Tanks vs Buildings

[Mad Russian]

You're welcome.

When I designed my own boardgames I was surprised at how hard it was to make a decent set of rules. Counters, maps and CRT's were fairly easy. But writing those rules was another story. At least it was for me.

Converting over to creating scenarios for tactical computer games was fairly simple. I just playtested them alot to make sure they really did work like I wanted them to and I let everyone else play with them too.

All fairly easy and all under my own control.

Moving into the realm of computer wargames wasn't so easy. Because, I too am not a programmer/animator/modder, I had to rely on others to get things done or even add what I thought I needed. There were many a brain storming session to see what made into the code and what was to be held for the next game in the series. Those sessions weren't taken lightly. As I said before, we are all wargamers too. Just like you guys. And just like you we wanted everything you could imagine and then some put into the game.

If we had done that we would still be working on it and nobody would be playing PCO. At some point you have to say, this is a stopping point. There also comes a time when the team is in bad need of an R&R. Hopefully those two points coincide with each other. For PCO, they did.[8D]

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: Mobius

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
Yes, like the destructible structures and landscapes of any tactical game.

Which are all hokum. Most structures will burn down before they fall down except with very large shells.

That may be true. I'm not sure it is, but it might be.

There is plenty of photographic evidence of buildings being rubbled, and them not burning, by artillery and tank guns are just artillery tubes on vehicles.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Jafele]

Edited

[Jafele]

When I designed my own boardgames I was surprised at how hard it was to make a decent set of rules. Counters, maps and CRT's were fairly easy. But writing those rules was another story. At least it was for me.

From the beguining I noticed PCO is a special game (you know I always said it) made by people who know what are doing. I used to play during the 80´s to boardgames (Flat Top was my favourite), that´s the reason I appreciate the high level of details and quality of PCO. Another important fact is that Panzer Command has no cheats in its AI, most of the games in market are cheated. I guess companies are not interested to improve AI cos many buyers are children, teenagers and people who love to win always, when they get bored buy again. If some of you are interested in this issue take a look to this article about Heroes V AI: http://www.bonddisc.com/ref/h5/ai.htm

It´s quite obvious the game will be improved little by little till get something close to perfection. My dream for the future of Panzer Command[8|] would be to see random maps in quick battles (if possible), trucks towing guns and heavy guns damaging or destroying buildings.

[/quote]

[rickier65]

Jafele,

We're glad you're enjoying the game! Being able to have towed guns and destructible terrain is certainly on our list of things we'd like to see added to PCO for the next game in the series as well!

Thanks!
rick

[Yoozername]

ORIGINAL: Mobius

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
Yes, like the destructible structures and landscapes of any tactical game.

Which are all hokum. Most structures will burn down before they fall down except with very large shells.

From my reading, tankers would set buildings alight with not just HE, but also using MG fire. To get back to the first poster's question, Panzer IV 75mm HE (which is just about equivalent to Soviet and even the vaunted US 75mm) could easily suppress and even kill/wound infantry 'hiding' in the buildings that mobius posted.

The fact is that infantry, or at least I was instructed to, are told to 'keep their interval'. Usually 5 meters. So, while it may be easy to stay 'hidden' in a building, you are also concentrating the forces, thereby making them more susceptible to area fire, but they are also limited to certain vantage points as far as returning fire.

Most MG's will punch through trees let alone wooden building materials. WWII infantry are very susceptible to any flying metal.

A panzer IV firing a 75mm HE would chase infantry out of most buildings. Buildings have the disadvantage of being tall targets. They are HE-Catchers. Even the worst estimate of range results in some effect.

[Mobius]

If one didn't have the fire and intact houses were death traps everyone would simply shoot the houses until they became rubble and set up there.  Rubble is even better cover than houses.

[Yoozername]

I think you are confusing houses with larger buildings.

A wood construction house does not make great rubble.

[Mad Russian]

Sitting in a wooden house that is pounded until it collapses is not a good tactic.

Yes, rubble is good defensive terrain. Sitting in a house while it is turned into rubble is not good a good idea.

As YN said, wooden building rubble isn't the best. Stone building rubble is better. Either will give the defender the same amount of concealment which is a part of the benefit of hiding in the rubble in the first place.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Yoozername]

You would be shredded BEFORE it collapses.

As an example, using the picture posted by Mobius, a skilled tank crew would first use HE on SQ (superquick or instantaneous fuse) against the roof area. This would result in a HE burst right against the roofing material. Roofs are not very sturdy compared to walls. The resulting explosion would not only open the roof area, but the deadly side of the shell, that is the part that produces fragmentation, would shoot this DOWN through the attic and into the house itself. Anyone up in the attic, even a sniper with a loophole and a reinforced area, would feel compromised and in danger. Certainly suppressed.

A skilled tank crew would also use AP against a building that is producing firepower. A dead giveaway is flashes and smoke/dust from firing weapons. AP would just punch through both sides of the building. Contrary to some bad threads at other web-sites, the small HE charge in a AP shell does not go off when it peirces something like a building wall. It takes quite a decel.

A skilled tank crew could also skip HE right in front of the building with the fuse on delay. This results in a fine holing of the walls of the building followed by a devastating internal blast and fragmentation effect of the interior of the building. The fragments would be directed upwards into higher floors/attic and also into the basement.

Any internal blast of HE can and will cause fires on combustible materials.

MG fire from AFVs is usually directed in long bursts. 50 rounds or so. The tracer and incindiery effect can cause fires. Armor usually uses jacketed or AP MG ammunition. Light construction buildings would not offer much protection.

[Jafele]

Yes, fires could be a good reason to leave a building. It is another way of damaging light buildings.

[Yoozername]

I would like to see basements/cellars modeled as these were the best areas to run to. Of course, this does limit spotting etc. Even a rubbled or burnt out building might still have a usable underground area.

As far as destructible buildings, I would like to see fire. As far as buildings collapsing, it really takes larger shells like 100+mm HE. A 75mm would expend quite a bit of ammunition to actually collapse a building.

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Yoozername
I would like to see basements/cellars modeled as these were the best areas to run to. Of course, this does limit spotting etc. Even a rubbled or burnt out building might still have a usable underground area.

Underground areas would be pretty tricky. You would have to click on the coin to select the unit. (I wonder if a structure could be submerged so it's lowest mount point is below the ground mesh?)

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

You would be shredded BEFORE it collapses.

As an example, using the picture posted by Mobius, a skilled tank crew would first use HE on SQ (superquick or instantaneous fuse) against the roof area. This would result in a HE burst right against the roofing material. Roofs are not very sturdy compared to walls. The resulting explosion would not only open the roof area, but the deadly side of the shell, that is the part that produces fragmentation, would shoot this DOWN through the attic and into the house itself. Anyone up in the attic, even a sniper with a loophole and a reinforced area, would feel compromised and in danger. Certainly suppressed.

A skilled tank crew would also use AP against a building that is producing firepower. A dead giveaway is flashes and smoke/dust from firing weapons. AP would just punch through both sides of the building. Contrary to some bad threads at other web-sites, the small HE charge in a AP shell does not go off when it peirces something like a building wall. It takes quite a decel.

A skilled tank crew could also skip HE right in front of the building with the fuse on delay. This results in a fine holing of the walls of the building followed by a devastating internal blast and fragmentation effect of the interior of the building. The fragments would be directed upwards into higher floors/attic and also into the basement.

Any internal blast of HE can and will cause fires on combustible materials.

MG fire from AFVs is usually directed in long bursts. 50 rounds or so. The tracer and incindiery effect can cause fires. Armor usually uses jacketed or AP MG ammunition. Light construction buildings would not offer much protection.

Are these fuse settings modern? Or WWII? Did both the Germans and the Soviets have them?

Good Hunting.

MR

[Yoozername]

Everyone had them. They were 'modern' in WWII. The German 75mm HE had a kl. A.Z. 23 (0,15) umg. nose fuze.

SOP was store them on 'delay'. So, to get a SQ effect, you had to use a small wrench to turn the fuse. Delay allows ricochet firing and penetrating cover and using the HE as a penetrator against light armor. In fact, both Tiger and Panther crews used them against the sides of T34 lower hull armor. It is documented in the 'Panther Bible' training booklet.

SQ was mostly used against moving troops in the open and firing into trees to get airbursts.

[Mad Russian]

Thanks. That was very informative.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Yoozername]

Actually, they had them in WW1. The French 75mm were murderous in direct fire. There were issues with detonations in the tube and the interwar years saw developments like bore-safe fuses. These basically had a spring that was acted upon by the acceleration of the projectile in the tube. Once clear of the tube, and no longer accelerating, the spring relaxed and the fuse was now 'live'. It actually took a bit of time for the spring so there was a safety factor of 50 yards or so after the projectile left the weapon. I had to laugh when I saw sherman tanks firing through hedgerows in CM2 and having the HE exploding point blank. Don't happen that way.

But ricochet fire was a common tactic in WWII. Most projectiles fired at an angle of 20 degrees or less have a great chance of ricochet.