Destroyable bunkers -1 reply

Please wait...

Von Mudra

Lo, I am Mudra, za emo soldat!

50 XP

25th September 2004

0 Uploads

7,064 Posts

0 Threads

#21 13 years ago

Has anyone here yet questioned the idea that an anti-tank rifle firing a large bullet blows up a bunker.... It might kill the people inside, but its not going to blow anyone up.




Smith_

Stirrer of shit...

50 XP

16th April 2006

0 Uploads

302 Posts

0 Threads

#22 13 years ago

I wouldnt expect all sniper rounds to take out sandbags...I just like the idea of destructable doors..and possibly building facings. Blasting a hole into a house on Goodwood would be sweet.




D-Fens

uwe bolltastic!

50 XP

2nd May 2003

0 Uploads

4,837 Posts

0 Threads

#23 13 years ago
'[FCFox;3336655']I was wondering if destroyable bunkers or more specifically MG nests would be a good idea or unecessary? I was thinking what role the AT rifles would play seeing how for the most part they were ineffective against armor. AT rifles were relegated to Anti-material roles fairly quickly with the new armor taking the fields. So in addition to killing the trucks and light armor why not give them more usage by making MG nests destroyable? (as its one of the roles they took on during the war) Now I'm not saying nerf the sandbags so tanks can pwn! Maybe just the section where stationary MGs are mounted on sandbag walls and such? It doesn't have to be very wide maybe the size of a footpath through it once you blow it up. And if the Devs want to go so far as to make it respawnable it's okay with me... not that my approval mattered anyways.:rolleyes: Summary: make stationary MGs and a piece of wall infront of them one unit that can be destroyed by AT Rifles or anything else practical.:)

Excellent idea. This something I too have been thinking of.




Strumtrupp

FH:STURMTRUPP4|BF2:HG_The Tank

50 XP

2nd January 2005

0 Uploads

679 Posts

0 Threads

#24 13 years ago

I have suggested the same thing before (but with more added to the bunkers) as I think it would add a lot of tactical elements to the game.

f.i. if an enemy building is linked to their spawn you could destroy the building and stop the enemy from spawning.

I would also add destructable parts to certain stuff. Like say the bunkers on omaha had destructable command rooms. This in addition to being able to destroy most of the building could add a two-teer system where you could a) only destroy the command room and hostiles could no longer spawn their but the bunker could still be used b) destroy the bunker (would look like a gutted bunker) though the enemy could still spawn there c) destroy both

What I like about the destructable objects linked to other stuff, is that they never return. This will make them very valuable to hold and it would become much more tactical and realistic.

Random thoughs: Think fall weiss: german tanks have zero chance against the bunkers and the cannons, but they must move around them to take the flags. A cargo plane with paras can fly over the fortifications, dropping paras who then use their charges to blow up the bunkers and cannons.

The french must defend the fortifications so they can hold off the enemy tanks. If the enemy tanks reach the flag (say it is a command post) they can swoop behind the enemy lines and destroy the base which is hooked to the spawn.

The germans win by destroying the base. The allies win by defending the base.




[FC]Fox

Slightly cooler than a n00b

50 XP

2nd November 2006

0 Uploads

38 Posts

0 Threads

#25 13 years ago
Von Mudra;3342216Has anyone here yet questioned the idea that an anti-tank rifle firing a large bullet blows up a bunker.... It might kill the people inside, but its not going to blow anyone up.[/quote] I don't believe anyone has even suggested the idea. I only wanted to kill MG nests with AT rifles. The thread then moved back to destructable enivronment. [quote='[FC]Fox;3336780']The small section of sandbag where the MG mounts was the idea I got for having a target large enough to hit at distance and was capable of being universally placed anywhere in a map. Meh, just a thought.

While I like the idea of fully destructable environments I believe this game engine and current computer specs. makes any attempt at this scale almost a gimick. I believe time would be better spent at this stage of Mod development on getting the simple things like player models complete.




Niebler

[130.Pz]A.Niebler

50 XP

2nd August 2006

0 Uploads

1,114 Posts

0 Threads

#26 13 years ago

How laggy would it be if every building (just code it into every building, so each one you place has the same capabilities) had a part you could shoot and destroy a section of? (Like a wall or two, just leaving a gaping whole, using the Omaha bunker door as a template), but also so it doesn't look glitched (shakey/darker/able to see between the not yet destroyed wall and the real building). Siege had it on some maps where you could blow the walls, but they were discolored and very noticeable




Bourkey

=2AIF= Bourkey

50 XP

24th July 2006

0 Uploads

442 Posts

0 Threads

#27 13 years ago

I have no real place to answer this, but I'd put it somewhere between "Very laggy" and "Unplayable"




Monkeysuit

I don't spend enough time here

50 XP

1st September 2005

0 Uploads

59 Posts

0 Threads

#28 13 years ago

Good idea fox.




Strumtrupp

FH:STURMTRUPP4|BF2:HG_The Tank

50 XP

2nd January 2005

0 Uploads

679 Posts

0 Threads

#29 13 years ago

Any mappers around that could try Nieblers idea?