Are troops in buildings stronger in 1.3?

[Alan8325]

This point was brought up during testing... twice. It earned the nickname 'the Terminator Effect'. It was observed and reported, and some of the posts read practically word-for-word like the posts in this thread. Especially Lanzfeld's

It must be a tough fix then. Lots of code changes to make it better?

[Lanzfeld]

"The Terminator Effect" was that the occupants lived or died?

Like....even though the building fell on them they crawled out unscathed, thus being terminators?

or

To Terminate everyone in that building just hit it with arty until it collapses?

[Lanzfeld]

So I have been playing the 1.30 demo and I have been dropping 155 on troops in buildings quite a bit in the UK scenario. Not only do they survive a disturbing amount of the time they still fight very well. I thought 155 was suppost to take the fight out of anybody?

So not official or anything but it seems that buildings do offer quite a bit of uber protection? I dont know.

[Alan8325]

The big problem I see here is the lack of delayed fuse for artillery targeting buildings (or bombs for that matter). Artillery would certainly not use "quick" fuse in these circumstances, and I believe that the "armor" setting for a mission should result in delays that at least allow for ceiling/roof penetration. I don't think quick/instant fusing would be used against tanks either, so this makes sense in general.

Wouldn't an instant impact fuse setting on a large munition still cause catastrophic damage to the roof of most buildings found in Syria and many casualties inside? Maybe roofs are just too strong as they are now. Near misses to buildings in CMSF cause more casualties to men inside than direct hits to the roof. Direct hits to the wall (on the same floor as troops) cause the most casualties. I'm no artillery expert but it seems wrong.

[Jonny(FGM)]

On a slightly related note, I sent some troops into a building in the first mission of the german campaign that was close to collapse, some errant marder fire was enough to collapse the building, fortunately all that happened was one out of the 4 man team became lightly wounded, until a grenade found its way into the rubble : (

Might be worth testing how building collapses themselves affect troops by nearly demolishing the building, sending troops in and then just tipping it over the edge with a small calibre gun. I remember in CMx1 being inside a building that collapsed was allways bad news

[Lanzfeld]

As it should be!!!

Can you imagine???

[dan/california]

I would think that the unreinforced masonry construction common in most of the Middle East would have a especially unpleasant collapse. Even if the troops inside had individual fighting positions with boards for overhead cover. Having cinder blocks rained on you can't improve your day.

[c3k]

Bringing this back up...

I just had the following occur: A Syrian squad inside a 2 level building, measuring 1 x 1.5 action spots. Attached to that building is a 1 level building measuring 1 x 1 action spot. There is a Syrian platoon HQ in that.

My stiff lipped Brits did the following: a 3 Gun 105 section, medium, medium, general. Another 3 Gun 105 section, medium, medium, personnel.

A 3 tube 81mm section; medium, medium, smoke.

Yeah, a little shake and bake, CMSF style.

I did all that...TWICE. Do you have any idea how many 105 shells rained down on those two little buildings. WHAMO!!

Both buildings totally collapsed. The bombardment continued!

Imagine my surprise when my stiff lipped troops rushed forwards through the smoke and dust within SECONDS of the 105 bombardment ending, and were wiped out by the surviving Syrians.

Half the Syrians survived. Not only did they survive the bombardment, they survived the collapses. Then, in the rubble, they survived the REST of the bombardment. Finally, just seconds after the last shell landed, they were weapons up and ready. WTF???

A bit of suppression would help.

In a similar vein, I had 105's area target some rooftops. Medium, medium, personnel. The airbursts were ineffective vs. the ATGM's up on the roofs. This occurred many times throughout a battle. Airbursts (105 and 81) are not effective vs. rooftop troops.

I think that artillery effectiveness has been overly-nerfed.

Savedgames are available...

Ken

[Waaarg]

I don't see that big of a difference between survivors of building collapses due to accumulated dmg, and survivors of any type of direct arty hit collapse and subsequent hits.

And it could be me but walled rooftops seem to offer really good protection for suppressed troops vs airbursts.

I could be way off tho.

[Jonny(FGM)]

Just my $0.02, never really noticed that many survivers after levelling buildings, however I have noticed that airbursts are really ineffective against rooftops

[c3k]

Another instance: 81mm, medium, medium, personnel, area target against a 1x1 level one building, rooftop with walls. It has an MG team deployed on the rooftop. After leveling a tall wall adjacent to the building, multiple bursts directly over the SMALL rooftop area, the MG team is unsuppressed and able to conduct effective (casualty causing) fire at a range of greater than 300 meters. That doesn't pass the smell test.

Compare that to my ELITE, +2 leadership sniper team (Brits) aiming at a survivor crewman from a BMP. The BMP crewmember is 167 meters away from my ELITE sniper. He is known, he is visible, he is not facing the sniper. 4 shots later, still no WIA/KIA. My sniper was not under fire, had not moved from his position for 5 to 10 minutes, was rested at the beginning of that time, and had no other targets, was also confined to the crewmember by a target arc. (There was a low wall NEAR the crewmember, but a TARGET LIGHT line did not intersect the wall.)

3 barrels of 81mm airburst raining down on a machinegun for 1-2 minutes of barrage allows the machinegun to kill 3 moving targets at 300 meters, and wounded the 1 survivor, while an ELITE sniper cannot hit the big melon-headed prone crewmember at 167 meters.

Methinks a tweak would be appreciated...

Thoughts?

Ken

[Chops]

Right on Ken, something smells to high-heaven here! I have seen similar scenarios played out numerous times in both CMSF and CMA.

[Lanzfeld]

Agreed...but it seems BFC doesnt want to chime in here. I never understand this.

[c3k]

Please see my new thread where I've posted my test results, here: http://battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=94051

Let me add this: I think BF.C has made a great game. If the simulation aspect is off (which I am addressing), that does not mean the game aspect is off. I understand the need to nerf artillery. However, the artillery model does not seem to be internally consistent right now. I'm sure BF.C will chime in if they feel the need.