Burning buildings

[BASA]

Hi One of the things I think is missing from the game is Burning Buildings. In ever theatre of war, buildings do catch fire and cause smoke across the battlefield, so why is this missing in the game? We have burning tanks, lorry's etc. but no buildings. Sorry if this has been raised before, just wondering why

Thanks Basa

[Vanir Ausf B]

Good question. Maybe because building fires tend to spread and that type of fire is not in the game now? Fire (outside of vehicles) is reportedly going to be added at some point in the near future, so maybe buildings will burn then.

[c3k]

A neat trick some designers use is to place a burning jeep inside a building. That gives the effect, at least.

[Lanzfeld]

We not only want burning buildings but dry fields with spreading fire yum yum yum.

[MikeyD]

Fire and the cascade of behaviors associated with fire is a bear to code & test apparently. It definitely on their to-do list. BFC's last few title have been in parts of the world known for their concrete, stone and/or brick construction, and clay/slate roofing material. Which kind'a reduced the urgency for introducing building fire. One of these days they're going to find themselves in a part of the world that uses stick construction, clapboard siding, and asphalt shingles. Burn baby burn!

[womble]

Just the AI scripting for how units behave when their cozy little crib starts to get a little too warm for comfort is going to be a nightmare to get right enough that we don't spend more time complaining than playing the game...

[agusto]

We not only want burning buildings but dry fields with spreading fire yum yum yum.

I wonder how the AI would react to that. It would be kinda laughable if an enemy infantry platoon continues to charge through a burning field and gets fried, wouldnt it? Currently they AI will happily send its infantry into an ongoing artillery barrage, so i dont know if having spreading fires on dry field would add to the game.

[Lanzfeld]

I wonder how the AI would react to that. It would be kinda laughable if an enemy infantry platoon continues to charge through a burning field and gets fried, wouldnt it? Currently they AI will happily send its infantry into an ongoing artillery barrage, so i dont know if having spreading fires on dry field would add to the game.

Not a reason to not make it work.

[ww2steel]

I read somewhere on here that it wasn't on the priority list for CM2, that they were focusing elsewhere. Also (perhaps primarily) because it was being used in a very gamey fashion and required recoding to fix. This is what I remember at least. I, for one, really miss it!

[womble]

Not a reason to not make it work.

True, but it's a part of the explanation why it isn't working yet.

[BASA]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks this is a missing item in the game.

I understand that it requires some work to be done in the coding, but would have thought that it was not too big an issue to include. We have vehicles receiving hits and not burning as well as the spectacular occasional ones exploding and burning fiercely, can this not be done with buildings in a limited controlled way ?

[MikeyD]

I think its safe to say that everybody wants flamethrowers. And I mean everybody. But they gotta get all their ducks in a row before introducing flamethrowers. You wouldn't much appreciate it if they gave flamethrowers without everything else that's associated. For instance - would trees catch on fire? Would they switch to bare branches as they burned? What about use of flamethrowers during rainstorms? the complications are never-ending and admit it, you'd be the first to grouse if it didn't come in 'right'.

[permanent666]

i am looking forward to plan my tactics with wind direction in mind: how can i burn down this enemy held village without getting my troops exposed. shall i ignite the forest in the west or is the wheat field north of the town the better choice

[c3k]

...And when my jaegers hit the Croc trailer with a 'schreck, the resulting "boom" had better be bad-ass.

[BASA]

I think its safe to say that everybody wants flamethrowers. And I mean everybody. But they gotta get all their ducks in a row before introducing flamethrowers. You wouldn't much appreciate it if they gave flamethrowers without everything else that's associated. For instance - would trees catch on fire? Would they switch to bare branches as they burned? What about use of flamethrowers during rainstorms? the complications are never-ending and admit it, you'd be the first to grouse if it didn't come in 'right'.

Hi MikeyD Its not really flamethrowers I'm on about its Burning Buildings, I understand your point on Flamethrowers