Buildings and rubble are provinding WAY too much cover!

[noxnoctum]

I'm glad that rooftops aren't the deathtraps they used to be, but it seems to me that rubble and buildings in general provide FAR too much cover from arty fire and air support.

The most glaring example I can think of is when I had a Tornado drop a... whatever it is... huge bomb, on a building. Direct hit, huge crater etc. Building turned to rubble instantly. At the end of the game what do I find? 4 dudes still in the rubble, 3 green, one wounded, no dead.

???

Another situation: Had 5 full airborne squads (so 8 members) + 2 HQs (4 members) firing at 4 guys in rubble about 150 meters away. It took them, literally, 3 minutes to kill all 4 of them. I think I must have seen at least 50 UGL explosions right on or next to the rubble. Not to mention the constant small arms fire.

A bit ridiculous no?

[DaveDash]

Been watching tyrspawns AAR's, and noticed the same thing.

[bodkin]

I'm currently playing a mission in the German campaign were I have to fight against Special Forces troops in buildings, nearly the whole company has been firing at one squad of these terminators for 3 or 4 turns and so far I think I've slightly wounded one of them. They occasionally fire back with an RPG-29 and kill half a squad of my guys, very frustrating.

BTW you might want to look at this thread.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=94051

[Boche]

hmmm small arms ussually do a good job with buildings...

if this is the factory mission im sure the SPEC OPS are set at fanatic so I dont know if they will run!

[Pandur]

i think HE blast itself was tweaked backwards in destructivety since the release. when we remember it took few shots at release to take out anything, a unit, a house, whatever. a huge plane bomb took out guys 150 meters away in houses(was over the top, yes ) VT arty had a huge area it covered. now it happens that red 81mm mortars go down on top of my man and i can safely run them out of there most of the time with just a single guy hit at times.

125mm HE from RED used to have a huge blast area too but no longer has.

at the same time it was in everyones mouth to readuce indirect and air support in missions because they are too effective in mass.

now i feel its actually the opposit of what we started with. we get only a few assets, often with limited ammo and you need countless 120mm rounds to take out a single unit.

so, either map designers start to hand out a "little" more indirect and air support again or the HE blast effects need a little more tweaking.

[dan/california]

this was just exhaustively discussed in this thread

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=94051

and Steve said some sort of change was in the offing for 1.32

[noxnoctum]

It was the Airfield mission FYI. Special Forces or not I don't care... when you get a gigantic bomb dropped on you that leaves a giant crater... you die.

Same if you have 48 dudes shooting and lobbing grenades at you at relatively short range.

It just needs to be turned up a bit. I dunno... maybe by 50%?

I didn't mention arty either but that's definitely an issue too. I consider it basically a waste to use my arty on anything but guys in the open or in trenches.

Also had an apache strafe "heavy" a building twice. Everyone inside was green and I had to take them out MOUT style.

[DaveDash]

I just dropped a JDAM on a bunker filled with reserve units. One guy survived, at the bottom of a huge crater. I make note of it in my upcoming AAR.

[c3k]

I do not have a test to rely upon, but it seems that bunkers and buildings are treated differently. HE vs. buildings have been discussed in the linked thread.

Remaining areas to examine: casualties caused by buildings collapsing while occupied. I.e., should units at level 7 die when that 8 level building collapses? What about those on level 1 when that building collapses? This still needs to be tested.

Small arms effects vs. units in buildings, bunkers, and rubble is an area that also could bear further scrutiny.

Ken

[dan/california]

Setting up in rubble after the collapse should provide excellent cover, otherwise Stalingrad would have been renamed for some unpleasant German person, as opposed to an unpleasant Russian one, But being in the building when it comes down should be fini.......

[LongLeftFlank]

Per previous discussions, BFC deliberately nerfed HE effects on infantry somewhat to compensate for the vulnerability of individual CMSF squaddies "clumping" together far more closely in the action spot(s) more than trained infantry normally would do in RL ground terrain. So now it seems like Charles needs to make a back-adjustment for troops in buildings, who would indeed be "clumped" -- in rooms and around apertures -- as shown in the game.

[Paper Tiger]

It was the Airfield mission FYI. Special Forces or not I don't care... when you get a gigantic bomb dropped on you that leaves a giant crater... you die.

Same if you have 48 dudes shooting and lobbing grenades at you at relatively short range.

It just needs to be turned up a bit. I dunno... maybe by 50%?

I didn't mention arty either but that's definitely an issue too. I consider it basically a waste to use my arty on anything but guys in the open or in trenches.

Also had an apache strafe "heavy" a building twice. Everyone inside was green and I had to take them out MOUT style.

Quick comment. The Syrian Special Forces in Minakh have mostly Normal morale. One platoon has High morale. Further, they are mostly Regular quality with only a few Veterans thrown in. They had higher morale earlier in testing but I noticed that they were proving very hard to kill when they were in buildings so I decided to reduce them.

The team that sits in the forward buiding used to be a real PITA before I nerfed the SF in Minakh. I JDAMmed that building, hit it with mortars but most of them survived and I still lost guys in very long firefights weeding out the survivors. It didn't seem very realistic to me so I reduced their quality drastically and it began to play better.

[noxnoctum]

I don't care how experienced you are, if you've got 30mm grenades landing a couple feet from you, you're dead. (not to mention the whole having a giant bomb dropped on top of your tiny house thing)

[DaveDash]

Im doing an video AAR with commentary of the Marines campaign, inspired by tyrspawn.

Mission 02, I hit buildings with JDAMs, Javelins, multiple SMAWS, and the guys inside still survived, were not suppressed, and took out my guys. ><

[Blackcat]

Im doing an video AAR with commentary of the Marines campaign, inspired by tyrspawn.

Mission 02, I hit buildings with JDAMs, Javelins, multiple SMAWS, and the guys inside still survived, were not suppressed, and took out my guys. ><

Mission 2 of the Marines campaign? Sorting out the buggers in the big objective building in the centre at the back was always problem, but I don't remember anyother big issues in taking down the defenders in buildings.

Has there been any tweaks to HE efectiveness/building cover since the Brit module was released?

I fear that one of the unintended consquences of tweaking the weapons effects is that older scenarios become too easy or much harder/impossible (e.g. British infantry cannot fire on a building for three minutes, they run out of ammo after two).

[DaveDash]

Mission 2 of the Marines campaign? Sorting out the buggers in the big objective building in the centre at the back was always problem, but I don't remember anyother big issues in taking down the defenders in buildings.

Has there been any tweaks to HE efectiveness/building cover since the Brit module was released?

I fear that one of the unintended consquences of tweaking the weapons effects is that older scenarios become too easy or much harder/impossible (e.g. British infantry cannot fire on a building for three minutes, they run out of ammo after two).

Yep that's the mission. You will see in the next couple of hours after I finish the upload.

These buggers defended far more tenaciously against HE and JDAMs than I remember.

I actually don't mind overall lower lethality. However surviving JDAMs is a bit much.

[abneo3sierra]

The mention earlier of Stalingrad is a great example. The Luftwaffe literally destroyed that city as far as the buildings there, yet the destroyed buildings provided cover (not to mention concealment) to the Soviet forces who set up in the rubble afterward. However, very many people also survived being in the buildings that were hit. In current practice, the weapons may be more precise, such as JDAM, etc, but a hit is still a hit, and should not be assumed to be more or less lethal than in previous wars. In general practice also, at least as "Blue", the ROE should be set to make people cautious to destroy buildings anyway, and to use MOUT tactics to clear them instead.

[Crender]

Looking forward to your marines walkthrough DD. I'm currently on marines mission 5 version 1.31 and didn't have too much of a problem on mission 2. I basically used my FO to target all objectives early in the game with HE and CAS (point target on each individual building one after the other). When it was over my ground forces strolled through! I think there is a lot of dice rolling involved in arty effects and I was lucky.

[c3k]

The mention earlier of Stalingrad is a great example. The Luftwaffe literally destroyed that city as far as the buildings there, yet the destroyed buildings provided cover (not to mention concealment) to the Soviet forces who set up in the rubble afterward. However, very many people also survived being in the buildings that were hit. In current practice, the weapons may be more precise, such as JDAM, etc, but a hit is still a hit, and should not be assumed to be more or less lethal than in previous wars. In general practice also, at least as "Blue", the ROE should be set to make people cautious to destroy buildings anyway, and to use MOUT tactics to clear them instead.

Whereas we can all agree on how wonderful the ruins of Stalingrad proved to be as defensive structures, are you sure that "very many people also survived being in the buildings that were hit."? HE, bombing, etc, destroying a building all at once (or at least over a matter of a few minutes) is far different than slowly battering a building into rubble. Units which infiltrated into a ruin would be different than a unit surviving demolition in a building. Are you sure about this information? I do not, at first blush, accept it.

Yes, men survive a lot. Buildings which are demolished provide a lot of cover. However, the supposition that a men in a building BEING demolished can survive in fighting trim (in CMSF's time scale) does not pass the sniff test.

Thoughts?

Ken

[Paper Tiger]

Of course, this is the crux of the situation. There's a huge difference between the survivability of being in a rubbled building and being in a building that's being 'rubbled'. I am more concerned about units surviving buildings being rubbled and not the amount of protection the subsequent rubble offers those troops who infiltrate the newly fortified position. How difficult it should be to reduce a building to a CMSF rubble tile is a completely different argument and doesn't belong in this discussion.

At the very least, units that survive the rubbling should be out of things for a few minutes and not instantly back up on their feet. After all, they are permitted to continue firing their weapons at maximum efficiency right up to the point of impact so arguably they're not making best use of cover within the building when the bomb/shell hits. The way things stand at the moment, they're still fully functional after the hit as well.

[Praetori]

Yes, men survive a lot. Buildings which are demolished provide a lot of cover. However, the supposition that a men in a building BEING demolished can survive in fighting trim (in CMSF's time scale) does not pass the sniff test.

Thoughts?

Ken

People survived getting the WTC on their heads, not many and not in fighting shape. But then again that was extreme.

Artillery in rubble feels a bit weak IMO. Airbursts should hit troops in rubble almost as good as trenches.

Troops should be more rattled and/or dazed if the building they were in was turned to rubble but I don't disagree with the fact that some of the troops survive. Though my experience is that more often than not they simply vanish.

[c3k]

At the very least, units that survive the rubbling should be out of things for a few minutes and not instantly back up on their feet. After all, they are permitted to continue firing their weapons at maximum efficiency right up to the point of impact so arguably they're not making best use of cover within the building when the bomb/shell hits. The way things stand at the moment, they're still fully functional after the hit as well.

This is, indeed, the issue. Falling masonry, the blast which caused it, if the men were on upper floors they would suffer FALLING all the way down, all these would kill, maim, injure, or stun. Right now if you assault a building which gets vaporized by a bomb or moments after a heavy artillery barrage destroys it, you are VERY likely to have several survivors up and firing. Every time.

I contend that more men should actually be heavily wounded or killed. That is subject to debate and depends on variables such as the size of the building, the number of floors, the unit's floor, what ordnance struck the building and caused the collapse.

Beyond the number of casualties, the effect on the survivors seems far too mild. Suppression meters should be pegged, with a PIN, for many minutes. There should be a morale hit. These should combine to put a lot of !'s over their heads. In short, mere survival does not mean the men are capable of fighting.

Fewer should survive; those who do survive should not be able to fight so quickly.

[c3k]

Artillery in rubble feels a bit weak IMO. Airbursts should hit troops in rubble almost as good as trenches.

From my test in the thread about rooftops, thes results at least show how rubble and open ground compare when being fired on by airburst 105.

Here are the average number of survivors (with standard deviation).

- Infantry on walled rooftops - 13/3.5

- Infantry on unwalled rooftops - 13/3.5

- Infantry on the 2nd floor of a 2 level building - 23/3.5

- Infantry on paved ground - .5/.7

- Infantry on dirt - .4/.7

- Infantry in rubble (from demolished 2 level buildings) - 2.75/1.6

As you can see, rubble IS better than open ground. Open ground and pavement are the same with regards to airburst 105. None of them are all that good.

I have not tested against troops in trenches, but I don't think anything is out of line with the numbers above.

Ken

[abneo3sierra]

Hey Ken, been a long time. Good to see you kicking.

As for your comment, Soviet/Russian sources would indicate that nearly half of the civilians survived their buildings being destroyed by the Luftwaffe in the opening air raid of the Stalingrad assault. That said though... I am thinking that I agree with you and some other posters as to the idea that the survivors should definitely NOT be able to sit up and fire all the way to impact (thus not making use of any cover at all) and then immediately after impact, able to fire again at the assaulting infantry. That would seem to need looked at if it is more than a very rare occurrence. I have only had it happen once in game, and chalked that up to a very lucky squad of OPFOR fighters.

Ron

[YankeeDog]

Yeah, I'll jump on this pile...

I don't really have much of a problem with the effectiveness of fire on infantry in buildings, in terms of absolute numbers of casualties, and especially red/brown casualties (i.e., seriously Wounded/KIA).

But I do think that units inside a building when the building is hit by 105mm+ artillery fire should take more "walking wounded" (i.e. Yellow) casualties -- I see a lot more guys getting hit by lower velocity flying chunks of debris, ending up with serious bruises, concussions, etc. And especially for units inside a building when it collapses, I think there should be a MUCH longer "suppressed" time, during which the unit is at seriously reduced effectiveness and unable and put out meaningful fire.

Even if you don't get KOed by a chunk of falling debris, being inside a building as the walls come crashing down has to be a confusing, disorienting experience. And as it is right now, units seem to recover unrealistically quickly from this experience.

In summary: Arty casualty % on units in buildings: OK. Suppression and minor wounds effects on same: undermodeled. IMHO, of course.

(Side note: I would also apply the above to large-caliber Direct Fire on buildings, such as tank main gun rounds. Casualties % seems more or less OK, but suppression effects seem rather wimpy right now.)