Leveling big buildings – a valid or gamey tactic?

[Ace Pilot]

I’ve noticed that under the right circumstances, a worthwhile tactic is destroying every two story building that you can see - prior to even spotting any enemy units. My question is, under the circumstances presupposed in most CM battles, is this a realistic tactic or just gamey? Would tankers expend ammo on a church or tall building just on the chance that there might be an MG or FO in the upper floor?

Was this seen more commonly on certain fronts as compared to others?

[Sergei]

Not unless there was known to be a strong enemy presence in the vicinity. Eg. if you're on an attack mission and you know the village is full of enemies, it is not unheard of. Then it depends more on issues like individual commanders. In the original CMBO scenario A Walk in Paris the Free French player is instructed that it is not really a good idea for a French officer to deliberately level half of Paris.

[Pvt. Ryan]

I don't think it is realistic due to time and ammo constraints, but at the same time I don't see it as gamey. Levelling buildings doesn't take advantage of a flaw or limitation in the game engine, other than stractegic use of tall buildings is not a concern in the game since stand alone scenarios have no effect on future combat (except in operations). If you have a small number of buildings to destroy it is a usefull tactic, but if you are attacking a town it is not practical, just like in real life. I would think a real army on the advance would try to capture tall buildings intact to put to their own use, rather than level them as a precaution.

[Ace Pilot]

Originally posted by Sergei:

Not unless there was known to be a strong enemy presence in the vicinity.

I'm under the impression that most (I realize there are exceptions) CM battles take place after the initial scouting has been done, so the presumption that enemy forces are in the vicinity is a given. Couple that with some heavily HE-laden tanks (that I figure I'm more likely to lose well before they use up their ammo), and I'm inclined to just start blowing up likely observation posts. Especially if the map only has a half dozen or less 2-story buildings.

Still, it strikes me that such behavior would be discouraged in real life, but I wasn't sure if that was true or not.

[Michael Emrys]

It was done. When a town or village was known to be occupied by the enemy, whatever artillery or bombers were available were called in to do their worst. In a case like the present one, instead of a platoon of Shermans doing the dirty work, they would have just wheeled up an M7 or two and leveled each one with two or three shots.

Once Patton's Third Army began rolling across Germany in the spring of 1945, they established what they called the Third Army War Memorial Program. When they came to a German town, they would pause, bring forward an M7 to fire a single round or maybe two into one of the more imposing buildings. Then they would wait. Usually after a few minutes, the Burgermeister would approach waving a white flag to offer the surrender of the town. Then the Army would roll on to the next town.

Michael

[Hortlund]

Well, in real life you would have two additional considerations.

1) Someone is probably living in that building. For all you know, that very room you are aiming at could at that very second contain a cowering family. Some might not care about that, but generally, most soldiers did not deliberately go out of their way to kill or make the lives of the civilians extra-miserable.

2) You could easily pump 50 HE 75mm grenades into a building without having it explode and rubble like it does in CM. At what point do you stop shooting at building X and start shooting at building Y? Meanwhile, you might not be quite sure when the next ammo load will come, and you dont really want to face infantry without that HE ammo.

Frankly I find the building-explosion-rubbling in CM to be a tad off, but thats another story.

[REVS]

Seeing as how this game contains borg spotting, and real LOS doesn't exist (say, for troops moving forward with tanks) then I can never take the idea of 'realism' too seriously. It's just a game, folks! Relax and enjoy it, you're never going to get remotely close to reality. If you were getting close to reality, you'd be sweating, scared and jumpy. Me, I just reach for another beer!

Matter of fact I love picking out the most likely building for an artillery spotter and blowing it to bits with one of my tanks. I reckon that around 50% of the time, there's a little man with a radio inside...

Of course blowing up buildings just on spec is 'gamey', but this whole game is gamey, in the best possible sense of the word. Meeting engagements are gamey, and probably a majority of us play them. Relax and enjoy the game, and don't forget – it's just a game!

What's so bad about being gamey? (This is said of course with the exception of unethical win-at-all-costs people exploiting known in-game bugs, such as that unkillable Flak Truck).

[Kingfish]

One drawback to the practice of leveling buildings is that it creates even better defensive positions for the enemy. I'm sure every Fallschirmjager at Cassino would agree.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Ace Pilot:

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

Not unless there was known to be a strong enemy presence in the vicinity.

I'm under the impression that most (I realize there are exceptions) CM battles take place after the initial scouting has been done, so the presumption that enemy forces are in the vicinity is a given.</font>

[Thomas Goetz]

Just a thought - I can't remember where I saw this, but it seems logical. Mayber Doubler's "Closing with the Enemy"?

I read somewhere that it was SOP for Allied units entering a town with a known enemy presence to automatically put a few large caliber rounds into any church steeples they could see. The steeples' height made them excellent observation posts and snipers nests and for that reason they received regular attention.

As for simply destroying buildings, that was done, although not very often. It was actually more common for infantry to blow holes in the connecting walls of buildings, and assault the new one from the cover of the old one. But the US Army, at least, did not hesitate to bring up the big guns when they needed to knock out large buildings or fortified locations.

Doubler mentions that when the Americans were having trouble with bunkers and fortified buildings in the assault on the West Wall, and 75mm and 105mm wasn't having any effect, the Yanks simply brought up some sp 155 howitzers and used them in direct fire as "doorknockers".

Also, in Arnhem during the Market Garden offensive, when the Germans were having trouble digging the Red Devils out of the large buildings near the north end of the bridge, they simply brought up a number of Tigers. These tanks then used their main guns to systematically level all the buildings in the area. It worked, too. Killed or drove out almost all the remaining paratroopers.

So no, I don't necessarily think this would be a 'gamey' tactic, just one that wouldn't be used very often, as it would not be very cost effective.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:

Well, in real life you would have two additional considerations.

1) Someone is probably living in that building. For all you know, that very room you are aiming at could at that very second contain a cowering family. Some might not care about that, but generally, most soldiers did not deliberately go out of their way to kill or make the lives of the civilians extra-miserable.

True, up to a point. Generally some consideration was given to the welfare of civilians, in fact the Hague conventions require it. But if a building was known to be enemy occupied, or even strongly suspected of that, a commander was not expected to place his troops lives in jeopardy.

Secondly, it was the responsibility of the occupying forces to move civilians to places of safety, a program with which the civilians were usually only too happy to comply, getting into the nearest cellar.

And finally, the attacking forces were usually less tender in their concern for civilians if they were enemy civilians than if they were their own, allies, or neutrals.

Michael

[xerxes]

Not to mention that most clever defenders won't occupy all the "likely" buildings for your shooting pleasure. If you take the level everything tactic the defender will just occupy the rubble, which is now better defensive terrain and you can't HE infantry out of rubble nearly as effectively as you can HE infantry out of a standing building.

But, if you really want to level effectively target multiple tanks at a single building, no use letting them escape out the back if the enemy is in there.

[Ace Pilot]

You bring up some very good points, especially this one:

Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:

2) You could easily pump 50 HE 75mm grenades into a building without having it explode and rubble like it does in CM. At what point do you stop shooting at building X and start shooting at building Y? Meanwhile, you might not be quite sure when the next ammo load will come, and you dont really want to face infantry without that HE ammo.

Frankly I find the building-explosion-rubbling in CM to be a tad off, but thats another story.

Ever since I brought down the church in CMBO's "Chance Encounter" with a single panzerschreck round (causing more than a platoon's worth of casualties), I've wondered about the building damage model. It appears to work off a hit point model, with every HE round causing some amount of damage, which makes the building demolition decision easier to weigh.

It would be nice to see a more complex model in the next engine. A reduced assurance of building destruction would reduce the incentive for deliberate building demolition.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Sergei:

If I have the need to shell buildings, I usually try just to damage them until they're heavily damaged. By then Elvis has left the building already, and is unlikely to go back because it could collapse any minute. If I decrease it into rubble, the enemy can get back in.

Now that's gamey!

Michael

[MikeyD]

Remember, the dreaded Sturmtiger was designed specifically to knock down buildings! And U.S. Shermans were famous for knocking down church steeples on a hunch.

I guess the answer is it all depends who you're playing at what point of the war. If you're playing Germans during Operation Market Garden in CMBO and Brit paratroopers are occupying the building at the far end of the town bridge do you demolish the building? If you're playing Russians in downtown Berlin and SS stragglers are holding up your advance, do you demolish the building? And if the answer is no, why no?

[ December 01, 2003, 05:03 PM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[Jack Carr]

I have been involved in this exact same discussion in several threads before. My personal opinion on this is unless the building is an obvious observation point or there is know enemy units inside it, any tanker who expends/wastes his ammo on a target that has no strategic value and probably no enemy units inside it is foolish. There were some forum members that agreed with me and others that did not but I think this is something that would not have been done from a historical perspective.

Carpet bombing on the other hand was a common tactic but Combat Mission does not take that aspect of the war into account.

Again, to just roll up several large caliber tanks/tank-destroyers and start leveling the town is ridiculous. The game will of course allow any player to do this but why would you?

Deja Vu all over again!

[Hortlund]

MikeyD

Yes, but now you are talking about situations where you have ID'd enemy infantry in those buildings. I dont think anyone is arguing that you wouldnt rubble those buildings if you could.

What we were talking about was situations like if you arrive at a village you know to be enemy occupied. Suppose it consists of maybe 40-50 houses and other buildings. How many real life commanders would order the troops to start shooting up buildings up at random?

Not many is my bet.

[ December 01, 2003, 05:10 PM: Message edited by: Leutnant Hortlund ]

[Tank Ace]

both, sometimes its just good to flatten enemy houses. other times u can get rid of spotters and MGs, since everything on top floor dies.

[Michael Emrys]

But in the present instance we know by prior recon (other players' AARs, natch ) that all or most of the two-story buildings are in fact occupied. And I happen to know through my own personal reconnaissance that most of the frontline small buildings are too. So unless I have a specific reason not to blow a building, it's gonna go.

Michael

[Breakthrough]

Not gamey at all if the building provides observation and/or a clear field of fire for MGs. It was done as a matter of course during WW II.

[MikeyD]

"Again, to just roll up several large caliber tanks/tank-destroyers and start leveling the town is ridiculous."

Well, the combatants in WWII didn't rack up 40 million dead by throwing bouquets of flowers at each other! If you know there's going to be a fight coming in village X a prudent commander would first level the place with an artillery barrage then knock down whatever was still standing with direct fire. If you don't like those tactics you and your opponent have to agree ahead of time to the 'convenient fiction' that the two sides are going to blunder into each other while crossing the map.

[Michael Dorosh]

Jack comments seem silly; in game terms, levelling buildings is often very effective. Ask UFB what he did to my MGs and snipers in our current PBEM with long range fire from his SU76s

Scenario designers should have the option, IMO, of preventing the destruction of property. This was a real consideration at times; look at the episode of BoB where the British tankers refused to shoot at the houses in Nuenen because of orders from on high. Sorry to have to use a cinematic example. But the inclusion of civilians in the game engine rewrite would be a way of addressing this issue, perhaps. Though the presumption in CM is that all civilians have been evacuated before hand - not a bad presumption, as these things go. Certainly their inclusion would complicate things (how do you write an algorithm for a Russian squad in Berlin in 1945, having him decide between rape and combat?)

Other examples of deliberate destruction, or prevention of same, of property from real life don't come to mind now, but if we want advanced engineering modelling in the rewrite, this has to be addressed in some way shape or form - ie allowing bridges to be demoed will require some sort of restraint imposed by the scenario designer in some cases. May as well adress all property issues (or collateral damage, in the time honoured phrase) the same way while one is at it.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

"Again, to just roll up several large caliber tanks/tank-destroyers and start leveling the town is ridiculous."

Well, the combatants in WWII didn't rack up 40 million dead by throwing bouquets of flowers at each other! If you know there's going to be a fight coming in village X a prudent commander would first level the place with an artillery barrage then knock down whatever was still standing with direct fire. If you don't like those tactics you and your opponent have to agree ahead of time to the 'convenient fiction' that the two sides are going to blunder into each other while crossing the map.

One of the many criticisms hurled at SPR was the placement of the sniper in the church tower. The "experts" claimed that such buildings were usually the first ones destroyed in an attack. However, the Germans and Allies both frequently used high standing buildings as arty registration points, too.

As an aside, at Canadian occupied Bergen Op Zoom, the Germans would ring the bell in the church tower with solid shot from an anti-tank gun posted outside the town on the hour (or perhaps it was daily? I'd have to check my copy of South Albertas again).

Any chance there is an easter egg buried in CMAK for us? You'll all notice the actual bell in the tower now, of course... Anyone listen to all the .wavs yet...?

[ December 01, 2003, 05:46 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:

What we were talking about was situations like if you arrive at a village you know to be enemy occupied. Suppose it consists of maybe 40-50 houses and other buildings. How many real life commanders would order the troops to start shooting up buildings up at random?

Not many is my bet.

I think Patton actually recommends "recon by fire" in his book WAR AS I KNEW IT does he not? I'd have to pull that one off the shelf, too.

[Hortlund]

I think what needs to be changed first and foremost in the new engine is the house-destruction routine.

The way it is now, you pump enough shots into a building it will explode and rubble. I would like to see parts of the building collaps, I would like to see the building catch fire. But most of all, I would like to see a very different damage routine for buildings.

I mean what exactly is supposed to be taking place when the building is rubbled? Have the guns shot off two walls and the rest collapses? How? Sometimes the building will catch fire, but frankly that is something that should happen alot more often. I dont know if it is a councious desicion by BFC to rubble buildings instead of setting them on fire (so to not tax the low spec computers too much) but one would imagine that a building being subjected to HE bombardment would catch fire before it collapsed.

Another thing for the new engine is for rubble to spill out to adjacent tiles. Right now if you rubble a house, it merely implodes into a nice pile of rubble. In real life it would scatter all over the streets, making them impassable for tanks...yet another reason not to rubble buildings at random if you were about to attack a town...