Leveling big buildings – a valid or gamey tactic?

[Michael Emrys]

Which brings me to another point. BTS (as it was then known) made the design decision to make a game about armor and infantry warfare with artillery merely playing a supporting role. As a result, the battles we get in CM more nearly resemble a secondary skirmish a little off from the main fight in an offensive. When armies got serious, there was a huge amount of artillery present, especially on the part of the Western Allies after mid-1943. The Rhine crossings, especially in the 21st. Army Group sector, were supported by ungodly amounts. The equivalent in, say, Line of Defense, would be in addition to the 81mm FO, three 105mm FOs and maybe a couple 155mm FOs just for starters. Even that understates the probable amount available due to the ammo limitations in the game.

Michael

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

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.

Yes but recon by fire is hardly the same thing as levelling the place now is it? Recon by fire would be to put some machine gun fire on the windows or something, not using 20 rounds of HE to blast the farmers barn into a pile of wood and cow-remains.

[Michael Emrys]

Post-battle photographs as well as eyewitness accounts relate that nearly every town or village that was fought over in Normandy was flattened in the process.

Michael

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

Post-battle photographs as well as eyewitness accounts relate that nearly every town or village that was fought over in Normandy was flattened in the process.

Michael

Yes yes AFTER the battle. And that would be after the Allied forces had called in whatever artillery and airpower they could muster that day. And after the Germans had done the same thing. But that is hardly something in question here is it? I mean no one is arguing that if you have identified an enemy position, you use whatever means at your disposal to take it out.

[JonS]

Michael,

yes, but that is rather a special case due to the more-or-less static frontline, coupled with intensive fighting, nature of the campaign. I have an old Michelin map of Normandy at home, which notes which villages were "destroyed" and which were "intact" after the frontlines had moved on. Not surprisingly, it is very closely correlated to the length of time that the area was fought over.

Also, in all those photos of 'flattened' villages, what is most notable to me is how 'un-flat' the villages and towns are. From the photographic evidence I've seen - and this includes extreme examples like Caen and Cassino - it was very difficult to get the level of destruction to buildings we routinely see in CM.

In particular, it seems to have been very hard to remove all traces of the upper levels of multi-story buildings. While the graphics for this have improved in CM (more 'vertical' elements in the rubble graphic), it is still fairly easy to completely deny upper levels to the opposing force - if you have enough HE chuckers of course

Regards

JonS

[ December 01, 2003, 06:14 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Treeburst155]

How many men do you lose to an unseen sniper before you start levelling likely positions with your 300 HE rounds (Sherman platoon)? How many dead accurate arty strikes do you endure before you start levelling likely positions for a spotter? If buildings A, C, E, and G contain or have contained enemy combatants, would it be wise to leave buildings B,D,F untouched if you have lots of HE? This is war, gentlemen!

Now, where was I.....oh yeah, levelling that town.

[Pvt. Ryan]

S

P

O

I

L

E

R

*

*

*

I tried levelling the tall buildings in my last go at Line of Defense, but the sharpshooter survived and still took out a few TCs. Taking out the church certainly made things easier though.

[Treeburst155]

One way to simulate standing orders NOT to demolish buildings on a whim is to limit HE ammo.

When you think about it, it is really the defender's fault if bad things happen to a town. They can prevent it simply by putting up a fight somewhere else.

[John Osborne]

Originally posted by Treeburst155:

How many men do you lose to an unseen sniper before you start levelling likely positions with your 300 HE rounds (Sherman platoon)? How many dead accurate arty strikes do you endure before you start levelling likely positions for a spotter? If buildings A, C, E, and G contain or have contained enemy combatants, would it be wise to leave buildings B,D,F untouched if you have lots of HE? This is war, gentlemen!

Now, where was I.....oh yeah, levelling that town.

Now I know what to expect when I play Treeburst155 during the demo scenario "Line of Defense"

[Zarquon]

Most here seem to agree that the answer clearly is a definite 'eh, it depends'

Many random maps present you with a single building, overlooking your path of advance. Of course it has to go down very soon.

Apart from obvious cases like this, it's mostly a matter of capability. If you face a town with multiple buildings, you usually don't have neither the time nor the ammo to flatten them all.

But if you can identify a few that are very likely to be occupied, you can probably afford to rubble them.

And a building that has just been rubbled is a much nicer jump-off point for your own infantry advance than an intact house that could hide a couple of squads, waiting for you.

The only 'gameyness' is in knowing the battle will end after 30 turns and that every bullet and every shell you haven't fired by then is wasted.

[Carl Puppchen]

This is a great thread, and one I have put a lot of thought into. I play a lot of CM and always play the Germans, my main competitor always plays the allies. The main thing I was looking forward to in CMAK vs. CMBB is the fact that the dreaded Soviet 122mm and 152m assault guns wouldn't pre-emptively level all of the likely defense points from long range. The US forces have mostly 75mm HE or artillery but neither of these options puts a dent in buildings as fast as the large caliber Russian guns. Even though artillery is plentiful for the western allies direct SP gun fire takes down buildings much faster than less accurate artillery fire.

As noted, the best defense is to setup behind the building or in a less likely place and move up after the building has been rubbled. I agree 100% with the suggestion that rubble should spread over a larger area and slow / hinder the progress of tanks and wheeled vehicles. This (realistic) change would make the "pre-emptive" leveling of strongpoints a less appealing option.

[Alkiviadis]

Aside from perhaps more realistic rubble effects

leveling a town that could/did offer resistance is NOT gamey. I recall reading an account of a town that offered resistance to a tank battalion of the 1st Armored Div (USA) (in Gulf War 1) which was leveled by direct fire in reply.

The book was "Iron Soldiers" by Tom Carhart.

I've read similar stories about the German, American & Russian Armies. If you've got the firepower use it.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

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.

Yes but recon by fire is hardly the same thing as levelling the place now is it? Recon by fire would be to put some machine gun fire on the windows or something, not using 20 rounds of HE to blast the farmers barn into a pile of wood and cow-remains. </font>

[Sedan Delivery]

suspected enemy position ? you level it , simple.

it happened all the time . it happens all the time, i wonder hoe many iraqi buidings/structures have been taken out on suspicion. its a prudent , common sense tactic. i did it on line of defense as a matter of course , the tactical situation demands it. i read somewhere that some german commanders would position " in back " to avoid direct fires. try it out on line of defense , works really well. by the way monte cassino itself was taken out on suspicion

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Really? Patton said that?

I have no idea. But that is in essence the meaning of the phrase "recon by fire". What you seem to be advocating is more along the lines of "rubble everything in sight".

[Wisbech_lad]

From "By Tank into Normandy" by Stuart Hills (a tanker in Sherwood Foresters, commanding platoon of Shermans)

P120.

"When we entered a town or village, tanks did the softening up first by destroying all possible positions where enemy infantry might be lurking. We simply hosed down the buildinngs with shells and machineguns, and then called through our infantry for systematic house to house clearance"

Elsewhere in the book, he mentions being called in to destroy key buildings (and in one village, a church steeple thought to be holding a mortar spotter)

So sounds like SOP, well, at least for 75mm Shermans with HE to spare...

[Haohmaru]

I think a good idea for future CM games is for the scenario designer to be able to apply a penalty to the attacker for every building that is damaged or destroyed as a result of their shelling, so that if the briefing says "do not cause unnecessary damage to property" it will really mean it. So, for the AAR, minus points could be applied to the attacker's score, say -100 points for every large building destroyed, -50 points for every small building, 25% for light damage, 50% for heavy damage, something like that. Perhaps you could even assign point values to specific buildings, such as "we really must take this church intact, if you destroy it you will be in big trouble!" The attacker can still use area fire to spray the buildings with mg bullets, but it will discourage the use of reckless HE shells and arty.

[JonS]

Hmm. Perhaps I wasn't clear. In Real Life leveling known and suspected enemy posns was, and is, an accepted tactic.

In CM, using the same tactic is realistic, except with the proviso that it is acknowledged to be unrealistically effective due to the model used for building demolition and destruction. IMO.

Regards

JonS

[Sergei]

One thing people haven't mentioned is that actually in CM wasting ammo does harm to your score at the end. A victory which results in a stop for supplies is less valuable than a victory which results in an immediate exploitation of the breakthrough.

Originally posted by Haohmaru:

I think a good idea for future CM games is for the scenario designer to be able to apply a penalty to the attacker for every building that is damaged or destroyed as a result of their shelling, so that if the briefing says "do not cause unnecessary damage to property" it will really mean it.

But this would only encourage the defender to go inside those buildings, because he would know that the attacker cannot demolish them or then he faces a penalty. So in effect, to a "gamey" problem you offer an even gamier solution.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Haohmaru:

I think a good idea for future CM games is for the scenario designer to be able to apply a penalty to the attacker for every building that is damaged or destroyed as a result of their shelling, so that if the briefing says "do not cause unnecessary damage to property" it will really mean it. So, for the AAR, minus points could be applied to the attacker's score, say -100 points for every large building destroyed, -50 points for every small building, 25% for light damage, 50% for heavy damage, something like that. Perhaps you could even assign point values to specific buildings, such as "we really must take this church intact, if you destroy it you will be in big trouble!" The attacker can still use area fire to spray the buildings with mg bullets, but it will discourage the use of reckless HE shells and arty.

What if the building is damaged/destroyed by defender's fire?

I think in most cases your concern for damage is way in excess of that experienced by WW II armies. Their first and most compelling concern was to get those bastards!, their second concern was to preserve their men and equipment, and everything else came in a distant third.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Pvt. Ryan:

Taking out the church certainly made things easier though.

I managed to take the church without destroying it. Not that I wouldn't, but my tanks were busy elsewhere and that pesky HMG was holding up my advance. So I moved most of my infantry company up to the treeline in front of the church, and after killing or pushing back the German infantry in the area, I laid down a curtain of smoke and rushed a couple of platoons across the wheatfield. The MG was then taken out by an engineer squad. I had frankly expected them to use a satchel charge, but they threw a grenade instead, which snuffed the MG. Now I have an intact church to place my own MGs and spotters. Anybody want to have a wedding?

Michael

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by Ace Pilot:

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.

This was discussed at length in the CMBO days, and I think your criticism is right. The damage to buildings should be based on the squares of the blast values (with correspondingly increased 'hit points' for each building). Or perhaps some other equation would work.

[REVS]

The building damage model is just like the borg spotting and real line of sight problems. Hopelessly unrealistic and gamey. It's enjoyable though, but for goodness sake, guys, it's just a game! An effing game!

What I propose is that we be completely and utterly gamey, because what we're fooling with is completely an utterly a game! Any response here, or is this just too inconvenient a concept to deal with?

[Ace Pilot]

Originally posted by REVS:

What I propose is that we be completely and utterly gamey, because what we're fooling with is completely an utterly a game! Any response here, or is this just too inconvenient a concept to deal with?

While we all realize that this is a game, some of us use it to learn about history.

For instance, CM has taught me:

</font>

• Armor is not invulnerable to infantry, especially in certain environments, such as an urban setting.</font>
• Sharpshooters won’t fire at anything within about 100 yards.</font>
• It can be quite advantageous to blow up a village from long range prior to sending in your infantry.</font>

Now, some of these lessons learned are applicable to actual WWII combat and some are only applicable to the game. For instance, the first one applies in real life, but the second one does not. However, I can’t always tell which are which, as is the case with the third example. Hence, this discussion. For me, learning how this game models WWII combat and what its limitations are gives me a better understanding of history.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Wisbech_lad:

From "By Tank into Normandy" by Stuart Hills (a tanker in Sherwood Foresters, commanding platoon of Shermans)

P120.

"When we entered a town or village, tanks did the softening up first by destroying all possible positions where enemy infantry might be lurking. We simply hosed down the buildinngs with shells and machineguns, and then called through our infantry for systematic house to house clearance"

Elsewhere in the book, he mentions being called in to destroy key buildings (and in one village, a church steeple thought to be holding a mortar spotter)

So sounds like SOP, well, at least for 75mm Shermans with HE to spare...

Hell Has No Heroes has a similiar account.

My copy is not at hand now.

(it is GREAT book!)

The book was about a DD Sherm TC from Before D-Day right across europe. They landed on the beach and did not sink and did not get blasted out of their tank, They were lucky. They describe the process to level buildings, they describe in detail, it was SOP and they did it EVERY day. For Big buildings with Stone walls they aimed at the corners and loaded one AP first to make a hole then pumped in 3-4-5 HE rounds until it was rubble, if it did not come down a new AP round would blow a hole somwhere else in the wall and 3-4-5 more rounds of HE in quick sucession would finish the job.

Sherms in WWII after D-Day knocked down buildings ALL the time as SOP as far as I can tell from my limited reading of that aspect of the war.

-tom w