M Hofbauer Posted January 17, 2002 Share Posted January 17, 2002 Currently, an infantry squad entering a house does this anywhere on the house's outer walls. This is obviously necessary because doors and large windows are not modeled. My point is that currently they cross into the house at no reduction of speed, they walk into the house just as if they were crossing from one open parking lot into the next. In an abstracted way, their crossing into the house simulates the entering through the door and large windows. However, a full squad of 12 soldiers doesn't enter a building just like that. Even soldiers trained to do that would have to line up and (quickly) enter one after another, or at best two at a time through a large door. Therefore, I suggest that in future versions of CM, the squads don't cross into the house at no penalty in movement speed, but rather that they are held up a little bit in the same way they are currently held up when crossing a hedge or a wall. The duration would be shorter than it is when crossing a hedge, but they would be at increased exposure during that time just the same. This would simulate - in an abstracted way - that the defender of a house (or an enemy across the street zeroing in on the entrance of the house) has an advantage of having to cover only the entrances to the house, for example in one of those large heavy buildings you can set up a machine gun or other weapons at the end of the doorway and shoot anyone that enters through there. Basically in reality you need only one guy to cover that door-entrance. Of course there are several ways for an attacker to overcome that, involving grenades, firebursts etc. (those with military background will remember town fighting drills in their training). One thing is clear however: you do not enter a house the same way you enter an open field, even when the entering is abstracted. Just an idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Wacky Posted January 17, 2002 Share Posted January 17, 2002 Man, have you ever played a city map? It's hard enough to take a house without getting slaughtered in the process. It's not like it's a walk in the park right now. To me, you troops do seem particularly vunerable when they are getting closer to the house, and then even once inside it a little. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted January 17, 2002 Share Posted January 17, 2002 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Captain Wacky: Man, have you ever played a city map? It's hard enough to take a house without getting slaughtered in the process. It's not like it's a walk in the park right now. To me, you troops do seem particularly vunerable when they are getting closer to the house, and then even once inside it a little.<hr></blockquote> But it is true to life. In real life, they mouseholed, which should be implemented if. In fact, Markus' idea should only be implemented if mouseholing also sees the light of day - as well as the ability to go onto the rooftops, etc. [ 01-17-2002: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Wacky Posted January 17, 2002 Share Posted January 17, 2002 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: But it is true to life. In real life, they mouseholed, which should be implemented if. In fact, Markus' idea should only be implemented if mouseholing also sees the light of day - as well as the ability to go onto the rooftops, etc. [ 01-17-2002: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]<hr></blockquote> It's true to life that soldier have to go to the bathroom in the field, but CM doesn't model it In my experience, when you're entering a house and shot at, it is not uncommon to lose half your squad in a single burst. Like having your little CM'ers stop every now and then to take a dump, I don't think it needs to be modelled in the game, as the effect of house to house fighting (lots & lots of death) is there already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Hofbauer Posted January 17, 2002 Author Share Posted January 17, 2002 Captain Wacky, I think you are confusing the regular, natural vulnerability of walking over pavement with no cover at all, with the even higher vulnerability of entering a house through the only one or two available small entry locations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ckoharik Posted January 17, 2002 Share Posted January 17, 2002 Well, wouldn't the squad opt to throw grenades in first to clear the way? How is that going to be modelled? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Hofbauer Posted January 17, 2002 Author Share Posted January 17, 2002 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Panzer Boxb: Well, wouldn't the squad opt to throw grenades in first to clear the way? How is that going to be modelled? <hr></blockquote> Please read what i wrote. I did talk about the various techiques used to get inside. I did not say it is impossible to enter a house and that everybody dies doing so. I said you cannot walk in with 12 people at the same time at all locations. Your suggestion of "Handgranate-Feuerstoss" would be included in an abstracted way by the delay which I am suggesting. You are not suggesting that the squad enters the house together with the grenades, do you? See, even if they used the grenades, there would have to be a delay. Since we do not see all the various microtactics, there should be a short delay instead of all twelve walking into the house as if they continue walking on the street. Besides, who says that all doors are open? Locked doors would have to be broken open first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfe Posted January 18, 2002 Share Posted January 18, 2002 I think what Marcus proposes is a very good idea. In fact I had the same idea a couple of weeks ago and wrote it down as part of my ever-growing wishlist for CM3 and beyond. Unfortunately I don't think this sort of thing can be implemented in the current engine being used for CMBB because building walls are not modelled independently of the building interior, and any change in movement or exposure characteristics for one part of the bulding would have to apply to all parts of it. Of course, BTS is perfectly free to prove me wrong about what the current engine can or can't do. - Chris [ 01-17-2002: Message edited by: Wolfe ]</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hensworth Posted January 18, 2002 Share Posted January 18, 2002 In my opinion it's rather the advantages of being IN a building that's overmodeled. Say you're defending a village. You're in one of the houses on the edge of town and you've got pretty much every available barrel pointing out into the surrounding countryside. As long as you can keep the enemy from getting into town, you're relatively safe. You can just keep blasting away at whatever sticks its head out of the bushes, safe in the knowledge you've got a few cases of ammo stacked up, whereas those poor sods outside are having to make do with the clips they've got on them (I know this is not modeled, but I'm just setting the scene). If however, during a lull in the firing you should hear the sound of boots on cobbles, or the tinkle of glass broken by a grenade, you know you're in trouble. The enemy have made it into town. Now you're practically blind and deaf. You don't know what's going on. If you abandon the outward facing windows, the guys waiting in the treeline will soon be up and running. If you keep at it, someone can sneak in and shoot you in the back. Most important of all : you can't see the guys who have made it right up to the wall of your building. This is the fatal flaw in CM : troops inside a house can keep firing at men standing outside right against the wall. So in fact the attackers are already at an unrealistic disadvantage in this regard. Another point is the amount of men you can get into a building. In CM, you can cram an entire platoon into a big building (not much cramming involved actually) and they will bring all their firepower to bear on anything approaching them. If you're going to find enough windows in one wall to have 36 guys firing out of, I suspect it would have to be a bigger building then the ones seen in CM. All in all, being inside already brings enough advantages as it is. I couldn't bear to watch a squad plod through a wall the way they struggle through bocage, getting decimated by defenders who shouldn't even be able to see them. And think of the horror of the 'less-than-right- angle-path'. Ever sent a squad through some bocage at an oblique angle ? You're lucky if you see them again before sundown. I wouldn't like to also have to go in and out of buildings at right angles all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfe Posted January 18, 2002 Share Posted January 18, 2002 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Sgt_Kelly: Most important of all : you can't see the guys who have made it right up to the wall of your building. This is the fatal flaw in CM : troops inside a house can keep firing at men standing outside right against the wall. So in fact the attackers are already at an unrealistic disadvantage in this regard.<hr></blockquote> While it wouldn't completely block los to units up against a building, a wall on a building could have the same benefits that a stone wall currently does: lessening (or even eliminating for prone units) exposure to incoming fire. This would be the same whether you were the squad inside or outside the structure (although the unit inside would obviously have more cover), but it certainly could help the unit outside. Although I'm not sure I would want a building wall to have the exact same zero percent exposure as a stone wall. The stone wall is effectively impenetrable to fire whereas a building's wall should not be. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Another point is the amount of men you can get into a building. In CM, you can cram an entire platoon into a big building (not much cramming involved actually) and they will bring all their firepower to bear on anything approaching them. If you're going to find enough windows in one wall to have 36 guys firing out of, I suspect it would have to be a bigger building then the ones seen in CM.<hr></blockquote> I agree with this, but one of the benefits of modelling both walls and interiors is that the interior space would automatically have to be smaller because the wall itself has to have thickness (like walls/hedges currently do), which lessens the amount of space inside the building. And the outgoing firepower for units inside buildings should probably take a hit because they wouldn't be able to bring all their firepower to bear. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>All in all, being inside already brings enough advantages as it is. I couldn't bear to watch a squad plod through a wall the way they struggle through bocage, getting decimated by defenders who shouldn't even be able to see them.<hr></blockquote> Well, simulating it like bocage would be rather extreme, but I do think there has to be some penalties for having to enter a structure. Walls can often be severe obstacles, limiting an assaulting team's movement, firepower, and increasing their exposure risk. As it is now, as soon as you enter the corner of a building you immediately gain all the benefits of that building without suffering any abnormal penalty for having to take the time to enter the structure, which is unrealistic. Currently you aren't discouraged from darting an entire platoon from building to building. There's been a good series on the History channel this week about Vietnam. Last night they did the Tet offensive and fighting in Hue. Soldiers were effectively trapped in the streets, running exposed along walls, hugging them as best they could until they could get behind some building or broken wall or tank. They weren't able to easily travel through buildings like you currently can in CM. Urban fighting is a real nightmare. Building walls need to be much bigger obstacles in the game, IMO. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>And think of the horror of the 'less-than-right- angle-path'. Ever sent a squad through some bocage at an oblique angle ? You're lucky if you see them again before sundown. I wouldn't like to also have to go in and out of buildings at right angles all the time.<hr></blockquote> Yes, bocage really can be nasty, but hedges and walls currently aren't nearly as bad. BTW, another benefit to simulating walls independently from the rest of the building is walls could be destroyed individually. Rather than having the *entire* structure crumble completely from repeated HE hits, it could only partially collapse with some walls still standing. And walls themselves could be partially collapsed as well providing different levels of exposure, LOS, and FP. Lots of variety. - Chris [ 01-17-2002: Message edited by: Wolfe ]</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radar Posted January 18, 2002 Share Posted January 18, 2002 Something else you don't get to see in CMBO is sealed off and/or booby trapped buildings, made by the defender to ambush attackers. Hopefully with the engine rewrite more detail will be included such as this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
109 Gustav Posted January 18, 2002 Share Posted January 18, 2002 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Radar: Something else you don't get to see in CMBO is sealed off and/or booby trapped buildings, made by the defender to ambush attackers. Hopefully with the engine rewrite more detail will be included such as this.<hr></blockquote> If you want to simulate this, place a field of mines where you want the building to be, then add the building in the map editor. Use multiple fields for really booby trapped buildings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radar Posted January 19, 2002 Share Posted January 19, 2002 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by 109 Gustav: If you want to simulate this, place a field of mines where you want the building to be, then add the building in the map editor. Use multiple fields for really booby trapped buildings.<hr></blockquote> Cool, thanks for the info. :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts