Incentive to not fully flatten a town

[Mormegil]

The "Massive Destruction" system allows mappers to destroy anything they want, but will keep it reasonable for gameplay reasons. Nobody wants to fight in a flattened town.

But here's an idea for mapping. What if you let each building actually get destroyed, but you loose the map if say half the buildings are fully destroyed, because you can't really capture an objective if it's gone. That would keep platoon leaders from destroying the whole town.

This could also keep arty spam down if it's an issue.

 

[RedGuardist]

But here's an idea for mapping. What if you let each building actually get destroyed, but you loose the map if say half the buildings are fully destroyed, because you can't really capture an objective if it's gone. That would keep platoon leaders from destroying the whole town.

I see where you are coming from, but I

 

[Apos]

Devs said, that not everything will be fully destroyable, so you cannot crush whole city to the groud. As you could see from the commander role presentation video, building hit by artillery didn't disappear, but changed into ruin and still could provide some cover.

I hope some smaller fortifications like wooden bunkers, nest etc can be fully smashed by artillery or tank HE shell.

 

[=GG= Mr Moe]

But that opens up the question, how is destruction done? It Appears from the video that one static meshed is replaced by a destroyed looking one. Does that mean that in order for something to be destructible, the mapper must create two versions of an object? If the mapper doesn't, then does that mean that object can't be destroyed? Or is destruction handled somehow by the engine?

 

[Bobdog]

But here's an idea for mapping. What if you let each building actually get destroyed, but you loose the map if say half the buildings are fully destroyed, because you can't really capture an objective if it's gone. That would keep platoon leaders from destroying the whole town.

You could also just make either team lose the map if they destroy the objective: for example, if you are trying to capture an ammo cache, what use is it if you blow it up? That way at the very least teams can't level the immediate area around some objectives.

 

[Apos]

But that opens up the question, how is destruction done? It Appears from the video that one static meshed is replaced by a destroyed looking one. Does that mean that in order for something to be destructible, the mapper must create two versions of an object? If the mapper doesn't, then does that mean that object can't be destroyed? Or is destruction handled somehow by the engine?

I believe yes, it isn't fully physic, but as you wrote: one mesh replaced by another. However, I would like to check it by self playing beta

 

[Nimsky]

But that opens up the question, how is destruction done? It Appears from the video that one static meshed is replaced by a destroyed looking one. Does that mean that in order for something to be destructible, the mapper must create two versions of an object? If the mapper doesn't, then does that mean that object can't be destroyed? Or is destruction handled somehow by the engine?

Personally, I hope it will be a little more dynamic than that. I'd have no problem with the current model but a dynamic destruction model is always nice. The argument that they're using is that it's not fun to fight in a fully flattened town, and I agree, but even in BFC2 a fully-leveled building still leaves a lot of rubble which can be used for cover (see video @ 3:20). Just something to think about.

I'm hoping we can at least blow large holes into walls.

YouTube - [HD] Battlefield Bad Company 2: Collapsing Buildings

 

[Federico 76]

Personally, I hope it will be a little more dynamic than that. I'd have no problem with the current model but a dynamic destruction model is always nice. The argument that they're using is that it's not fun to fight in a fully flattened town, and I agree, but even in BFC2 a fully-leveled building still leaves a lot of rubble which can be used for cover.

I agree with Nim, and i think that in a 20-30 minutes game with limited arty strikes avalible (maybe 2 or 3 per team like in OST) it would be hard to destroy the whole map, so in my opinion, a BFBC2 destruction system would be good, but sincerelly i don't know if Tripware has enough resoursces to do something like that...

 

[Reise]

I thought the incentive to not blow up a building was to keep it for cover?

When it blows up it gets pretty useless, especially if there are planks of scorched wood all over the place blocking movement.

It can help you in the short term if the enemy is crowding it, but later on it could hurt your team when they have to be out in the open.

 

[=GG= Mr Moe]

Actually from what I have read, wasn't a destroyed town/city supposedly more beneficial from a defensive perspective? Rarely are things completely flattened, rubble makes it hard for movement, especially advancing vehicles, and there is still plenty of cover for defenders.

I do realize that's not feasible for the game though.

 

[Welshie]

Actually from what I have read, wasn't a destroyed town/city supposedly more beneficial from a defensive perspective? Rarely are things completely flattened, rubble makes it hard for movement, especially advancing vehicles, and there is still plenty of cover for defenders.

I do realize that's not feasible for the game though.

Yeah, the battle of Monte cassino is a good example of a ruined town making for a better defencive position. The German Paras only occupied it After the Allies smashed it to the ground
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Monte_Cassino[/URL]

 

[Mormegil]

From what I gathered, the destruction system allows the mapper to make anything destroyable. But for gameplay reasons, they're going with making the buildings not fully destroyable, as having cover makes for a more fun game.

To me that sounds like there's some flexibility for the mapper. If they want, they could make some buildings fully destroyable. So with my idea, they could do this, but make sure all the buildings don't get fully flattened, providing some cover, and not a flat map.

This could also make a map more dynamic, if different buildings are taken out part way through the round.

 

[Kashash]

Yeah, the battle of Monte cassino is a good example of a ruined town making for a better defencive position. The German Paras only occupied it After the Allies smashed it to the ground
[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Monte_Cassino"][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Monte_Cassino"][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Monte_Cassino"][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Monte_Cassino[/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL]

Location: Australia


Strong history of Europe knowledge
j/k

 

[Nicholas]

Actually from what I have read, wasn't a destroyed town/city supposedly more beneficial from a defensive perspective? Rarely are things completely flattened, rubble makes it hard for movement, especially advancing vehicles, and there is still plenty of cover for defenders.

I do realize that's not feasible for the game though.

Stalingrad itself was the perfect example of this.

 

[Mormegil]

It would be nice if the massive destruction system allows a multi-storied building to be hit, but not turn into a skeleton like the houses, but collapse into piles of rubble, providing cover.


This would be even better if there was a sort of random choice on several different meshes, providing for different locations of the rubble. Otherwise, if the building falls apart exactly the same way each time, it would be unrealistic and obvious to know where all the cover spots will be. Variety would make the gameplay more interesting.

 

[Zetsumei]

the main destruction that I hope to see is the ability to blow holes in walls with the sapper. So you can use it to create alternative paths, although balancing could get hard.

 

[Dwin]

One thing I fear about TW choosing to tone down the level of destruction is that it what objects may or may not be destroyed may become arbitrary and nonsensical. E.g., why can I blow up this section of wall with a satchel, but not this identical section of wall over here? Destructible environments is one of those features where you should go all the way (or almost all the way), or just not do it at all.

One fair compromise in my opinion would be to simulate the effects of destruction, without any destruction taking place. A good example of this is in Darkest Hour, where HEAT rounds will kill people behind walls. Realistically, the projectile would go through the wall, blasting all sorts of debris into the unlucky victim on the other side. Since they can't actually make all walls destructible, the next best thing is to simulate what would happen if the wall were to be destroyed (sans the hole).

In a way, bullet penetration is an example of this. You aren't actually shooting holes into the object, but your shots still continue through it simulating the effect that they are. If they could extend this to all types of weaponry (tanks, artillery), it would make up for not being able to completely destroy the environment. So, for example, dropping artillery onto a rooftop should kill the occupants (unless it's a heavily fortified bunker or something), even if it doesn't actually damage the building.

 

[Fedorov]

I'd like to have a real dynamic system, in which you can destroy everything, but not leaving everything flat, I mean, bombs in open ground leaves holes on the round and piles of rubble that can still be used as cover.

I'm not really a fan of substituting one static mesh for another.

 

[Krator]

Hi everybody (my 1st post here).

I would like to add that even a great amount of explosives, bombs, artillery shells, fire etc. can not flatten a WW2 era town (unless it's made of wood).
Here's a prime example, polish city of Warsaw on the january 1945:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...d_Warsaw,_capital_of_Poland,_January_1945.jpg
The city has endured great damage, first during 1939 invasion, then 1943 Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, then 1944 Warsaw Uprising and finally, after the fall of the uprising, by the Vernichtungskommando, who used explosives, flamethrowers etc. to do as much damage as possible.
City was destroyed in 80+%. However, it still provided tons of cover.
Many buildings are only partially destroyed. They mostly have no roofs, but at least some of them have usable staircases.
IMO artillery should damage concrete and brick buildings in f.e. 10-12 scripted ways, by destroying certain parts of walls, wiping out the roofs and top floors, damaging the staircase etc. but it should be very hard to flatten them/make them unsuitable for defense.

P.S. sorry for my blasphemously bad english.