Pham911 Posted November 3, 2000 Share Posted November 3, 2000 Shouldn't all infantry have the ability to burn buildings if adjacent or inside? It only takes a lighter, and you could deny the enemy use of them without wasting HE. Also, if CM modled smoke from buildings, it would be an effective way of creative a smokescreen... Or, at least let us have a chance to burn by using tracer fire from MG's on them. Just a thought. Maybe for CM2? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jshandorf Posted November 3, 2000 Share Posted November 3, 2000 Yeah! And while your at it BTS can you add something to let my troops pillage? I mean hey! Who's gonna stop them from grabbing a new radio or sewing machine while they are taking that VL? A soldier has to live ya know... Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Croda Posted November 3, 2000 Share Posted November 3, 2000 Oh YA! And an absolute must is a "Pet the Dog" button! This way I can acknowledge the dachsund that's running around. - Kidding of course - A Burn the House command is a little too "micro-managerial" in my estimation. And ignite with tracer fire? How about steal Piggy's glasses to burn the place down? ------------------ "Nuts!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pham911 Posted November 3, 2000 Author Share Posted November 3, 2000 *sniff sniff* Smells like there's some mocking in the air... On another note, which I'll add here so as not to make a new thread in which people are mean to me *sniff*(<-- but in a sad and not smelling way this time), Why don't buildings produce rubble around them when they blow up? It could just drop roadblocks around the sides, bracketing the building, which would allow infantry to move(and provide some cover), but stop tanks. It seems strange that if you're blowing out walls of buildings left and right down a street(or whatever the A-Bomb building explosion is supposed to indicate) that your tanks can then mosey down past the destruction as if the road was just swept by a public servant. More rubble for two story or stone buildings would make sense. Just another thought. Mock away, as I'm going to pout now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IPA Posted November 3, 2000 Share Posted November 3, 2000 I'm with you on the burning buildings feature. I don't think it was such a rare thing as to not be considered. I've read several examples of setting fire to buildings as a street fighting tactic. I also have a specific example of intentional fire starting using MG incendiary rounds (Band of Brothers). IPA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Croda Posted November 3, 2000 Share Posted November 3, 2000 Ya, how about backhoes to deal with the rubble! [serious]Actually, the reason for the lack of stray rubble is that the rubble texture has to replace the house texture, and has to take up the same space on the map. The way CM works, no new elements are added to the map after the game begins. Adding extra rubble would necessitate that, and I'm sure it's not part of the engine.[/serious] And how about a "throw helmet at the enemy when you're out of ammo" button? It happened in SPR! ------------------ "Nuts!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pham911 Posted November 3, 2000 Author Share Posted November 3, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Croda: Ya, how about backhoes to deal with the rubble! [serious]Actually, the reason for the lack of stray rubble is that the rubble texture has to replace the house texture, and has to take up the same space on the map. The way CM works, no new elements are added to the map after the game begins. Adding extra rubble would necessitate that, and I'm sure it's not part of the engine.[/serious] And how about a "throw helmet at the enemy when you're out of ammo" button? It happened in SPR! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Are you sure about this? It seems that the game swaps out the building for the rubble once it blows up. If that's the case, it wouldn't seem that hard to have it place new items while it's placing the new rubble(<--that was the building, for clarity). The building's cover and concealment are different from the rubble of the ex-building, aren't they? If so, then the engine seems able to handle changes to the environment. If not, forget I said it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pham911 Posted November 3, 2000 Author Share Posted November 3, 2000 Oh, oh, oh... Here's something relating to burning buildings. I borrowed it from Todd C. Justice's infantry article on combat-mission.com: "You should always attempt to preserve the structure. A well executed attack will be successful with minimum casualties. The structure can then be used by use as a staging area, SBF position, or hasty defensive position. None of which you could do if you level it while trying to take it." This is what I'm talking about trying to deny the enemy by buring the building. He wants to take the building, and if I feel I can't hold it for long, burning it seems like a logical choice to thwart his plans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Croda Posted November 3, 2000 Share Posted November 3, 2000 Think of it this way, a tank blows up, a blown up tank takes its place, no tank debris. A squad is killed, a dead body takes its, no body debris (ewwww!), a house blows up, rubble takes it's place, no house debris. It's just a matter of replacing the bmp with a new one. The bmp has to take on the same spacial limitations of the one that it's replacing...make sense? ------------------ "Nuts!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pham911 Posted November 3, 2000 Author Share Posted November 3, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Croda: Think of it this way, a tank blows up, a blown up tank takes its place, no tank debris. A squad is killed, a dead body takes its, no body debris (ewwww!), a house blows up, rubble takes it's place, no house debris. It's just a matter of replacing the bmp with a new one. The bmp has to take on the same spacial limitations of the one that it's replacing...make sense? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah.... I understand how it currently works, but what I'm saying is that if the game can add bmps to replace old ones, it can add other stuff too. It also can understand differences in tiles during the course of a game. In fact, it does add new things to the map all the time in the form of shell holes. They're not just graphical, either, as craters provide protection that wasn't there before, and are added many times during a game. My point is that the game can do what I'm asking. If it will or not is up to BTS, obviously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigmac@work Posted November 6, 2000 Share Posted November 6, 2000 Well Pham, I believe that you're onto something here (all mocking aside). I like the idea, at least the part about torching buildings. It may perhaps be limited to light buildings, but it would add some new, interesting strategies. It also works logically and makes great sense. How hard would it be to give infantry an additional command to "Raze"? I truley have NO IDEA, but figure, what the heck, the boys (OK, Game Gods) at BTS have worked large amounts of magic already... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts