What about this area? Will be improvments? Can we destroy buldings and other cover types?
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Yes. In all the wargame series you could destroy the terrain, burn the forests and create huge craters in the game. Now it seems they have worked more on that and made it look even better!
You could "destroy" buildings in Wargame but it was just cosmetic. One of the screenshots seems to show that you occupy individual buildings this time instead of arbitrary city blocks. So hopefully the destruction is meaningful now.
Yes, I saw the linked image this is why asked. I hope it will have tactical imact and is not only cosmetcs as in WG.
Just FYI this is a common misleadig sterotype. If you totally demolish a bulding to ground level with bombs or any kind of firepower you loose all cover.
What kind of cover is against sharpnels or LOS the pile of rubbish comparing to building in background? 0...
What kind of cover do you have against granades or mortars in a roofless building...?
A bombed out city with lots of partially damaged buildings does offer more cover than a clean city. But molnibalage is right, a completely demolished individual building is useless.
This is not true. As long a building has all of its main walls and stairs it block much better any LOS than roofless of parially wall lost building. If the enemy is higher simply shot you from above from many direction or simply throw a grande or mortart on to your head. In case all walls exist you are much more covered.
The better "cover" is represented by blocked movement for vehicles which could provide fire support. If a 3 meter tall pile block the road for ex. an IS-2 cannot move into firing position and comes the meatgrinder for infantry...
Last edited:
Seems like you just want to be able to eliminate the geography of a map so that poor baby can handle it.
I said "city" for a reason. It's not that a single damaged building offers better cover than a single completely intact building. It's the debris blocking streets, stopping vehicles and giving infantry cover to move across the street more safely.
I'd imagine the irregular cityscape would also help infantry and tanks to blend into the background, as opposed to an intact street - the brain would be able to process intatct houses more easily and distinguish a tanks shape quickly, whereas with mounds of bricks and debris everywhere there's less recognisable shapes to catch the eye.
Rubble tended to make great cover during ww2 from what I have read.
Monte Cassino and Caen iirc are good examples of this.
Monte Cassino and Caen iirc are good examples of this.
During Stalingrad battle, ruins were a huge factor. It slows down movement, making the battle like a trench warfare.
That looks post apocalyptic.
I wonder how the infantry and men who fought through this destruction felt seeing so much stuff destroyed. They must have thought they were destroying the world.
I wonder how the infantry and men who fought through this destruction felt seeing so much stuff destroyed. They must have thought they were destroying the world.
I thought it wasnt that rubble = good cover, but that rubble = slows people whom are attacking down to a crawl and basically makes any form of vehicle an exceptionally easy target to eliminate?
I think the general rule of thumb is that if you destroy something sufficiently to kill those who are using the cover, you still got long way to go before the cover becomes unusable.
Keep in mind with the 'Monte Cassino' and 'Stalingrad' examples that these areas that were used repeatedly regardless of how well the structures were holding up were held because they offered the best sight line or firing position or offered some other important tactical position.
It's really less to do with rubble or free standing and more to do with how important the actual spot is. Taliban did the same thing all the time because a specific spot had a good firing position against a patrol base. Bomb the building, fine they'll just use the rubble later. Bomb the rubble, they'll just stand on top of more rubble, or behind it, or to the side, just as long as they can see and shoot.
The reason why Monte Cassino is used so much to argue against bombing the crap out of something is because the Germans weren't up there when we thought they were before we bombed it. Once we bombed it and the church vacated its personnel, well, why wouldn't the Germans want to use such a great position to look down on the allied lines?
Stalingrad was fought for tooth and nail regardless of how the city stood. The same way Grozny was. The same way Hue was. The same way Aleppo was. The same way Fallujah was. They were important cities, so both sides were going to fight there regardless.
It's really less to do with rubble or free standing and more to do with how important the actual spot is. Taliban did the same thing all the time because a specific spot had a good firing position against a patrol base. Bomb the building, fine they'll just use the rubble later. Bomb the rubble, they'll just stand on top of more rubble, or behind it, or to the side, just as long as they can see and shoot.
The reason why Monte Cassino is used so much to argue against bombing the crap out of something is because the Germans weren't up there when we thought they were before we bombed it. Once we bombed it and the church vacated its personnel, well, why wouldn't the Germans want to use such a great position to look down on the allied lines?
Stalingrad was fought for tooth and nail regardless of how the city stood. The same way Grozny was. The same way Hue was. The same way Aleppo was. The same way Fallujah was. They were important cities, so both sides were going to fight there regardless.
1. This is not the state of a the destroyed buildings as shown ingame 2. That is very much cover. It may be somewhat dangerous cover because it will have bits of metal and sharp corners poking out, but it'd certainly do in a pinch to take cover behind the rubble and fire out. Certainly better than nothing.Just FYI this is a common misleadig sterotype. If you totally demolish a bulding to ground level with bombs or any kind of firepower you loose all cover.
What kind of cover is against sharpnels or LOS the pile of rubbish comparing to building in background? 0...
What kind of cover do you have against granades or mortars in a roofless building...?
Just FYI this is a common misleadig sterotype. If you totally demolish a bulding to ground level with bombs or any kind of firepower you loose all cover.
What kind of cover is against sharpnels or LOS the pile of rubbish comparing to building in background? 0...
What kind of cover do you have against granades or mortars in a roofless building...?
1. The amount of explosives to turn a building, especially in industrialized countries, into something like shown in your picture is so massive that it makes in most cases no sense.
2. Even if you are able to do so, if you're unable to take that area immediately, you just granted the enemy a perfect terrain and even the necessary material to build camouflaged positions with a high degree of protection. Thank you.
3. Mortars and Grenades work through mostly splinters... vertical cover offers often times enough protection against them.
4. Moving over rubble is dangerous and slow, through streets and clean buildings an everyday business.
5. Having a lot of windows to cover us better than not even knowing where to look at all because of a completely disorganized environment.
In short: As long as you don't vaporize a complete city... Ruins are your worst option.