Purposely setting buildings afire in urban warfare?

[RSColonel_131st]

Anyone else experimented with this? Seems to me it can take as much as a full ammo load or two from a flamethrower to set fire to a big, heavy building inside a city.

Then it takes another 10 or 15 minutes for the fire to really spread. But once it has spread, you have denied the building to the enemy (and yourself) for the rest of the battle.

I did this today with a free-standing tall building that was closest to my flag, because I didn't want a close-in firefight "across the street". As a result the enemy had to run over open ground and got hacked to bits by my MGs.

Arguable the random generated map today was really favorable for this tactic, but it certainly warrants further usage.

In a similar note, using a lot of flamethrowser against infantry during my recent urban combat battles, often the buildings will catch fire easily "by accident" (in fact far easier than "area targeting" them). Which means you might end up denying yourself the next cover/movement location.

[junk2drive]

I have better luck with FTs vs ground and buildings than vs troops. Sometime the FT just gives away his position and promptly dies.

I have also seen routed troops crawl into burning buildings.

[RSColonel_131st]

I thought I'd post a screenshot, but now the autosave has been overwritten...oh well.

I find that in urban combat, my FTs do quite well, as long as it's only a few enemy squads on the other side of the street, and they are busy shooting at my own infantry. The FT should never be the first target they get to see.

If the enemy is busy, I will walk up the FT team from the center closer to the wall of their building, and upon visual contact they will grill the bastards on the other side of the street.

As for routed troops going into burning buildings - was the building really "fully ablaze"? I found that at the beginning, the big buildings just "burn on the outside" (that's the visual representation of it) but eventually will catch fire trough and trough, and then it should be impossible to enter.

In a certain way I still think it's funny that in most cases where I use FT against infantry, the building catches fire in a single flame burst, but if you use FT against buildings (area-target) you often need all 9 "shots" to start a fire.

At the end of the day, it still is amazing how much tactical freedom you have in this game. If it was used in real life, you can try it in CMBB.

[John_d]

That's one of favourite tactics! If you're feeling particularly evil, send a few conscripts into an occupied building first to draw fire away from the windows, then send in the flamers to set the building alight whilst the enemy is dealing with the conscripts you've just sent in. HAHAHAA!

But, seriously, it is a very useful tactic especially when you've got an AT gun keyholed down a street and you don't want it to get outflanked. Or if you want to channel the enemy down one particular street.

[George MC]

Just don't advance a load of flamthrower SPW - set fire to the enemy held houses on that that side of the village, then find you can't get in cos all the houses are on fire effectively forming a nice wee barricade stopping your infantry moving into the village!! DOH!

Cheers fur noo

George

[imported_no_one]

*waits for Pseudo to see this thread* :mock: :snicker: :mad: :mad:

[RSColonel_131st]

Are there any factors that decide how quickly a building becomes "fully on fire"?

Does more Flame-Thrower usage help with that? Mine take a bit long.

[imported_no_one]

My opponent and I have just recently completed a scenario in which some of these things took place.My opponent,in an act of desperation,was area targeting out of a heavy building hoping for a possible "over-shoot" from his flamethrower so as to try and KO a nearby Stug.The first two "blasts" from his flamer never made it out of the building,instead they hit inside the building and by the second blast set the building on fire;the flamethrower was engaged and suppressed after that,though.Once the building was set on fire some of his other units that were in the heavy building came running out--to my delight :evil grin:

Later,I had a regular german flamer expend all 9 units of ammo area targeting an adjacent building to set it on fire,hoping to also make it unusable to his forces as the building was right near that flag.However,no such luck.Instead,I had to have my pioneers use their demos to destroy the building.

[Carl Puppchen]

Having flamethrowers burn something with no enemy around just to deny it to the enemy is pretty 'gamey' - in that, would they really burn all their valuable ammo on that in the real world.

Kind of like when you hit a structure that the enemy is using but it isn't near you so that it is to the ** star rating (about to fall down), but you DON'T hit it any more so that they can't crawl back into the rubble but if they DO go into the building, then you can flatten it with their guys in it...

not to say that I don't use these tactics from time to time, I just feel a bit guilty about it

[imported_no_one]

If it is gamey,then it is just barely gamey.I have never burnt a structure that had no enemy near it,to prevent a keyholed gun from being flanked(for example).

But,your second example is not gamey at all,IMO,except that you are able to determine pretty much exactly how damaged the structure is,and aprox how many more rounds it will take to bring it down;however,the same could be done IRL by simply observing the structure.Also,IRL,I would guess that you typically wouldn't want to destroy buildings as they may be useful to you in the future.Therefore,delaying their destruction would be logical,but if the enemy persisted in using them you would obviously destroy them.

[Sergei]

Yeah yeah, get done with your turn, slacker! :mad:

[imported_no_one]

Originally posted by Sergei:

Yeah yeah, get done with your turn, slacker! :mad:

What turn?

Edit to add:

What turn?!?!?!?!?Dear god,man,don't tell me that you fianlly sent a turn and it got lost :eek: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[ November 07, 2005, 12:32 PM: Message edited by: no_one ]

[RSColonel_131st]

Originally posted by Carl Puppchen:

Having flamethrowers burn something with no enemy around just to deny it to the enemy is pretty 'gamey' - in that, would they really burn all their valuable ammo on that in the real world.

Yes they would. Somewhere in an account about Manstein, I read about "sealing their flank with a wall of fire" - I think that actually refered to open fields.

Also, accounts of Festung Breslau, for example. Many buildings there were set on fire or demolitioned to deny the enemy cover, or to clear fields of fire.

Not gamey at all. Just applied combat engineering.

[imported_no_one]

Originally posted by RSColonel_131st:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Carl Puppchen:

Having flamethrowers burn something with no enemy around just to deny it to the enemy is pretty 'gamey' - in that, would they really burn all their valuable ammo on that in the real world.

Yes they would. Somewhere in an account about Manstein, I read about "sealing their flank with a wall of fire" - I think that actually refered to open fields.

Also, accounts of Festung Breslau, for example. Many buildings there were set on fire or demolitioned to deny the enemy cover, or to clear fields of fire.

Not gamey at all. Just applied combat engineering. </font>

[Carl Puppchen]

I don't think you can definitively say what is gamey and what is not gamey.

I think that hitting a building until it has ** on it at the objective but not rubbling it, effectively denying it to the enemy, is gamey.

I think that setting stuff on fire near the objective, with no enemy around, using all of your ammo up to do it, is gamey.

It is in the eye of the beholder...

and I do it too, just feel a bit guilty, that's all

[imported_no_one]

Why is it gamey?I have never seen that the effects of a "collapsing" building is all that great anyhow,unless you had stuff on the top floor.Plus,it will billow up the huge dust cloud which may actually help your opponent gain access to the area.

You,or anyone,will have to give more substantial reasons as to why it is gamey;other than the fact that you feel bad about it.

[RSColonel_131st]

Preparing to take down a building is quite similar to rigging booby traps or command-detonated explosives. If I, as a german field commander, had the explosives at hand to prepare a building for demolition, I certainly would do so in anticipation for the enemy.

no_one, do you know where I could find the Festung Breslau scenario? Sounds interesting.

[imported_no_one]

Originally posted by RSColonel_131st:

no_one, do you know where I could find the Festung Breslau scenario? Sounds interesting.

It is an operation,not a scenario.I got it from the Scenario Depot,but that is gone now.So,I emailed it to you.I really enjoyed it as a PBEM.

Enjoy!

[Carl Puppchen]

Hey no one - I don't like the tone of your post.

Are you saying that the impact of a squad in a building when it collapses isn't substantial? What do you base that on? In the dozens of times a building has collapsed on my troops it has often totally wiped out the squads or if not severly mauled them.

Thus the gamey part, as I see it, is intentionally targeting a structure, then hitting it until it has ** which is clearly availabe from the targeting line, and then not hitting it any more. If this building is an objective, which can be the case, you have effectively denied that location to the enemy, because they can't put troops in it (unless you don't think a collapsing building hurts troops, which I vehemently disagree with, why do you think that they run out of it when it gets to **), that is gamey.

The act of destroying a building, isn't. Putting it on the edge of destruction and stopping so that you can smash it right at the end of a scenario and denying it to your enemy to artificially impact the time frame, is gamey.

Flamethrowers are a different story. I don't remember in my analysis of their deployment major sections where they talk about using up ammo on your own locations to deny them to the enemy, they were generally used to reduce enemy strongpoints and were viewed as rare and valuable assets. It would not be a typical doctrine to deploy them in the way discussed (sure it could happen, but far from typical), and that is why I call it gamey.

[RSColonel_131st]

Originally posted by Carl Puppchen:

Flamethrowers are a different story. I don't remember in my analysis of their deployment major sections where they talk about using up ammo on your own locations to deny them to the enemy, they were generally used to reduce enemy strongpoints and were viewed as rare and valuable assets. It would not be a typical doctrine to deploy them in the way discussed (sure it could happen, but far from typical), and that is why I call it gamey.

Again, burning buildings (to deny cover/clear lanes of fire) or even wheat fields (for cover) is a tactic mentioned in some historical accounts.

The difference is that they had simpler means to set fire to an old building than we have. We need to "abuse" our valuable FTs for that, when in reality this was all part of shaping the battlefield.

Same for buildings - while in reality you couldn't exactly "destroy them to the point right before they crumble" you could rig them with explosives.

In any fight against a dug-in defense, where the defending side is assumed to have spent some time in their place, it would be REALISTIC to have options for "take down this building/set it afire" or "bobby-trap that house". That's what they did. The only thing "gamey" in CM is that we have to resort to use actual combat weapons for doing this.

[imported_no_one]

Hey no one - I don't like the tone of your post.

That's the funny thing about the written word,it is open to interpretation,and unfortunately assumptions.

Are you saying that the impact of a squad in a building when it collapses isn't substantial? What do you base that on? In the dozens of times a building has collapsed on my troops it has often totally wiped out the squads or if not severly mauled them.

Yes,I am saying that.For every example of your poor fortune I can present examples of my apparent good fortune where I have had squads,hqs,teams completely unharmed by a collapsing building.Rarely,if ever,have I had any full strength unit(other than HQ's)be completely eliminated when a building collapses.In most cases ,if you had a full platoon in a building(on the bottom floor),some of the squads would take maybe 50% casualties,some 25%,and some will take little to no casualties.

Thus the gamey part, as I see it, is intentionally targeting a structure, then hitting it until it has ** which is clearly availabe from the targeting line, and then not hitting it any more. If this building is an objective, which can be the case, you have effectively denied that location to the enemy, because they can't put troops in it (unless you don't think a collapsing building hurts troops, which I vehemently disagree with, why do you think that they run out of it when it gets to **), that is gamey.

What is stopping the other player from using his own assets to go ahead and level the building before sending anything in.Then,when there is a giant dust billow,he can stroll on in.

Typically flags represent logical or important areas.That is why there is a little flaggie there.If you think that IRL actual forces are going to be polite so that you can casually take this obviously important area,then you are crazy.By damaging it,but not destroying it,yes you are denying it to the enemy--which is *intelligent*,not gamey.And if the enemy should never aquire the building of importance,then it is still standing and somewhat useful to your forces,should you capture it.

In a way,how is this any different than something like a scorched earth policy?If you can't have it,why are you going to let the enemy have it?

The act of destroying a building, isn't. Putting it on the edge of destruction and stopping so that you can smash it right at the end of a scenario and denying it to your enemy to artificially impact the time frame, is gamey.

I know nothing of this,but to be honest,if you are waiting until the last second to snatch the objective,then you are being gamey,too.In the exact same way,by taking advantage of the gamey knowledge that the battle will end in a turn or two.

I do know that stuff like this is why I play variable ending battles,though.

Flamethrowers are a different story. I don't remember in my analysis of their deployment major sections where they talk about using up ammo on your own locations to deny them to the enemy, they were generally used to reduce enemy strongpoints and were viewed as rare and valuable assets. It would not be a typical doctrine to deploy them in the way discussed (sure it could happen, but far from typical), and that is why I call it gamey.

I don't really have an opinion on this,as I have never used any in this way.But,again,you mention that they are "rare and valuable assets" and if someone wants to waste them doing something like this,then fine.However,if by doing so,they make it completely impossible for any enemy units to get around,over,under,etc to capture the objectives,then yes,it would be gamey.

[Sirocco]

As an example, Rommel set buildings on fire to provide smoke, and used artillery to protect his flanks, during his initial drive at the head of 7 PD in 1940; so it's not unrealistic to do the same things in CM.

[Erik Springelkamp]

A firewall

[RockinHarry]

The Ortona battle was a good example about what you can do with damaging buildings in an

urban fight. :eek: Unfortunately "mouse holing" ain´t modeled in the game, but you can try Dorosh´s "Little Stalingrad". Don´t know where it´s currently available for download. :confused: