jshandorf Posted September 29, 2000 Share Posted September 29, 2000 Okay, I will admit I like watching houses blow up too, especially when there are allies in it, but is this real? I understand the fact that something has to happen to the house after you pump like 12 HE rounds into it, but blow up?? Come on... Can't the blowing up thing be random, otherwise the house just turns into rubble? You could just replace the house textures with say... some destroyed house textures and you could call the area "Destroyed building" and give it a defense rating a little better than rubble. I just think the house blowing up in a huge expolosion and your squads taking like 50% casualties all the time is a little unrealistic. On more thing, I have noticed that the more beat up a squad is the less additional casualties it takes when the house blows up. For example.. If you have a healthy 12 man squad it will take like 5-8 casualties when the house blows up, BUT if the squad is already down to like 3 guys it will maybe take 1 if any casualties.\ Maybe this is bug? Also I find it a little gamey on my part when I find myself holding back my men until a certain house blows up since the rubble is just about as good cover and it doesn't explode. Thanks, Jeff [This message has been edited by jshandorf (edited 09-29-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daveman Posted September 29, 2000 Share Posted September 29, 2000 I was a little put off by this as well... it seems every building has a gas main running through it. I take the blast to be more like debris and such flying outward. Perhaps you wouldn't always get that, some buildings would just collapse, but I don't think it's a big problem. Besides, it looks *really* cool! ------------------ “Fortune favors the brave" - Terence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmo Posted September 29, 2000 Share Posted September 29, 2000 The houses don't really blow up. It's just a graphical representation of a collapsing house. I must admit it's a little odd looking collapse, but I wouldn't like it removed since it looks so cool. For the casualties, I'd assume each man has a certain chance to get hurt when the house comes down. So more men means more casualties. Makes sense to me. ------------------ Now, would this brilliant plan involve us climbing out of our trenches and walking slowly towards the enemy sir? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chupacabra Posted September 29, 2000 Share Posted September 29, 2000 Er, don't quote me, and certainly don't take this as the official answer, but I think that the reasoning was, 'well, we've got to represent houses falling down somehow, and we've got this nifty explosion to use, so...' I know I've heard that explanation somewhere before, but when and from whom I have no idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Los Posted September 29, 2000 Share Posted September 29, 2000 Any version after CM102 models gas main leaks. Los Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patboivin Posted September 29, 2000 Share Posted September 29, 2000 It would be nice if we could drive a tank through a house to make it collapse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Echo Posted September 29, 2000 Share Posted September 29, 2000 That'd be the still going off in the basement. (BURP!) ------------------ As I walk through the Valley of Death, I will fear nothing, for I am the meanest mother*#*#** in the valley. (George S. Patton) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jshandorf Posted September 29, 2000 Author Share Posted September 29, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jarmo: The houses don't really blow up. It's just a graphical representation of a collapsing house. I must admit it's a little odd looking collapse, but I wouldn't like it removed since it looks so cool. For the casualties, I'd assume each man has a certain chance to get hurt when the house comes down. So more men means more casualties. Makes sense to me. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Okay, but still ALL houses don't collapse do that degree. The only reason I bring this up is because a friend and I are playing a village battle and we have noticed that each of move more men into the rubble texture AFTER the house blows up since it is safer. It just seems a little gamey to me. Oh well. Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pak40 Posted September 29, 2000 Share Posted September 29, 2000 "On more thing, I have noticed that the more beat up a squad is the less additional casualties it takes when the house blows up. For example.. If you have a healthy 12 man squad it will take like 5-8 casualties when the house blows up, BUT if the squad is already down to like 3 guys it will maybe take 1 if any casualties." I don't think this is the case. I've had squads down to 2 or three men be wiped out by a collapsing building...several times. But, I have noticed that squads on the second story tend to take very high casualties when the building collapses. This seems realistic to me. "Also I find it a little gamey on my part when I find myself holding back my men until a certain house blows up since the rubble is just about as good cover and it doesn't explode" this is not gamey at all. I use this tactic in games also. The soldiers, in real life, themselves would recognize that a pile of rubble is safer than a building that's about to collapse. It would be nice to throw a randomizing factor that would make some rubble areas collapse even further if fired upon. This would make it more risky for infantry to occupy a rubble area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Clinton Posted September 29, 2000 Share Posted September 29, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It would be nice to throw a randomizing factor that would make some rubble areas collapse even further if fired upon. This would make it more risky for infantry to occupy a rubble area.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thats a damn good idea for CM2 and the streest of Stalingrad (at least IMO ). ------------------ Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmo Posted September 29, 2000 Share Posted September 29, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pak40: It would be nice to throw a randomizing factor that would make some rubble areas collapse even further if fired upon. This would make it more risky for infantry to occupy a rubble area.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Cool. Maybe the explosion could be left out of that further collapse.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jshandorf Posted September 29, 2000 Author Share Posted September 29, 2000 On the number of casualties thing.... If the number of men in the building is proportional to the number of casualties then a tank shooting it's HE round into a full squad of 12 men should inflict more casualties but in playing I don't see this as the case. Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col Deadmarsh Posted September 29, 2000 Share Posted September 29, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Okay, I will admit I like watching houses blow up too, especially when there are allies in it, but is this real? I understand the fact that something has to happen to the house after you pump like 12 HE rounds into it, but blow up?? Come on... Can't the blowing up thing be random, otherwise the house just turns into rubble? You could just replace the house textures with say... some destroyed house textures and you could call the area "Destroyed building" and give it a defense rating a little better than rubble. I just think the house blowing up in a huge expolosion and your squads taking like 50% casualties all the time is a little unrealistic.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I couldn't agree with you more! This is the issue BTS should be addressing first! It seems as though infantry aren't safe anywhere. I should be able to hide my team in the back of a building and not have them be destroyed by a tank who takes down the entire structure. THIS IS UNREALISTIC. And being so, it's the only annoying part of the game I can find...but it is annoying! BTS, please, please, make a new patch where this building explosion thing is changed. Maybe buildings could just explode 70%-80% of the time and only after a large number of hits by a large gun. If I can't hide a team inside the back of a building and instead have to put them behind it, my opponent can simply sneak one of his own troops into the building as the tank makes sure I don't re-enter. This is not fun at all. I wanna be able to hold a position. BTS, take a lesson from Close Combat on this one and model building damage similar to them. Please consider this as it would make the game more fun to play...and in my opinion, much more realistic. ------------------ Everything in moderation...except CM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oompa-Loompa Posted September 29, 2000 Share Posted September 29, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Pak40: It would be nice to throw a randomizing factor that would make some rubble areas collapse even further if fired upon. This would make it more risky for infantry to occupy a rubble area.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Great idea! Would also be possible to have randomly generated defense levels for the wreckage? For example, some buildings may have a lot of defensive value while others may have little or no use as a defense. Question: Do buildings ever burn AFTER they collapse? Or is all wreckage habitable? ------------------ "Do not needlessly endanger your lives until I give you the signal" Dwight D. Eisenhower Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Posted September 29, 2000 Share Posted September 29, 2000 Concerning units occupying building ruins; this was a tactic used by the German's at Monte Cassino. When the Allies bombed the monastery on the hill, the Germans moved in and set up machine guns, mortars and observation posts for their artillery. The place was turned into a fortress. ------------------ Blessed be the Lord my strength who teaches my hands to war and my fingers to fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dittohead Posted September 29, 2000 Share Posted September 29, 2000 Yes I would like to see at least 3or4 types of bldgs if possible. If you read any battle it seems there were many very heavy well built bldgs/houses. Most of these houses were impervious to HE fire from all but the heaviest of guns. As suggested a while back by Lewis, I think, it would be nice to have fortified bldgs. In city fighting. Something that will have to be added in CM2 for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col Deadmarsh Posted September 29, 2000 Share Posted September 29, 2000 bump ------------------ Everything in moderation...except CM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruno Weiss Posted September 29, 2000 Share Posted September 29, 2000 Mine blew up when the wife left... ------------------ "Wer zuerst schiesst hat mehr von Leben" Moto-(3./JG11 "Graf") Bruno "Stachel" Weiss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KiwiJoe Posted September 29, 2000 Share Posted September 29, 2000 Yeah I cant say I'm happy with the current building model. It seems that THE worst place to have any infantry unit is in a house if the enemy has 1 75mm gun or better. If this was how urban fighting was in ww2 I think infantry would have fought on the streets and never entered a house when armour or artillery was around. Hell, you are safer sitting on a road than you are in a house if artillery is coming down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RudeLover Posted September 29, 2000 Share Posted September 29, 2000 BTS has said several times that improved modeling of buildings is high on the list for the next iteration of CM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T34Rules Posted September 29, 2000 Share Posted September 29, 2000 I like the rubble ideas. Needless to say, if CM2 addresses Stalingrad (for one), the importance of rubble will need to be key. It is interesting to think that the very skill of the Luftwaffe was responsible for creating the crucible of death for so many german soldiers at Stalingrad.......very ironic indeed!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col Deadmarsh Posted September 30, 2000 Share Posted September 30, 2000 I meant to say that I think building explosions should only take place 20-30% of the time...and of course only after a lot of hits. Imagine you are a platoon with orders to take a certain building and hold your position. You know there is armor and infantry in the vicinity and they know you're in the vicinity. Are you going to: A. Hide in the house and assign someone to watch the window. B. Hide behind the building and wait for the enemy to enter the building, sneak up to the back window, and blow your brains out? Please BTS, let's get this fixed...not for CM2 but for this game I spent $45 on. ------------------ Everything in moderation...except CM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted September 30, 2000 Share Posted September 30, 2000 Colonel_Deadmarsh wrote: > Please BTS, let's get this fixed...not for CM2 but for this game I spent $45 on. What has that got to do with it? You're suggesting that because you paid money for the game, BTS must continue working on it until you're happy? You paid for the groundbreaking, incredibly detailed, absorbing and generally wonderful game you already have. You'll get fancier buildings in CM2. David ------------------ They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lorak Posted September 30, 2000 Share Posted September 30, 2000 What exactly are you guys complaining about? The graphic for the house blowing up? If so it is just a graphic. In the beta the house just dissapered and the rubble tile showed up. Trust me this is a lot nicer. If you guys are complaining that houses collapse to easily... I'm not sure so I can't say for certain. I will say that when I went to Europe I did see some of the out lying village and farm houses. Didn't look like it would take a whole lot to bring them down truthfully. I think a lot of it comes from a feeling of security we place in buildings. Actualy it doesn't take a whole hell of a lot to really bring down a house or small building. Most of the houses in Europe are not brick ranches like we in the usa are used too. Lorak ------------------ "Do not wait to strike till the iron is hot; but make it hot by striking."--William Butler Yeats Cesspool Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASL Veteran Posted September 30, 2000 Share Posted September 30, 2000 Now I've seen everything ... a Cesspool website [This message has been edited by ASL Veteran (edited 09-29-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts