Why L shape ruins are not structurally or historically accurate. (COMMERCIAL)

[Brutal Cities]

Load Bearing Masonry

Most wargaming terrain ruins are actually based on pre-WWII construction methods. Ruins seen in WWII are usually load-bearing masonry from earlier building stock.

The strongest part of masonry buildings are the corners, which is why you usually see the corners intact more so than the slabs and middle of the walls. Timber construction was typical for flooring, which often collapsed from fire.

The corners being the strongest part of the buildings is why you see so many L shape ruins in photos from WW2 etc. Of course, to be fair it's also a practical shape and design for gameplay where you have to move your miniatures in the ruins.

Modern Ruins Explained

I saw in a Facebook group, someone had shared a picture of their (lovely) sci-fi city. Except their mechs didn’t look right amongst the 1910’s New York looking table. Why? Because the windows were too small!

With the adoption in the early 20th century of reinforced concrete structural systems, lightweight, non-load bearing walls and larger windows were possible.

In the tabletop wargaming context, you can imagine that explosions and combat have destroyed or damaged much of the non-load bearing masonry veneer.

(the facade walls)

BUT the structural system comprised of the:

• Central core, which provides structural bracing and lateral stability
• Reinforced concrete slabs
• Reinforced concrete columns

have mostly remained intact.

Rebar-counters, eat your heart out!

I’m probably over-explaining it, but you might find this interesting. There weren’t any terrain designs that I’ve seen represent ruins with these modern concrete structures.



Anyway there is more info explaining the engineering side of this on my website, and you can buy these 15mm scale ruins for your terrain collection if you're after something new!
https://brutalcities.com/products/15mm-ruins-terrain I've used these ruins in a game of seven days to the river rhine recently, as you can see from the pic is scales perfectly with battlefronts cold war range.

I have designed them so that's the interiors are easily accessible, you can place flames of war style bases inside most of the ruins. You can also glue the facade walls in different spots to mix it up.

I'm looking forward to using this and starting a 15mm Zona Alfa campaign soon.

[Pattus Magnus]

Interesting info, I didn’t know that. I’ll definitely keep that in mind for future modern builds.

[ErikB]

Now THAT is a FANTASTIC post!  I love love love learning about architectural engineering!  Out here in California (not so glamorous as people think, seriously), we have strip malls and earthquake-resistant wood and drywall buildings, mostly.  Not that interesting.

[fred]

This is a very useful set of buildings - I’ve not thought about doing ruins based on this for modern or future games. But having seen construction of modern buildings it is exactly what would be left after bombing or artillery.

From a gaming perspective though, how do these kind of ruins work - because they are lacking in cover. Walls (or corners) with windows in them provide good cover for infantry in them, or block LoS for bigger stuff behind. Ruins that are mainly horizontal floors aren’t going to have much cover or LoS blocking effect.

[Pattus Magnus]

If troops are on upper levels the ruins will block LOS for anyone shooting from a lower point due to the largely intact floor. The support columns inside will also still act as cover, as will any rubble left from the walls falling inside the structure.

Honestly, I wouldn’t change the cover rules much, except maybe to bin the “true LOS”/ view from the figure’s eye criterion and replace it with treating the whole structure as a “template” cover. In other words, all figures inside the ruined structure count as ‘in cover’, like being in woods. (I’m inclined that way anyway - “figure’s eye” LOS makes no sense to me unless the rules are based on figure scale and terrain scale being close to the same.)

[Brutal Cities]

If troops are on upper levels the ruins will block LOS for anyone shooting from a lower point due to the largely intact floor. The support columns inside will also still act as cover, as will any rubble left from the walls falling inside the structure.

Honestly, I wouldn’t change the cover rules much, except maybe to bin the “true LOS”/ view from the figure’s eye criterion and replace it with treating the whole structure as a “template” cover. In other words, all figures inside the ruined structure count as ‘in cover’, like being in woods. (I’m inclined that way anyway - “figure’s eye” LOS makes no sense to me unless the rules are based on figure scale and terrain scale being close to the same.)

This! Yeah, agree.

This is a very useful set of buildings - I’ve not thought about doing ruins based on this for modern or future games. But having seen construction of modern buildings it is exactly what would be left after bombing or artillery.

From a gaming perspective though, how do these kind of ruins work - because they are lacking in cover. Walls (or corners) with windows in them provide good cover for infantry in them, or block LoS for bigger stuff behind. Ruins that are mainly horizontal floors aren’t going to have much cover or LoS blocking effect.

Well, it depends on the game and rules set really. I play a lot of infinity and usually players agree that you can shoot units inside buildings, but not units on the other side. Even when you can technically do so IRL, and as per rules, most players just agree to limit such LOS.

Interesting info, I didn’t know that. I’ll definitely keep that in mind for future modern builds.

Glad you found it so! Yeah I should elaborate on these thoughts and finish that article at some point!

[fred]

Well, it depends on the game and rules set really. I play a lot of infinity and usually players agree that you can shoot units inside buildings, but not units on the other side. Even when you can technically do so IRL, and as per rules, most players just agree to limit such LOS.

That makes a lot of sense - most games I play treat terrain as an area, with exactly that interpretation. I was rather shocked in a game of KoW where a wood was treated as true LoS and units shot through it!!

I suppose in part I was asking about any real world experience of defending the ruins of modern buildings.

[carlos marighela]

Took me a while to get that you meant the rubble forming an 'L shape', naturally an L shaped building will retain its floorplan regardless of construction method but I got it in the end that you meant the vertical rise of the rubble.

It's a valid point you raise about the availaibility of such modern structures in miniature but regional variation and the actual purpose of the structure make some difference to the nature and form of the masonry cladding, even if the central construction principles are the same. Commercial buildings are far more likely to have larger glazed expanses than residential, save for the most modern upscale city-center type affairs and TBH I'm not sure that even large concentrations of HE is going to completely cleanse the concrete floors of their masonry cladding. That said it's up to the modeller to add the chrome to the basic model and those kist of yours will be a very useful canvas.

One thing I've not seen in miniature is the pancaked floor effect of the near or total collapse of such structures. While most of us would associate that look with earthquakes, man made earthquakes provided via overpressure or the creation of a camouflet can do the same thing.

[bluewillow]

Does depend upon where you are on the planet,

column construction around a ring beam deck with central core is common where there are no earthquakes. Columns or blade walls should be on all outer edges, whereas some of your deck corners are floating. When a column or blade wall is destroyed the floor above will fail and collapse into the next deck, if the core is damaged and fails it will cause a domino effect as per the twin towers, as each deck fails and collapses like a pencil punching paper.

Where there are earthquakes load bearing walls with beams is more common. So each has its place.


Cheers
Matt

[Brutal Cities]

Does depend upon where you are on the planet,

column construction around a ring beam deck with central core is common where there are no earthquakes. Columns or blade walls should be on all outer edges, whereas some of your deck corners are floating. When a column or blade wall is destroyed the floor above will fail and collapse into the next deck, if the core is damaged and fails it will cause a domino effect as per the twin towers, as each deck fails and collapses like a pencil punching paper.

Where there are earthquakes load bearing walls with beams is more common. So each has its place.


Cheers
Matt

Great reply, thanks for sharing. Hah, being in Australia I forget earthquakes are a thing!
Yes, I did take some liberties. But with my work I have to balance playability and practicality too- the floating corners are to make it easier to get your miniatures in.

Took me a while to get that you meant the rubble forming an 'L shape', naturally an L shaped building will retain its floorplan regardless of construction method but I got it in the end that you meant the vertical rise of the rubble.

It's a valid point you raise about the availaibility of such modern structures in miniature but regional variation and the actual purpose of the structure make some difference to the nature and form of the masonry cladding, even if the central construction principles are the same. Commercial buildings are far more likely to have larger glazed expanses than residential, save for the most modern upscale city-center type affairs and TBH I'm not sure that even large concentrations of HE is going to completely cleanse the concrete floors of their masonry cladding. That said it's up to the modeller to add the chrome to the basic model and those kist of yours will be a very useful canvas.

One thing I've not seen in miniature is the pancaked floor effect of the near or total collapse of such structures. While most of us would associate that look with earthquakes, man made earthquakes provided via overpressure or the creation of a camouflet can do the same thing.

I have seen that done, and it looks great. It's easy enough to score and then snap these floors to recreate that pancake effect.

Yes you're right, blasts won't completely clear the non-load bearing mansonry.