Artillery Effectiveness against Units in Buildings

[c3k]

Just watched the video.

Given the unitary warhead carries a lot more HE than a 155 (or 120 mortar or 105mm, let alone an 81mm mortar), that video only adds fuel to my supposition that a 155 hit on a building should do a bit more "oomf" to the guys inside or on the roof.

I just finished a scenario which had a 14.5 team on a rooftop. I hit the single story building (rectangle, 20x10 meters) with a GENERAL 155m, medium, short. They still had two guys left up top at the end. They were green-based and shooting my guys.

That is not an outlier in CMSF.

Ken

[Pvt. Ryan]

Guys on the roof are nearly indestructible. You have to collapse the roof to guarantee a kill.

[SlapHappy]

This discussion is very similar to one conducted in a very long, informative thread from over a year ago debating the in-game modelling of explosive ordnances.

http://battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=72895

[SlapHappy]

I already had a mock-up scenario to test javelin effects on buildings, so I simply added artillery support to the Blue troops.

Testing on the smallest building containing ten Syrian troops, I was able to land two single direct hits in two tests on top of the center of the roof.

No casualties of any kind (even yellow) in both cases. Testing downwards in firepower, all the way to the 60mm mortar provided the same results.

Only near proximity hits next to the building provided any significant casualties - scaling upwards as heavier munitions are used (155 mm).

[c3k]

Guys,

I certainly don't want to sound as if I'm "emotionally vested" in this issue. It is, after all, just a game. Okay, a game I like, but still it's just a game. So....

Humans are tough and survive events which observers think are unsurvivable. This happens repeatedly throughout history in all venues of mankind's endeavors.

The buildings in this game have abstracted rooftop obstructions as well as abstracted interiors. These abstracted rooftops and interiors provide increased survivability against incoming fire, especially blast effects.

SlapHappy's experiment, posted above, corresponds to my own testing and my in game experience.

Given all the above, without trying to beat a dead horse, etc., the effects seem off.

So that I don't start sounding too strident about this (is it too late for that JonS? ), I will not post any further on this....for at least a week. I leave it up to those with a better understanding of these things to carry on this exploration.

Remember this when we have thatched roofs.

Ken

[Bulletpoint]

Now, you may scoff at my concern over this, but wait until Normandy. Won't you be wailing when your US artillery park cannot penetrate a thatched roof over a German MG42 team. So there.

 

And here we are in 2015, and I must say I agree with what Ken said back then. Sorry for raising this old thread from the grave, but I've read the arguments for and against, and it still seems to me that if artillery were as weak against buildings in real life as portrayed in this game, nobody would bother using it.

 

Troops seem quite unaffected by direct 105-mm hits against buildings, no matter if the shell hits the roof or the walls. Strangely, rounds hitting 30 metres away seem _more_ effective in killing troops inside buildings than direct hits.

 

If we're keeping artillery weak because we worry about game balance, I think it would be better to balance the amount and accuracy of artillery rather than the impact of the individual shells.

[Apocal]

And here we are in 2015, and I must say I agree with what Ken said back then. Sorry for raising this old thread from the grave, but I've read the arguments for and against, and it still seems to me that if artillery were as weak against buildings in real life as portrayed in this game, nobody would bother using it.

 

Troops seem quite unaffected by direct 105-mm hits against buildings, no matter if the shell hits the roof or the walls. Strangely, rounds hitting 30 metres away seem _more_ effective in killing troops inside buildings than direct hits.

 

If we're keeping artillery weak because we worry about game balance, I think it would be better to balance the amount and accuracy of artillery rather than the impact of the individual shells.

 

Eh... it is easy enough to simply collapse the building entirely in-game, so that is what most people go for.

[agusto]

Eh... it is easy enough to simply collapse the building entirely in-game, so that is what most people go for.

 

Yeah. BTW have you noticed how troops in CMBS seem to be much more resistant against artillery than in normandy and CMSF? I ve seen men in CMBS walk away from shells airbursting over their heads walk away from it, something that almost never happened in in the other games. Must be the body armor that keeps them safe from the shrapnel.

[Apocal]

Yeah. BTW have you noticed how troops in CMBS seem to be much more resistant against artillery than in normandy and CMSF? I ve seen men in CMBS walk away from shells airbursting over their heads walk away from it, something that almost never happened in in the other games. Must be the body armor that keeps them safe from the shrapnel.

 

I think they toned down the killing power of fragmentation in across the board in CMBS; even Ukrainians wearing crap body armor have staying power under mortars.