Damaged Buildings in undefended provinces

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Damaged Buildings in undefended provinces

      Why is there so much damage to buildings when even a single scout unit captures an undefended province? I get that they would be damaged after heavy fighting, but if a unit rolls in uncontested it makes no sense. Even after no air attack/ artillery/ naval bombardment to be 100% clear.

    • ushaddap wrote:

      Why is there so much damage to buildings when even a single scout unit captures an undefended province? I get that they would be damaged after heavy fighting, but if a unit rolls in uncontested it makes no sense. Even after no air attack/ artillery/ naval bombardment to be 100% clear.
      Disclaimer: I know a lot of people aren't going to follow the plausibility of my explanation; that's okay, others will.

      The scale of CoW doesn't lend itself to depict individual people or (any number of) small detachments of larger groups but that doesn't mean they and their actions aren't built into the mechanics of the game.

      Therefore, one can imagine there's no such thing as an "undefended Province" as it is likely to be defended by units too small (or detachments of larger units too dispersed) to be visually represented but are represented, in this case, by buildings being damaged during the "unseen" events of conquest; which may include, but are not limited to, skirmishes among squads & platoons & etc., sabotage by sappers (scorched earth tactics), etc.

      Just a thought (and a bit of imagination).

      [Edit: Also, don't forget, most ground units have an attk.value vs bldgs.; so, an "undefended" province capture is best done by a level 1 MILitia (no bldg. attk value) or a single AA (which has a 0.2 attk value vs bldgs.)]

    • I Patton wrote:

      ushaddap wrote:

      Why is there so much damage to buildings when even a single scout unit captures an undefended province? I get that they would be damaged after heavy fighting, but if a unit rolls in uncontested it makes no sense. Even after no air attack/ artillery/ naval bombardment to be 100% clear.
      Disclaimer: I know a lot of people aren't going to follow the plausibility of my explanation; that's okay, others will.
      I bet if the average player read this, they'd stop reading after the word "plausibility". ;)

    • I would be fine with the explanation given by I Patton, save one crucial point. The damage to conquered provinces isn't dissimilar if the aforementioned scenario of undefended/scout unit, is compared to a longer siege with artillery, air attack, and a 20 on 15 total unit strength attack. I get that it's a free game, and it's not a criticism, exactly. However, it does seem illogical that damage would fall into such a tight grouping given the wide variances of units used or not used. This might not be the best analogy, but if we were using what I observed in the game, and extrapolated it to the carpet in your home, then the unused guest bedroom carpet would wear the same as would the carpet inside the door of the front room and the path to the couch/kitchen/etc. which doesn't happen.

      All that being said, if it is, then it is.

    • ushaddap, thank your for your reply.

      You lost me with:

      "The damage to conquered provinces isn't dissimilar if the aforementioned scenario of undefended/scout unit, is compared to a longer siege with artillery, air attack, and a 20 on 15 total unit strength attack."

      I'm guessing you're saying, "the damage caused by a protracted battle of many units is similar to the damage caused by a single unit capturing the province without battle".

      If I guessed correctly, I'd have to ask, "How do you know?"

    • I like to agreed that a single unit capturing a province that is undefended would take little to no damage vs one that requires a battle in order to capture. The bigger the battle, the more shots fired/tank rounds/ bombs/grenades tossed and therefore the more damage. Little resistance calls for much less force and collateral damage.

    • I get it. If the damage to the building were to be more realistic then the amount of damage done to the buildings will be positively correlated to the force in which it took to take the territory.
      New twist on that topic.
      If the territory was not taken even with a great battle, then what? Shouldn't the buildings receive damage in kind just as a successful attempt would have rendered?
      If there is a battle should the buildings be damaged no matter if it trades owners or not?
      :00010166: Putting some Points on the board!! :00008040:

    • Night_Hawk wrote:

      I get it. If the damage to the building were to be more realistic then the amount of damage done to the buildings will be positively correlated to the force in which it took to take the territory.
      New twist on that topic.
      If the territory was not taken even with a great battle, then what? Shouldn't the buildings receive damage in kind just as a successful attempt would have rendered?
      If there is a battle should the buildings be damaged no matter if it trades owners or not?
      I think I'd be fine if bldgs. recv'd a % of the damage inflicted upon the defender (but suspect Prov. owners would complain the damage was too much & attk'rs would ask if they were also "fighting the buildings")