Heavy Building vs. Light Building?

[CombinedArms]

I recently played WBW's Private Ryan scenario vs. AI, where as Allies I had a very few veteran to elite paratroop squads against a swarm of green to regular German rifle squads. No spoilers here, but each US squad is vital to survival in this scenario.

Now I had one elite paratroop squad under company HQ with full double bonuses in one building facing a regular 44 German rifle squad in the next buiding on the street, with a 5-10 meters gap between them. Each squad had 8 still-active members. My elite paratroops had supporting fire on the German squad from another US squad across the road. I assumed my high quality paratroops with their high ROF, excellent command bonus, and supporting fire from another squad would chew up the German squad--but the reverse happened. All of my squad members were KO'd with slight loss to the Germans.

I was so amazed by this I played the turn over several times, always with the same basic result--the Germans chewed up the US elite paratroops. I tried to find an explanation and finally noticed that my paratroops were in a light building, the Germans in a heavy building. Could this difference really account for the result? Is being in a heavy building really that much of an advantage in a face-to-face fight? If so, it would seem to have serious implications for street fighting tactics.

[Redwolf]

Are you sure they have a firefight at 5-10 meters?

Usually, everything under 15 meters is a fistfight, decided by number of men, experience and fatique.

But yes, the heavy buildings offer better cover. Also what is the exact weapon mix in the 8 men remaining for each side?

[Cubbies Phan]

Basically look at the difference like this.

Light buildings are most likely made out of wood frames and wooden and/or plaster walls. Heavy buildings are basically made of stone or concrete.

[CMplayer]

To elaborate, the Germans can shoot right through the walls and watch the blood leak out the holes.

[Michael Emrys]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by CombinedArms:

I was so amazed by this I played the turn over several times, always with the same basic result--the Germans chewed up the US elite paratroops.<hr></blockquote>

I'm curious as to how you went about this step. If you just hit the Start button and then ran the tape forward, of course you will get the same result every time, just like you will get the same music out of a record every time you play it. On the other hand, if you had saved the turn before you hit Go the first time, you could abort the scenario, then reload it and hit Go, forcing the computer to recalculate the outcome of the turn. This might give you a different result.

Michael

[Wreck]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

Is being in a heavy building really that much of an advantage in a face-to-face fight? If so, it would seem to have serious implications for street fighting tactics.

<hr></blockquote>

The difference between heavy and light buildings is pretty big. Something like 18% cover vs 12%, i.e., 50% higher. That means you would be losing men at a 50% higher rate, all other things equal. And that effect would snowball, for two reasons. One, just in terms of firepower; you can see that your having lost three men and him, two, would be to his benefit. But second, taking casualties is always a morale hit. So your guys would be spending more time on the floor not firing than his.

I am a bit surprised this happened, though, given the +2 morale leader you had. But maybe the Germans had a good morale leader as well.

In any case, yes: the difference is huge for fighting in villages and cities. Wood buildings are fine if you have a 2:1 advantage, say. But for slugging matches, you want the absolute best cover possible.

[Monty's Double]

Michael, if you Alt-A during the movie then reload the autosaved game, it goes back to the previous orders phase. The results of the following movie are calculated afresh, and this can be wildly different. This is more noticable when tanks are in combat, due to the essentially binary nature of tank combat (ie dead or alive). And yes, the temptation to do this when something bad happens in a game against the computer is very high, and we are only human after all....

[CombinedArms]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by redwolf:

Are you sure they have a firefight at 5-10 meters?

Usually, everything under 15 meters is a fistfight, decided by number of men, experience and fatique.

But yes, the heavy buildings offer better cover. Also what is the exact weapon mix in the 8 men remaining for each side?<hr></blockquote>

OK, guys, I'm back from work so I could check out the movie more closely. It was actually 9m separating the forces, a 7-3 veteran US paratroop squad against a 7-2 regular German 44 Rifle squad. The paratroops, which had 152 firepower, including I SMG and a BAR, were in command under a full double-bonus HQ and had another squad firing in support 50m away. The Germans, with 148 firepower, as far as I could tell, were not in command at all.

I had saved the turn and re-played it again several times, with slightly varying but always consistent results--the paratroops got creamed. Usually they instantly suffered 3-4 casualties and were generally all dead within 20 seconds. The Germans suffered, at most, one casualty, and usually none at all.

I had left the paratroops there, in the context of a fighting retreat, because I thought they had the advantage and would win the confrontation. But obviously that was far from the case. I can only conclude that the difference between light and heavy building is a much bigger factor in a situation like this than I would have ever expected--enough to really affect my city-fighting tactics from now on. That difference between 12% and 18% cover really matters!

And yes, alt-A will also work to get back to your previous turn.

[Wreck]

Correction: looks like the cover figures are 11% and 19%. So, the guys in the wood should expect to take 72% higher casualties initially, not 50%.

[MyNameW]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Wreck:

Correction: looks like the cover figures are 11% and 19%. So, the guys in the wood should expect to take 72% higher casualties initially, not 50%.<hr></blockquote>

Probability of taking casualties cannot depend linearly on firepower & cover. Also small arms are extreamly effective at very short ranges.

So that 72% difference in cover figures may result in 200-300% or even more difference in casualty rate.

[PiggDogg]

In CM, I have found heavy buildings to be a near quantum leap in protection for occupying infantry compared to light buildings. I do not know the math behind the cover value of heavy & light buildings, but I do know the end effect.

Due to the high protection of heavy buildings, it is quite difficult to kill enemy infantry occupying the heavies. I have found that it takes about 3 robust (in numbers & firepower) squads or their equivalent (hopefully also in heavy buildings) at point blank range (40 - 60 meters) to quickly dispatch an enemy squad. :eek:

In CM terms, heavy buildings 'act' like near pillboxes & I try to base my defense around supported (and I repeat 'supported') heavy buildings that I occupy. Indeed, get to the heavy buildings first with the most, give those guys some additional support, & let your enemy try to root you out.

All things being equal, your enemy will have a tough time and you will have a less tough time.

Cheers, Richard :cool: :cool:

[Wreck]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

Probability of taking casualties cannot depend linearly on firepower & cover.

<hr></blockquote>

Why not? In fact, in the testing I have done (with MGs at long range), probability of taking casualties does correlate pretty strongly with total firepower applied, as reduced for cover.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

Also small arms are extremely effective at very short ranges.

<hr></blockquote>

This is true, and reflected in CM by the fact that at short ranges they have high firepower.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

So that 72% difference in cover figures may result in 200-300% or even more difference in casualty rate.

<hr></blockquote>

Yes. I explained this above.

[Redwolf]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by CombinedArms:

OK, guys, I'm back from work so I could check out the movie more closely. It was actually 9m separating the forces, a 7-3 veteran US paratroop squad against a 7-2 regular German 44 Rifle squad. The paratroops, which had 152 firepower, including I SMG and a BAR, were in command under a full double-bonus HQ and had another squad firing in support 50m away. The Germans, with 148 firepower, as far as I could tell, were not in command at all.

<hr></blockquote>

You mean the HQ had double on *every* bonus?

For starters, the firepower rating displayed is before the combat modifier of the HQ is applied, so it is 20% or more higher on such a HQ. And the morale is important because it will make them keep firing back without supression much longer.

As for the second sqaud firing at the paratroops, what angle were they? CMBo infantry is much more robust from front, attacking with two units 90 degrees apart overwhelms them quickly even with lower firepower. And 50 meters is damn near.

As for the building, it sounds perfectly right that a heavy buiilding has so much more cover. Look at a solid stone house and a wood building. US citizens probably need to visit the town hall or library, Europeans should have a look at the summer houses in Denmark. In WW2 the differences between the expensive buildings and the cheap ones were much greater than today.

[Michael Emrys]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by redwolf:

As for the second sqaud firing at the paratroops...<hr></blockquote>

The second squad was American too: "My elite paratroops had supporting fire on the German squad from another US squad across the road."

Michael

[CombinedArms]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by redwolf:

[QB]

You mean the HQ had double on *every* bonus?

For starters, the firepower rating displayed is before the combat modifier of the HQ is applied, so it is 20% or more higher on such a HQ. And the morale is important because it will make them keep firing back without supression much longer.

/QB]<hr></blockquote>

Yes, the HQ had double on every bonus. And the paratroop unit showed great morale. They kept firing back and never flinched until they were all killed.

I guess the 20% firepower bonus I was counting on was trivial compared to the 'heavy building' advantage.

The supporting squad was a US paratroop squad (down to six effectives) firing from rubble at about a 45 degree angle from across the street.

I guess the moral is, as someone above said, to treat heavy buildings as a keystone of success and survival in urban fighting. I just hadn't realized their importance until now.

[MikeyD]

Could you tell what weapon types the Germans had? those 9mm SMGs are as lethal at close range as they are useless at long range. I always have higher-than expected casualties when I get into close combat situations with SMG-armed opponents.

[History Buff]

I can't say I've played the scenario

But was the german building a larger building, say a double storey

generally I've found they hold up a bit better and block the punch far greater

Just a thought

Also SMG's are lethal at close range, regardless of many other factors

Were they SMG's?

:confused:

[Andrew H.]

High morale is a double edged sword. On the one hand, the troops won't cower and reduce their firepower. On the other hand, if they are facing overwhelming firepower, the troops will often stay and die when lesser troops would have lived to fight another day.

[CombinedArms]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:

High morale is a double edged sword. On the one hand, the troops won't cower and reduce their firepower. On the other hand, if they are facing overwhelming firepower, the troops will often stay and die when lesser troops would have lived to fight another day.<hr></blockquote>

Crawling out the back door might have been a good plan in this case.

To answer some previous questions, it was indeed a large heavy building. My own troops had been in it just previously and it had taken several hits from Tigers and Marders without signs of damage.

The German troops were from a vanilla 44 Rifle Squad. If I recall correctly, they had 1 SMG and 1 LMG, the rest rifles.

[tenfive2]

I learned my lesson defending in light buildings against troops in heavy buildings. I lost troops at a 3 to 1 ratio.

[gredeker]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:

High morale is a double edged sword. On the one hand, the troops won't cower and reduce their firepower. On the other hand, if they are facing overwhelming firepower, the troops will often stay and die when lesser troops would have lived to fight another day.<hr></blockquote>

I'll second this sentiment. After getting burned by troops who bravely stood their ground to the last man, I now try to play with troops no better than veteran quality, with the majority being regular quality.

[Splash]

One thing I've noticed is that sometimes it's worth putting your men outside the light building (so that there are 2 walls protecting them -- I'm always suprised by the amount of LOS the unit still has and it probably moves the defensive characterics much closer to a heavy building.

My favorite is a foxhole in this spot - a tank has to hunt hard to find them.

[CMplayer]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Splash:

My favorite is a foxhole in this spot - a tank has to hunt hard to find them.<hr></blockquote>

Be careful though. Armor can area fire to a point very close to your squad by aiming into the building, even if they don't have LOS to the squad itself. 75mm HE won't be so dangerous used that way, but 105 will rip you up.