Infantry AT in buildings

[RockinHarry]

Currently the rules are strict. No matter size of the house and its condition (window configuration, damaged or undamged), you can´t shoot Fausts (and rifle grenades?) and Schrecks/Zooks from within buildings.

While it makes sense for larger teams or full squads in closed up rooms, I have my doubts for the various conditions that can be assumed in the game.

First question would be, how is the internals of buildings modelled in the game? Is single rooms "abstracted", at least in larger footprint (>=2x2 AS) buildings, or is it always assumed to be single large rooms (halls) a story? My experiences support the latter.

[winkelried]

For the panzerfaust the deadly range for the blast was 3 m. At a distance of up to 10 m serious burns even to the shooter could result it seems.

[womble]

Currently the rules are strict. No matter size of the house and its condition (window configuration, damaged or undamged), you can´t shoot Fausts (and rifle grenades?) and Schrecks/Zooks from within buildings.

I'm pretty sure you can fire rifle grenades out of buildings.

First question would be, how is the internals of buildings modelled in the game? Is single rooms "abstracted", at least in larger footprint (>=2x2 AS) buildings, or is it always assumed to be single large rooms (halls) a story? My experiences support the latter.

They're assumed and abstracted to be several rooms per AS per storey. At least from the POV of action within the building. Which makes it weird how troops mooching about by the rear windows can be spotted (at night) and fired on by enemy across the street (with the street at the front).

In the end though, it makes things consistent. How would the game be able to tell whether an AT system in any given building at any given time is in a state that would allow it to be fired? Without more precise modelling, it's impossible, so you have to have a rule one way or the other. Since the designers' opinion is that it was more common that rocket-propelled AT weapons could not be fired, that's the rule.

[GreenAsJade]

The bigger problem, as discussed in a thread near here, is that since AT weapons can't be fired from inside houses, and typical CMBN town maps don't provide any other sort of concealment, then towns simply don't "play right". They look like towns, with buildings all around and roads, but they provide no useable concealment for AT squads. An AT squad has to stand out in the open, in plain view of a tank, before it can operate its weapon. It can't even "peek around a corner"... it's either "behind the building" (no LOS/LOF) or "in the street"... and dead.

GaJ

[sburke]

The easy answer- add more concealment to the maps. Nothing too extensive if it alters the feel, but enough if what you are running into is the billiard table feel.

[Tarquelne]

Which makes it weird how troops mooching about by the rear windows can be spotted (at night) and fired on by enemy across the street (with the street at the front).

I had half a squad cut down by a lone rifleman in such a situation. Happily some of my opponent's own arty soon landed on the guy, and that made me feel better.

How would the game be able to tell whether an AT system in any given building at any given time is in a state that would allow it to be fired?

A Fortification map-object like a TRP or foxhole that just allows a AT-rocket to be fired from the building could allow it, sometimes, without re-vamping buildings.

[LongLeftFlank]

The bigger problem, as discussed in a thread near here, is that since AT weapons can't be fired from inside houses, and typical CMBN town maps don't provide any other sort of concealment, then towns simply don't "play right". They look like towns, with buildings all around and roads, but they provide no useable concealment for AT squads. An AT squad has to stand out in the open, in plain view of a tank, before it can operate its weapon. It can't even "peek around a corner"... it's either "behind the building" (no LOS/LOF) or "in the street"... and dead.

GaJ

What you're describing here of course is a deficiency in map design, not a problem with the game. If one just plops down a bunch of houses and a few trees along a road then calls it a "town" then.....

On the other hand, if the houses are surrounded by walls and hedges and small outbuildings, then AT teams have plenty of great keyhole positions to choose from.

[winkelried]

What you're describing here of course is a deficiency in map design, not a problem with the game. If one just plops down a bunch of houses and a few trees along a road then calls it a "town" then.....

On the other hand, if the houses are surrounded by walls and hedges and small outbuildings, then AT teams have plenty of great keyhole positions to choose from.

I fully agree - and nevertheless have an objection. I did some (episodic) testing. an avenue with 5-6 large, 3 storey modular buildings with a 16 m wide cobblestone ground. Hotseat, Elite, WEGO. 2 shermans at one end, 1 platoon leader with 2 schrecks at the other end. sherman 1 has a cover arc up to the schrecks (w/o the platoon leader), sherman 2 has a short cover arc. following observations:

1. the platoon leader identifies both shermans, but passes only partial information to his two subordinates schrecks. both see just question marks. I don't know if this is realistic - at least they should be told that there are two tanks.
   
2. It takes the Sherman 3 seconds to ID and to fire at the schrek team after it leaps forward behind a corner of a house. Is this realistic, or are they just a bit trigger happy.
   
3. If the schrek team is able to deliver a shot they lie down instead to move back behind the corner of the house. Somehow the TacAI seems not to be aware that there is a corner of a house which would provide proper cover.
   

With about 20 times trying to fire at the sherman, 6 shermans got destroyed, 2 times the team retreated without a shot fired, 12 times the schreck team didn't survive.

What intrigues me even more is some other strange behaviour of the TacAI with the Schreks:

• The operator for the Schreck is always the soldier on the left. Therefore when entering the road from the left (looking in the direction of the tanks) the loader gets on the road first. As a consequence the team gets spotted and shot at immediately. Result: Never was able to hit a tank coming from the left.
  
• When crawling onto the road, with the targets identified (Question Marks) and a cover arc the Schreck team still looks in the direction of the crawl and it takes sometimes ages to turn into the direction of the tanks which are standing within the cover arc. Result: most of the time the schreck team can't get away.
  

Conclusion - it's true, that the scenario designer must be very careful when designing MOUT scenarios in CMBN.

On the other hand there seems to be some work necessary to get the TacAI to behave as I would expect:

• Just the Anti-Tank soldier gets on the road.
  
• With the cover arc he is pointing into the right direction.
  
• He stops as soon as he has emerged from behind the edge of the house (doesn't run into the middle of the road).
  
• Aims, gets off his round and the immediately goes back behind the corner to reload there.
  

A special command (like the shoot-and-scoot) would be acceptable.

[LongLeftFlank]

Oh yes, the uncanny infantry spotting abilities of buttoned AFVs have been amply discussed. We hope for some redress in the next patch.

[winkelried]

Oh yes, the uncanny infantry spotting abilities of buttoned AFVs have been amply discussed. We hope for some redress in the next patch.

Not so much of an issue in my test. My Shermans were unbuttoned. Just wondering if 3-5 seconds are enough for a "see - ID - give fire order - pull the trigger" sequence.

[GreenAsJade]

I fully agree - and nevertheless have an objection. I did some (episodic) testing. an avenue with 5-6 large, 3 storey modular buildings with a 16 m wide cobblestone ground. Hotseat, Elite, WEGO. 2 shermans at one end, 1 platoon leader with 2 schrecks at the other end. sherman 1 has a cover arc up to the schrecks (w/o the platoon leader), sherman 2 has a short cover arc. following observations:

1. the platoon leader identifies both shermans, but passes only partial information to his two subordinates schrecks. both see just question marks. I don't know if this is realistic - at least they should be told that there are two tanks.
   
2. It takes the Sherman 3 seconds to ID and to fire at the schrek team after it leaps forward behind a corner of a house. Is this realistic, or are they just a bit trigger happy.
   
3. If the schrek team is able to deliver a shot they lie down instead to move back behind the corner of the house. Somehow the TacAI seems not to be aware that there is a corner of a house which would provide proper cover.
   

With about 20 times trying to fire at the sherman, 6 shermans got destroyed, 2 times the team retreated without a shot fired, 12 times the schreck team didn't survive.

What intrigues me even more is some other strange behaviour of the TacAI with the Schreks:

• The operator for the Schreck is always the soldier on the left. Therefore when entering the road from the left (looking in the direction of the tanks) the loader gets on the road first. As a consequence the team gets spotted and shot at immediately. Result: Never was able to hit a tank coming from the left.
  
• When crawling onto the road, with the targets identified (Question Marks) and a cover arc the Schreck team still looks in the direction of the crawl and it takes sometimes ages to turn into the direction of the tanks which are standing within the cover arc. Result: most of the time the schreck team can't get away.
  

Conclusion - it's true, that the scenario designer must be very careful when designing MOUT scenarios in CMBN.

On the other hand there seems to be some work necessary to get the TacAI to behave as I would expect:

• Just the Anti-Tank soldier gets on the road.
  
• With the cover arc he is pointing into the right direction.
  
• He stops as soon as he has emerged from behind the edge of the house (doesn't run into the middle of the road).
  
• Aims, gets off his round and the immediately goes back behind the corner to reload there.
  

A special command (like the shoot-and-scoot) would be acceptable.

Thanks for this excellent experimentation and analysis: these are exactly the problems I've been contending with.

GaJ

[Haggard Sketchy]

Not so much of an issue in my test. My Shermans were unbuttoned. Just wondering if 3-5 seconds are enough for a "see - ID - give fire order - pull the trigger" sequence.

It is. And it'd take half as long if the gunner sees and takes initiative, which he would against a schreck.

Which is why CM needs a corner-leaning ability.

[Squatdog]

Not being able to fire from inside buildings is absurd.

The three-metre backblast is generally only dangerous to those standing BEHIND the launcher, unless there is a solid projection that obstructs the blasts and deflects it back to the firer.

The Panzerfaust in particular was used extensively in built-up areas.

[womble]

Not being able to fire from inside buildings is absurd.

The three-metre backblast is generally only dangerous to those standing BEHIND the launcher, unless there is a solid projection that obstructs the blasts and deflects it back to the firer.

The Panzerfaust in particular was used extensively in built-up areas.

Again, that's not what Battlefront have determined. Any anecdotes about interior use have exceptions like being in the front half of a roofspace with the back blown off. Field manuals said to not use the things indoors. It's not the flash of the blast, it's the overpressure in an enclosed space that does bad things to people.

If you've got some good evidence that using rockets inside buildings was SOP, present it, and BFC might listen. Just asserting that it's absurd won't impress anyone. Note that "in built-up areas" is not the same as "from inside buildings".

[Thomm]

The bigger problem, as discussed in a thread near here, is that since AT weapons can't be fired from inside houses, and typical CMBN town maps don't provide any other sort of concealment, then towns simply don't "play right". [...] An AT squad has to stand out in the open, in plain view of a tank, before it can operate its weapon. It can't even "peek around a corner"... it's either "behind the building" (no LOS/LOF) or "in the street"... and dead.

Good summary.

Plus, the AI - I think - is not capable of splitting off the AT team and searching for a shooting position on her own.

Best regards,

Thomm

[Praetori]

Not being able to fire from inside buildings is absurd.

The three-metre backblast is generally only dangerous to those standing BEHIND the launcher, unless there is a solid projection that obstructs the blasts and deflects it back to the firer.

The Panzerfaust in particular was used extensively in built-up areas.

Any recoilless weapon will prove difficult to fire indoors without injury. The problem is the pressurization of the backblast, which is what actually allows the shooter to propel a projectile of that weight without having a heavy tripod/cart.

Modern AT weapons are more powerful though but the instructions remains the same. Don't (unless you have a AT4CS).

From a prepared position you can fire if you've knocked down the back wall and, sometimes, part of the roof and throw out all the small debris from the room as well as removing the glass from all the windows. But I've never seen this done in RL as it's just too much of a risk.

They've shot recoilless weapons inside buildings with pigs as test subjects and the damage was severe with everything from busted eardrums and consciousness to organ damage and severe lacerations due to splinters.

I've always thought that the CM engine is a bit too harsh on the subject though as it seems to have been done during the war (then probably from prepared positions and ruins).

[Thomm]

I've always thought that the CM engine is a bit too harsh on the subject though as it seems to have been done during the war (then probably from prepared positions and ruins).

With the current setup, the question is whether to err on the side of the infantry or the side of the vehicles. Right now, the advantage lies on the vehicle side, corner peeking being impossible and the AI not able to engage tanks on her own.

I think that within the current constraints it would be more realistic, result-wise, to err on the side of the infantry and let them shoot from buildings.

Best regards,

Thomm

[Sgt Schultz]

To deviate a little from this well-worn path, I seem to recall that the Germans/NATO developed something in the 80's that allowed for firing from within structures.

Charge in center, plugs on either side of charge, warhead in one side, counterweight of mylar confetti(? or something similar) on other.

Blast and smoke is contained as the plugs travel down the tube and lock at ends.

"Stuff" flies out the back and immediately starts to fall to the floor.

Warhead flies out front.

---

Now, back to our world ... WW2-era backpressues would smack your team senseless. Yes, there were situations where RL multistory ruins could be fired from, but here both sides suffer from same restriction.

---------

Grenades and rifle grenades can and will be used by any unit from within a structure against vehicles. Tanks are easily immobilised, and open/soft vehicles are dead. Use of the top-most floor available tends to help.

There are many editor tweaks that can be used to provide proper urban/suburban concealment for AT units. If you find a map you like, but the town has no cover .... fix it.

[c3k]

I fully agree - and nevertheless have an objection. I did some (episodic) testing. an avenue with 5-6 large, 3 storey modular buildings with a 16 m wide cobblestone ground. Hotseat, Elite, WEGO. 2 shermans at one end, 1 platoon leader with 2 schrecks at the other end. sherman 1 has a cover arc up to the schrecks (w/o the platoon leader), sherman 2 has a short cover arc. following observations:

1. the platoon leader identifies both shermans, but passes only partial information to his two subordinates schrecks. both see just question marks. I don't know if this is realistic - at least they should be told that there are two tanks.
   
2. It takes the Sherman 3 seconds to ID and to fire at the schrek team after it leaps forward behind a corner of a house. Is this realistic, or are they just a bit trigger happy.
   
3. If the schrek team is able to deliver a shot they lie down instead to move back behind the corner of the house. Somehow the TacAI seems not to be aware that there is a corner of a house which would provide proper cover.

With about 20 times trying to fire at the sherman, 6 shermans got destroyed, 2 times the team retreated without a shot fired, 12 times the schreck team didn't survive.

What intrigues me even more is some other strange behaviour of the TacAI with the Schreks:

• The operator for the Schreck is always the soldier on the left. Therefore when entering the road from the left (looking in the direction of the tanks) the loader gets on the road first. As a consequence the team gets spotted and shot at immediately. Result: Never was able to hit a tank coming from the left.
  
• When crawling onto the road, with the targets identified (Question Marks) and a cover arc the Schreck team still looks in the direction of the crawl and it takes sometimes ages to turn into the direction of the tanks which are standing within the cover arc. Result: most of the time the schreck team can't get away.

Conclusion - it's true, that the scenario designer must be very careful when designing MOUT scenarios in CMBN.

On the other hand there seems to be some work necessary to get the TacAI to behave as I would expect:

• Just the Anti-Tank soldier gets on the road.
  
• With the cover arc he is pointing into the right direction.
  
• He stops as soon as he has emerged from behind the edge of the house (doesn't run into the middle of the road).
  
• Aims, gets off his round and the immediately goes back behind the corner to reload there.

A special command (like the shoot-and-scoot) would be acceptable.

This is VERY useful.

Thank you.

Ken

[winkelried]

There are many editor tweaks that can be used to provide proper urban/suburban concealment for AT units. If you find a map you like, but the town has no cover .... fix it.

Excellent proposal - this brings the flattened ruins in CMBN to a more realistic models. often some parts of the walls remain standing.

[Praetori]

Excellent proposal - this brings the flattened ruins in CMBN to a more realistic models. often some parts of the walls remain standing.

Will the zooks fire from a balcony?

Sure they provide no benefits as compared to open ground but at least the inf could pop out and take the shot.

[winkelried]

Will the zooks fire from a balcony?

Sure they provide no benefits as compared to open ground but at least the inf could pop out and take the shot.

didn't test this yet. but there were not so many balconies at the epoch - at least not on the photos I saw.

[acrashb]

Charge in center, plugs on either side of charge, warhead in one side, counterweight of mylar confetti(? or something similar) on other.

Blast and smoke is contained as the plugs travel down the tube and lock at ends.

Sounds like the Armbrust.

[Sgt Schultz]

Here!

Give me the rest of the week.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?p=1319016#post1319016

--

[Vanir Ausf B]

They've shot recoilless weapons inside buildings with pigs as test subjects and the damage was severe with everything from busted eardrums and consciousness to organ damage and severe lacerations due to splinters.

Correct regarding hearing damage, but no other physical injuries were reported.

http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA244127