Building sites not deformed by explosions

[zslayern]

This creates virtually impenetrable buildings such as 3067502 MilHill2, in which the hull is hidden under a building site. Nitrate Explosives and I assume other remote explosives do not penetrate through building sites as well.

[Vectorus]

Building sites getting cratered is a good solution for damaging buried buildings. I'd support it strongly.

Bunkers should be possible, and they should be harder to kill than ordinary buildings. That's why bunkers exist, after all. Making them slightly harder to construct and maintain would not be unreasonable, though.

Right now, there is never a reason to use anything but energy weapons. They need much less logistical support, have superior range and accuracy and take less capacitor/power plant space to fire than the equivalent hold space needed for other weapons. 

Requiring people to use AoE weapons to dig down to bunkers, effectively making bombs and rockets into bunker-buster specialists, would be a worthwhile dynamic, and lead to slightly more variety in ship loadouts, beyond BEAM SPAM.

[Deantwo]

That's why bunkers exist

Assuming bunkers exist in Hazeron.

Hiding your building under terrain is more of an exploit than a feature. And if building sites are affected by craters, then we will have weird floating buildings after a bomb goes off.

It would be easier to just make all major damage and explosions that hit a building's site also damage the building.

[Vectorus]

Hiding your building under terrain is more of an exploit than a feature.

Why, though? 

Bunkers do exist - you can build one right now. We should try to fix their illogical behaviour, before effectively eliminating them.

Allowing site damage to hit a building would unfairly increase a building's hitbox beyond what should be possible. It would really mean introducing a new exploit to correct an old one, which produces imbalance rather than equilibrium. The fact that projectiles have to actually hit your hull is an important part of Hazeron gameplay and is consistent across all combat types. I don't think we should introduce an exception to the rules here, when more fitting solutions are available. Shooting a field should not make a farm blow up (it would also make using your weapons anywhere inside your own city even more hazardous.)


Massive enough damage, even using beams, to the site directly above where hull is located might do reduced damage to buildings through the seismic shock - I would support that. Hitting the site any-old-where is just silly, not to mention lazy.

We have an opportunity to let non-lasers shine, here, and to make city combat more involved than just hitting the fire button until everything is dead. You'd have to actually look at the thing you're trying to kill and formulate an intelligent solution, and sometimes use something other than lasers ad nauseam. We also have a chance to give craters a gameplay purpose beyond looking cool. This would kill several birds with one stone.


You could easily prevent accidentally floating buildings by not permitting the terrain to be modified by craters below the hull's lowest extent, after the building has been built.

[Haxus]

Overlapping buildings, roads and bomb craters were improved so the last one to be created gets precedence.

Nothing was done to prevent buildings or parts of buildings from floating in space as a result. They become quite vulnerable to further bombing.

Paved roads are reduced to dirt roads when bombed. This avoids the complexity of modeling road pavement with bomb craters cut out. If you repave a road that was bombed, it becomes newer than the craters and its grading is restored.