Battle in Buildings (a terrain question)

So, I'd appreciate any light you can shed on this question...

If a single squad is in a building that uses 2 hexes (1 building, 2 hexes), can that building be entered by an enemy squad (i.e. into the unoccupied hex of the building)?

If "YES", then what are the rules for combat within the building, particularly COVER? Are the +3 cover negated or do both squads have +3 cover?

I could not find this in the Rules - under "Movement" or "Terrain" which is where I would've expected such a matter to be addressed.

If a single squad is in a building that uses 2 hexes (1 building, 2 hexes), can that building be entered by an enemy squad (i.e. into the unoccupied hex of the building)?

Movement into a hex empty of the enemy is fine. They could both be in woods, or hills or buildings!

Are the +3 cover negated or do both squads have +3 cover?

In a normal attack, only the defender gets a cover bonus.

[Edit: This is a case where even I don't agree with me. Disregard the following.]

However, since they are both in a building, then I don't think they can get line of sight on each other p.23, so the attack would have to be an Assault Attack, so follow those rules p.33

longagoigo wrote:However, since they are both in a building, then I don't think they can get line of sight on each other p.23, so the attack would have to be an Assault Attack, so follow those rules p.33

Line of sight is determined by checking if there's any blocking terrain between both units. Since both units are adjacent and the terrain they're in doesn't count when considering blocking terrain, both units have perfect line of sight to eachother (page 23).

Latro wrote:

longagoigo wrote:However, since they are both in a building, then I don't think they can get line of sight on each other p.23, so the attack would have to be an Assault Attack, so follow those rules p.33

Line of sight is determined by checking if there's any blocking terrain between both units. Since both units are adjacent and the terrain they're in doesn't count when considering blocking terrain, both units have perfect line of sight to eachother (page 23).

I have to agree with this. Both squads receive 3 cover and as long as there's not yet another buidling hex between the two obstructing LOS, they can see one another just fine!

Yep. Despite being "in the same building" I think it has no bearing for game purposes. Each squad would get 3 cover dice, since the cover is decided by the hex's terrain type (and unit bonuses, and improvements), and the underlying terrain type, despite appearances on the map, is not affected by adjacent hexes.

So for once, I think everyone's agreeing!

Chris

Though I think it might actualy be a better rule, if only assault was allowed between hexes of the same building.

Hefsgaard wrote:Though I think it might actualy be a better rule, if only assault was allowed between hexes of the same building.

I wholeheartedly agree. But I do think that ToI has struck a great balance between fast playability and a moderate level of realism. I don't necessarily feel robbed of my gaming experience because of a rule like this. It simply keeps the game more... simple.

On a side note, I have been working on a set of house rules I call "Advanced Tide of Iron," which adds a few more flavor-type rules like this... rules about smoke, rules about using vehicles for cover, tweaks to suppression vs. normal attacks, prohibiting time-consuming tasks as unrealistic, etc., things like that. I'm getting ready to start a playtest of them with my group in a week or so.

Chris Montgomery

Chris Montgomery wrote:... I have been working on a set of house rules I call "Advanced Tide of Iron,"...

You and me both. Though I concentrate more on Tanks, Trucks and Guns.

Hefsgaard wrote:Though I think it might actualy be a better rule, if only assault was allowed between hexes of the same building.

Dunno. I wouldn't know why it wouldn't be possible- like in Stalingrad- to shoot at each other from across the hall or from the stairs/ landing downward or whatever. Rule seems fine with me. In some scenarios the buildings also seem to represent a collection of buildings rather than a single edifice.....

Shooting at that kind of range is what I call Assault.

But you are right - building come in all sizes from small wooden houses to larger factory complexes.

Hefsgaard wrote:Shooting at that kind of range is what I call Assault.

But you are right - building come in all sizes from small wooden houses to larger factory complexes.

I can see your point concerning ranges.

I also feel that because of the second thing you mention, both assaults and concentrated fire should be legal actions! ( or even op fire and fire and move). In other words, IMHO the rule is just fine as is!

Would say its in the terrirory of SSR, and/or actual terrain.

There's still a very big difference between a firefight at very close range between two squads (from one building to another) and one squad trying to move into the position of the other squad (storming the building).

The same goes for very large structures. Two squads shooting at eachother across the factory floor or from adjacent rooms is still very different from one squad moving forward to push the other out. I guess I'm happy with the way it is now.

Latro wrote:Two squads shooting at each other across the factory floor or from adjacent rooms is still very different from one squad moving forward to push the other out.

I do not think you will ever see squads holding position and shooting from room to room or across hallways. That is a pretty quick way of getting killed. You have to manuver to find lines of fire that will allow you to shoot at the enemy at all. And squads would never want to remain in contact with enemy squads. This is why city fighting is so deadly. You either have to attack or be attacked.

In fact, the crew in that factory or house likely IS carrying out an assault, after giving the house a good shelling, covering it with suppressive fire until the assault team could get to the windows/back door, and then into the house with handgrenades, BARs and pistols. In such close-quarter fighting, it's not two enemy squads plinking shots at each other. It's an assault with the goal being: "Get the F&*$ out of this building!"

Essentially, when two enemy units are in a building--any building--it is a dynamic combat situation where both enemy teams, most likely, are on the move, and both enemy teams, most likley, are trying to drive the other team out. It's either that, or one of the teams is fleeing/running/surrendering.

All of that is just my opinion... but otherwise, why would the teams be in the building in the first place?

Chris

Hefsgaard wrote:

Latro wrote:Two squads shooting at each other across the factory floor or from adjacent rooms is still very different from one squad moving forward to push the other out.

I do not think you will ever see squads holding position and shooting from room to room or across hallways. That is a pretty quick way of getting killed. You have to manuver to find lines of fire that will allow you to shoot at the enemy at all. And squads would never want to remain in contact with enemy squads. This is why city fighting is so deadly. You either have to attack or be attacked.

It was a fact of life in Stalingrad ... the lines actually ran through buildings with both sides close enough to hear eachother move around. Assault only happened when another offensive was launched to capture territory, the rest of the time (= most of the time) it was a firefight. A close-quarter firefight is very different from an assault and not every close-quarter firefight will result in an assault everytime. Believe it or not, but unless directly ordered most soldiers are not that enthusiastic about leaving cover and running towards people shooting at them. Staying behind cover and exchanging shots is the prefered option in most situations.

Chris Montgomery wrote:All of that is just my opinion... but otherwise, why would the teams be in the building in the first place?

Chris

It's cover.

Latro wrote:It's cover.

Buildings within range of handgrandes and MPs er actualy pretty lousy cover. More a deathtrap

Latro wrote:

Chris Montgomery wrote:All of that is just my opinion... but otherwise, why would the teams be in the building in the first place?

Chris

It's cover.

That's a disingenuous, snide remark. The first enemy that is in the building, sure, it's there for cover.

But when opposing forces are in the same building (like a house, or a commercial building), it's an assault. It's a close-combat situation using whatever weapons one has. It's the knife scene in Saving Private Ryan, not a shoot out from the Old West where guys shoot at each other from across the bar while hiding behind tables.

IOW, the building will only be occupied by opposing enemy forces for a short time. You're not going to have a situation where U.S. Squad A shoots from rooms and windows into the other half of the building where German Squad B is and have that situation persist for longer than (at most) a minute or two.

I'm totally picking up what you're laying down as far as cover use is concerned, and I could even see a distended combat situation (more akin to a firefight instead of an assault) in a larger building, like a sprawling assembly plant or a skyscraper. But in the size of buildings that Tide of Iron represents (houses and retail commercial structures, maybe a government building) those type of close-quarter arrangements are assault situations--knives, bayonets, handgrenades, pistols, a broken bottle laying on the floor, a board that happens to be handy.

For ToI purposes, though, I think the rule works very well for adjacent units in separate buildings, but NOT in the same building. Even multi-hex buildings, where units are not adjacent but have a clear LOS, also makes sense. But where units are in the same building AND adjacent to one another, in that situation, it ought to result in some sort of assault-style play.... the enemy are simply too close together in close quarters, and they aren't going to be thinking "I'll just sit here and shoot at the enemy from my comfy spot on the other side of this wall." They have to work around the blind spots, the creaks in the floorboards and the raspy sounds of canvas uniforms on tile floors.

And, in any event, it doesn't matter, because as I said before, the rules are genius in that they simplify things "just enough." The game is elegantly playable without being overbearing; it is complex enough to convey realism without getting bogged down in exactly these kinds of debates.

So, FWIW, take it all with a grain of salt... everyone has their own opinion, I guess.

Chris

Edit: Corrected typos.

Well, my point from previous posts was more to point out that assault certainly would be a likely result from having opposing squads in adjacent buildings, but certainly not the only and unavoidable result ... because historically it never was (see Stalingrad).

But it is a moot point because the rules are clear on it and allow us freedom of choice!

(PS Don't take my previous post more seriously than it was intended ... I probably should have added a different smiley, but I like the one with the sunglasses!)

It is so hard to convey tone and emphasis in the written word. No offense taken, btw. I just felt like maybe I needed to clarify myself.

Chris

If I make an assault out of a building hex into another building hex - do I roll cover dice for my troops as well?

Stefan wrote:If I make an assault out of a building hex into another building hex - do I roll cover dice for my troops as well?

No, and that is why troops might prefer to stay in a firefight mode until ordered to assault.

The squads assaulting a position never get cover dice, only the defender. Which is why it's usually a good idea to either (a) assault with overwhelming force, or (b) pin/disrupt your target before the assault.

Great. Thanks for the thoughts on my original post. I'm walking away with...
1. The Rules do not specifically address "inside building" combat. We are left to deduce play according to other rules (LOS, Assault, Close Range, etc.)

2. Perhaps the most reasonable ways to resolve are:
a) Require the enemy squad entering the building (empty hex) to perform an Assault action to do so, OR
b) Allow enemy squad to enter building (empty hex). Any squads in the building receive the +3 Cover.

For the record, my opponent and I resolved the situation (which prompted this post in the first place) by allowing the enemy to enter the building but agreed that both squads should be given the Cover.

Perhaps when FFG issues the Eastern Front Expansion, they will refine the rules for urban combat. (I'm thinking some urban gameboards would be pretty cool...)