No Building rubble
 

In the save game attached, buildings destroyed show the graphic of a destroyed building, but the terrain isn't shown as building rubble, it's recognised as: "Building - Hole" or just "hole" even though there was a building that got destroyed in the hex.

IIRC the buildings were destroyed by russian 122mm arty and rockets.

Nations concerned are France and Russia.
Date is Oct 2013.
French Delay/Russian Advance.
I manually changed map gen settings.
Check Hex 33.48 and the surrounding ones for example.

Re: No Building rubble
 

Wow I guess that's how a destroyed building is always depicted in WinSP all this time? Those with "rough + hole" are usually buildings which are completely demolished (like when you ram it with heavy vehicles, "collapsed"). Those with "stone building + hole" are destroyed buildings but they're not yet collapsed. As far as I know there's no "rubble" terrain in SP.

Destroyed buildings and collapsed buildings have their own graphic representation, but not so clear and distinctive. You may confuse the two, best way is to look at the red bar on top of screen to know whether they're collapsed or destroyed.

Re: No Building rubble
 

Ugh, there's actually a difference betweed destroyed and collapsed?
Btw, i must have ignored this for really long lol...

Re: No Building rubble
 

:confused:
I'm curious about the distinction as well.
Is a destroyed building still basically standing, but somehow uninhabitable?
A collapsed one has pancaked, but not to the point where you would consider it destroyed?
;)

Are their differences in movement costs or cover values?
????

I must say I haven't actually noticed the distinction either.

Re: No Building rubble
 

Yes, there's actually a difference. Might better lower your in-game text speed in the preferences screen and you'll see this message ***Structure Collapses*** on the bottom of the screen if you have a building smashed completely by heavy arty or bulldozed by heavy or engineer tanks.

Try playing scenario number 17 "South of Beirut", there's a couple of zionist bulldozers you can use to "collapse" some buildings.

I don't know exactly which one is better for cover, "collapsed" or "destroyed/damaged" buildings but I have a feeling that collapsed ones are less capable of offering covers due to their being completely smashed off already. There's still a good deal of movement cost required to traverse either type be it vehicle or infantry. But there's one difference: your tanks or any vehicles will not be immobilized if you go through collapsed buildings, unlike those damaged buildings.

"Damaged" buildings I think are those which have received some damage to their structure but still standing and hence the rubble coupled with the still standing structure create a maze perfect for cover. "Collapsed" ones are those completely smashed off to the ground and may incur casualties to any units experiencing the collapse inside.

AFAIK

Re: No Building rubble
 

If a building hex is destroyed the building symbol is removed, being replaced with damaged buildings symbol, and the terrain type is marked as rough + shell hole and terrain type "Building" is removed.

There is a "building collapsed" message if you e.g. drive a tank into such a hex and bring the building down, which may be the source of your confusion?. (Vehicles may stick if they enter a built up hex).

There is no such terrain type as "rubble". A collapsed building becomes rough (good protection - may cost more MP) + shell hole (+more good protection - but costs MP to traverse).

The game is doing what it has always done, i.e. no "bug".

Andy

Re: No Building rubble
 

So Mobhack, do collapsed buildings offer more cover and protection than those merely damaged? I mean, is "rough + hole" better than "stone building + hole" ?

Re: No Building rubble
 

I have no idea - the code is spaghetti, not table driven. I have absolutely no desire to hand navigate through several different incestuous functions for a man-day or so, just to figure out.

Probably though, rough + shell hole is the better of the 2. (We added the rough about 10 years back in the DOS days, IIRC it was only a shell hole in the original SSI code. Rough is a very good defence terrain, esp for stationary infantry/guns/teams and I vaguely recall doing that so that collapsed buildings were of some use defensively).

Also depends if you are a vehicle or infantry, against direct fire or indirect etc...

Andy

Re: No Building rubble
 

Rough terrain is certainly safer in the sense that there is no danger of it collapsing on you. Infantry units can get hurt quite badly if they are located on a collapsing building. Then again, any attack that can cause a building to collapse also means bad news for infantry.

I did a quick experiment with placing 12 infantry squads into wooden buildings and then using engineering tanks to collapse those buildings. In this case, units in the collapsing buildings took 0-4 casualties from the collapse, but did not suffer any suppression from it.

Re: No Building rubble
 

Oh, yes, my mistake, thanks for the clearance.