Suggestions/Ideas for Ruins in W2100!-Important!

[MetalWarrior95]

Here is few suggestions/ideas for ruins(buildings&cars)!!

Buildings(Ruins)
1. I think that building ruins should be stronger because it would be stupid that is easy to destroy buildings when they in future could survive alot of medium cannon & heavy cannon fire, its not fun when old ruins could get so easily destroyed!!
2. It would be nice to like ruined military buildings because i its stupid to not see old military base ruins and buildings dont look from future,they look almost the same...

Cars(Ruins)
1.Cars should be a bit stronger and better because at beggining just 25 bullets and ordinary destroyed,why not 35 or 50 bullets?
2. There should be more varieties of cars because its lame to see almost the same vehicles,why not wrecks of some tanks or planes?
3. It would be nice in CAM 2 that there is like roads filled with vehicles like in all real mayor cities,like left overs of past century!!

Thx for reading

[Roux Le Corps]

sorry to rain on your parade here, but the ruins would be weakened by not only the nuclear blasts, but years of neglect ond probably damage from scav fights...

and missing cars would explain how initial scavs built up and survived no?

[MetalWarrior95]

Well you got some point but:
1. Ruins are too weak and its not fun to black easily with small squad of heavy cannon wheeled vehicles in just one sec...
2. Ruins should have more parts, I dont think hard coding but like you place like an object but with many parts
3. That would add more looks of ruins and more fun for gameplay because old buildins wouldt gone in a sec...
4. There are alot of cars and other vehicles, If in rl for exsample Zagreb have almost 0.5mil cars,0,37destroyed,0,13 survived
Scavs would use only about 1k of vehicles max!!
5. Also in future at colapse buildings are stronger because its in future and far in future the more quality of buildings...
6. In the future there would be alot of cars so dont tell me that scavs would use all cars in just 15 years after colapse?!?

[Roux Le Corps]

well for the buildings, it may be in the future, but have you seen some docos? modern materials cant last 20 years without maintainance before they become unstable, and as for cars, touché good sir ^_^

[Berg]

Game feature structures are a topic just waiting for a modeler to actualy begin on them, that will see it happen.
True urban features need more variety as do all the map features.

Regards Berg

[MetalWarrior95]

well for the buildings, it may be in the future, but have you seen some docos? modern materials cant last 20 years without maintainance before they become unstable, and as for cars, touché good sir ^_^

Well in the future buildings would have Concrete with Titanium and buildings would be strong so even if buildings get in the radius of nukes from NASDA there would still be strong because even if they dint get maintaince they would still in good strenght.
Also its practicaly not correct that in future buildings would be so weak in 15 years without maintaince!
Because building in future will have better quality and it will have titanium reinforced wall so they would be practicaly a bit stronger then M1A2(In the strenght of armor/walls). It continue later,busy...cant figerout how to make models in Lastest Blender

[Corporal Punishment]

Architects could, even today, design buildings to stand hundreds of years without maintenance. But they don't. Construction and materials are optimized for a lifespan of 20 to 30 years and easy demolition. Why? Because it's cheaper and especially in city centers buildings become obsolete and will be replaced by others within this period anyway. And even if it was not for investors planning for limited lifespan, why should anybody armor a civil building to rival an Abrams? Do you have any idea about the costs for that? Cost is also the reason nobody except the military will ever use titanium-reinforced concrete. Steel does the job well enough for the desired purpose.

[MetalWarrior95]

Well in future buildings would be far stronger and for demolition, they would easily remove parts because they would in future make the buildings in parts because it would be faster because they would build walls for the future buildings after somebody wants to make an buildings...There will not be building "Brick by Brick" it would be like "Wall by Wall" because it would be faster to build and in future there will be more terrorism activities so the stronger the buildings are the less dead because of suicide bombers...

[Roux Le Corps]

"modular" construction or "wall by wall" is only more convenient.. the pre-productions costs are actually higher then brick by brick and the structures tend to be weaker... also regardless of what metals you use in a concrete wall... micro-fractures and rusting of the metal causes weakness of wall strength, so multistory buildings would easily fall under their own weight.

[KukY]

"modular" construction or "wall by wall" is only more convenient.. the pre-productions costs are actually higher then brick by brick and the structures tend to be weaker... also regardless of what metals you use in a concrete wall... micro-fractures and rusting of the metal causes weakness of wall strength, so multistory buildings would easily fall under their own weight.

Well, wall by wall construction actualy makes the building stronger.
When made of bricks, there are thousands of parts, and when it only has around 500 parts, it is stronger because there are less parts the building can be shattered in.
For example take legos: when building a tower: will it be stronger if it is made of long collumns, or of many regular 2x2 blocks?

[Roux Le Corps]

But the stress points or focused now, so weight fractures would be more of a problem, for one to two story structures this is no issue, but for city buildings it just isn't feasible

[MetalWarrior95]

There would be in a good use against earthquakes and posible modification of the buildings...
So that you dont need to destroy whole wall just to put something else or add another block of rooms or other things.

[Roux Le Corps]

earthquakes.... they shatter instead of swaying, but modifications or demolishing i hold no illusions, it would be much more cost effective and convenient

[Christheturtle]

Regardless of if it's set in the future and they have the ability to create stronger nuke-proof buildings, think about it they wouldn't. It would cost a hell of a lot to build every new house with 'titanium' and stuff, it just wouldn't happen. Building structures would be somewhat the exact same as they are now, just full of cool gizmo's I'd like to think.

Although I do agree with bringing in more vehicles (cars), there is already many artists working on bringing new units into the game. Berg is a very large contributor in that field, and is always producing new units. Don't worry with time I'm sure you'll find more cars available.

[MetalWarrior95]

Well i thought about feature cars,also in future titanium would be cheaper because 75 years in future there will be only buildings with Titanium and Titanium will be cheaper because they will discover newer metals and easier way to make titanium!