Destructable Buildings?(?)

User avatar
Nathan des Lessings
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 94
Joined: Mon 24 Oct 2016 18:58
Location: In the Land of mountains, Land by river.
Contact:

Re: Destructable Buildings?(?)

Postby Nathan des Lessings » Tue 14 Mar 2017 20:48

orcbuster wrote:I do hope that buildings provide better cover the more they are blown up if they are destructible.

i guess it would be better in the other direction...
The more destroied the worse the cover...
Wer kämpft, kann verlieren. Wer nicht kämpft, hat schon verloren.

User avatar
orcbuster
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 12226
Joined: Fri 7 Sep 2012 21:04
Contact:

Re: Destructable Buildings?(?)

Postby orcbuster » Tue 14 Mar 2017 21:11

Nathan des Lessings wrote:
orcbuster wrote:I do hope that buildings provide better cover the more they are blown up if they are destructible.

i guess it would be better in the other direction...
The more destroied the worse the cover...


Here is an interesting fact about buildings: In an intact condition they do not provide very good camo cover in combat situations. They are dominated by straight lines and 90 degree angles, making it hard to mask head and torso silhouettes. To top this of the entrance and exit points tend to be fairly obvious (Doors, windows and corners), making the spots where someone may pop up predictable.

Combat damage tend to rectify this. new irregular and hard to spot openings appear, existing points become irregular and most importantly the whole picture becomes more chaotic making spotting irregularities (I.E. you) far more difficult. The building remains to provide cover for movement as most walls will remain standing even under hard fire.

Well then completely level the building then! you may say. Hell that is often even better for the defender, rubble provide amazing cover and concealment options.
Image
Viker for ingen!

User avatar
Sarvik
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 779
Joined: Fri 9 Mar 2012 15:03
Contact:

Re: Destructable Buildings?(?)

Postby Sarvik » Tue 14 Mar 2017 22:57

orcbuster is right. Also intact buildings have weaker parts which can break and injure those inside during bombardment, possibly start fires etc. After first good bombardment you will have only relatively tough parts of building standing, so 2nd bombardment will add comparatively a lot less damage to remaining structure.

User avatar
Nathan des Lessings
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 94
Joined: Mon 24 Oct 2016 18:58
Location: In the Land of mountains, Land by river.
Contact:

Re: Destructable Buildings?(?)

Postby Nathan des Lessings » Tue 14 Mar 2017 23:27

orcbuster wrote:
Nathan des Lessings wrote:
orcbuster wrote:I do hope that buildings provide better cover the more they are blown up if they are destructible.

i guess it would be better in the other direction...
The more destroied the worse the cover...


Here is an interesting fact about buildings: In an intact condition they do not provide very good camo cover in combat situations. They are dominated by straight lines and 90 degree angles, making it hard to mask head and torso silhouettes. To top this of the entrance and exit points tend to be fairly obvious (Doors, windows and corners), making the spots where someone may pop up predictable.

Combat damage tend to rectify this. new irregular and hard to spot openings appear, existing points become irregular and most importantly the whole picture becomes more chaotic making spotting irregularities (I.E. you) far more difficult. The building remains to provide cover for movement as most walls will remain standing even under hard fire.

Well then completely level the building then! you may say. Hell that is often even better for the defender, rubble provide amazing cover and concealment options.


Yes that should be true with these arguments.
Wer kämpft, kann verlieren. Wer nicht kämpft, hat schon verloren.

User avatar
BlessPL
Sergeant Major of the Army
Posts: 367
Joined: Wed 22 Feb 2012 14:34
Location: Poland
Contact:

Re: Destructable Buildings?(?)

Postby BlessPL » Wed 15 Mar 2017 12:36

orcbuster wrote:
Nathan des Lessings wrote:
orcbuster wrote:I do hope that buildings provide better cover the more they are blown up if they are destructible.

i guess it would be better in the other direction...
The more destroied the worse the cover...


Here is an interesting fact about buildings: In an intact condition they do not provide very good camo cover in combat situations. They are dominated by straight lines and 90 degree angles, making it hard to mask head and torso silhouettes. To top this of the entrance and exit points tend to be fairly obvious (Doors, windows and corners), making the spots where someone may pop up predictable.

Combat damage tend to rectify this. new irregular and hard to spot openings appear, existing points become irregular and most importantly the whole picture becomes more chaotic making spotting irregularities (I.E. you) far more difficult. The building remains to provide cover for movement as most walls will remain standing even under hard fire.

Well then completely level the building then! you may say. Hell that is often even better for the defender, rubble provide amazing cover and concealment options.


I would be very happy if this could be implemented as a mechanic in SD. Intentionally blowing nearby buliding in order to create better hiding places before fight? Sound great!
Image
War. War never changes.

User avatar
Wicca
First Sergeant
Posts: 220
Joined: Mon 25 Mar 2013 01:30
Contact:

Re: Destructable Buildings?(?)

Postby Wicca » Wed 15 Mar 2017 13:04

Or just if they are hiding behind buildings, removing them to engage.

User avatar
molnibalage
General
Posts: 6484
Joined: Thu 1 Aug 2013 22:54
Location: Hungary
Contact:

Re: Destructable Buildings?(?)

Postby molnibalage » Wed 15 Mar 2017 14:12

orcbuster wrote:I do hope that buildings provide better cover the more they are blown up if they are destructible.


https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/in ... t-22536721
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/in ... t-22536788

User avatar
HrcAk47
Colonel
Posts: 2503
Joined: Sat 3 May 2014 18:00
Contact:

Re: Destructable Buildings?(?)

Postby HrcAk47 » Wed 15 Mar 2017 14:25

molnibalage wrote:
orcbuster wrote:I do hope that buildings provide better cover the more they are blown up if they are destructible.


https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/in ... t-22536721
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/in ... t-22536788


Quoting yourself from a different forum does not make a valid reference, I am afraid.

Orcbuster presented his case better.
The SEAD never bothered me anyway.

User avatar
orcbuster
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 12226
Joined: Fri 7 Sep 2012 21:04
Contact:

Re: Destructable Buildings?(?)

Postby orcbuster » Wed 15 Mar 2017 15:26

molnibalage wrote:
orcbuster wrote:I do hope that buildings provide better cover the more they are blown up if they are destructible.


https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/in ... t-22536721
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/in ... t-22536788


That image is actually illustrative of my point. That there is a goldmine of prepared cover and concealment.

This is one of the few subjects where i do consider myself a primary source as I've done quite a bit of of urban combat training in a training town where these principles are meant to be demonstrated and practiced.
Image
Viker for ingen!

User avatar
Mike
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 11373
Joined: Thu 20 Feb 2014 01:09
Location: Virginia, United States of America
Contact:

Re: Destructable Buildings?(?)

Postby Mike » Wed 15 Mar 2017 15:37

Why does the title have a second question mark in parentheses? :lol:
Image
Delta Force or Delta Farce?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests