Church not like a fortress?

[Wiggum]

but unfortunately i don't think we will see major changes in this respect because this would destroy the balance of the scenarios and campaigns.

...i would not care about that, if there is a issue then they should fix it !

Again, i believe the problem is:

1. The abstracted cover that buildings offer to infantry is to low.

2. The concealment offered to infantry while inside of a building is way to low.

I mean, a single normal size building is at least a platoon size objective !

The problem to me is that if the infantry is moving iside of the building they seem to have no cover at all (not more then being in the open) !

Have you ever moved infantry to the second floor while enemy infantry is ~50m away in the open ? They will kill half of your guys very quick !

[Mattias]

I´m not saying that anyone of you are actually wrong. But i am truly amazed at the amount of subjective blabbering and the flood of assumptions that literally pour into this and pretty much every other thread. Sometimes it seems 80% of the discussion is wasted on opinions beginning with the word "I think".

Now, a few observations:

First round of testing (all at "Elite" level):

2 x MMG .30 Cal.

2 x HMG .30 Cal.

2 x HMG .50 Cal.

Vs.

Infantry (regular, normal/high moral) in the four church building types (the little village type church, the two bigger grey churches and the tower). 18-50 men in total in each church on floor 1-4.

Range: 150 meters (short that is)

All infantry in the churches in "Hiding".

All MG´s area firing

Outcome:

Them MG's (behind walls and bocage) were spotted pretty much at once. The infantry was not spotted until they actually left the buildings after some 15 minutes.

After 12 minutes of sustained .30 (4 guns) fire there were no casualties caused by the MG´s (a rifle grenade took out one man). Suppression was highest in the Village church and lowest (not much at all) in the Tower. By the look of things the infantry could have stayed there indefinitely.

When the .50 cal. joined in on minute 13 things changed. Some casualties (1-3 in a minute) were caused but the level of suppression increased to the point where the men routed. This happened first in the Village church and last in the tower (where there were very few casualties).

NB: Test limited to area fire against hiding target.

Conclusion:

Hiding infantry in churchs are not spotted at 150 meters (FO team spotting as well). Hiding infantry spots firing MG´s behind all wall -> bocage cover at 150 meters

In this test the churches provided 100% cover from small arms fire.

Troops in the Village church were pinned. In the Mid size churches suppression was lower and still lower in the Tower.

The .50 Cal. M2 however is capable of causing casualties and forcing infantry out of all church buildings (effectiveness subject to church type).

M.

[antonyo]

It would be necessary to test with the infantry non hidden.

Please, you do the test with the infantry non hidding, and you tell the results us.

[gunnergoz]

I agree that a stone or brick Norman house should offer a modicum of protection but perhaps not against sustained MG fire or heavy MG's like the .50. Churches are a different matter, as noted, since they were usually build heavier.

Another thing: Troops in hide mode inside any building should be pretty much invisible until the enemy actually enters the building, one would think. However, that is not always the case in the scenarios I've played to date. Hiding troops sometimes get observed once the enemy approaches within a few meters of the building, which I find a bit odd.

As for troops entering a building seeking cover, my experience is that they are very vulnerable to fire from outside the building even after they get inside. It is as if the game has them race to the windows to see who can get shot first.

Granted, I've only played for about 16-20 hours to date so I'm still gathering impressions.

[Vark]

Cannot comment objectively as my new PC has been delayed (grrrr) but it seems as though the CM1 trench problem is back in a different guise.

I also thing this debate and the MG effectiveness thread pose the same problem. If we want realistic approaches to both, then games will become 'realistic' and to some very boring. This to me has always been the Achiles heel in the design philosophy, you cannot have realism and enjoyment for the majority. Either your troops have an exciting firefight with troops in a building, then an exciting assault and room to room fighting, or you are pinned by MG's, unable to see relocating troops and call up support elements which is realistic but less fun. Demanding more realism but playing to completely unrealistic timetables, in accelerated conflicts so as to get enjoyment is, I would argue, a problem with an engineered solution.

The mismatch in firepower and proficiency in CMSF meant these inherent contradictions were disguised, but with the roughly equal troops in CMBN they are going to be revealed more. I still want to buy the game, but those seeking greater realism will defacto engineer more realistic encounters.

[tagge]

In the old CM1-series you couldn't smoke out any opposing forces from a church unless you packed at least 50 mm guns.

In PBEM games he who got first into a church with a HMG pretty much stayed there for the rest of the turns.

Something inbetween these new and old values would be good IMHO.