testing on building protection

[MikeyD]

4-5 small buildings chained together to form a complex does not equal 1 'large' building. It just equals 4-5 small buildings chained together. We've already determined that small buildings don't stand up well to abuse. Theres a lot of small indi buildings on the Normandy maps and relatively few large (in the AI's judgement) buildings. One assumes if/when we find ourselves battling through the streets of Paris we'll then be complaining about how shell resistant all the buildings are!

[LongLeftFlank]

Conclusion from my tests above: the only building type in CMBN that is more resistant than normal to artillery fire is the Cathedral type (though not the little one-story church -- that falls down as easily as the rest, which is disappointing).

So it looks like if I want to represent the heavily fortified chateau (Gestapo HQ) of St Gilles (which according to the histories proved largely impervious to artillery and had to be riddled point blank with 76mm tank destroyer fire followed by demo charges to finish the defenders) I am stuck with using the 3 story Cathedral tile. Pity, that.

I decided to rerun my 105mm battering test with some poor German FO teams hunkered down -- 3 guys on each floor Hiding.

The first 2 rounds took out 2 of the men on the top floor. The third rapidly decamped to the ground floor (and then wisely decided to hide behind the structure -- he was the sole survivor). The ground floor team was rapidly pinned and Rattled, and after the perimeter stone wall was demolished, exposing the ground floor to Target by the Priests, was eventually killed off after about 50 rounds came in (15 minutes of nonstop shooting by two M7s). As in the prior test, the building showed pockmarks but no significant structural damage. Overall, a satisfying representation of a fortified building.

[hoolaman]

"Damage" also comes in different varieties. As you've said, castle walls were thick, extremely thick, designed to defy the power of rams, pickaxes and catapults. These would also create formidable cover against flat trajectory bullets and shells, agreed, although lengthy bombardment would eventually create breaches (gunpowder is one reason the feudal period came to an end in the 15th century. Also, I believe that most of the obsolete castles were either converted into manor homes or pulled down for quarry, so one per village is probably overstating).

But the roofs would be a different matter -- most likely slates covering a framework of sturdy oak beams. And then there would be oak floors and beams below, assuming multiple stories.

Mortar rounds, as mentioned, would mainly impact on the roof and not penetrate, at least until sufficient slates were smashed to create gaping holes to drop through. And then you'd have to repeat the process on the upper floors. Plunging shells of sufficient calibre though would frequently punch through to explode in the interior.

FWIW

This is a very good point that the game also seems to be very poor at modelling. There are many many classic period pictures of buildings leveled by months of bombing that still have their facade stone walls standing, though they have been gutted by bombs and fire. We've all probably seen a few pictures of HE scars on stone buildings around Europe and they kinda splash off. Google "Sarajevo Rose" for some good ones.

The game's modelling of a building collapsing is very simplistic, because in reality a building of this sort that "falls down" still has large bits of heavy stone walls at least one but even two or more stories high. There might be little else inside except rubble but they would still be excellent fighting positions. Especially the little church seems very jarring when it comes down flat as a pancake.

[LongLeftFlank]

If you bombard the top floors of a multistory building, it will occasionally (1 in 10 about) collapse but leave a gutted shell of the ground floor standing (albeit damaged). Regrettably, this does not seem to apply to single story buildings, including that little church.

As I've noted before, pre-20th century buildings relied on (thick) outer walls as primary load bearing elements. Stout wooden beams hold up the floors and roof but don't hold the structure itself together (unlike modern construction). So even in a structure gutted by fire, the outer walls would tend to remain standing in the absence of a kinetic force knocking them over.

[RockinHarry]

Think the question about general building protection and resistance levels has already been answered by enough testing:

1. Independent = light to very light (barns)

2. modular = medium to heavy

3. cathedral = heavy

The "light" category does not quite work for a european setting, but is more probably ported over from CMSF middle east. Also yet might work for russia and parts of eastern europe.

Particularly disappointing is the quick dropping of indi buildings, without showing intermediate damage levels. It´s simply wrong and crappy looking.

Another issue is the quick rubbling of "walls" (low, high, stone, brick) by single 80mm mortar hits or near hits. Observed the same for 4.2" smoke rounds. How is that assumed to happen? That definitely needs some readjusting in the game. Me guesses there´s still some CMSF code involved.

[winkelried]

The "light" category does not quite work for a european setting, but is more probably ported over from CMSF middle east. Also yet might work for russia and parts of eastern europe.

Particularly disappointing is the quick dropping of indi buildings, without showing intermediate damage levels. It´s simply wrong and crappy looking.

Another issue is the quick rubbling of "walls" (low, high, stone, brick) by single 80mm mortar hits or near hits. Observed the same for 4.2" smoke rounds. How is that assumed to happen? That definitely needs some readjusting in the game. Me guesses there´s still some CMSF code involved.

Good classification - we have to be aware of the fact, that construction has changed quite a bit since WWII - therefore i see the light type of building fitting quite well for the European context.

The barn is a no brainer - a lot of barns were/are constructed just by using a wooden frame and wooden planks. no obstacle to anything fired at really.

The independent buildings too fit pretty well with light buildings built with the "colombage" technique: with a wooden frame and the openings filled with wood / straw / mud etc.

Examples Coupesarte Manoir Norman Mill Maison en pan de bois Ruine Look at the Church

[winkelried]

some nice photos here too

[slysniper]

Think the question about general building protection and resistance levels has already been answered by enough testing:

1. Independent = light to very light (barns)

2. modular = medium to heavy

3. cathedral = heavy

The "light" category does not quite work for a european setting, but is more probably ported over from CMSF middle east. Also yet might work for russia and parts of eastern europe.

Particularly disappointing is the quick dropping of indi buildings, without showing intermediate damage levels. It´s simply wrong and crappy looking.

Another issue is the quick rubbling of "walls" (low, high, stone, brick) by single 80mm mortar hits or near hits. Observed the same for 4.2" smoke rounds. How is that assumed to happen? That definitely needs some readjusting in the game. Me guesses there´s still some CMSF code involved.

so is there anyway of telling a modular single building from a independent building during game play, is there enough differance with all the models to see the differance. I guess that all it tales is to place them all on a map and view, or is there settings that can be used to make them look similar

[LongLeftFlank]

Think the question about general building protection and resistance levels has already been answered by enough testing:

1. Independent = light to very light (barns)

2. modular = medium to heavy

3. cathedral = heavy

The "light" category does not quite work for a european setting, but is more probably ported over from CMSF middle east. Also yet might work for russia and parts of eastern europe.

Particularly disappointing is the quick dropping of indi buildings, without showing intermediate damage levels. It´s simply wrong and crappy looking.

Another issue is the quick rubbling of "walls" (low, high, stone, brick) by single 80mm mortar hits or near hits. Observed the same for 4.2" smoke rounds. How is that assumed to happen? That definitely needs some readjusting in the game. Me guesses there´s still some CMSF code involved.

1. I didn't bother to bombard the barns, but I notice no difference in durability between the Modular and Independent House or Commercial building types. They take between 8-12 105mm medium arty hits to rubble.

2. Not sure what you're saying -- Intermediate damage starts showing up on the intermediate buildings almost at once -- pockmarks, leading to blown out walls

3. Agree on the perimeter walls behaving more like Third World cinderblock than solid stone or brick. Sound like it too (that hollow sound they make).

Slysniper, note that the variety of independent building (and maybe other terrain) types you use on a given map seems to matter for memory and load time purposes nearly as much as the number of buildings. My little test map was dead flat and contained 3 units yet took several minutes to load at the 43% mark owing to the fact that I had one of each type of Inependent House and Commercial building on there. Once the scenario loaded, it behaved OK though (not laggy).

[Broadsword56]

Someone posted a new scenario map recently (I think it was an Omaha beach landing map) that strengthened some of the buildings by placing stone wall right against the sides of the house, around the perimeter, as second thickening "skin" at ground level. It looked pretty good in screenshots and I recall reading that it greatly improved survivability against small arms fire (don't know about arty). Has anyone tried similar tests with this technique?

[LongLeftFlank]

Yes, a little project involving about 2000 walled building compounds called Ramadi ;-)

The prophylactic wall simply delays the reckoning by soaking up the damage that would otherwise weaken the ground level. Once it falls (2-3 hits of any calibre or near misses of larger calibre) the benefit ends. Simple enough.

[xian]

At present the game discourages the player from putting troops in buildings - their survivability (for a number of reasons) is better in open ground or light trees.

Query:

Did soldiers completely avoid fighting from buildings in the WWII setting?

If not, then there is something slightly wrong with the current protection offered by buildings in CMBN.

[LongLeftFlank]

That's the central point of this thread really, or rather does the CMBN building set provide an adequate representation of the hard cover offered by "typical"'1944 era Norman structures. And if not are there workarounds?

As phrased, your question is a little vague: did soldiers fight from buildings? Certainly. All the time.

Were unimproved farmhouses akin to miniature fortresses? Probably not, although they generally had lots of stuff around them like walls, big trees and outbuildings. (a mixed blessing as they also restrict LOS out.

Did they seek to fortify them into strong fighting positions? Sometimes -- there are pros and cons and the decision also depended on time and materials available and alternatives (e.g a camouflaged bunker with clear fields of fire dug deep into in a hedgerow as opposed to sandbagging the attic of a farmhouse whose roof is clearly visible for miles)

Towns and cities are an entirely different animal of course.

[hoolaman]

I actually have heard a few anecdotes that both sides stayed out of and away from farm buildings in Normandy because they were such juicy and obvious targets for artillery. The implication is that they were deadly places to be, but this doesn't shed any light on small arms.

[slysniper]

At present the game discourages the player from putting troops in buildings - their survivability (for a number of reasons) is better in open ground or light trees.

Query:

Did soldiers completely avoid fighting from buildings in the WWII setting?

If not, then there is something slightly wrong with the current protection offered by buildings in CMBN.

They are better than open ground, but care must be taken. That is the point at first that I tried to make. You have to limit your troops to available openings and areas, you have to conclude them to be more as concealment than cover. and maybe the most important thing. Do not place them somewhere where they are outgunned. If they have a equal amount of guns as to what they are up against, they will do better than troops in the open, maybe equal to other light defensive terrain. But they are not heavy cover, that is for sure. but if outnumbered, they will be supressed and then killed very quickly. and buildings have a way of letting plenty of troops see them, so it is easy to be outgunned.

[Georgie]

At present the game discourages the player from putting troops in buildings - their survivability (for a number of reasons) is better in open ground or light trees.

Query:

Did soldiers completely avoid fighting from buildings in the WWII setting?

If not, then there is something slightly wrong with the current protection offered by buildings in CMBN.

The protection offered by individual buildings varies from a negative value to a strong positive value. The problem is that there is presently no way for the player to tell the difference. In CM1 the buildings were either "heavy" or "light" and you could tell that by the terminus of the LOS thingy. Why the regression? It would make this game more fun if the player had this information. Come on BF why not supply this information.:confused:

[xian]

Everything you say is probably correct, but my point is that currently the game discourages (a little too strongly) players from using buildings as cover/concealment.

It just feels wrong... perhaps a little tweak to improve the overall survivability will provide players with the 'feel' that would satisfy their expectations?

[Redwolf]

Are we really discussing the possibility that CMx2 might be the first game ever to realize that buildings are a worse place than open ground in a firefight, including CMx1?

[LemuelG]

I am not lobbying for castles to be constructed in the editor.

I am

I think our desires are not different - I envisioned it as an alternate 'modular'-type building-set, offering much greater protection, option of smaller loop-hole windows, and add-on towers/gatehouses/thick walls.

If we are to be fighting over Europe for some years to come, it would be a real shame and a missed opportunity if we never got any castles.

I think they feature more than enough in the Normandy fighting to be a high priority. I don't even care if the towers have to be square! We need it.

[LongLeftFlank]

Are we really discussing the possibility that CMx2 might be the first game ever to realize that buildings are a worse place than open ground in a firefight, including CMx1?

I don't know that anyone has demonstrated that. There is room for reasoned disagreement though on the cover value of unimproved buildings.

[slysniper]

really, there is nothing wrong with the buildings. It just comes down to a fact we want buildings with different levels of protection, which we might have three types at the moment, but there should be more. plus with the levels it should be possible to tell what they are so that we can play the terrain as to what it is offering.

At the moment it is one of the weak points in the games as to how they are affecting play, they look better, but they lack different types of construction and depth of infomation.

[RockinHarry]

2. Not sure what you're saying -- Intermediate damage starts showing up on the intermediate buildings almost at once -- pockmarks, leading to blown out walls

Yep, they get pockmarked pretty fast during a barrage, but the actual damaging process looks more like going "bottom up" and not "top down". I´ve seldomly seen damaged roofs/upper stories, before a building collapses and it more looks like the first floor receives most damage from blasts of near hits (lots of blown out walls), weakening the house enough, that finally all of the house will collapse.

I´d expect a blast effect taking the way of least resistance, blowing out windows, doors, ect., but not entire walls that soon. So I have bits of my doubts with regard to the building damage simulation model.

While the collapsing buidling FX technically is well done and nice to look at, it too oftentimes feels to be out of place with regard to assumed pre and after damage levels (pockmarking --> flat rubble). Hopefully BFC does some refinement to it.

Back to protection vs. small arms fire:

I still believe it´s not thickness of walls having the main impact, it´s rather an abstracted nature of (internally oversized) windows, serving as firing ports and openings for return fire.

Things obviously get more fuzzy when a building has received some damage levels, either by live damage, or premade with CTRL-CLICK and ALT-SHIFT-CLICK. Lots of invisible openings and firing ports are created. Oftentimes it looks like soldiers are able to shoot through seams of adjoining (damaged) walls either sidewards or down- and up story. Although beeing realistic to some extend, the abstracted damage leads to some confusion with regard to assumed protection level of a building or parts of it.

Another topic: Has any of CMBN buildings access to the roof, like in CMSF? I haven´t seen some yet, but I guess BFC has taken this feature out, due to 3D object collsion issues with angled roofs (as opposed to the flat ones in CMSF). However, I´d at least wish for roof access for FOs, snipers and LMG teams.

Need to test about various effects of modular, multi story buildings, that receive some premade ALT-SHIFT-CLICK damage. On level 1 damage, the roof looks damaged, although the whole story below is made inaccessible as well and lots of random rubble piles (=flavor objects) are placed on upper and bottom most stories, but not intermediate (assuming, building has at least 3 stories).

I´ve also noticed various oddities with buildings of various damage levels (or none) placed in adjoining "blocks". I.E if one adjoining wall has no windows or damage, but the wall of another one has, invisible access points could be created between. Would be nice if BFC sheds some light on those matters, as too many things aren´t covered in the game manual. I could have finished my MOUT scenario weeks ago, if I wouldn´t have stumbled into unexpected issues over and over again, requiring me to do detail tests on just parts of a map with limited forces.

[RockinHarry]

I actually have heard a few anecdotes that both sides stayed out of and away from farm buildings in Normandy because they were such juicy and obvious targets for artillery. The implication is that they were deadly places to be, but this doesn't shed any light on small arms.

Read about that oftenly as well. Always depends upon type of building, if time is sufficient to turn it into a strongpoint, if it has a cellar strong enough serving as dugout AND if the building itself covers or integrates into an important part of the defense line. Otherwise, just as forest edges and other prominent terrain features, it will draw devastating artillery and support arm fires.

Oftentimes it´s better to spare single buildings or use them as cover shield for units placed behind, thus creating some keyholed position.

Elaborate defense positions oftenly have buildings integrated for means of comfort or protection of strong enough basements (dugout), with the actual fighting positions (foxholes and trenches) placed outside.

[LongLeftFlank]

Good summary, RockinHarry.

Re flat roofs, BFC indicated they'd add industrial buildings in a later module or in the Bulge family (End of war fight for the Ruhr, Aachen, etc.)

[Michael Emrys]

If we are to be fighting over Europe for some years to come, it would be a real shame and a missed opportunity if we never got any castles.

I think they feature more than enough in the Normandy fighting to be a high priority. I don't even care if the towers have to be square! We need it.

Really? How many battles in Normandy or elsewhere featured fighting in or around castles? So far, I've read of only one and that was in Germany in the very last days of the war.

Michael