Quote:
Originally Posted by RightDeve
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mobhack
A collapsed building becomes rough (good protection - may cost more MP) + shell hole (+more good protection - but costs MP to traverse).
Andy
|
So Mobhack, do collapsed buildings offer more cover and protection than those merely damaged? I mean, is "rough + hole" better than "stone building + hole" ? |
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