Guest Guest Posted February 26, 2008 Share Posted February 26, 2008 deleted per user request 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drusus Posted February 26, 2008 Share Posted February 26, 2008 I think one reason could be "silhouetting" (I don't know what is the proper word in English). When you are inside a building which doesn't have lights on, it is hard to see where you are. When you are on the rooftop, it is much easier to see where you are and for that reason it is easier to hit you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted February 26, 2008 Share Posted February 26, 2008 deleted per user request 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melnibone Posted February 26, 2008 Share Posted February 26, 2008 I tend to agree that roofs (and balconies) at the moment seem to be death traps. Maybe it's the lack of top cover that is being modelled? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted February 26, 2008 Share Posted February 26, 2008 deleted per user request 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moosegum Posted February 26, 2008 Share Posted February 26, 2008 I agree here, roofs and balconies have become very dangerous places. I don't send my men there unless I'm pretty sure they won't be engaged in a true firefight. Even enemy units caught in the open will still eat into a unit engaging them from a balcony/rooftop. Not sure it's a bad thing, though. Has added another layer to my tactics. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted February 26, 2008 Share Posted February 26, 2008 I don't know if this is what's actually going on in the game, but one thing to keep in mind is that a simple one-course brick or cinderblock parapet probably isn't thick enough to completely stop even 5.56mm fire. And they're definitely not thick enough to stop full rifle caliber or higher -- you need thick reinforced concrete to do that. So, while the roof "wall" would certainly offer concealment, it might not offer much actual cover. A while back, someone posted a YouTube video of firearms test against typical construction types. It's pretty instructive to see just how far through building even a 5.56mm round will go. Cheers, YD 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted February 26, 2008 Share Posted February 26, 2008 deleted per user request 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntarr Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 If the roof has a wall the walled material should be the same modeling as the building. It doesn't seem to be the case currently. That would account for penetration, but it seems that it may be more about exposure. Your showing exposure the same as in a trench vs. a window. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 In fact a brick veneer will stop 5.56mm rounds. Cinder block is easier to penetrate, it is true, because it is mostly hollow and the material there is, is much less dense. 2 inches thickness of concrete will also stop 5.56mm. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 I don't know about in Syria, but in many buildings here in the US, the low parapet wall that often surrounds the roof of a building is *not* necessarily as strong or as thick as the structural wall below it. For example, the building in which I live, which is a 5-story tenement, the exterior walls are double-course masonry brick, with plaster and wood backing. But the roof parapet is just single-course masonry brick with a lead cap. Given what's been posted here recently about shatter gap etc. with small arms rounds (& esp. 5.56), I'm not sure exactly what a single course brick wall like what's on my building roof would stop, but I think it's pretty obvious it would stop considerably less (or get shot to bits much faster) than the double course wall that starts below the roof level. Of course, buildings vary alot. A friend of mine lives a more modern high-rise. His a apartment has a balcony with a low poured concrete wall around it -- more than enough to stop most small arms fire. So maybe what we really need is some more building type options, to represent different strengths of construction. I find it hard to believe all buildings in Syria are of identical construction. Regards, YD 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Hombre Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 In general in Lebanon (probably syria's the same) construction is concrete + hollow blocks. A low roof parapet would be the continuation of the outside wall, therefore reinforced concrete. Of course you'll get the odd cinder block parapet but in general it's part of the outside concrete wall. IMHO the roof guys should be much safer than they are now. This goes for the balconies as well, which are always reinforced concrete. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirtweasle Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 Originally posted by Adam1: ...I'm curious what BFC's take on it is. Indeed. What's going on in the game, or in other words, what's behind what we see happening? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 It just occured to me that this may be a concealment, rather than a cover issue. From what I've read, when fighting from inside buildings, trained infantry stays as far away from the windows as possible. That is, you fight from deep inside the room, and fire out through the windows from there. This gives you a measure of concealment (makes it harder to spot you or your muzzle flash) and makes you less vulnerable to secondary projectiles from a penetration of the wall. But you can't do this if you're sitting on a rooftop; your're out in the daylight for everyone to see, and you have to expose yourself at least a little bit over the parapet in order to spot or shoot. So this issue may have nothing to do with the relative cover values of roof vs. bulding interior, but rather the fact that infantry fighting on the roof may be easier to spot and put under aimed fire. But I would also be curious to hear BFC's take. Regards, YD 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 deleted per user request 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 Well, yes. But whether its deliberate design or not, there's got to be some reason that the game code awards soldiers in buildings better protection than soldiers on rooftops. I really doubt it's just random whim. . . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pandur Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 i find it unpleasent that it renders such hotel type buildings with balconies all around and in every floor, like in "Strength&Faith", rather useless. you have a massive house but your man allways pool up on the balconies no matter what you do. the differences between beeing inside a house and on a balcony/roof could really be more subtile. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirtweasle Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 That's a related problem for me too. It's difficult if not impossible to get the troopers to assume positions that make sense. I usually end up with a guy in each corner, maybe a shooter at the window, and then one running back doing God knows what. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cool breeze Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 Face commands improve that a lot. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 In theory there is nothing different between the rooftop wall and the wall below it. However, there is a lot less wall and that means a a better chance of hitting anybody crouched behind it. If they are exposed, the reason should be obvious (silhouetting). If the guy is prone it's because the shooter has a much better idea where the target is and he knows shooting over the wall will produce 0% positive results, therefore aiming at the lower part of the wall is more likely to do something. Rooftops aren't the ideal improvised combat position if the enemy can bring significant firepower to bear on the position. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CptWasp Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 Thank you Steve for clarifying this! So the main benefit of the roofs is the improved visibility... and houses without balconies are better for ambushes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 Steve, There's plenty of Iraq combat footage showing U.S. troops lined up behind rooftop parapets with the entire squad's blazing away at the enemy. Given our overall high casualty sensitivity, if these parapets offer so little protection, why is it practically SOP for our troops to fight as they do from these "exposed" rooftop positions? If they're as vulnerable as is modeled in the game, why haven't firm instructions been issued from on high to prohibit such practices? Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'Rogers Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 John, If I had to make a guess I would say it is because the increased visibility when you are looking for a few guys is worth more than the added protection. Probably helps that once spotted the firepower of the US squad will completely suppress the superior unequal opposition. Secondary guess. Soldiers on rooftops make better pictures. Thus when someone does manage to get a picture of soldiers on rooftops that one is going to be shown. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirtweasle Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 I'm a bit confused by this Steve. Let me circle back and make sure I understand. The game engine mechanics / maths do not consider the angles. Meaning this; Fire coming from a lower level will likely have to go through two sections of wall. Also, since going though the sections will be at an angle it will result in more wall material to penetrate in any case. In the real physical world that would be correct. But, if I understand you, since the paraphet wall is only 1/3 or 1/2 the height of a normal wall that is what is considered not the multiple planes of material and not that they are at angles, do I have that correct? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanzfeld Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 I just wish there was a way to keep em off the balconies! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.