Delayed building collapse, damage

[[T]Terranova7]

In any case, I like the idea of fire and smoke being added for extra effect. Assuming the destructable objects have a certain health level like other vehicles and objects, the idea would be once the building reaches a certain health level it will catch fire. Once it's fully destroyed however the fire will disappear. This way a damaged building can become hazardous to any occupants inside, while a destroyed building simply lacks sufficient protection.

[Doc_Frank]

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.

No, I was not joking. I was not talking about the real life either. We're not counting lives in PR, we're counting frags as a matter of fact too. MrD had some reasoning on the other page, which was the origin of my idea.

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.

I had no extra animation in mind, that can really trash the game with lags. But what if you get some damage if you are in the vicinity when object 1 changes to 2 and when object 2 appears, another would do so too, fire on the rubbles, which would be exterminated after some time.

[WNxKenwayy]

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?

Yes, we would. In a force on force engagement we wouldn't waste bullets on a house. We'd call a quick fire mission as it'd be quicker and safer. As is we are bared from using most of our firepower options you'd see in a force on force (MLRS, Mortars, 155's). The problem is no one really knows, because there hasn't been a force on force engagement since WWII. The lethality of the US weapon systems pretty much makes it completely useless for a country to try and do that.

Also, especially today, the biggest reason we dominate so much is the ungodly support system we have setup, for the exact reasons you stated. Not to many military's can gear up, invade, beat, and sustain operations 1/2 around the world for years at a time and with almost no notice. The naval power to move supplies safely, network of air bases and supply dumps around the world and sea, etc.