Ideas how to improve WinSP MBT/WW2 !

[Marek_Tucan]

Hardly much change from 1942-1943 regarding building demolitions with guns

100mm HE is weaker than 15cm, AP will pass through, HEAT will make big bang but very limited structural damage. 90mm, ditto. 105mm is a tad better with HEP rounds, the same for 120mm L11 and derivatives. However say 120mm HEAT is again significantly weaker against structures more stable than a wooden shack.

The real winner would be 165mm gun from CEV or 160mm or 240mm mortar but even there I'd doubt its abilities to bring down most buildings that I'd put into "stone building" section of SP maps with one or two shots. Oh, and then there's thermobarics for sure - they do put out big pressure, but even with that video of RPO Shmel blowing off the upper half of a small brick house I'd like to see the results of warhead impacting the target, not of warhead being placed inside

Other than that, I don't see many advancements since 1942-1943 in this field. Artillery concentrated rather on range and accuracy, its HE loads remaining on the same level as WWII (generally), improvements re. lethality were aimed at ICM and better frag patterns. Mortars generally the same. Tank guns fixed on penetration mostly, there the leaps qere great, but at the expense of HE rounds usually.

There is plethora of means designed to get inside a building - various breaching rounds etc. - but they do leave the building standing.

Again, it's the same as "stone" and "wooden" bridge - forget about "stones" and "wood" and view the buildings as "heavy" and "light" - in my Petrzalka map, I am using stone buildings primarily for old Bratislava downtown with large stone or heavy brick buildings and for newe ceoncrete block of flats, wooden buildings do represent ordinary family houses and large industrial halls, usually with light construction (getting the lighter the newer they are).

[PlasmaKrab]

And while the amount of explosives carried by arty and tank shells hasn't improved much since 1945, the durability of the building has.
Look at pictures of Sarajevo or Grozny for light (?) and wholesale destruction of modern buildings.

[RecruitMonty]

Wha? They build buildings out of breeze blocks these days and American houses are practically made out of paper. Durability my eye.

[RecruitMonty]

I still think it would be better if some damage was visible. The pictures of Grozny and Kabul don't really present a picture of limited destruction. I'd say those cities were pretty screwed, wouldn't you? Gutted is the word I'd use to describe those buildings, not lightly damaged. I never said they needed to collapse just that they needed to register hits and disply their effects.

[Marek_Tucan]

RecruitMonty said:
I still think it would be better if some damage was visible. The pictures of Grozny and Kabul don't really present a picture of limited destruction. I'd say those cities were pretty screwed, wouldn't you? Gutted is the word I'd use to describe those buildings, not lightly damaged. I never said they needed to collapse just that they needed to register hits and disply their effects.

But after much prolonged shelling than your hour-and-half game Heck, the siege of Sarajevo took years. The battle for Grozny took also long time and with use of heaviest weapons available. And skirmishes and regular battles in Kabul took roughly seven years with various intensity - from Commie withdhrawal to Taliban rise to power...

As for modern buildings, it's true walls are usually weaker - but in such cases they aren't structural elements and the structurals are sturdy and harder to hit due to smaller dimensions...and for light-construction buildings you might use Wooden building class, leaving Stone buildings to represent stone/dense brick/concrete buildings. As for these, look at say Pentagon vs. 757 (or Empire State vs. B-25)...