Delayed building collapse, damage

[Doc_Frank]

I was wondering about building ruins, and realised they are usually too static for an obstacle that was shot with a rocket or a similar weapon with considerable damage.

My idea is that given a random time (depending on weapon and the point of the structure), the building should collpase seconds (or minutes) later of the explosion. An expendable rocket launcher - which is more commonly used by troops than an AV launcher - should first blow a hole into a wall, then after some time another part of it would collapse, while an AT launcher's damage would have less delayed effect, but it still would be able to blow a hole. And so it varies with the different weapons.

The other suggestion is that the building collapse should cause severe damage (like fire) and if somebody would run and jump around ruins could have some nasty surprises. I think this feature would add some realistic drama for the game: when you're fortified with your squad in a building or bunker and it gets a hit, you'd try to evacuate before the ceiling lands on your shoulders.

[zardez]

THAT is a farking awesome idea

[IronTaxi]

good idea not sure bf2 is able...we have pretty much pushed the limits as it is for statics..

[Doc_Frank]

I still try to push the possibilities of an auto-collapsing building too. ... It possibly can scare the cr*p out of a jumpy grunt - apart from being realistic.

[WNxKenwayy]

Any explosion large enough to cause the collapse of a building is large enough to cause it instantly. A LAT is not near enough to bring a house down, in fact the actual penetration hole is quite small. But because you can't blow holes in buildings dynamically, we have to use what we can. The collapsing building idea is pretty unrealistic but the fires and such afterword's has some merit. But usually after a minute or two any fires will be 'out' in that you can occupy the rubble without worry of getting burnt.

[MrD]

The worst thing in a building fire is the furniture and briefly the roof. Brick/mud/breeze blocks all aren't going to be a major issue.

If fires are to be a part of blown buildings then this could be represented by medium to long period burning furniture and roof debris.

[Sgt_Canadian_Floss]

I LOVE the idea.
Also, if you evr play companie of heroes, it would be amazing if we had the same ingame physics.

[Simmage]

It's a great idea. Although I'm not too sure the BF2 engine could easily handle it.

[zardez]

i missed the part where the original post had stuff about this being mostly fire, i think the delay in a collapsing building is a great idea. I know this is a project reality mod guys and alot of you want it to be completly by the law of physics but it just isnt going to happen with this game, it is PROJECT reality not ACCTUAL reality, i think collapsing buildings although not be 100% accurate to the some of the laws of RL will still give the element of having to clear out of a building after it has been hit with explosives. also if a building did collaps on an unsuspecting victim would the kill go to whoever shot the building in the first place or would it just go as like they jumped of a building

[Liquid_Cow]

Drives me nuts that it takes a dozen rounds from a tank to destroy a 2 room house, and a sniper in the house can survive its destruction. An HE explosion in a small room should do serious damage to anyone within the room plus anyone near the point of impact on both sides of that wall. I wish we could truely level the buildings, but I understand that's part of the limits of the game.

[MrD]

Hmm, FIBUA training early 90's style dictated a different form of gameplay in virtual terms.

You had no chance telling a tank to blow a hole in a building to get one guy, as the shells cost too much. You didn't fire decent missiles and rockets at the enemy as you just gave them a 'brick headache' when the rocket hits the outer wall, punches through, hits the next inner wall, then detonates the missile charge, with the heat and explosive capability firing forwards from there.

Troops clear houses. That was why back then they said it would take the entire british army to clear a city like York properly. One city only. Fibua is a very complicated system of fighting and the cost of wasting all sorts of rockets, missiles and tank shells is not on the books for major fighting, only small scale. Rearming those expended ammunition costs time and effort, not merely the money. A tank, apc or troop out in the field can't expend everything on soft targets if they can't get resupplied effectively.

And at the end of the day, although PR requires more hardware to play than vBF2, fire becomes a problem that can exclude a number of players from the game when they start lagging as a result of introducing more of it, especially where statics are concerned. To balance this I assume that the number of statics and vehicles on a map would have to go disproportionally down to counter the change.

[arjan]

I totally support this idea!

[Doc_Frank]

Hmm, FIBUA training early 90's style dictated a different form of gameplay in virtual terms.

You had no chance telling a tank to blow a hole in a building to get one guy, as the shells cost too much. You didn't fire decent missiles and rockets at the enemy as you just gave them a 'brick headache' when the rocket hits the outer wall, punches through, hits the next inner wall, then detonates the missile charge, with the heat and explosive capability firing forwards from there.

Troops clear houses. That was why back then they said it would take the entire british army to clear a city like York properly. One city only. Fibua is a very complicated system of fighting and the cost of wasting all sorts of rockets, missiles and tank shells is not on the books for major fighting, only small scale. Rearming those expended ammunition costs time and effort, not merely the money. A tank, apc or troop out in the field can't expend everything on soft targets if they can't get resupplied effectively.

And at the end of the day, although PR requires more hardware to play than vBF2, fire becomes a problem that can exclude a number of players from the game when they start lagging as a result of introducing more of it, especially where statics are concerned. To balance this I assume that the number of statics and vehicles on a map would have to go disproportionally down to counter the change.

This gave me another idea: negative score for the ammunition used. -1 or 2for every mag used, some negative score for each grenade and minigrenade, and the same for tanks and APCs. I think about minor scores here, it would have more pshychological effect than actual, that might prevent some from idleing and annoying others with "dance you SoB" joke - even that scores have secondary role in this mod \o/ .

Otherwise, even a damaged vehicle starts to burn and it doesn't crash even my slightly cr*ppy PC. The molotov cocktails' spam brings the fiery hell to the surface and not much happens to the hardware. Why wouldn't a cozy housefire be possible (and the additional damage one suffer when the ceiling collapses on him)?

[WNxKenwayy]

This gave me another idea: negative score for the ammunition used. -1 or 2for every mag used, some negative score for each grenade and minigrenade, and the same for tanks and APCs. I think about minor scores here, it would have more pshychological effect than actual, that might prevent some from idleing and annoying others with "dance you SoB" joke - even that scores have secondary role in this mod \o/ .

Otherwise, even a damaged vehicle starts to burn and it doesn't crash even my slightly cr*ppy PC. The molotov cocktails' spam brings the fiery hell to the surface and not much happens to the hardware. Why wouldn't a cozy housefire be possible (and the additional damage one suffer when the ceiling collapses on him)?

Your joking right? In real life the amount of ammunition expended is well over 10x what you see in PR. If we know an enemy is in a building we will blast thousands of rounds into of varying sizes. We'd roll out with 300+ rounds of 5.56 and come back with just a mag or two from some missions. And that's battling an insurgency, force on force is even more ridiculous. Ammo is cheaper than lives.

[Liquid_Cow]

Your joking right? In real life the amount of ammunition expended is well over 10x what you see in PR.

I have to wonder how much of this is because you know you're never going to run into a superior force while on patrol. On a "real" battlefield where there was any chance of seeing enemy armor the tanks would never waste shots on buildings to avoid being caught low on ammo against a T-90.

Side question, are they even carrying SABOTs?

While I never got to see major combat, when I was in we were training to go toe to toe with the Soviets, and fire discipline was a major theme in training. In fact, that's where the 3 round burst on the A2's came from; since we'd be mostly fighting them on open ground/woodlands, single well aimed fire was the expected mode of firing. The argument was that we'd just waste ammo with full auto (no, I don't agree with it, that was just the argument).

We conducted the same counter sniper drills, you light up the sniper while a fire team advances on his position, but usually it was a single fire team (2 M-16's, a M203, and a SAW) doing the shooting. All other members of the squad would assume defensive positions and only fire as necessary.

So my question to you Kenwayy, if there was a realistic chance that you'd run into a combat force on par with yours, would you still expend ammo like that?

[MikeDude]

i love your idea too man!!

[Deer]

BF2 destroyable objects works so that when you shoot object, it disappears, but instantly 2nd object spawn to the same place. 1st object was unbroken object, 2nd object was broken version of same object.


Between those 2 objects, is no animations or anything like that, the switch is instant and there can be some smoke and sound effect. So at least i dont see how it could be made look like realistic when the house collapses unless it happens same time with the explosion(which destroys the object) as it does now.