Author Topic: Rivers & Capturable Bridges  (Read 10156 times)

Offline AKP

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1294
Rivers & Capturable Bridges
« on: June 29, 2009, 09:51:59 AM »
Along with the addition of Variable Weather and Terrain Effects (post located here: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,267754.0.html ), another feature which would add new tactical and strategic elements to the game would be capturable bridges, and rivers which allow landing craft and PT boat movement along them.  Seen a few posts on both topics, but again, I am adding more detail and elaborating.

First, lets talk about bridges.  Im not talking about bridges as we have them now... I am talking about fortified bridges, more along the lines of Arnhem Bridge (from the movie A Bridge Too Far) and other major bridges that were captured, held and defended during WW2.

These bridges would have gun batteries, barracks, ords, fuel, radar, a vehicle hangar, and a map room.  Town buildings on either side of the bridge would be a nice feature also.  Spent some time in Photoshop and this is an idea of what I am talking about.  Note that the amount of buildings and their locations would need to be worked out, but this is just an idea:



You will notice that I have TWO capture points here... One for each side of the bridge.  That is because you dont actually capture the bridge... you capture both sides of it.  If you only hold one side of the bridge, you dont really hold the bridge... because you cant use it without driving into occupied territory.  However, the bridge CAN be destroyed to prevent anyone from using it. 

Each "town" on either side of the bridge is an independent town.  It also gets a VH, Barracks, Ammo, Fuel, Radar, and Gun Batteries.  Alone... each side is smaller than a normal town, and smaller than a normal VH.  But together, they are somewhat bigger than a VH would be.

It would take discussion and testing to determine if you had to flatten the town buildings before you could take the map room, but I would suspect you would need to... otherwise, it may be too easy to take them.

The geography around the bridge towns would also vary with the map.  Some would have steep banks, some you might be able to land on with an LVT.

Also... once you take one side is when the real fight starts.  You have GVs rolling out to attack and defend at point bank range, gun batteries firing (although it may need to be set up so that the AI ack guns DONT fire at each other... only at enemy units.  Or they would just end up knocking each other out in a matter of seconds.) and players scrambling to take the other side before reinforcements arrive.

Now... as for the river aspect of it.  I realize we dont have traverse-able rivers in game yet.  These would need to be in place for the above setup to mean anything.  But... if (and when) they are implemented... LVT's and PT's would be able to move up and down them freely.  This would add yet another level to combat, allowing deep penetration into territory normally not accessible by GV's

Just think about a map where each side was separated by major rivers, and the tactics needed to gain ground on it.

Again... lets get some thoughts and comments going on this.


***G3-MF***

Offline waystin2

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10179
Re: Rivers & Capturable Bridges
« Reply #1 on: June 29, 2009, 09:57:28 AM »
Yes to both. :aok
CO for the Pigs On The Wing
& The nicest guy in Aces High!

Offline LLogann

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4947
      • Candidz.com
Re: Rivers & Capturable Bridges
« Reply #2 on: June 29, 2009, 10:00:41 AM »
Not a bad idea at all!
See Rule #4
Now I only pay because of my friends.

Offline AKP

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1294
Re: Rivers & Capturable Bridges
« Reply #3 on: June 29, 2009, 10:10:12 AM »
Just thought of an interesting, and somewhat realistic tactic (assuming each side of the bridge had barracks).  Player ups in an M3, and immediately lets his troops out.  They then "charge" the bridge in an attempt to overrun it and get to the map room on the other side.  Defending players would be trying to shoot them as they try to swarm across, just as it would be if doing so in real life!  Ohhhhh... the Horror!!!

So, an additional question has to be added:  Would these "mini bases" get barracks?  If they did, with them being so close to each other, the "infantry rush" would be used all the time.  If not, then you would have to bring enough troops with you to capture BOTH sides... or wait for reinforcements.  Personally, as much fun as the first option might be (for a little while), I think the second option (no barracks) would be best for the bridge towns.

***G3-MF***

Offline Kazaa

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8371
      • http://www.thefewsquadron.co.uk
Re: Rivers & Capturable Bridges
« Reply #4 on: June 29, 2009, 10:14:01 AM »
that's so cool. :aok



"If you learn from defeat, you haven't really lost."

Offline Denholm

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9667
      • No. 603 Squadron
Re: Rivers & Capturable Bridges
« Reply #5 on: June 29, 2009, 10:37:23 AM »
One of the best presented ideas I've seen in a while.

I say, "Yes" not only because I like the idea but because I've wanted more ground action for some time now. Rivers and bridges (especially bridges which can be captured) would go a long ways in establishing this.
Get your Daily Dose of Flame!
FlameThink.com
No. 603 Squadron... Visit us on the web, if you dare.

Drug addicts are always disappointed after eating Pot Pies.

Offline Rich46yo

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7358
Re: Rivers & Capturable Bridges
« Reply #6 on: June 29, 2009, 10:47:20 AM »
 :aok
"flying the aircraft of the Red Star"

Offline 4deck

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1520
      • (+) Precision
Re: Rivers & Capturable Bridges
« Reply #7 on: June 29, 2009, 10:58:52 AM »
Yeah, New target for the lanstuka. Just blow everything up.  :P
Forgot who said this while trying to take a base, but the quote goes like this. "I cant help you with ack, Im not in attack mode" This is with only 2 ack up in the town while troops were there, waiting. The rest of the town was down.

Offline AKP

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1294
Re: Rivers & Capturable Bridges
« Reply #8 on: June 29, 2009, 11:03:07 AM »
Rivers and bridges (especially bridges which can be captured) would go a long ways in establishing this.

Definitely... but in order for their true importance to be realized, terrain would also need to effect the speed of ground vehicles, which I also would like to see in game.  This makes roads... using them, and holding them... become important to the overall way the game is played.  

Patton didnt drive his tanks over 100 miles over open fields to relieve the 101st at Bastogne...  He used roads!  And he fought the whole way there.  30th Corps had to use the narrow roadway on its way to Eindhoven, Nijmegen, Son, and Arnhem because the ground off the roads was too soft for the tanks to move as rapidly as they needed to.  So they were stuck on the road, and again... had to fight their way to each town and bridge.

***G3-MF***

Offline AKP

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1294
Re: Rivers & Capturable Bridges
« Reply #9 on: June 29, 2009, 11:09:53 AM »
Yeah, New target for the lanstuka. Just blow everything up.  :P

While I dont agree at all with the way the Lancasters (and other heavy bombers... in formation mind you) are used in game in this manner, the concept you present here is actually valid. 

Yes... as with any base, bomb the tar out of it from the air.  Just in this case, you would be bombing 2 bases at the same time on the initial assault.  This would make actually taking the bridge in one attempt easier.  Just remember that once you take it, you now have TWO smashed bases to defend instead of one.  It would be very easy for the other side to come back in and retake one side.  But... a plausible tactic nonetheless. 

Brigadier General Gavin: "What's the best way to take a bridge?"
Maj. Julian Cook: "Both ends at once."
« Last Edit: June 29, 2009, 11:44:37 AM by AKP »

***G3-MF***

Offline DCCBOSS

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 509
Re: Rivers & Capturable Bridges
« Reply #10 on: June 29, 2009, 12:21:51 PM »
Very well put wish and logical I am for it  :x :aok :x
"Where ever you go, there you are".
C.O. of Rolling Thunder

Offline Sakai

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1041
Re: Rivers & Capturable Bridges
« Reply #11 on: June 29, 2009, 12:56:27 PM »
Neat idea. Strategic bridges that could be taken out works for me as well.  And dam busting, that could be cool.
"The P-40B does all the work for you . . ."

Offline Twizzty

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 900
Re: Rivers & Capturable Bridges
« Reply #12 on: June 29, 2009, 02:05:15 PM »
+1 for me

Meteor Interception of Luftwannabe Forces.
Current status of M.I.L.F: On standby - awaiting aircraft.
The Few

Offline SAS_KID

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1098
      • http://www.myspace.com/saskid
Re: Rivers & Capturable Bridges
« Reply #13 on: June 29, 2009, 04:16:49 PM »
Now I support this idea to the max. But maybe these should be actual bases that show up on the map. But say. There are two V bases 50 miles apart. Have their spawns come close to their side of the major river and vice versa? So you would have to takeover the entire bridge before you were able to do a GV assault on the other base?
Quote from: hitech on Today at 09:27:26 AM
What utter and compete BS, quite frankly I should kick you off this bbs for this post.

The real truth is you do not like the answer.

HiTech

Offline AKP

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1294
Re: Rivers & Capturable Bridges
« Reply #14 on: June 29, 2009, 04:45:05 PM »
Now I support this idea to the max. But maybe these should be actual bases that show up on the map. But say. There are two V bases 50 miles apart. Have their spawns come close to their side of the major river and vice versa? So you would have to takeover the entire bridge before you were able to do a GV assault on the other base?

We could have those too... The bridges I mentioned were those surrounded by towns, that were heavily fortified.  I would think the "bridge towns" or "bridge bases" would show up on the map, but as a new type of base.  Of course there were plenty of bridges that were in more rural areas, but for the most part, town sprung up around bridges because all the trade routes had to go over them.  What better place to put a town?  Likewise, it was for the same reason that they were fortified and defended.  Supply routes, and avenues of attack and defense.


***G3-MF***