Okay, HiTech, but when I hit a building, in almost all cases they are simply replaced by the bomb crater (very nicely done craters, but craters just the same). Larger structures like factories ought to show degrees of damage based on the level of destruction; lightly damaged = a corner caved it, heavy damage a colapsed roof, destroyed = smoking crater
. Just some thoughts to provide more visual clues to the attacker.
Also, will we see dust clouds from moving ground vehicles? Perhaps make it speed dependent. A slow moving Panzer will kick up little to no dust, while an armored column moving full tild will have a hundred-foot high moving rooster tail in it's wake. Perhaps you could even tie it to the ground texture maping. For instance, if dark green ground represents forested areas, you'd have little to no dust from moving vehicles; while light tan would indicate dry or desert terrain, where a lot of dust would be kicked up.
This is not a trivial question in regards to the utility of ground vehicles. If they're too hard to spot from the air, they become too effective; if they're too easy to spot, then no one will use them. The kinds of variation I mention above will make people think harder about where and when to try to make an armored assualt. Terrain and terrain-effects are eye-candy to a pilot, but to ground-pounders, it defines the battle space. BTW, any screen shots of the 1.02 terrain available to keep us salivating?
------------------
Sabre, a.k.a. Rojo
(S-2, The Buccaneers)
