Entering Rubbled Buildings?

[weapon2010]

Why does this seem difficult at times ?as the waypoint wont "stick" in the rubble?

[Brent Pollock (WBRP)]

I presume it represents rubble that is too rough and tumble to permit entry vs rubble that has been pulverised smoother so it may still be entered. I have never scrutinised the artwork to see if that makes it obvious.

 

IIRC, this has existed since CMX1?

[womble]

Nope, the waypoint won't stick in the rubble, but the pTruppen you send to that waypoint will enter the rubbled area if it suits the TacAI's interpretation of how they're meant to be oriented. All rubble spaces are created equal. In the same way as an infantry waypoint can't be nestled into a hedgerow, but will be put in the centre of the half-AS you click in, the rubbled area won't let you pop a waypoint in it, but in the nearest half-AS. It's non-intuitive, like the target line drawn when you're creating a Target order from a waypoint other than the element's current location.

[Bulletpoint]

I think it's another of those issues where the graphics don't quite match what's really going on in the game. The player sees a smooth little neat pile of rubble, completely churned to gravel, anyone should be able to climb it and stand on it. So the player doesn't understand why he can't make his troops do that. The game on the other hand probably sees that rubble as an impassable mess of masonry, shattered timber, steel beams, etc.

 

The CM series used to be more heavily abstracted, making it easier to understand that graphics were not 1 to 1 representations, but as graphics improved, things like this start to seem more odd, especially to new players.

 

It's a bit like when we were playing pacman, nobody complained about lack of physics modeling or shadow accuracy But in modern games, things look so much like real life that the tiniest faults start to stick out.

[Thewood1]

Oh, no!  Its an uncanny valley discussion.  Sorry, couldn't resist a reference to a very old debate.

[womble]

Oh, no!  Its an uncanny valley discussion.  Sorry, couldn't resist a reference to a very old debate.

It might seem so, but it isn't. It's just a matter of where the game can plonk waypoints. pTruppen will use rubble; it's not impassable to infantry, you just can't put a waypoint directly on it. The TacAI makes sensible use of it though.

[Thewood1]

I was referring to this line...it is uncanny, through and through.

 

"It's a bit like when we were playing pacman, nobody complained about lack of physics modeling or shadow accuracy   But in modern games, things look so much like real life that the tiniest faults start to stick out."

[Warts 'n' all]

Picking up on what "womble" posted. I might be wrong, but the way I see it is this. The map consists of equal sized AS to regulate movement etc. When a designer puts a building on the map, because they are of various sizes and, the fact that they can be set on a diagonal, they are in effect creating a new AS on top of the original. Therefore buildings can be targeted without the player having to target the ground they stand upon. And units can either move into the AS without entering the building i.e. standing outside it. Or, can enter it if you click on the building itself. Once a building has been reduced to rubble it no longer creates a separate AS. Therefore units will fill the AS as if it was empty ground. So a squad will have 1 or 2 teams in the rubble and 1 or 2 outside depending on the size of the now destroyed building.

[MOS:96B2P]

<snip>  units can either move into the AS without entering the building i.e. standing outside it. Or, can enter it if you click on the building itself. Once a building has been reduced to rubble it no longer creates a separate AS. Therefore units will fill the AS as if it was empty ground. So a squad will have 1 or 2 teams in the rubble and 1 or 2 outside depending on the size of the now destroyed building.

 

This may explain some behaviors I have seen.  I will have to pay more attention and see if it always works out this way.  Good explanation.