tanks vs. trees in Fh2

[Komrad_B]

Has we know, trees, signs, benches and, worst of all, fences are all terrible and invincible barriers for vehicules in battlefield. A mighty 80 ton behemoth cannot even run over even the most pathetic little 2 foot tall tree, making tank driving a chore in some occasions (the classic "I was stuck on a tree" excuse for dying).

But to get straight to the point :

During my brief playing of Battlefield 2, I have noticed that some post signs can get run over by vehicules. I'm wondering if small to medium trees could be run over by some, or most tanks? IRL tanks usually didn't care much about even a small forest, and were often used to clear a path trough it. They would also rarely take the time to evade colliding with a small tree, and would usually pass straight trough it.

Visual support for argumentation :

http://www.chamtec.com/materials/kv1vi6.avi

As you see, the KV1 pwned the tree, wouldn't this be cool ingame?

Of course I have no idea if this idea is possible, or if it would make ALL vehicules be able to crush trees. The idea of a Kubelwagen cutting down a whole forest scares me, since only medium and heavy tanks should be able to bring trees down (it could also slow them down a little). I know implementing this in the desert wouldn't affect gameplay much, but I'd be so happy to crush some pesky palm trees with my mighty Matilda

[Dr.Fritz]

I would like to see that.
:lol:

[Admiral Donutz]

Possible? Yes
Wanted? Depends on how badly it would affect performance.

Mind you that their are limits and tank crews rather would go around objects rather then through them not to risk damaging the underiste or tracks. However it should be possible to drive over small objects but that would require all these objects to be "vehicles" (spawnable objects rather then static objects) which would have an extra toll on performance.

[Nishat]

Ya man...I dont know how you could go about doing that. You'd have to discriminate destroyable trees from others. Then youd have to code it so only the heavier tanks could run through them. But good idea though

[Suckyshot]

I wonder how much strain it would put on a server to have all those destroyable trees? The little stopsigns and whatnot don't seem to take much, so here's hoping we can do trees.

[Komrad_B]

Originally Posted by [21Pz]Graf

I wonder how much strain it would put on a server to have all those destroyable trees? The little stopsigns and whatnot don't seem to take much, so here's hoping we can do trees.

Thats exactly what I'm wondering about. If they don't cause much lag then I say go for it!

You'd have to discriminate destroyable trees from others.

The "discrimination" could be like in operation flashpoint. "Big" trees in forests would be undestructible, but trees that are disperced over the battlefield would be crushable.

[Karst]

Little things like fences and the like should definetly be destructible, but medium sized trees, maybe not, it saves performance and also: Videos of tanks running over trees were very common, for exactly the reason that it looks impressive, excellent propaganda. But actually it wasn't such a good idea, the tracks or the gun could be damaged. In fact, in the manual for the Tiger it says specifically that running over trees "may look good in the Wochenschau, but should specifically be avoided" because it might damage the tank.

[Frederf]

The "stopsign" runoverables are all 2D AFAIK. So using them for trees you'd have 2D trees. Plus gameplay wise if trees no longer slow down tanks, it makes that ellusive cover in BF all that harder to maintain.

[[130pz.]Kading]

i think the Devs should definately look into the lag factor on this instead of mearly assuming it will cause massive frame reeming.

[Pornska]

Those trees also serve as nice cover for air attacks, i'd rather have them to be safe from diving stuka's then seeing tanks taking down trees as lawnmowers.