Tactics: The importance of terrain

[happycrow]

Without writing a wall of text, it should make a difference to the PCs and NPCs if they're in flat, sloping, grassy, gravelly, or waist-high terrain, more than simply cover. Concealment, movement, terrain-as-weapon (grab the guy and drown him, throw the guy into whatever obstruction is there granting cover and/or liquor), etc etc.

[Woolfe]

Terrain as a weapon is an interesting concept.

The idea of knocking someone off a high place, or into a vat of acid or something equally nasty, is quite interesting.

Add a "knockback" value to a weapon, then a "stability" value to whatever they are standing on.

[Hasenklein]

I basically agree on the concept.

I think, however, that there is a difference between a tactical combat game and a role playing game.

To me, the difference is that character development and consequently attributes, skills etc. should play a larger role in an RPG. And consequently, it's not exactly the environment itself that makes the difference, but rather the way characters can interact with the environment via skills etc. in order to generate an advantage over their enemies.

[Infinitron]

Regardless of terrain, "knocking back" is essential. It provides necessary variety to the combat.

And it is kind of immersion breaking when you can't knock somebody into a river or off a cliff because of an invisible wall...

[RoboRevolution]

People don't jump back from a shot, at most they just drop dead like a bag of bricks.

[CaptainPatch]

People don't jump back from a shot, at most they just drop dead like a bag of bricks.

Hmm. So the impact of a .50 caliber round would do nothing to knock the target back? Or being hit by a full auto burst from an AK-47? Just drops straight to the ground, huh?

[GodComplex]

People don't jump back from a shot, at most they just drop dead like a bag of bricks.

Hmm. So the impact of a .50 caliber round would do nothing to knock the target back? Or being hit by a full auto burst from an AK-47? Just drops straight to the ground, huh?

Typically when hit by a round from a necked cartridge the bullet will travel through a human target, so they don't get the full muzzle energy. They may fall backwards, but the kind of kinetic energy to push 200lbs of meat around isn't found in shoulder fired weapons, save for some anti-tank weapons. Now if you're hit with something like an 8 gauge to a high grade bullet proof vest a person may stumble backwards before they fall down to the ground in pain. Flying backwards from a gun shot is a Hollywood myth.

[Sub-Human]

Hmm. So the impact of a .50 caliber round would do nothing to knock the target back? Or being hit by a full auto burst from an AK-47? Just drops straight to the ground, huh?

I liked some of the FoT death animations - like a 360 spin after being hit by an SMG burst. The enemy doesn't fly backwards but he doesn't just drop dead either.

[tuluse]

People don't jump back from a shot, at most they just drop dead like a bag of bricks.

Hmm. So the impact of a .50 caliber round would do nothing to knock the target back? Or being hit by a full auto burst from an AK-47? Just drops straight to the ground, huh?

Newton's laws, it doesn't push the target any further than it pushes the person firing the gun.

[CaptainPatch]

People don't jump back from a shot, at most they just drop dead like a bag of bricks.

Hmm. So the impact of a .50 caliber round would do nothing to knock the target back? Or being hit by a full auto burst from an AK-47? Just drops straight to the ground, huh?

Newton's laws, it doesn't push the target any further than it pushes the person firing the gun.

Ever fire an elephant gun? Helluva kick. If the user doesn't set himself, he does go flying backwards. Unless the recipient has NOT braced himself, then it stands to reason he will get knocked back.

[Drool]

Wouldn't the force pushing the target back be rather distributed and reduced by the hole the bullet is tearing in the target? And the bullet fragmenting on impact?

And if the bullet isn't breaking up and tumbling, then doesn't that mean it's doing a through-and-through so not much energy is being transferred to the target anyway.

[suz]

Special cases like LAWs, anti-material rifles, elephant guns(just how many will there be seeded in game world?), mortars, IEDs and other explosives can be just that - special cases where knockback is applied, no need to add a value and effect for every 9mm pistol out there.

If the "knockback" effect is the result of a roll that hit critical I find it believable that it may just be that you were lucky to hit at that particular point of time where the target was off balance and trying to maintain balance after the hit made them stumble backwards and fall, even from a 9mm bullet.

[CaptainPatch]

Wouldn't the force pushing the target back be rather distributed and reduced by the hole the bullet is tearing in the target? And the bullet fragmenting on impact?

And if the bullet isn't breaking up and tumbling, then doesn't that mean it's doing a through-and-through so not much energy is being transferred to the target anyway.

Just the opposite, actually. Fragmentation and tumbling applies a broader hydrostatic shock impact. One of the main problems of the 9-mm is that it tends to "drill" through the target -- small hole in, small hole out. Rounds that mushroom affect a wider mass of flesh -- small hole in, big hole out. It's the difference between being hit by a rotating drill bit or a VERY fast moving baseball.

Back in Vietnam, I saw guys (on both sides) hit by rounds from a variety of weapons. On many occasions, if the round was a through-and-through, it may have taken a moment to even realize he had been hit. But just as often the victim was likely to be staggered, thrown off-balance, etc. And something like a .50 caliber, if it was an arm that was hit, it was like the limb just disappeared, causing the guy to twist back on that side. In the torso, you can bet that poor guy got knocked on his ass. (Not that he was likely to be in any condition to care any longer.)

[Drool]

Getting blown onto your ass is rather different than getting blown back. When people hear "blown back" they picture more extreme examples. Like in Last Man Standing, where .45 ACP rounds would blow a dude back a good 15 feet, and through doors.

Yes, somewhat obscure reference, but I really like that movie.

[Hiver]

I dont care for any of that.

What i want to see is basic advantage a position of high terrain would give.

If there is any cover implemented (as we generally discussed it) then high terrain position should negate cover benefits to some extent - and sometimes completely.

I want my rangers climbing derelict houses, mutated jungle overgrown skyscrapers, petrol station signs (as in the screenshot), big rocks and whatever else is there.
And to see NPCs and enemies do the same - to their advantage and my detriment.

Now, being on a high spot sometimes would provide a disadvantage too. In some specific spots you would be more visible and often much less protected or entirely missing any cover at all. While enemies could snipe at you from several sides at once. - this would depend on possible body stances a lot -

That should be taken into account too.

[Woolfe]

I dont care for any of that.

What i want to see is basic advantage a position of high terrain would give.

If there is any cover implemented (as we generally discussed it) then high terrain position should negate cover benefits to some extent - and sometimes completely.

I want my rangers climbing derelict houses, mutated jungle overgrown skyscrapers, petrol station signs (as in the screenshot), big rocks and whatever else is there.
And to see NPCs and enemies do the same - to their advantage and my detriment.

Now, being on a high spot sometimes would provide a disadvantage too. In some specific spots you would be more visible and often much less protected or entirely missing any cover at all. While enemies could snipe at you from several sides at once. - this would depend on possible body stances a lot -

That should be taken into account too.

Agreed.... its such an obvious aspect that I always assume it will exist, and then am disappointed when it doesn't.
It should be more than doable, hell if Xcom could do it way back when...

[clippedwolf]

Hmm. So the impact of a .50 caliber round would do nothing to knock the target back? Or being hit by a full auto burst from an AK-47? Just drops straight to the ground, huh?

To answer your first question: no. The body explodes out, not back.

[CaptainPatch]

Hmm. So the impact of a .50 caliber round would do nothing to knock the target back? Or being hit by a full auto burst from an AK-47? Just drops straight to the ground, huh?

To answer your first question: no. The body explodes out, not back.

So, chunks of meat from the body get ripped out and go flying, but what remains of the carcass drops straight down to the ground? Interesting Physics.

[clippedwolf]

So, chunks of meat from the body get ripped out and go flying, but what remains of the carcass drops straight down to the ground? Interesting Physics.

Pretty much.

[GodComplex]

Hmm. So the impact of a .50 caliber round would do nothing to knock the target back? Or being hit by a full auto burst from an AK-47? Just drops straight to the ground, huh?

To answer your first question: no. The body explodes out, not back.

So, chunks of meat from the body get ripped out and go flying, but what remains of the carcass drops straight down to the ground? Interesting Physics.

Bullets go through people. They don't absorb all the kinetic energy. Ask a hunter, animals drop dead when hit in the right spot, they don't go flying backwards. Course, gophers explode, so there is that. But the only thing i know first hand is that a watermelon will disintegrate from a .303.

Edit: Deer vs .50bmg. Starts at 00.55.