 20mm cannons firing on a building could do a lot of damage in 90 seconds, in my opinion.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is that opinion based on having fired a

20mm, or watching one being used?

--Rett

[ 06-26-2001: Message edited by: CMplayer ]

[Enoch]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Is that opinion based on having fired a 20mm, or watching one being used? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Based on pure speculation.

FYI, ran a test. The StuH takes about 10 secs longer to destroy a building than the Wirbilwind.

[CMplayer]

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

Based on pure speculation.

FYI, ran a test. The StuH takes about 10 secs longer to destroy a building than the Wirbilwind.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I just ran the same test...you can see

it in a new thread.

regards,

--Rett

[Stalin's Organ]

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

I realize that. "Explosive buildings" was a reference to the fact that buildings can be easily knocked down, and that such knocking has a terrible effect on infantry inside. The buildings might as well be made of gunpowder.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

AFAIK only troops in a 2 story building take significant damage when it collapses - those on the top story are killed, those on the bottom story suffer some casualties, but never enough to destroy the unit that I can remember.

I'm playign a game with a 150mm german infantry gun right now. It takes 2-3 hits to demolish a small light building, and I'm not seeing any noticeable effects on the squads inside them (ie the number of figures in the squad isn't changing - I can't tell exactly how many men there are).

I sure wish those buildings were doing more damage!!

[Stalin's Organ]

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

Is that opinion based on having fired a

20mm, or watching one being used?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Accounts of .50's tell us that they could tear appart a small building in a couple of minutes using solid bullets just by ripping the supporting timbers to pieces.

I can't see that a 20mm would do any less, and I imagine a quad 20mm would do it in about 1/4 teh time!

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalin's Organ:

AFAIK only troops in a 2 story building take significant damage when it collapses - those on the top story are killed, those on the bottom story suffer some casualties, but never enough to destroy the unit that I can remember.

I'm playign a game with a 150mm german infantry gun right now. It takes 2-3 hits to demolish a small light building, and I'm not seeing any noticeable effects on the squads inside them (ie the number of figures in the squad isn't changing - I can't tell exactly how many men there are).

I sure wish those buildings were doing more damage!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm on the receiving end of that 150 and it hurts, believe me it hurts. Buildings collapseing don't kill men so much as the effect of the HE blast of the round, if they are in a building they (my troops) seem to fair better (even if the building collapses), then if they are in woods or scattered trees, there the blast tends to kill more of them, I know, because that damn 150 is really starting to get to me!

-tom w

[Kanonier Reichmann]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalin's Organ:

But back to the main question - how do I play Americans?

Badly!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

PLAGIARIST!

Jim R.

[Stalin's Organ]

Rubbish - Kannonier and I obviously have he same experience and so came to the same answer!! (actually I hadn't read his post!!)

And I'm glad to hear it's hurtin' you Tom - I'm sure that last one in the middle of the 2 mg's and bazooka wouldn't have done them any good at all , but dammit I can't see the damage!! :mad:

[JasonC]

Buildings go down ridiculously fast in CM. You can still fight in the rubble of course, but it does not have any elevation/second story. This makes direct fire HE way too effective against building cover.

Urban fighting did produce streets of rubble, but not from light cannon, or even tank guns firing a few scores of shells. They were rubbled by air bombardment in the hundreds of tons of bombs, or artillery fire kept up over days or weeks and running in some cases over a million shells fired.

If one imagines some very light shacks for which the rate of destruction in CM seems realistic (e.g. for a one story wood building perhaps), then the question becomes, where are the more serious buildings?

You know, the air forces went to the trouble of making bombs of several thousand pounds for a reason - because bombs up to 250 or even 500 lbs just did not level city blocks. Up to half the weight of a large air-dropped bomb can be explosive.

The TNT in a tank round is 1-2 lbs, and in light guns rounds (20mm etc) it is measured in grams. Engineers used 5-10 lb bags of TNT to blow holes in brick walls large enough for a man to fit through. The size of explosive charges that bring down the fronts - but not all - of large buildings in terrorist attacks, run into the hundreds and sometimes a few thousand pounds.

A few 1-2 lb HE charges are not going to bring down a 2-4 story brick or concrete building, even if you planted them on supports, which tank fire through a wall does not do.

CM seems to use a cumulative total HE charge received measure to collapse buildings. A more accurate way would add up something like the square of the blast, to make small rounds largely irrelevant and the largest ones the only ones likely to result in collapse. They should be far more robust against blast ratings under 50 or so, and somewhat more robust (especially larger and heavy building types) against even the big shells.

It would probably also be better if it were somewhat probabilistic. The current system encourages systematic elimination of every building in an attacker's path, occupied or not, which is not what they actually did, or could even attempt with just a few tanks.

[Mr. Johnson--]

Yeah its a bummer we don't have any big reinforced concrete apartment blocks or large factories. But you can still make a block of 6 heavy buildings and they make a pretty good hideout....at least for a little bit.

[CMplayer]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalin's Organ:

Accounts of .50's tell us that they could tear appart a small building in a couple of minutes using solid bullets just by ripping the supporting timbers to pieces.

I can't see that a 20mm would do any less, and I imagine a quad 20mm would do it in about 1/4 teh time!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes but the issue here isn't small buildings

built of timbers, it is large stone

blockhouses.

regards,

--Rett

[CMplayer]

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

A few 1-2 lb HE charges are not going to bring down a 2-4 story brick or concrete building, even if you planted them on supports, which tank fire through a wall does not do.

CM seems to use a cumulative total HE charge received measure to collapse buildings. A more accurate way would add up something like the square of the blast, to make small rounds largely irrelevant and the largest ones the only ones likely to result in collapse. They should be far more robust against blast ratings under 50 or so, and somewhat more robust (especially larger and heavy building types) against even the big shells.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly! Thanks for expressing this so

well. I find it irksome to say the least

that the simulation quality of CM is so

comprimised in urban fighting by this

mistaken algorithm in calculating building

damage. It is too linear, and simply

sums up blast values, which leads to

absurd effects, like the wirbelwind being

the best blockbuster vehicle in the game.

regards,

--Rett

[aka_tom_w]

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

Buildings go down ridiculously fast in CM. You can still fight in the rubble of course, but it does not have any elevation/second story. This makes direct fire HE way too effective against building cover.

Urban fighting did produce streets of rubble, but not from light cannon, or even tank guns firing a few scores of shells. They were rubbled by air bombardment in the hundreds of tons of bombs, or artillery fire kept up over days or weeks and running in some cases over a million shells fired.

If one imagines some very light shacks for which the rate of destruction in CM seems realistic (e.g. for a one story wood building perhaps), then the question becomes, where are the more serious buildings?

You know, the air forces went to the trouble of making bombs of several thousand pounds for a reason - because bombs up to 250 or even 500 lbs just did not level city blocks. Up to half the weight of a large air-dropped bomb can be explosive.

The TNT in a tank round is 1-2 lbs, and in light guns rounds (20mm etc) it is measured in grams. Engineers used 5-10 lb bags of TNT to blow holes in brick walls large enough for a man to fit through. The size of explosive charges that bring down the fronts - but not all - of large buildings in terrorist attacks, run into the hundreds and sometimes a few thousand pounds.

A few 1-2 lb HE charges are not going to bring down a 2-4 story brick or concrete building, even if you planted them on supports, which tank fire through a wall does not do.

CM seems to use a cumulative total HE charge received measure to collapse buildings. A more accurate way would add up something like the square of the blast, to make small rounds largely irrelevant and the largest ones the only ones likely to result in collapse. They should be far more robust against blast ratings under 50 or so, and somewhat more robust (especially larger and heavy building types) against even the big shells.

It would probably also be better if it were somewhat probabilistic. The current system encourages systematic elimination of every building in an attacker's path, occupied or not, which is not what they actually did, or could even attempt with just a few tanks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a VERY good point and it REALLY needs its OWN thread so as not to be over looked by BTS with regard to how building destruction is modeled in CMBB.

I hope someone starts a NEW thread about this.

-tom w