Houses ... when it all boils down to it...

[GreenAsJade]

Something I haven't been able to figure: when it all boils down to it, are your troops better off inside a house than out in the open, or possibly are they worse off?

It seems to me, based on loose impression only, that they are worse off. They can't see much, but they get shot up easily.

Compared to outside, where they lie down, the bullets wizz over their heads for a while, and they can actually see where they are coming from.

Does anyone have an hard data on this?

Is this realistic: is it actually the case that you'd rather be out than in, if stuck in such a situation?

I find it un-intuitive, but I'm setting up defenses with the men outside the buildings. Usually behind them. Intuition isn't always right... so I wonder what you all know about this?

GaJ

(note, I'm talking about general houses here, not special buildings such as churches etc)

[Sgt Schultz]

Single tile non-modular buildings are a no-no. Especially in a QB where there may not be much surrounding concealement or cover.

I would suggest putting scout teams in buildings with the rest behind the buildings.

[Wodin]

I always put them in houses..as thats how it would be done in real life. Not sure if they are worse off or not...I try not to pack each floor with troops though. Split the squads.

[GreenAsJade]

Ooo - I wanna play you :)

GaJ

[vonRocko]

I have no proof, just a "gut feeling" from playing, but I try to avoid buildings if possible. Troops "seem" to be more vulnerable in buildings. I actually love seeing the enemy in a building, I know I can easily neutralize them with anyone, even troops in open ground. Like the OP wrote, it feels "un-intuitive". IMHO

[slysniper]

when I ran my test, they are better off in a house compared to being in the open. If and only if these conditions are in place.

The only way blue on blue won in a fire fight with the house proving to be the advantage was if.

My unit was broken up and placed on different levels and I had only one to two men per opening.

If the enemy was equal size and did not have a firepower advantage.

So in other words, too many men in a house are only targets, they do not help deliver firepower. Second if a platoon of men are in them fields and you try to stop them with a squad. You have no chance, they will get pinned down and then killed.

but squad on squad, the house was providing protection, not much. I was losing two men compared to 3 in the field as I recall.

So what is a good rule. For me, I have decided. I only enter houses if a am pretty sure I am going to have the firepower advantage. As long as you have that, they are ok.

[HARI SELDON]

I always put them in houses..as thats how it would be done in real life. Not sure if they are worse off or not...I try not to pack each floor with troops though. Split the squads.

That's what I do, play the history, not the game. However, is that really the history? What was US Army tactical doctrine in regard to setting up platoon positions in and near houses?

[Childress]

This test from a two month old thread shows a rather decisive advantage accruing to troops in modular buildings:

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

[BletchleyGeek]

Building which aren't fortified shouldn't be of much protection. They offer concealment, but no cover, since you have to expose yourself a lot to enemy fires. One concealment is broken, is better to get some cover.

For cover you need to improvise it with sandbags, furniture, etc. to make windows and doors to be something which the same purpose of what in Spanish is called "aspillera" and in English is referred to as "embrassure" or "crenel". This is πολιορκητικα 101 (Poliorcetics).

Not to play the "in CMx1 it was like this" but in CMx1 I found buildings not to be that much cover unless when the designer placed foxholes inside.

What we need is a "fortified" or "reinforced" building type in the editor.

[Fredrock1957]

I only use houses for two things and try to use the independent ones instead of modular:

1) - place HQ or FO for directing arty (keep them hidden with small cover arc)

2) - HMG for ambush (upon springing ambush move them out after 1-2 minutes)

Other then that I try to avoid houses, unless one is close during an arty barrage, then they seem t provide some decent cover.

[Broadsword56]

From what I've read, US troops in Normandy learned to generally avoid buildings because they were known to draw enemy fire (many of them even preferred to avoid being near their own tanks, for the same reason!). But, like other posters, I like them for FOs, scouts, outposts, or ambushing. Hiding behind/between them is great, too, so you can get "keyhole" positions for a MG or an AT gun and a flank shot on an enemy moving past.

[GreenAsJade]

Building which aren't fortified shouldn't be of much protection. They offer concealme

Not to play the "in CMx1 it was like this" but in CMx1 I found buildings not to be that much cover unless when the designer placed foxholes inside.

You're kidding! Heavy Buildings in CMx1 are awesome cover. I think you'll find this is why they are used so much in maps

I agree that light buildings are not much use in CMx1. They are more like all the buildings I've played with in CMBN Except that in CMx1 even light buildings provide some noticeable cover. In CMBN, it actually seems to be worse inside them! (Probably imagination, but it does seem this way!)

GaJ

[Pak40]

I always put them in houses..as thats how it would be done in real life. Not sure if they are worse off or not...I try not to pack each floor with troops though. Split the squads.

not at all. bad misconception there.

[BletchleyGeek]

You're kidding! Heavy Buildings in CMx1 are awesome cover. I think you'll find this is why they are used so much in maps

I agree that light buildings are not much use in CMx1. They are more like all the buildings I've played with in CMBN Except that in CMx1 even light buildings provide some noticeable cover. In CMBN, it actually seems to be worse inside them! (Probably imagination, but it does seem this way!)

Well, it could well be as you say. In general, I never was too convinced of the feeling of infantry (in general) in CMx1. Either they sucked too much damage for too long or they were gone as quickly as the memory of a dream fades when one wakes up (in my opinion).

[xian]

Personally, I think that BFC should make the protection from houses just a tad more effective - even if only to make the game more playable.

At the moment most players seem to run around avoiding buildings like the plague.

[sburke]

Personally, I think that BFC should make the protection from houses just a tad more effective - even if only to make the game more playable.

At the moment most players seem to run around avoiding buildings like the plague.

I vote against most things done for "playability" unless it is specifically to make the AI a functional competitor. I realize the sheer numbers who only play against the AI are BFCs primary user base.

If houses really wouldn't stop rounds from the weapons of the day and soldiers shied away from using unfortified houses as fighting positions, then it's okay by me if they leave it that way. What would be nice is if there were some type of addition you could do that would fortfiy a house. Say under fortifications you could purchase an item that would add to the defensive value or if there were a specific building type. That would probably make everyone a little happier.

It will be interesting as to how we address this in time for the Eastern front.

[Broadsword56]

+1 to the idea of a fortified house model -- just a modular building that simulates an improved structure where the troops barricaded the entrances, sanbagged the walls, piled up furniture, and knocked loopholes in the walls to make an urban mini-fortress.

Seems simpler just to have a new object than to try and make the game handle the issues that happen when people try to use elevation tricks or other things to harden existing houses.

[YankeeDog]

I think the hard part about fortified houses is that ideally fortification should be something the defender can place in whichever buildings he chooses (limited by an allotment, presumably), and the attacker shouldn't know which buildings are fortified, at least initially.

Certainly not an insurmountable problem, but definitely more work than simply dropping a few new building types into the editor. But this is something I hope to see added to the engine sooner rather than later.

For now, I actually find the first floor buildings to be fairly useful as defense points, primarily because while the amount of cover they provide is not exceptional, they do provide very good concealment. Shooting first is very important in CMBN. So they're good as ambush positions; just don't get overconfident from initial success and stay in a building for too long.

It's also very important that the building have an exit door facing the proper direction -- ideally, you want to ambush an approaching enemy out of the front windows, and then break contact by exiting out the back of the building before the attacker can bring down the heavy overwatch firepower.

[slysniper]

At the moment most players seem to run around avoiding buildings like the plague.

Players can avoid them all they want, until the buildings are part of the objective.

Personnally I have learned to deal with it.

I play now by keeping my units behind the building, if prone, they are pretty safe. Cannot see anything but I use other units for that.

If I am the attacker, I will enter the bldg. once I have firepower supremacy.

If on defence, they remain behind the bldg to ambush the enemy when they enter. In this case, the guys outside of the bldg seem to have the advantage normally. I agree, for arty, they seem to do ok as long as not to many rounds are direct hits.

[Georgie]

A while back I ran a series of tests using a squad each of US and German with similar firepower. Its been awhile since I did it but the results were, counting from left to right on each succeeding line of houses in the editor, 1st thru 6th house offered no cover and was worse than being in the open laying down. House 8, 9 and 12 offered good cover. These were individual houses. Some one might want to rerun these tests and maybe a way could be devised to identify the buildings that offer good or bad protection.

[slysniper]

For now, I actually find the first floor buildings to be fairly useful as defense points, primarily because while the amount of cover they provide is not exceptional, they do provide very good concealment. Shooting first is very important in CMBN. So they're good as ambush positions; just don't get overconfident from initial success and stay in a building for too long.

It's also very important that the building have an exit door facing the proper direction -- ideally, you want to ambush an approaching enemy out of the front windows, and then break contact by exiting out the back of the building before the attacker can bring down the heavy overwatch firepower.

Very good points, I agree with this concept totally

[slysniper]

A while back I ran a series of tests using a squad each of US and German with similar firepower. Its been awhile since I did it but the results were, counting from left to right on each succeeding line of houses, 1st thru 6th house offered no cover and was worse than being in the open laying down. House 8, 9 and 12 offered good cover. These were individual houses. Some one might want to rerun these tests and maybe a way could be devised to identify the buildings that offer good or bad protection.

The problem with this is, bldg 9 might offer better cover than bldg 1. but when playing the game, which one is bldg 9.

That is one of the main issus. I can get a module and farm house to look the same, but protection is likely better in the module.

The game needs to have some way of informing us what type of protection we might be receiving. Right now it is guess work and that just is not right.

[permanent666]

Players can avoid them all they want, until the buildings are part of the objective.

Personnally I have learned to deal with it.

I play now by keeping my units behind the building, if prone, they are pretty safe. Cannot see anything but I use other units for that.

If I am the attacker, I will enter the bldg. once I have firepower supremacy.

If on defence, they remain behind the bldg to ambush the enemy when they enter. In this case, the guys outside of the bldg seem to have the advantage normally. I agree, for arty, they seem to do ok as long as not to many rounds are direct hits.

Troops behind buildings was a common tactic in "close combat". I tried this in cmsf with no success. Does it really work in cmbn?

[RockinHarry]

Doctrinally it was about to avoid the edges of towns, similar to forests as these make a good enemy target for support arms and artillery. So usually the main defenses had been laid well within towns (forests) to avoid this and just have the edges outposted. Actually works well in all CM games.

[Childress]

Building which aren't fortified This is πολιορκητικα 101 (Poliorcetics).

Man, this forum is more learned than I realized.

This reminds of a famous Roman joke, or retort if you will.

The 10th Legion is besieging a stronghold in Gaul which so far is resisting Roman arms. The two sides arrange a parley under a white flag. Caesar demands unconditional surrender but the Gallic chieftain is proving intransigent. He then asks the opinion of his legatus in charge of the siege engines, Gaius Publius Rufus, a soldier of renown but also a notorious wit.

Rufus turns to the Gaul, cocks his eye, and quips: "Catapultam habeo. Isi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane."

Thought you'd get a kick of that one, BG.