foxholes

billdan · Post by **billdan** » 2007-07-29 14:56

foxholes as a deployable assett don't seem possible, but could it be possible to have them just as part of the map.
they would give pretty good cover, but youd be screwed when a grenade lands right in your's
this would probably be best for ghost train/bi ming-style maps

and i'm still waiting for underground bunker+tunnel complexes

Tumppu4321 · Post by **Tumppu4321** » 2007-07-29 15:16

There are foxhole statics in the objects, so they seem to be on their way.

Expendable Grunt · Post by **Expendable Grunt** » 2007-07-29 19:58

Originally I was going to suggest an earth embankment, like the firebase without the sandbags/netting, so it was just a hole in the ground looking thing. Make it quicker to build than sandbags but easier to destroy?

Waaah_Wah · Post by **Waaah_Wah** » 2007-07-29 21:20

^^ You mean tretches(sp?)?

El_Vikingo · Post by **El_Vikingo** » 2007-07-29 21:22

It should be up to the mapper to provide cover.

Pantera · Post by **Pantera** » 2007-07-29 21:23

Waaah_Wah wrote:^^ You mean tretches(sp?)?

you mean a Trench?

Deer · Post by **Deer** » 2007-07-29 21:38

I have got some nice trenches coming in my map, as well as underground stuff. But i dont think i could use any foxholes in that same map. If you got some ideas for underground areas, pls tell

Ace42 · Post by **Ace42** » 2007-07-29 21:44

'[R-CON wrote:Deer']If you got some ideas for underground areas, pls tell

Sewers, sewers, sewers!

El_Vikingo · Post by **El_Vikingo** » 2007-07-29 21:46

Add reverb!

Deer · Post by **Deer** » 2007-07-30 00:24

Ace42 wrote:Sewers, sewers, sewers!

Hard to imagine some realistic sewers where you could walk ?

IAJTHOMAS · Post by **IAJTHOMAS** » 2007-07-30 00:27

As in the woods on Hills Of H? And a trench and a foxhole are different.

Expendable Grunt · Post by **Expendable Grunt** » 2007-07-30 03:10

Waaah_Wah wrote:^^ You mean tretches(sp?)?

No. Not even close.

Soulis6 · Post by **Soulis6** » 2007-07-30 03:57

Would be kinda cool on a map like Mestia, where one team is pretty much defending the whole time. Actually it would kind of fit with the whole 'outdated defenses/bunkers' theme that map has going. Something like this:

Ace42 · Post by **Ace42** » 2007-07-30 04:01

'[R-CON wrote:Deer']Hard to imagine some realistic sewers where you could walk ?

Urm, most sewers are accessible to people in old cities - there are teams of workers who regularly patrol London's sewer system to keep it maintained, for example (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... llution.g2), and the polish film "Kanal" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050585/) describes a real-life account of how Polish troops avoided the Germans, using the sewer system, after the Warsaw Uprising.

Deer · Post by **Deer** » 2007-07-30 11:43

I was looking for some non urban ideas. Something in military area

Greenie Beanie · Post by **Greenie Beanie** » 2007-07-30 12:24

deployable foxholes would be too lovely!!!

Warne · Post by **Warne** » 2007-07-30 13:56

Kind of a silly idea, given the idea of using cover in this game is off-set by dolphin-diving and subsequent rolling and extreme accuracy that usually leads to the guy in the flat opening winning against someone in superior cover.

BetterDeadThanRed · Post by **BetterDeadThanRed** » 2007-07-30 14:04

Greenie Beanie wrote:deployable foxholes would be too lovely!!!

Not possible AFAIK because the player cannot go below the ground so the foxhole would have to be a bump with a hole in the center to actually work, and that would look very ugly.

youm0nt · Post by **youm0nt** » 2007-07-30 14:23

Foxholes would be nice on Mestia if the mapper put them in, instead of being a commander asset.

Greenie Beanie · Post by **Greenie Beanie** » 2007-07-30 15:43

BetterDeadThanRed wrote:Not possible AFAIK because the player cannot go below the ground so the foxhole would have to be a bump with a hole in the center to actually work, and that would look very ugly.

If they made it a larger model and had smoother incline it could look like a smooth ridge rather than the current bump