testing on building protection

[slysniper]

I just finished testing a blue on blue American squad with leaders, at 100 meters apart. One in the 3 story house, one laying down in tall grass against each other to see what results I would see with the building as protection.

A few observations for all of those that hate the buildings as defensive locations right now.

Whichever squad spotted the other first had a big advantage, normally killing one or two enemies and getting others to cower before they were given full return fire.

So thus the squad that generally won was who opened up first, not what cover they were in.

So if I started by letting the infantry target the building as area fire, guess what, the squad in the open normally won. If I let them do it on their own. The squad in the bldg normally spotted first and normally won.

If both units opened up about the same time, the ratio loss was around 3 to 2 favoring the men in the bldg, plus this seemed to also play into the fact that they would then not break and had better ability to keep the morale up compared to my men in the field that would flee to the woods.

One last comment. I tried two squads per side and quickly found out that too many men in the bldg adds to more dead and less likely for success for them in the bldg. Bullets are flying through there and the less body's the better it appears.

My personnal suggestion, send teams into bldg only when they are ready to open up on the enemy that is approaching. stay behind until then. avoid likely area fire, learn to play to be the first to shoot, this is much more important now

[Childress]

My tests showed that troops in bldgs are rather more resilient than your experience indicates.

http://www.mediafire.com/?fhx5ai9534lrf2q

The defenders tend to show a 2:1 or 3:1 advantage in casualties. This is with 'modular' buildings.

The key, I found, is that defenders should utilize the windows and avoid oblique facings which inhibits fire diffusion. Thus, troops in the open have the advantage if they're area spraying a floor, scoring penetration and shrapnel effects, while the defenders are constrained to a single window. For the most part you only need one team per floor. One senses that two shooters per window is the best you can get.

Also, I believe Hiding is a waste of time. Troops in structures disclose their location by firing.

[Vark]

Can you set the teams away from the windows as they are trained to do? That way they should have a restricted field of fire but be harder to locate, also is there any simulation of fortifying a building to allow for more protection (loopholes, use of furniture, minor engineering modifications etc)?

[LemuelG]

Also, I believe Hiding is a waste of time. Troops in structures disclose their location by firing.

I have experienced it differently - I've got a scenario in which there are some Germans holding a two-story modular - inevitably they get pushed out of it by heavy fire, then I have them crawl back in from an unseen approach and 'hide' on arrival, it works - they can get in undetected and lace-up any ammo and weapons from the casualties and set up another ambush. I'll filter teams into position, 'slow' 'hiding', until I have a good amount set-up then they get un-hidden all at once when I want to open-fire.

[slysniper]

My tests showed that troops in bldgs are rather more resilient than your experience indicates.

http://www.mediafire.com/?fhx5ai9534lrf2q

The defenders tend to show a 2:1 or 3:1 advantage in casualties. This is with 'modular' buildings.

The key, I found, is that defenders should utilize the windows and avoid oblique facings which inhibits fire diffusion. Thus, troops in the open have the advantage if they're area spraying a floor, scoring penetration and shrapnel effects, while the defenders are constrained to a single window. For the most part you only need one team per floor. One senses that two shooters per window is the best you can get.

Also, I believe Hiding is a waste of time. Troops in structures disclose their location by firing.

On my test i had the squad on all three levels of the house, MG on the first level, there is enough windows for all of the members and it appeared I was getting all to participate

[slysniper]

Can you set the teams away from the windows as they are trained to do? That way they should have a restricted field of fire but be harder to locate, also is there any simulation of fortifying a building to allow for more protection (loopholes, use of furniture, minor engineering modifications etc)?

The only thing I have seen so far that helps is low stone walls, a wall and building face can be close or together, this helps the players on the first level, since stone walls do stop small arms fire and building walls do not.

[slysniper]

I have experienced it differently - I've got a scenario in which there are some Germans holding a two-story modular - inevitably they get pushed out of it by heavy fire, then I have them crawl back in from an unseen approach and 'hide' on arrival, it works - they can get in undetected and lace-up any ammo and weapons from the casualties and set up another ambush. I'll filter teams into position, 'slow' 'hiding', until I have a good amount set-up then they get un-hidden all at once when I want to open-fire.

This might be good against the AI, But against any real human with some sence, that building will be area fired on as long as he is moving units towards it and until someone clears it.

[Childress]

On my test i had the squad on all three levels of the house, MG on the first level, there is enough windows for all of the members and it appeared I was getting all to participate

Did you run my test?

[slysniper]

Did you run my test?

No, I have not.

From what I saw in mine, I decided that building in general can be considered concealment, not cover. So a building is a little better than tall grass, but I doubt the building was stopping hardly any more rounds than the grass, which is none.

As for your test, I am sure that the variables selected has the impact on the results, maybe your structure does stop a better percentage of rounds, maybe the tall grass allowed for more misses to them troops allowing for a more even fight in my test. I really am not concerned with that. All I wanted to see was if a large indepentant building performed as bad as many of us beleive, in my test it did. I have seen enough to get a general feel for what I mentioned and will let it go at that.

I will thank you for putting it out there for my use, or anyone else

[LemuelG]

This might be good against the AI, But against any real human with some sence, that building will be area fired on as long as he is moving units towards it and until someone clears it.

You claimed hiding was no good (not due to the actions of another human, but the UnitAI), but it is. An intelligent player using suppressive fire against you has nowt to do with it.

You're just as wrong about buildings offering no protection, they do - some good (modular types), some horrid (barn types). None will save you from an enemy with fire-superiority.

[slysniper]

You claimed hiding was no good (not due to the actions of another human, but the UnitAI), but it is. An intelligent player using suppressive fire against you has nowt to do with it.

You're just as wrong about buildings offering no protection, they do - some good (modular types), some horrid (barn types). None will save you from an enemy with fire-superiority.

Ok, some buildings offer some cover, but not much, thus the test, fighting against a exact same squad, it did very little in improvement. maybe there is a few that do better, but how can you tell without testing it, no clue in the game that is for sure.

As for tactics and getting suppressed by the enemy in a building, I pointed that out because anyone that has played for awhile know how buildings are normal targets for area fire, thus if you try to hide in a building and wait to open up on the enemy when they are at the range you want, good luck, you go for it. For me, buildings are crap and I am learning new ways of playing because of the poor protection they provide.

Of course that is against real people, I forget that some thinks tactics against the AI matters, As any game is, the AI is not a good test of tactics.

[womble]

Also, I believe Hiding is a waste of time. Troops in structures disclose their location by firing.

They don't if you set a very short covered arc. I have had great success against the AI by sneaking troops into buildings, all with short covered arcs and Hide orders until they were all in position and then mass-removing all the arcs and Hides. Against a close foe that will be spotted quickly, the auto target selection usually seems to be enough. Generally I use a team per action point per floor, as far as possible.

[slysniper]

They don't if you set a very short covered arc. I have had great success against the AI by sneaking troops into buildings, all with short covered arcs and Hide orders until they were all in position and then mass-removing all the arcs and Hides. Against a close foe that will be spotted quickly, the auto target selection usually seems to be enough. Generally I use a team per action point per floor, as far as possible.

I agree with this, also good for head to head play, but I sure would not have my troops in the building until I want to use them, if that is what I am playing

[Childress]

For me, buildings are crap and I am learning new ways of playing because of the poor protection they provide.

You're not giving up! So provide us with your test scenario and prove us wrong.

Or download mine and tell me how flawed it is.

[Childress]

They don't if you set a very short covered arc. I have had great success against the AI by sneaking troops into buildings, all with short covered arcs and Hide orders until they were all in position and then mass-removing all the arcs and Hides. Against a close foe that will be spotted quickly, the auto target selection usually seems to be enough. Generally I use a team per action point per floor, as far as possible.

I agree. What I meant was that if you set cover arc/ambush from within a building a Hide order isn't necessary. The enemy doesn't seem, in my limited experience, to spot them.

[Georgie]

Hello everyone, I ran a series of tests on the individual houses and learned that the protection that the individual houses offer varies a great deal. In fact in some of the tests the troops outside were very much better off. But in some cases the troops inside the building fared much better and were able to decimate the troops outside. I proposed the idea that the houses be modded to reflect whether they were of a "heavy" construction or a "lite" construction. Maybe a Greek "H" or "L" in the trim of the house. This would aid considerably in setting up a defense or an attack and it would't, I don't think, be gamey because troops should be able to see the type of construction that a house is. A lot of testing would have to be done and I am willing to lend a hand in that although I am sure that there are some players who are much better qualified than I am. The results of my tests showed that, counting from left to right on each row, houses 1 thru 6 offered no protection. Houses 8,9 and 12 offered good cover. Any one is welcome to verify or refute my finding.

[slysniper]

Hello everyone, I ran a series of tests on the individual houses and learned that the protection that the individual houses offer varies a great deal. In fact in some of the tests the troops outside were very much better off. But in some cases the troops inside the building fared much better and were able to decimate the troops outside. I proposed the idea that the houses be modded to reflect whether they were of a "heavy" construction or a "lite" construction. Maybe a Greek "H" or "L" in the trim of the house. This would aid considerably in setting up a defense or an attack and it would't, I don't think, be gamey because troops should be able to see the type of construction that a house is. A lot of testing would have to be done and I am willing to lend a hand in that although I am sure that there are some players who are much better qualified than I am. The results of my tests showed that, counting from left to right on each row, houses 1 thru 6 offered no protection. Houses 8,9 and 12 offered good cover. Any one is welcome to verify or refute my finding.

this might be what happened in my test, since I only selected the largest house I could find that faced directy with the grid. I just remember it was the last option, whichever that is. So however that matches in construction and protection, I do not know.

[slysniper]

You're not giving up! So provide us with your test scenario and prove us wrong.

Or download mine and tell me how flawed it is.

No, just not wanting to spend the time testing different bldgs when I cannot tell what they are when it is time to play. In general, I find they are poor in protection, even the large churches. so I will continue to play them with much caution as to their use until there is a logical way of knowing if they will provide good cover also.

[slysniper]

I have moved on to testing mg's and trenches, both of them are giving me interesting results also.

I test enough to get results and then determine how that will influance play, no one is paying me to reverse engineer the game design and build charts for what is going on. I know some here will do that, but they have time to spend doing it, I dont.

just testing one building and doing it enough to see consistant results was time cousuming. and that really only reflects one type of situation. I could have tested the affect of different distances, different small arm weapons and such to see how that would impact the results.

I am happy with what I learned, so I have moved on.

[womble]

I find they are poor in protection, even the large churches...

In La Haye du Puits, I dropped a 40-odd round 105mm point bombardment on one of the side chapels of the church while area firing most of a company and 2 tripod machine guns in an attempt to kill an HQ unit. At least 25% of the rounds hit the roof of the chapel and all that fire killed precisely one german.

[slysniper]

In La Haye du Puits, I dropped a 40-odd round 105mm point bombardment on one of the side chapels of the church while area firing most of a company and 2 tripod machine guns in an attempt to kill an HQ unit. At least 25% of the rounds hit the roof of the chapel and all that fire killed precisely one german.

I just played chance encounter, and the front section and bell tower was not that great of protection. I lost two teams in that to small arms fire. Now I will admit there was a decent amount of fire coming in when the firefight happened. but really thye only consistant fire coming at them was from MG's a couple of hundred meters out. Pretty much had the rest of them pinned.

[RockinHarry]

Did you do all tests with standard wall/window configurations? Was the tested buildings isolated or part of a larger block? Did the building take damage during game play or was damaged before (CTRL+CLICK, ALT*SHIFT*CLICK)?

[slysniper]

Did you do all tests with standard wall/window configurations? Was the tested buildings isolated or part of a larger block? Did the building take damage during game play or was damaged before (CTRL+CLICK, ALT*SHIFT*CLICK)?

mine was set up with it standard/ no damage / isolated.

[Sailor Malan2]

There is a huge misconception in general about walls of buildings and modern (i.e. C20th infantry) weapons. First the disclaimer - I am not an expert myself, but my Dad was in the British Army for over 25years. He told me a full calibre (0.303, or 7.62mm) rifle bullet will go through a typical British built house wall at several hundred meters (think 600+). A typical British house wall in this context is a standard double wall with cavety, made of standard bricks on the outside and 'breezeblock' on the inner. This related to well post war. WW2 British would be a double thickness of Brick (minimum 6", or 9" if well built. I do not know Normandy well, but would assume houses were equivalent. The only thing that makes a difference would be a stone built (properly built, not just dressed with stone) house. Thus expecting a house to act as cover is going to be disappointed. Houses are mostly concealment unless fortified (which doesn't happen in game if I understand correctly) ...

[slysniper]

There is a huge misconception in general about walls of buildings and modern (i.e. C20th infantry) weapons. First the disclaimer - I am not an expert myself, but my Dad was in the British Army for over 25years. He told me a full calibre (0.303, or 7.62mm) rifle bullet will go through a typical British built house wall at several hundred meters (think 600+). A typical British house wall in this context is a standard double wall with cavety, made of standard bricks on the outside and 'breezeblock' on the inner. This related to well post war. WW2 British would be a double thickness of Brick (minimum 6", or 9" if well built. I do not know Normandy well, but would assume houses were equivalent. The only thing that makes a difference would be a stone built (properly built, not just dressed with stone) house. Thus expecting a house to act as cover is going to be disappointed. Houses are mostly concealment unless fortified (which doesn't happen in game if I understand correctly) ...

Yes, comments similar to yours have been made on other threads. The game appears to me to be treating buildings more as concealment than cover anymore. But some have pointed out that there is some buildings giving cover benefits. If that is so, the problem is, there is no clear easy way of telling which buildings they might be.