Increased building durability

[Baron von Beer 0]

This is all the more important in OA IMO, with the enterable structures. Increase the durability. :) As is, a few SABOT rounds can collapse just about anything. Ditto on many of the fortifications, eg: the earthen artillery berm/dugout.

I've been using these as tank positions (best match since we obviously can't have dugouts). However, a couple of AP rounds and the massive amount of earth vanishes.

As is, a moderate fight can leave an entire town totally leveled. The buildings being broken open, fine, but for the actual collapsing of structures should require a lot more firepower to achieve.

[nettrucker 142]

I've been using these as tank positions (best match since we obviously can't have dugouts). However, a couple of AP rounds and the massive amount of earth vanishes.

Mondkalb created on his new Jungle/Vietnam Island dugout trenches so it is possible.

for the rest I agree with you . . . buildings are very easily to be leveled.

kind regards

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Yeah, would be great. Perhaps exponential damage. First part - relatively easy, second part - much harder, third part - incredibly hard - until leveling building - near impossible. But at the same time I would expect clay houses of Takistan and shelters/huts (?) to endure a lot less than a modern office building of Chernarus.

Means you may still be able to level a building with bombs or precision guided artillery, but conventional HE artillery (which is more splash based) will have less effect. This and a tanks HE may damage and "open up" the building, but would take forever to level it.

Now, if we could actually make the damned AI take shelter instead of just standing there like dumb sheep, it would start to make sense having "bigger and badder" equipment (which I complain about in other threads).

[Evil_Echo 11]

I've seen buildings in Iraq brought down with canister rounds - at close range. So enough energy is there, just a matter of effecient transfer to the building structure.

Certainly some structures are more resiliant. Rebar and earthen berms would be tough, many steel framed buildings as well. Your typical cinder block home or adobe hut would not be a challenge however.

[Gunter Severloh 3952]

Wouldn't a Sabot rd pierce and blast through a house and really not create any structural damage

unlike an HE rd?, or does it depend on what the structure is made out of,

I mean a sabot rd is what a real big bullet no?

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Yeah, a big bullet :p Nahh, it's the sabot that causes this damage, not the penetrator :D Well, at least I suspect it could break windows and stuff (iirc they are pretty dangerous to people). Someone a while back wanted "shoot through buildings" as a valid sabot anti tank tactic. I think it is a bit too much :p

Don't know about the penetrator going through a house. Wouldn't there be a tremendous amount of underpressure following its wake?

Canister rounds isn't available in (vanilla) A2OA. I thought it was mostly used for anti personnel purposes. Are you sure it wasn't one of them clay houses? :) Could also have been a lucky (or, unlucky) shot. If I wanted to bring the house down, it wouldn't be my round of choice. Then again, I'm not a tanker.

Edited October 25, 2010 by CarlGustaffa

[Evil_Echo 11]

Long rods are the least effective vs buildings - they just punch a hole in one side and out the other. Normally any windows would eliminate significant overpressure effects caused by the rod. The sabot itself bleeds speed off very quickly, more a hazard to ground forces nearby ( which is why you mound dirt on the rear of a trench ).

Canister has a couple of uses besides anti-personal. At short range it makes a good anti-structure round since it's like a huge fist impacting a broad area.

Riy4EaoR76U

And to show canister being used in Iraq against a building ( skip to 3:14 )...

6Jl8FvQ6QII

At longer range - HE or better yet HESH is the way to go.

But against a modern steel and concrete stucture, it would take a lot of rounds to bring one down. The insides might be trashed quickly, but the frame can take a lot of damage.

[Gunter Severloh 3952]

Canister shell is like a shotgun shell right, what is it loaded with?

[Baron von Beer 0]

Mondkalb created on his new Jungle/Vietnam Island dugout trenches so it is possible.

for the rest I agree with you . . . buildings are very easily to be leveled.

kind regards

It's sort of possible from the map makers perspective (still has issues). Mission makers are still outta luck though. Even if a map comes with a strong point at position X, if your mission requires one at position Y, tough luck. ;)

Edited October 26, 2010 by Baron von Beer

[max power 21]

Canister shell is like a shotgun shell right, what is it loaded with?

Tungsten balls or flechettes.

[Evil_Echo 11]

Tungsten balls or cubes.

Flechettes are a totally different kind of ammo - beehive rounds. Mostly obsolete due to newer techniques like Killer Junior and Killer Senior.

[max power 21]

Tungsten balls or cubes.

Flechettes are a totally different kind of ammo - beehive rounds. Mostly obsolete due to newer techniques like Killer Junior and Killer Senior.

Well there you go :)

[Evil_Echo 11]

Yep.

Canister still around due to alternate uses, besides ringing doorbells it's a good vs helicopters. Flechettes were a one-trick pony.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Rofl, ringing doorbells :D

[Gunter Severloh 3952]

To get back to Building Durability.

I think I'd like to see a more general detail of building destruction, like if you shot at a building

depending on the rd you use, like say inf weapons it would leave either bullet holes, or big gashes,

or small blowouts, if it were rockets, tank rds, and anything else it would have its own type of response.

I think if buildings were setup in general to have a template type of response, meaning that lets say you

have 3 types of buildings in the game, and each building is made of different materials, wood, concrete, straw:D you get the idea.

If BIS can script or code, or design lets say on a building to have it where its destruction specific, and ...... where

gravity plays a role in the buildings part which decides whether the building would collaspe under its own weight,

or maybe an external force.

So you blow a hole in a building with a tank rd lets say and part of the support of the building is compromised to

a certain degree, so part of it would collapse under its own weight if it came to it, so your looking at buildings with

a rag doll physics if you will, I'm sure thats not what it would be or could be but it would give you the idea that a

building is more like it would be in real life, more fragile. Shoot at a building and depending on the rd it would leave a

mark, or hold and or damage specific to the type of rd, and the type of material the building is made out of.

Wood siding, brick, concrete. Once you have one building as a template, then you could really mimic the same thing.

Couple this on an island with some under ground or indorr environments like i mentioned in the other thread I posted

and you'd have some destructive environemnts.

The you have destructible terrain added to the scenerio and thats another story.

Of course there is the factor of performance, what is involved in the building of such a degree and detail of destructiveness,

and time to take to build it, and really what impact would it have ingame with vehicles, units and such?

Take one or few types of buildings and then test then repeat.

If this were even implemented, I think i'd be spending most of my time blowing up the buildings and watch them

respond to my rds then i would be killing enemy factions.

your guys thoughts.

[Evil_Echo 11]

+1 Günter Severloh.

[DaveP 66]

intriguing but sounds too big an update for a single DLC, and since it's unlikely a sequel is going to be made in the near future it's unfortunately likely to be left on the drawing board