Tanks vs Buildings

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Tanks vs Buildings

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Panzer Command: Ostfront >> Tanks vs Buildings

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Tanks vs Buildings - 8/9/2012 3:12:06 AM

smittyohio90

Posts: 45
Joined: 10/23/2006
Status: offline

Hi, bought PCO recently, and I'm enjoying it but am having a hard time with figuring out how to get tanks to destroy infantry inside buildings. I can kinda target the building, after a fashion, but it doesn't really seem to have the effect I'd expect. I had a PzIV pump shell after shell of HE rounds into a tiny building containing an infantry squad, to zero effect. Also, tanks sometimes don't seem to bother with autotargeting infantry inside building. Pretty frustrating.... any help? Or is this (oddly) working as intended?

Post #: 1

RE: Tanks vs Buildings - 8/9/2012 3:27:15 AM

junk2drive

Posts: 12907
Joined: 6/27/2002
From: Arizona West Coast
Status: offline

Heavy buildings and light have different defense ratings. However it can be frustrating when we are use to other games. General thought is that tank rounds can't penetrate sturdy buildings. If so, area fire doesn't effect occupants much other than morale. If you sight the enemy and fire directly at them, it can do damage. Then they go to ground and you can no longer target them until they recover and pop up. Best is to use combined arms, keep them down while you move up infantry for close assault.

It could be better but we did work on it.

(in reply to smittyohio90)

Post #: 2

RE: Tanks vs Buildings - 8/9/2012 5:15:51 AM

rickier65

Posts: 14231
Joined: 4/20/2000
Status: offline

Also, make sure you are using the latest patch, as this was an area that was tweaked a bit in the patch.

Thanks
rick

(in reply to junk2drive)

Post #: 3

RE: Tanks vs Buildings - 8/9/2012 3:08:49 PM

Mobius

Posts: 10339
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: California
Status: offline

For best results with tank guns don't area fire buildings with the main guns, it's a waste of ammo. The tank needs to spot the enemy inside and direct fire with HE for the best chance to get the infantry. Set the Command to Defend > Hold for best sighting of infantry. Engage >Target usually works too, but as J2 said when the target gets suppressed or pinned it hides and the tank can lose sight but will not look for new targets.

Keep your tank 26m or more from the infantry as they may have anti-tank grenades or some generic anti-tank weapon. 25m is the maximum range of infantry close assualt AT weapons. If you use Engage> Target can switch over to firing the tank's machineguns at infantry and often that ends up being more effective because of the increased rate of fire.

(in reply to rickier65)

Post #: 4

RE: Tanks vs Buildings - 8/30/2012 2:19:57 AM

Yoozername

Posts: 1121
Joined: 3/4/2006
Status: offline

I disagree with this.

Most armor firing HE over 75mm will also fire that HE on a 'delay' setting. This easily allows most HE shells of this caliber to penetrate most vertical walls and affect a interior explosion. The resulting blast and fragmentation is an immediate danger through walls, ceilings, and floors. It would be very apparent, even if it occurred in another part of the building, that staying in the building runs the risk of being very close to HE shells.

Armor also fires AP at buildings. The basic effect is to defeat that cover (no one will think...Oh, that's AP and has to hit me...), and put it into people's heads that their 'cover' has been compromised. Even 37mm class weapons can defeat many buildings. Light buildings would be holed by 20mm AP.

< Message edited by Yoozername -- 8/30/2012 2:34:21 AM >

(in reply to Mobius)

Post #: 5

RE: Tanks vs Buildings - 9/1/2012 12:52:03 PM

Jafele

Posts: 737
Joined: 4/20/2011
From: Seville (Spain)
Status: offline

It�s obvious that guns damage walls and buildings, although it is difficult to know the time or shots required to destroy it totally. Probably assault guns are the best for these issues. Munition, type of gun and type of building must be important facts.

< Message edited by Jafele -- 9/1/2012 4:06:06 PM >

(in reply to Yoozername)

Post #: 6

RE: Tanks vs Buildings - 9/3/2012 9:21:16 PM

Yoozername

Posts: 1121
Joined: 3/4/2006
Status: offline

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=fvwp&v=uGZTnWWtNmc&NR=1

Video shows 37mm and 57mm against hard structures. No way I would stay in a building if these shots were coming through.

(in reply to Jafele)

Post #: 7

RE: Tanks vs Buildings - 9/3/2012 9:45:00 PM

Jafele

Posts: 737
Joined: 4/20/2011
From: Seville (Spain)
Status: offline

Amazing video! I think damaging buildings should have been a feature in a realistic game like PCO. Just like trucks towing guns. Sometimes it�s good to hear people...

(in reply to Yoozername)

Post #: 8

RE: Tanks vs Buildings - 9/4/2012 1:29:16 PM

Mad Russian

Posts: 13256
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline

We thought so too. Sometimes it's a matter of priorities...

Good Hunting.

MR

_____________________________

The most expensive thing in the world is free time.

Founder of HSG scenario design group for Combat Mission.
Panzer Command Ostfront Development Team.
Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm Development Team.

(in reply to Jafele)

Post #: 9

RE: Tanks vs Buildings - 9/4/2012 3:06:40 PM

Mobius

Posts: 10339
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: California
Status: offline

There can be a bit of abstraction in buildings as well. They are always not four walled boxes that can be distinguished from others at a distance. There are fences, low walls, shrubbery, small sheds and trees around them to break up the outline and conceal defenders.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Mobius -- 9/4/2012 3:14:12 PM >

(in reply to Mad Russian)

Post #: 10

RE: Tanks vs Buildings - 9/4/2012 5:19:16 PM

Jafele

Posts: 737
Joined: 4/20/2011
From: Seville (Spain)
Status: offline

Ok. Not all guns were able to destroy buildings, but what about heavy guns (like Brumbar) against light buildings?

Like it or not PCO customers have played before to CMX1 or CMX2 and they love to see these kind of explosions, furthermore it�s not unrealistic. I�m not a programmer, howewer IMO these details should be an important priority, even more than making a lot of new scenarios. With these changes (and others that add realism), I�m pretty sure many people would be interested in PCO instead of CM. It�s good for customers, buyers, Matrix and PCO. Maybe I�m wrong or perhaps not, but never forget it�s a business. I hope you choose the best path for PCO.

Cheers

< Message edited by Jafele -- 9/4/2012 5:21:33 PM >

(in reply to Mobius)

Post #: 11

RE: Tanks vs Buildings - 9/4/2012 8:13:41 PM

Mobius

Posts: 10339
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: California
Status: offline

There was an assault gun or Grille that Hitler wanted because it only took two rounds from its gun to destroy a house. I don't recall if it was a 105mm or 150mm.

(in reply to Jafele)

Post #: 12

RE: Tanks vs Buildings - 9/4/2012 8:16:17 PM

NacroxNicke

Posts: 1
Joined: 9/4/2012
Status: offline

Well, maybe the AI will get killed and suppressed with indirect HE, but what about re using the building as an attacker after it have been "abstractly" demolished by the assault? It's just an example on how building destruction is needed, maybe no graphics directly attached to damage, but some text saying that it's damaged and when it's blowed off some rubble would make it.

Also there is a reason of why low velocity cannons (like infantry guns) were still been using even in late war, since they could still blow off cover positions in buildings.

< Message edited by NacroxNicke -- 9/4/2012 8:18:14 PM >

(in reply to Jafele)

Post #: 13

RE: Tanks vs Buildings - 9/4/2012 11:40:57 PM

Mad Russian

Posts: 13256
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jafele

Ok. Not all guns were able to destroy buildings, but what about heavy guns (like Brumbar) against light buildings?

I agree. Large caliber guns need to do damage to buildings.

quote:

Like it or not PCO customers have played before to CMX1 or CMX2 and they love to see these kind of explosions, furthermore it�s not unrealistic. I�m not a programmer, howewer IMO these details should be an important priority, even more than making a lot of new scenarios. With these changes (and others that add realism), I�m pretty sure many people would be interested in PCO instead of CM. It�s good for customers, buyers, Matrix and PCO. Maybe I�m wrong or perhaps not, but never forget it�s a business. I hope you choose the best path for PCO.

Cheers

I played CMx1 a time or two myself. And not just that game but others that had destructible terrain in them. That goes back even further than Squad Leader, the game that was responsible for most of the tactical level wargames you see today. I agree that it's unrealistic.

I think if you do just a small bit of research you will find just how much we did to the 'patch' that became PCO. It was far more than make a lot of new scenarios. We worked on that 'patch' for more than 2 years. So, since you're not a programmer let me tell you if it had been easy to do destructible buildings we would have. If it had been easy to add transporting guns we would have. We did what we could in the time we had. We could still be adding more features and there would be no PCO for you compare to anything at the moment.

Because just like the rest of you we are all wargamers too, and we know what we like as well.

It's easy, now, after all the work was done, to say what should have had priority and when we should stop adding features. The bottom line is, PCO is what it is. Like it or not. We did the best we could with the time and resources we had available. None of us were professional programmers and all but one of us had full time day jobs when we did PCO. I'm not making excuses for how PCO turned out just telling you some facts.

It was a grueling process, there was a considerable amount of that time that we were adding content without Matrix knowing where we were going, we just kept going until we got to a stopping place. When we stopped and dust cleared the 'patch' had turned into a whole new game. I would think that since we made so many changes that turned a patch into an entirely new game we can be forgiven for not getting the two issues 'fixed' that you thought would turn this into a Great Game.

It was always intended that the more burdensome coding issues, like destructible buildings, transportable units and an improved infantry combat model would come in the next game of the series.

As for whether gamers play CMx1, CMx2, PCO or any other game, that's up to each individual gamer to decide. All we did was put another option out there for them to choose from.

Good Hunting.

MR

< Message edited by Mad Russian -- 9/4/2012 11:54:00 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Jafele)

Post #: 14

RE: Tanks vs Buildings - 9/4/2012 11:44:09 PM

Mad Russian

Posts: 13256
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline

We ended up changing or modifying 3/4 of the code we started with, not to mention completely creating a map editor like no other. Here is the Full Feature list:

Includes all previous Winterstorm and Kharkov content for FREE, in addition to the all new content listed below. This is the complete Panzer Command for the Eastern Front and the perfect way to get started if you have never played Panzer Command before.

10 Preset Historical Campaigns
Choose a campaign and progress through a series of linked battles where your core force stays with you for the campaign and gains experience and medals.
Boot Camp (Tactics Tutorial) (6 Battles)
German Operation Barbarossa, June 1941, 3rd Panzer Division (4 Battles)
German Battles for Mcensk, October 1941, 4th Panzer Division (5 Battles)
German Kursk North, July 1943, XLI Panzer Corps (3 Battles)
German Kursk South (2 Campaigns), July 1943, 1st SS Panzer Division (6 Battles Total)
German Winterstorm, 6th Panzer Division (5 Battles)
German Kharkov, 14th Panzer Division (8 Battles)
Soviet Winterstorm, 7th Tank Corps (5 Battles)
Soviet Kharkov, 169th Rifle Division (8 Battles)

14 Randomly Generated Historical Campaigns
Choose a time period, a number of missions and a core force and progress through a series of randomly generated linked battles where your core force stays with you for the campaign and gains experience and medals and even equipment upgrades for the longer campaigns.
German 1st Infantry Division (5 Campaigns) 1941-1944 (12-129 Battles)
German 1st Panzer Division (4 Campaigns) 1941-1944 (12-96 Battles)
German 3rd Panzer Division (1 Campaign) June-July, 1941 (4-15 Battles)
German 7th Panzer Division (3 Campaigns) 1941-1944 (19-97 Battles)
Soviet 7th Tank Corps (1 Campaign) 1942-1943 (10-26 Battles)
Soviet 29th Tank Corps (1 Campaign) 1943-1944 (15-41 Battles)

70+ Preset Historical Scenarios (including stand-alone and campaign battles)
Stand-alone and campaign scenarios include:
Ring of Fire, May 1942 (Near Kharkov)
Maxim Gorky I, June 1942 (Battery 30 at Sevastopol)
The Railway Station, September 1942 (Stalingrad Central Railway Station)
13th Crossing Guard, September 1942 (Stalingrad Central Railway Station)
Return Road to Kharkov, March 1943
Buying the Farm, July 1943 (Komsomolets State Farm at Kursk)
Prokhorovka, July 1943 (Kursk)
Kolomak, September 1943 (West of Kharkov)
Hell�s Gate, February 1944 (Near the Korsun Pocket)
Grosse Kompanie, October 1944 (Recon Battle)
Operation Konrad, January 1945 (Near Budapest)
Spring Awakening I & II, March 1945 (Near Budapest)
Tucheband and Golzow, March 1945 (Near Berlin Highway)
Hypothetical Debut of the Maus
� and many more!

Infinite Randomly Generated Battles
Each scenario option can be fully randomized or customized based on your preferences
Choose any date from 1941 through 1945
Choose your force mix, either custom (by unit type) or pick from the presets

Choose additional options from the following:
Points level for each side
Human or AI control
Reinforcements available or not
Minefields available or not
Battle type, ranging from assaults and meeting engagements to envelopment/pocket breakout battles and pincer/wedge battles.
Operational strength
Unit experience
60 sec turns with no Reaction Phase
Create Random Battles with no Russian Order Delay
Force deployment direction
Map

All of the random battle and campaign input files are easily accessible and can be custom-configured for additional options, though no file editing is required for any of the above!
Random battles and campaigns can also be shared with other players.
Updated Manual

Includes all the new rules and comprehensive tables on game modifiers and effects as well as historical background and detailed documentation for all of the editors and random generators.
Separate tutorial guide
Separate Map Make Guide
New Maps

More than thirty new maps that combine to give a representative variety of Eastern Front terrain. Some are used in the campaigns and scenarios, others are available for random battle and campaign play.

New Full Map Maker!

Make your own maps of historical locations. Designed to work with public terrain and height databases to automatically generate a 3D terrain mesh from real-world data. Pick your location, pick your map size and click! Additional tools to automate the placement of structures and items such as trees and shrubs assist map designers in putting together a realistic map in record time.
Panzer Command now supports 500m, 750m, 1000m, 1500m and 2000m maps. This allows the vast majority of historical WWII battles to be properly modelled and the larger map sizes allow plenty of room for maneuver.
The Scene Editor has also been improved for easier tweaking of object placement.

50+ New Fully Modeled and Animated Units spanning the 1941-1945 period on the Eastern Front (note that these are in addition to all units from Winterstorm and Kharkov)
German
Jagdpanther
Brummbar (Early, Middle and Late)
Hetzer
Jagdpanzer IV (IV, IV Mid, IV Late, IV 70A, IV 70V)
Panzer VI Tiger II (King Tiger)
Tiger I early, late
Pak 39
Stuka
150mm sIG33
StuG IIIB
Grille (M and M Late)
Elefant
Panzer IVG and IVH Schurzen
Pz Kpfw T34-76 M40
Pz Kpfw T-70 M42
Marder IIIM
Maus
Panzer IIC, IID, J-VK, IIL
Flammpanzer II
Panzer II G-J ohne Aufbau
SdKfz 221, 221 Late, 221 PzB 39
SdKfz 223
SdKfz 234 Series including the Puma
SdKfz 250/11 Pzbuk, Halbkette ob-com, 250/09, 250 Neu
Sdkfz 251 Series - including more than 20 variants
Luftwaffe Flaktruppen
Gebirgsjaeger Infantry
Pioneers with Satchel Charges
Flamethrower units
Jagdpanzer Su-76
Almost all previous units overhauled and improved with better models, animations and textures
Soviet
Josef Stalin series (IS-1, IS-2 M1943, IS-2 M1944, IS-2m M1944, IS-2m M1945)
KV-85
KV-1 1939 and 1940E
KV-1S
ISU 122, ISU 122S and 152
SU-85 and SU-100
76.2mm F-22 USV
IL-2 Shturmovik (three models)
Sherman M4A2 Lend Lease
T-5 Pantera
T-4 PzKpfw IV
T-34 M1943e
T-34-57 M1942 and M1943
T-26 Model 26E and 26S M1941
T-28 Model 1936, Model 1937 and Model 1938E
T-34-85 early

Almost all previous units overhauled and improved with better models, animations and textures
New Improved Interface and Order Improvements

New Waypoints for Platoon and Unit Orders
Infantry units can now auto-mount as part of a movement path. No longer do you have to wait for the next phase to enter a building!

New setup zones provide greater flexibility for intial unit placements
New Full Resizable Battle Message Log, with color-coded event messages and highlighted messages based on the selected unit. This makes it easier than ever to understand what is happening to your units wherever they are on the map.
Scenario size and scale are now fisplayed in the scenario selection screen using an easy-to-read bar scale.
You can now click on the unit or the unit�s floating icon to select it.
Double click on any unit or its floating icon on the map to move to it
Scenario designers can now add unit-specific decals to individual tanks
Order and unit behavior re-worked for consistency
Improved Pathing and Collision Handling
Individual unit stances for standard, cautious, or agressive unit behavior
Hotkeys for all orders and sub-orders, including use of the space bar to pop up and hide the order menu
New Single/Group Orders hotkey
New Charge orders allow Soviet human waves and ramming of tanks into other tanks and AT guns
Scenario Briefing is now available from within the battle
Improved camera behaviour, more realistic �binocular view� and no more �ground bounce�
Mousewheel scroll support and page up/page down buttons on most game screens
Configuration screen and intro movie will be skipped once they are successfully run once
All Core units are automatically purchased in set battles to save time (they can always be �unpurchased� if desired).
The Unit HUD now displays a green indicator if a HQ unit is in communication and able to call for off-map support. No need to check each HQ unit, this information is now available at a glance.
New 3-D Targeting box to show the area of effect for Area fire
New Unit and HUD icons now clearly differentiate HQ and Non-HQ units
New Cinematic view hotkey to show just the battlefield and units while removing all interface elements.
Improved Minimap
Selected unit icon animation for higher visibility
Enlarge the displayed unit model size for improved visibility
New Covered Path option
Automatic �grid� display option for new maps
Improved targeting and LOS tool to distinguish area and direct fire

Improved Scenario Editor
Scenario designers can set one of the new turn phase structures for their scenario
Multiple setup zones for infantry only, or infantry and armor.
Ammo levels set for each platoon.
Objectives set for Soviet, Geran, or Contested
Pre-planned Artillery can be designated for either side, or no side
Russian player can be set to play the scenario using "Science of War" or "Art of War" doctrines
New Full 3D Sound System with resampled sounds for a much more immersive environment
New PBEM Multiplayer system for easy and streamlined play
New Victory rankings at the end of each scenario that rate each player�s performance, also useful for ladder rankings

New Animated On-Map Air Support
Not only more impressive visually, but the air support system is now more realistically modelled in the gameplay as far as arrival, visibility and targeting
New Rewind Ability in Turn Replay
New Realistic Ammo Counts for all units
New Physics System for more realistic vehicle movement across all terrain types
New Vegetation System for more realistic map that also affects LOS
Improved Relative Sighting System
More realistic results and much better performance (significantly improved turn calculation times) especially on multi-core systems
Improved Graphics Engine
Better performance on all systems, especially multi-core systems
Improved visual quality and new �Ultra� quality option
Improved scenario load times
New and Improved Animations
Close assault animations for infantry
Individual infantry casualties to show step losses, with fallen soldiers remaining on the battlefield
Gun recoil when firing for vehicles and field guns
Flamethrower animation
Panzershreck animation
Improved explosion and destruction animations with more variation by shell and explosive size
New smoke and fire animations for static map objects
Flowing water for Rivers
New weather animations (Rain, Fog and Snow)
Staggered animations for infantry so that they no longer move in perfect synchronization
Multiple random tank comander animations
Improved AI
Better able to seek flanking opportunities
Better able to judge combat matchups
Conserves ammunition rather than taking poor shots
Improved Fog of War
New Contested Objectives and Higher Visibility Objective Flags
New Scenario-Defined Turn Structure
At the scenario level, you can choose to play the normal 40 Second Orders / 40 Second Reaction turn structure, or choose one of the following instead
40 Second Orders with or without a Reaction Phase
60 Second Orders with or without a Reaction Phase
80 Second Orders without a Reaction Phase
Yes, this means that if you want you can play with 60 Second Turns with no Reaction Phase and always have access to the full Orders menu at the
start of each Turn.
Very Open and Mod-Friendly Structure � unit models and data, maps, scenarios, campaigns and more can all be easily changed and added.

So, while PCO is far from perfect, I, for one, am proud of the effort we put into this game and the results we now have. I look forward to the next game in the series to make it even better.

Good Hunting.

MR

< Message edited by Mad Russian -- 9/4/2012 11:55:43 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Mad Russian)

Post #: 15

RE: Tanks vs Buildings - 9/5/2012 12:19:29 AM

Joe D.

Posts: 4004
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Stratford, Connecticut
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: junk2drive

Heavy buildings and light have different defense ratings. However it can be frustrating when we are use to other games ...

... like the destructible structures and landscapes of Combat Mission?

_____________________________

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.

"The Angel of Okinawa"

Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II

(in reply to junk2drive)

Post #: 16

RE: Tanks vs Buildings - 9/5/2012 4:09:13 AM

Mad Russian

Posts: 13256
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline

Yes, like the destructible structures and landscapes of any tactical game.

Good Hunting.

MR

_____________________________

(in reply to Joe D.)

Post #: 17

RE: Tanks vs Buildings - 9/5/2012 4:10:50 AM

Mad Russian

Posts: 13256
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobius

There was an assault gun or Grille that Hitler wanted because it only took two rounds from its gun to destroy a house. I don't recall if it was a 105mm or 150mm.

It's got a 150mm gun.

Good Hunting.

MR

_____________________________

(in reply to Mobius)

Post #: 18

RE: Tanks vs Buildings - 9/5/2012 2:21:51 PM

Mobius

Posts: 10339
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: California
Status: offline

quote:

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.

(in reply to Mad Russian)

Post #: 19

RE: Tanks vs Buildings - 9/6/2012 10:49:27 AM

Jafele

Posts: 737
Joined: 4/20/2011
From: Seville (Spain)
Status: offline

quote:

I think if you do just a small bit of research you will find just how much we did to the 'patch' that became PCO. It was far more than make a lot of new scenarios. We worked on that 'patch' for more than 2 years. So, since you're not a programmer let me tell you if it had been easy to do destructible buildings we would have. If it had been easy to add transporting guns we would have. We did what we could in the time we had. We could still be adding more features and there would be no PCO for you compare to anything at the moment.

I get it.

Thanks for the explanations.

(in reply to Mad Russian)

Post #: 20

RE: Tanks vs Buildings - 9/7/2012 4:11:55 AM

Mad Russian

Posts: 13256
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline

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.

Good Hunting.

MR

_____________________________

(in reply to Jafele)

Post #: 21

RE: Tanks vs Buildings - 9/7/2012 4:15:15 AM

Mad Russian

Posts: 13256
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobius

quote:

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

_____________________________

(in reply to Mobius)

Post #: 22

RE: Tanks vs Buildings - 9/7/2012 8:57:49 AM

Jafele

Posts: 737
Joined: 4/20/2011
From: Seville (Spain)
Status: offline

Edited

< Message edited by Jafele -- 9/7/2012 9:16:54 AM >

(in reply to Mad Russian)

Post #: 23

RE: Tanks vs Buildings - 9/7/2012 9:13:09 AM

Jafele

Posts: 737
Joined: 4/20/2011
From: Seville (Spain)
Status: offline

quote:

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

would be to see random maps in quick battles (if possible), trucks towing guns and heavy guns damaging or destroying buildings.

< Message edited by Jafele -- 9/7/2012 9:15:23 AM >

(in reply to Jafele)

Post #: 24

RE: Tanks vs Buildings - 9/7/2012 5:06:44 PM

rickier65

Posts: 14231
Joined: 4/20/2000
Status: offline

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

(in reply to Jafele)

Post #: 25

RE: Tanks vs Buildings - 9/7/2012 9:21:13 PM

Yoozername

Posts: 1121
Joined: 3/4/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobius

quote:

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.

(in reply to Mobius)

Post #: 26

RE: Tanks vs Buildings - 9/7/2012 11:38:34 PM

Mobius

Posts: 10339
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: California
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to Yoozername)

Post #: 27

RE: Tanks vs Buildings - 9/8/2012 12:28:13 AM

Yoozername

Posts: 1121
Joined: 3/4/2006
Status: offline

I think you are confusing houses with larger buildings.

A wood construction house does not make great rubble.

< Message edited by Yoozername -- 9/8/2012 12:31:58 AM >

(in reply to Mobius)

Post #: 28

RE: Tanks vs Buildings - 9/9/2012 1:29:41 AM

Mad Russian

Posts: 13256
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline

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

_____________________________

(in reply to Yoozername)

Post #: 29

RE: Tanks vs Buildings - 9/9/2012 6:42:20 AM

Yoozername

Posts: 1121
Joined: 3/4/2006
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to Mad Russian)

Post #: 30