Walls and forts

[olandt]

Does anyone know if there will be larger walls in CMBB. I'm thinking of something one story high (two game levels). Of course they would need to be modelled with a way to blow them apart.

Second question revolves around forts and strongpoints. I know trenches are being added, but how about reinforced concrete forts capable of holding infantry? Basically something strong enough to withstand a good artillery pounding.

Disclaimer, I have no clue how common either of those where on the east front. I think the walls at least would be found in old cities.

[killmore]

I was just thinking that I really need tall walls for couple of missions I was planning

[Chad Harrison]

i cant answer your question, but along the same lines, will we ever see temporary/quickly prepared fortifications (ie. sandbags, fortified buildings)? id like to see a way to fortify a building which could represent a number of things.

the large walls olandt mentioned would be nice for the rare historical circumstances, and even more so for the ever so fun WHAT IF ones.

[Maj. Battaglia]

To answer the second question first, to some degree you can model forts now, and adding trenches in CMBB will enhance this.

What you can do is use either bocage or walls to design the general shape of the "fort" and then place a number of bunkers and/or pillboxes just in front of the wall/bocage at points where your emplacements would be. In CMBB you could connect (or nearly so I suppose) the bunkers with trenches for added protection. You can place wire just in front of bocage or wall to keep infantry from crossing, and non-US/UK AFVs can't cross bocage (I can't imagine USSR tanks will be fitted with the Cullin device). Infantry placed just behind (10 m or so) the bocage can still shoot through.

One problem is that once the occupants of a bunker are knocked out, no one else can then occupy it for cover.

For a tall wall, you can use the bocage with wire. This allows demo charges to blow the wire and infantry to then pass through. The only problem is that bocage can be seen through if you get within 10 meters or so.

I will add that I doubt many city wall fortifications were built in Imperial Russia, and those that were quite likely came down long before the war. In Vienna, for example, the huge city walls were removed in the 1860s and replaced by the ring road.

If many of these solutions seem unorthodox, I think that is one of the beauties of the CM system. Scenario designers can use terrain features to simulate all sorts of terrain not included. It may not look like what you are trying to simulate, but you can usually achieve the combat effect with some imagination.

[olandt]

What made me think of the walls was more a west front battle. Didn't the battle around Metz have walls? Other places where you would see walls would be surounding villas or mansions. Not to mention the ghettos or prison camps (which were more wire, but a few walls).

I definately think they need to implement some sort of sandbagging or reinforcement of buildings. Even just 2 qualities of foxholes would be good, the normal and a reinforced (could represent roof construction). Allow foxholes to exist in buildings, and that can represent sandbags.

[olandt]

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

For a tall wall, you can use the bocage with wire. This allows demo charges to blow the wire and infantry to then pass through. The only problem is that bocage can be seen through if you get within 10 meters or so.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was under the impression that barbed wire was not destoyable in the game (haven't run into it much so far, so I haven't really tried).

[olandt]

bump

[Chad Harrison]

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

I definately think they need to implement some sort of sandbagging or reinforcement of buildings. Even just 2 qualities of foxholes would be good, the normal and a reinforced (could represent roof construction). Allow foxholes to exist in buildings, and that can represent sandbags.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

has anyone hear any word on this? just having one type of foxhole is hard to represent the infantry prepared positions that were ever so present. i know that we will see trenches in CM2, but can we ask to also see levels of fortification for both buildings and foxholes/trenches? i would like to see that.

[Subvet]

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

I was under the impression that barbed wire was not destoyable in the game (haven't run into it much so far, so I haven't really tried).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are correct, it isn't removable during the game. Niether are roadblocks.

[Maj. Battaglia]

Regarding wire, you are absolutely right, it can't be removed, I had a momentary lapse of reasoning there. In any case, infantry can get through, just very very slowly. Bocage probably won't be included in CMBB anyway, so my idea probably wasn't such a good one as the East is concerned.

But high walls are something one would encounter occasionally, as Olandt mentions. Bocage at least does block LOS. I suppose the addition of wire and the slowdown for infantry could simulate them climbing or finding some opening. A very imperfect solution, I will agree.

Olandt's point about reinforced positions is also a good one. I find it a problem that the Allies do not get the use of at least wooden bunkers. I have read many accounts by veterans, especially from the Bulge, where the US had hunkered down in thick log machine gun emplacements and the like.

I think it would be too difficult coding wise to allow individual foxholes to be tinkered with, but perhaps there could be an option in the future that allows a higher defense value to be placed on all foxholes to simulate more preparation time. During this time deeper holes would be dug, camouflage improved, sandbags filled, etc.

I don't know the details of the new trenches, and perhaps those will reflect in some way what I just mentioned rather than just a passageway with the same defense value as a foxhole.

Foxholes in buildings may not be aesthetically pleasing, but I think that is also a good idea by Olandt. With a prepared defense option, you might be able to assign higher defense values to units setting up on defense in buildings, something they (and possibly the building) lose once they leave the building. Just throwing out ideas.

Finally, I wonder about using infantry in heavy fortifications. I have no proof one way or the other, but I would think doctrine would reserve heavy fortifications for machineguns and larger ordnance, leaving the regular infantry to largely hold it out in their foxholes, trenches, and other cover. Does anyone have information either way on this?

[Jager]

It would be nice to be able to fortify buildings. Correctly fortified building is extremely resistant to enemy fire. Also the troops inside would much less vulnerable to collapse of the building.

In CM attacker, once he/she get's into the town, is as well protected as the defender (unless in the open streets This is not realistic if attacking prepared defenses.

Also defenders should get bonuses in close combat situations inside fortified buildings due to the mines, various hindrances and architectual changes of the fortified house to meet the needs of the defenders.

I got a city fighting training while in the army so I guess I feel bit strongly about this particular issue

Jager

[Horncastle]

I think it would be a very good idea for the scenario designer to place emplacements, foxholes, wire, bunkers, ditches and other such devices in the same way as when you buy them. In that way it would be far easier for people to design and create defensive works, rather than overhauling the map desinger thingy.

This would add much more flexibility and really create some decent nuts to crack scenarios.