Non Destructable Terrain

[Smertin]

As there is no destructable terrain how do i supress or destroy infantry in a building.

As an example i have had 3 tanks firing 30-50 metres away at a Wooden house for 3-4 turns now and none of the enemy have been supressed...should they have been?

What has been modeled in this game to compensate this omission?

Thanks.

[junk2drive]

Buildings have a protection value. Click the building to see if it is heavy or light. They do seem to me to offer too much protection. Best hope is to ID the enemy with infantry then direct target them with the tanks. Area fire doesn't seem to do much to them to me.

[Erik Rutins]

Hi Smertin,

Volume of fire will work. The larger the shell you are sending the better the change it also has of penetrating the building, thus ignoring the reduction it normally grants to firepower. If those tanks were firing with their main guns as well as their machine guns, it should just be a matter of time and 3-4 turn is already longer than I would expect.

Regards,

- Erik

[Smertin]

ORIGINAL: junk2drive

Buildings have a protection value. Click the building to see if it is heavy or light. They do seem to me to offer too much protection. Best hope is to ID the enemy with infantry then direct target them with the tanks. Area fire doesn't seem to do much to them to me.

Ahh...i am area firing so my firing quality is decreased, so maybe that is why this is happening then...even so, area firing at a wooden hut with 3 tanks should reduce it to matchwood...this is why destructable terrain is needed.

[Erik Rutins]

We agree that more detailed building modeling, including destructible terrain, is a desirable addition. The current design is realistic in terms of the effect of each shot, but does not provide enough visual feedback for firing at units in buildings and doesn't allow the protection of a building to be degraded.

Area fire is also very ineffective against buildings as they protect against the shrapnel and blast effects fairly well. Direct fire against infantry in buildings is the best option. Area fire works reasonably well against infantry in cover outside of buildings and entrenchments.

Regards,

- Erik

[junk2drive]

Tank rounds would likely pass right through a wooden hut. Destroying buildings with tank rounds is very Hollywood in my opinion.

[Smertin]

Fair points...

[Mobius]

Though I read the reason for the 150mm armed assault gun is that it was suppose to take down a small house with 2 rounds. So gauge that to your little 50mm and 75mm shells.

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

If those tanks were firing with their main guns as well as their machine guns ...

Did panzers carry MG incendiary rounds?

[Lieste]

Demolishing buildings with tank guns was possible, but it required systematic fire, and fairly large expenditures. The procedure was to fire under the eaves, and just inside the corners to separate the walls from the support of roof/corners so the wall would collapse. Larger buildings with mass walls plus interior weight bearing walls/columns would also need additional fires to remove the support of these additional stiffenings.

Despite the large expenditures used it was still reckoned more effective, by an order of magnitude, than indirect fires from similar weapons, suffering only from exposure to fire of the firing vehicle(s).

Framed buildings are harder to 'hit' the framework, but less damage is needed to cause a partial collapse.
According to WW2 US tables, explosive damage is usually contained if it occurs within a building footprint - even very large weapons will not usually cause heavy damage to adjacent buildings.