Destructable Buildings?(?)

[DrRansom]

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.

[KampfKeksKrieger]

Why does the title have a second question mark in parentheses?

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.

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...

[Nathan des Lessings]

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...

[woolfoma]

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]

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...

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.

[molnibalage]

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...

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.

[molnibalage]

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]

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?

[orcbuster]

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.

[Fade2Gray]

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.