Destructable Buildings?(?)

DrRansom
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2028
Joined: Sat 14 Jan 2012 18:22
Contact:

Re: Destructable Buildings?(?)

Postby DrRansom » Wed 15 Mar 2017 16:01

I hope that damaged buildings have higher cover, that would be both realistic and delightfully unintuitive for the beginner player.

Though, if that is a case, then there should be engineers who "improve" a building for defensibility.

User avatar
KampfKeksKrieger
Sergeant Major
Posts: 285
Joined: Tue 14 Feb 2012 10:15
Contact:

Re: Destructable Buildings?(?)

Postby KampfKeksKrieger » Wed 15 Mar 2017 16:38

Mike wrote:Why does the title have a second question mark in parentheses? :lol:


I like that mixture. It says:
Its both a normal question, and also an impulse, to express some good way of 'wtf?', bafflement, wondering.
But thats only, if you think whether that fits, so in parenthesis. :lol:

Edit: To the topic:
I like the curve of cover in a building, but the next step before changing something else in the game is a destructable environment in general...

and I think very certainly of C&C Tiberium Sun here, where you shot a hole into the ground, and that blocks especially LOS.

I wish SO MUCH of some holes into the ground with arty shells in wargame, dead vehicles and tanks shall block the movement of others
and exactly right here belongs the town/debris cover for infantry.
But that was more or less like it was in CoH, right?

I am afraid that this might be too deep. Just too much for relaxed playing. Ahhh.... Feature or not... I can't decide...
AoA Strategy Guide "The General and the Detailed"
viewtopic.php?f=196&t=54280#p854568
Update on 5.02.2017: New old faction overviews published!

AoA-Replays with me: http://tinyurl.com/gkrzl4y

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 » Wed 15 Mar 2017 20:20

DrRansom wrote:I hope that damaged buildings have higher cover, that would be both realistic and delightfully unintuitive for the beginner player.

Though, if that is a case, then there should be engineers who "improve" a building for defensibility.


Well then mines should be possible too... :D
Wer kämpft, kann verlieren. Wer nicht kämpft, hat schon verloren.

woolfoma
Private
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu 16 Mar 2017 08:45
Contact:

Re: Destructable Buildings?(?)

Postby woolfoma » Thu 16 Mar 2017 09:17

Ok just gona post this here. in wargame red dragon you can destroy any building infantry can be in with bombs or direct hits with tank cannons/grenade launchers. this has no effect on the way it works as cover as far as can be detected (might be some backend stuff, might not).

Yanxee
Private
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu 16 Mar 2017 07:10
Contact:

Re: Destructable Buildings?(?)

Postby Yanxee » Thu 16 Mar 2017 09:49

Nathan des Lessings wrote:
DrRansom wrote:I hope that damaged buildings have higher cover, that would be both realistic and delightfully unintuitive for the beginner player.

Though, if that is a case, then there should be engineers who "improve" a building for defensibility.


Well then mines should be possible too... :D


I'm a bit behind the curve, are there demolition teams, river crossing units etc confirmed, it would certainly be interesting to have bridges blown in front of your columns and having to bring bridging units up to support, would likely bring another tactical dimension to the game.

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

Re: Destructable Buildings?(?)

Postby molnibalage » Thu 16 Mar 2017 10:17

orcbuster wrote: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.

Concelament is not equal with cover...

HrcAk47 wrote:
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.

Just saved my time to write again the same.

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

Re: Destructable Buildings?(?)

Postby molnibalage » Thu 16 Mar 2017 10:20

DrRansom wrote:I hope that damaged buildings have higher cover, that would be both realistic and delightfully unintuitive for the beginner player.

Though, if that is a case, then there should be engineers who "improve" a building for defensibility.

Nope, only higher concelment. Pls. explain to us you an all other that a roofless or buliding without walls what kind cover can give against shrapnels...?

DrRansom
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2028
Joined: Sat 14 Jan 2012 18:22
Contact:

Re: Destructable Buildings?(?)

Postby DrRansom » Thu 16 Mar 2017 23:07

molnibalage wrote:Nope, only higher concelment. Pls. explain to us you an all other that a roofless or buliding without walls what kind cover can give against shrapnels...?


The fact is that the walls general survive anything short of a direct hit by a very large bomb. They still provide cover, but after the first level of damage, there isn't flying glass as a damage.

In any case, this is a stupid argument. Orcbuster is arguing from knowledge from military training. You're arguing from?

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 » Thu 16 Mar 2017 23:44

molnibalage wrote:
DrRansom wrote:I hope that damaged buildings have higher cover, that would be both realistic and delightfully unintuitive for the beginner player.

Though, if that is a case, then there should be engineers who "improve" a building for defensibility.

Nope, only higher concelment. Pls. explain to us you an all other that a roofless or buliding without walls what kind cover can give against shrapnels...?


Total demolition is rare, there is almost always enough standing for good physical cover of some sort, overhead is a secondary concern, HE is what you use in bombarding structures, not airburst shrapnel, if a HE shell hits your position directly you're screwed any way, roof or no, what you need protection from is small arms and horizontally aimed shrapnel.
Image
Viker for ingen!

User avatar
Fade2Gray
General
Posts: 7463
Joined: Wed 1 May 2013 23:30
Location: IED proof in Iraq
Contact:

Re: Destructable Buildings?(?)

Postby Fade2Gray » Fri 17 Mar 2017 04:05

molnibalage wrote:
orcbuster wrote: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.

Concelament is not equal with cover...


Ignoring the pure hilarity of trying to lecture a former infantrymen on cover and concealment...

he said cover AND concealment, stop twisting what he said around. I don't know why you are still making this losing argument, but just stop.
Image
Think you have what it takes to enlist into the military? You sure about that?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: horsman and 3 guests