Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: AKP 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:
(http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l273/woosle_2006/Bridge.jpg)
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.
-
Yes to both. :aok
-
Not a bad idea at all!
-
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.
-
that's so cool. :aok
-
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.
-
:aok
-
Yeah, New target for the lanstuka. Just blow everything up. :P
-
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.
-
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."
-
Very well put wish and logical I am for it :x :aok :x
-
Neat idea. Strategic bridges that could be taken out works for me as well. And dam busting, that could be cool.
-
+1 for me
-
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?
-
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.
-
Three words...
Operation Market Garden!
I like this idea!
+1 :aok
-
I believe I could build this for you in a custom terrain. Of course, we need head to head back to get some use out of it. As far as an official AH map, work by HTC needs done first. There is a problem with the rivers (always has been) and a bug where if you drive a PT under a bridge, it kills the PT's engines. Like I said, I can build this for you, but we need H2H back to use it.
-
I think its a great idea, well thought out and logically sound. The only thing id recommend modifying somehow would be mabey making the VH on each side be able to withstand more punishment then a normal VH. I say this because with only 1 VH on each side, a single plane could come over and drop it.
-
The only thing id recommend modifying somehow would be maybe making the VH on each side be able to withstand more punishment then a normal VH. I say this because with only 1 VH on each side, a single plane could come over and drop it.
See your point there. If we are making up new types of bases and new bridges, why not make a "hardened" VH. But if we are stuck with standard VH's... and lets assume we are, we could add a second VH to each side. But, if we add a second VH on each side, then while each side can better withstand an attack independently, if you look at the bridge area as a whole, you have 4 VH's in basically one area. Making it an "uber" Vehicle Base. It would have to be tested to see how easy or hard to ake it would be.
Also... here is how I thought the "Bridge Bases" would look on the area map.
(http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l273/woosle_2006/BridgeMap.jpg)
So each side of the bridge is essentially its own base. This also brings up the issue of how easy (or hard) they are to take for purposes of determining who has taken enough bases to win the war. 2 options here that I can see:
1) Make them as tough as a standard V Base as far as how hard they are to take.
OR
2) Dont count Bridge Bases in the total needed to win. They provide the means to GET to the bases you need... but they have no overall value in terms of victory totals.
-
i love the idea :aok maybe to keep planes from comming in and totally destroying the place (or atleast make it more difficult) maybe put 2 mannable 5 inch AA/AT guns on either side of the river.
-
A+ for presentation.
+1 :aok
-
I like it. Good idea :rock
-
Damn its what I have been dreaming of in AH, :pray
looks like I wont live long enough to see it or anything like it put in to play in AH......
-
Damn its what I have been dreaming of in AH, :pray
looks like I wont live long enough to see it or anything like it put in to play in AH......
Wow! Great idea! +1! :aok
-
This is one of the BEST idea I have come across in along time, :salute AKP..
This would surely bring more dynamic and WW11 realistic situation to the game :x
Lets make this happen guys..
We could split a country in two with something like this... :devil
I am IN IN In, I say.. :rock :pray
-
:aok We need more ideas like this.
Just my two cents, I would have a Vehicle Base behind the lines with spawns spaced around the bridge areas. If the vehicle hangars are just across the river from each other, it would be too easy to carpet bomb the entire thing and take both sides with no opposition. Make it a long trip for the buffs and keep it a good GV and CAS area.
Also, maybe a mini-supply area in driving distance from the towns with a GV only rearm pad/landing area?
Edit: Also, what's the prize for winning the bridge?
-
Also, what's the prize for winning the bridge?
You get a keg party at Hilda's Hoffbrau!!! That, and you get to use the bridge :D
-
I'd find it funny to watch auto-ack on one side play civil war with the other side :P
-
I'd find it funny to watch auto-ack on one side play civil war with the other side :P
Yea... it would have to be set up so the auto ack guns don't shoot at each other. And its good to hear you guys all like the idea. I hope we can get some "official" input on it :pray
-
You get a keg party at Hilda's Hoffbrau!!! That, and you get to use the bridge :D
Use the bridge for what?
-
Use the bridge for what?
Hehe... to drive your tanks across so you can get to the good stuff on the other side.
-
I believe I could build this for you in a custom terrain. Of course, we need head to head back to get some use out of it. As far as an official AH map, work by HTC needs done first. There is a problem with the rivers (always has been) and a bug where if you drive a PT under a bridge, it kills the PT's engines. Like I said, I can build this for you, but we need H2H back to use it.
:huh Hehe... just saw this. Yeah, I was playing around with the map editor last night, and most of this could be done. But, for the bridges to be realistic, we need to be able to go under them. We need HTC to fix that, and to do some official maps with these features on them.
-
First, these are two great ideas. :aok
My thoughts on:
I would have a Vehicle Base behind the lines with spawns spaced around the bridge areas. If the vehicle hangars are just across the river from each other, it would be too easy to carpet bomb the entire thing and take both sides with no opposition. Make it a long trip for the buffs and keep it a good GV and CAS area.
Do both. Give each side a Vehicle Base and/or troops at the Base Bridges, and add vehicle spawn points near the Bridge Bases from Vehicle Base(s) somewhere behind the Bridge Bases.
-
:aok
-
:rock GREAT IDEA!! I put this one up for teh best wish in awhile award. :aok
+1 :pray
-
yea this sounds aw-some..a tank battle trying to cross the bridge,or troops running to the other side.this could break up some airspace for those who like gv battles..wtg good thinking.
SKUZZY SOME GOOD THOUGHT WENT INTO THIS.SOMETHING TO ADD TO THE NEXT NEW PATCH O THE NEW UPGRADE.......
-
yea this sounds aw-some..a tank battle trying to cross the bridge,or troops running to the other side.this could break up some airspace for those who like gv battles..wtg good thinking.
SKUZZY SOME GOOD THOUGHT WENT INTO THIS.SOMETHING TO ADD TO THE NEXT NEW PATCH O THE NEW UPGRADE.......
Skuzzy has no authority over what goes into the building of maps, or at least that is what I remember.
-
this would be an excellent replacement for the paired VBases that occur on some maps...
:aok
Definately well thought out and full of interesting possibilities.
-
yea, only thing problem i see is how to handle the auto ack and maybe add another vh. but a great freaking idea
-
very nice.....VH as in??? like a vh on a field that you can up from?? or like a VH from a flak start??
either way.... :aok +1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
-
Id like to hear HTC staff's opinion on this. See what they see wrong with it/ how plausible the idea is.
-
Hitech pitched in on a capturable bridge idea about a month back. Let me see if I can dig up the post.
Edit: Here we go:
I have always liked the idea of choke points. But issues that must be considered.
1. It is not very easy to make choke points for airplanes.
2. If done simply with a bridge , then planes have far to much advantage if they can destroy the bridge.
3. In general when people say (Then they MUST defend it) and go on to say how much fun they would have destroying it, the idea is very bad for game play, because defense mostly requires sitting around waiting and doing nothing, hence not fun.
But choke points for the ground war can create a very enjoyable fight.
HiTech
Alright, so the thread wasn't asking for capturable bridges. However, it was asking for bridges in hopes it would generate, "choke-points."
-
A possiable perk for capturing bridges would also being able to spawn across the river to an enemy base. IE A1 on the left side of the river and A2 on the right...both have the ability to spawn GVs to eachothers field BUT HOWEVER only the side that has the bridge can spawn across the river. If each side has one side of the bridge neither can spawn to eachothers field. The spawn point to the bridge from both fields still exist either way.
Food for thought
Option #1: Another perk with capturing the bridge is having an additional vehicle spawn from the bridge to the nearest enemy airfield. So along with the A1 being able to spawn to A2 the bridge will also have an additional spawn. Thats 2 spawn points with two different VH's.
Option #2: If a country chooses to ignore the bridge captures and goes ahead and captures A2, A2 will NOT be able to recieve supply from HQ because the bridge cuts off supply because the enemy holds the bridge.
-
A possiable perk for capturing bridges would also being able to spawn across the river to an enemy base. IE A1 on the left side of the river and A2 on the right...both have the ability to spawn GVs to eachothers field BUT HOWEVER only the side that has the bridge can spawn across the river. If each side has one side of the bridge neither can spawn to eachothers field. The spawn point to the bridge from both fields still exist either way.
Food for thought
Option #1: Another perk with capturing the bridge is having an additional vehicle spawn from the bridge to the nearest enemy airfield. So along with the A1 being able to spawn to A2 the bridge will also have an additional spawn. Thats 2 spawn points with two different VH's.
Option #2: If a country chooses to ignore the bridge captures and goes ahead and captures A2, A2 will NOT be able to recieve supply from HQ because the bridge cuts off supply because the enemy holds the bridge.
:aok
-
Maybe for a preliminary try,have the AA factories,the training areas,the HQ,all have this set-up just before them,so that if someone captures a base which spawns into one of these targets,the side which got the base,will still have ONE more wall in which to get through to destroy these..
-
Nice one :rock :salute
-
A legit wish, i give you props for that.
Nicely thought out and laid down. :aok
-
great idea :aok :salute
-
Cool idea, maybe link this up with the threads asking for barrage balloons to protect the bridge from low level buffs or jabo raids.
-
Quite possibly the most well presented idea ever made on these boards. Its a truly ingenious idea not only for the main arena's but for special events.
It has the potential to make this game very tactical for those driving GV's and for bomber pilots. Probably the best idea out of all of them is the capture points on each side of the bridge. As a strategist, this kind of thing makes me get goosebumps.
This would enhance this game so much for me and for many other people. Strategy is coming to a new level in this game if this ever gets installed.
I would suggest PM'ing HiTech or Pyro this idea with the exact same presentation and link this thread to show the approval of this idea.
You have a +1 from me.
-
Bump
-
Quite possibly the most well presented idea ever made on these boards. Its a truly ingenious idea not only for the main arena's but for special events.
It has the potential to make this game very tactical for those driving GV's and for bomber pilots. Probably the best idea out of all of them is the capture points on each side of the bridge. As a strategist, this kind of thing makes me get goosebumps.
This would enhance this game so much for me and for many other people. Strategy is coming to a new level in this game if this ever gets installed.
I would suggest PM'ing HiTech or Pyro this idea with the exact same presentation and link this thread to show the approval of this idea.
You have a +1 from me.
Thanks to everyone for the votes of confidence. I just may send HTC something some of the additional ideas and suggestions you have all given on this. :aok
-
This is most likely the best idea Ive seen. :aok
The possibilities for the use of this in scenarios, snapshots, even FSO are endless.
Got a +1 from me. Good luck in presenting it to Hitech. :salute
-
Thanks to everyone for the votes of confidence. I just may send HTC something some of the additional ideas and suggestions you have all given on this. :aok
Yes I would definitely do that, I see no reason why that they would not look at this in a positive manner :x
-
Got to say I like this Idea. :aok
-
Roads that can be destroyed so you can stop the resuppiling of bases to stop the ack popping when you are vultching.
-
Great idea and let's hope they try this.
+1
-
Thanks to everyone for the votes of confidence. I just may send HTC something some of the additional ideas and suggestions you have all given on this. :aok
:x
-
+2
-
oh wow this isn't a bad idea at all i really like it, very well thought out and presented! :salute i hope hitech or some of the staff at least take a look at this
-
Here's hoping this gets implemented. +1
-
:aok
-
I absolutely f%$king love this idea! Its something that everyone (GV's, Buff's, Jabo's) can have some serious fun with. Definitely two thumbs up for this one. :aok :aok
-
+1
great idea
Its something that everyone (GV's, Buff's, Jabo's) can have some serious fun with.
-
I would love HTC get the rivers sorted for the next version of the terrain editor. I have hope as they are going to have to redo them anyway to match the rest of the new terrain.
I put some rivers into an earlier version of the MA terrain I'm working on, but had to delete them because of all the bugs. It had several spawn points where you had to cross the river over a bridge to reach the nearby base.
The only issue I can see about having two bases so close together would be someone spawning on one side and getting immediately pinged by the enemy AA across the river. The VH would need to be sheilded from the opposite bank by a small hill or something.
Assuming HTC do get the rivers working in the next version of the TE, it would be possible to implement this idea to a degree with existing objects, as the bridges are already in there. You could make a couple of V bases that would be captured by destroying a town rather than just killing the AA on the base. The towns would go either side of the river and the V bases a bit further back, so the AA could not reach the other base.
BTW, here's what rivers look like in the current version of AH:
(http://www.gfg06.dial.pipex.com/screenshots4/CraterMA_SC3.jpg)
-
this is one of the best ideas ive ever seen.....i see no reason why this shouldnt be presented to the AH staff, after all the worst they can do is say no :aok
-
+1 :rock :aok
-
Great idea, I read most of the posts but i might have missed this idea if someone already said it,sry im drunk, tomake these bridge bases important make it so you have to take it to use certain gv spawns to bases across the river. I this would please everyone, great furballs above the bridge, whirbels shooting from the town, bombers hitting important targets around the bridge(i think the bridge itself should be indestructable), and tank fights which would be like none other in the MA :salute
-
Yep, the bridge should be indestructible, otherwise it's bad for gameplay (ends the fight), and we don't want that.
-
btw USRanger i hate your avatar everytime i look at it i wanna take that tab out and put it on my shoulder :) :salute
-
Heres a thought as well on maps with bridges(if it ever happens). Make it a condition of victory to control a certain number of bridges.
This wish is awesome. This would add a different layer of gameplay that this game could use.
Great idea, I read most of the posts but i might have missed this idea if someone already said it,sry im drunk, tomake these bridge bases important make it so you have to take it to use certain gv spawns to bases across the river. I this would please everyone, great furballs above the bridge, whirbels shooting from the town, bombers hitting important targets around the bridge(i think the bridge itself should be indestructable), and tank fights which would be like none other in the MA :salute
I wouldnt make the bridges indestructable but have them on a really quick respawn. :salute
-
I'm a little late replying on this topic, but here it is;
Great wish! This must be the best wish I've seen since years.
And beautifull presentation aswell!
+1 on the wish
+1 on the presentation
+1 on the nicely photoshopped map
+3
This wish should be copied into anyone's signature :aok
-
Great idea. Particularly if used in combination with having the terrain effect ground movement speed as I suggested in a thread a couple of weeks ago.
this combination would provide a real reason for the bridges
One possible solution to the auto ack problem is to simply not have it.Instead, just have an over abundance regular manned ack. And use the auto puffy ack as that doesnt fire at anything below a certain alt anyway.
Another suggestion to the OP would be to move these manned ack positions next to the bridge back a bit and place buildings in front of them in such a manner that they could cover the bridge. Yet wouldnt be able to just sit there and blow away the other sides entire town and its counter part ack on the other side.
This could also be accomplished by leaving the ack as you placed it and just putting a sea wall up similar to what we currently have at the ports.
I'd also suggest making the town a little bit larger so that it cant be easily leveled in a single pass by a couple of bomber formations.
Orrrr
And this might not be a bad idea for towns in general.
Instead of having just square/rectangles of densely packed buildings. Start off with a densely packed core, Or more densely packed buildings near the bridge. and space the buildings farther apart the further away from the bridge/center of town so that to take down the town in its entirely. You cant just carpet bomb the place. Individual buildings have to be addressed.
More then one VH with spawns is a must I think. with at least 1 preferably a little outside the town with spawn points leading into it.
Other wise its just a matter of killing the ack and camping the VH until the town is down
I think we can resolve the PT issue of driving under the bridges simply by not having PT boat spawns in the bridge areas.
No reason to have them there anyway
-
(http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l273/woosle_2006/BridgeMap.jpg)
I think this is the crux of how bridges fit into a game play environment. They form part of a strategic road/logistic network. In the AH1 sense they are depots that can be captured or destroyed.
Who here remembers when we had depots?
On the Niemen terrain (jeez I’m old)the bridges were capturable and they were depots. They controlled (should strat be implemented) the supply of strat to fields.
Vehicle spawns never crossed bridges.
Even better if instead of spawn points we have spawn roads. The player just clicks on a point on a road coming from his field and that is where he spawns. These are also the logistic roads joining fields together.
-
I like this idea, we had a scenario about two years ago.
"Stalins fourth Front" this covered the battle between the ussr and findland
this was a gv war that had bridges the needed to be crossed and rivers that you used lnvt to get to cross if the bridge was destroyed. we had some real hard fought battles at these points, anyone remember this scenario.
-
I cast my vote for this one... Great idea!
-
I wonder if these bridges could somehow be used effectively in unison with the "capture order" HiTech tested out a couple years ago.
-
I like this so much I will Bump this again just in case HTC is not looking hard enough :aok :aok :x :aok :aok
-
I heard back from Pyro on this today. They are up to their eyes with the Beta right now, but has asked me to remind him about this once the beta is finished and the new version up and running so he can spend time looking into this. :aok
-
The idea does interest me, but making the bridge destroyable would be a bad idea.
HiTech
-
This may have been brought up already as i have not read every post in this thread.. :uhoh
But...
Depending on how wide the rivers are, as shown on the map in the first post there are manned guns on either siede right on the bank. If one side holds 1 side of the bride and another side the other, then anyone can get on, jump in the gun, lay waste to the opposite side and drive an M3 over. I lovee the idea dont get me wrong, but what i just stated would make it a little too easy to capture an opposing side where terrific fights could take place.
Again this might have been brought up already, and if so i am sorry.
Just my .02
:salute
-
The idea does interest me, but making the bridge destroyable would be a bad idea.
HiTech
I take this point re MA play but for scenario based terrains the ability to adjust hardness would bring benefit.
Hence if the Object hardness was adjusted to a significantly massive figure for the MA and at another setting for other use?????
-
The idea does interest me, but making the bridge destroyable would be a bad idea.
HiTech
I'm curious why (assuming they would regenerate). to me one of the real "missing links" is realistic "tactical" air. To me anything that puts the priority on an aerial component is a +. Long before I ever got hooked on any flight sim I think that a lot of my thought were shaped by "the Bridges at Toko-Ri". As much as I'm a died in the wool furballer that book/movie still sums up the realities and importance of aviation in greater context of a ground war. It opens up a lot of interaction, fighter cover, manned AA....maybe even "engineering units/bridging units etc...
-
It does complicate stuff if it has to be re buildable under strat or by field supplies.
As a simple terrain object (indestructable) its just an object straddling a river with two vehicle fields (with towns) on either side.
Spawn points set accordingly.
-
I'm curious why (assuming they would regenerate). to me one of the real "missing links" is realistic "tactical" air. To me anything that puts the priority on an aerial component is a +. Long before I ever got hooked on any flight sim I think that a lot of my thought were shaped by "the Bridges at Toko-Ri". As much as I'm a died in the wool furballer that book/movie still sums up the realities and importance of aviation in greater context of a ground war. It opens up a lot of interaction, fighter cover, manned AA....maybe even "engineering units/bridging units etc...
Remember back in AW where the only bases that were capturable were the pond bases? Each section was connected by a bridge that was destroyable, sometimes taking it out was the best way to stop the bases being rolled over by T-34s and flak panzies.
ack-ack
-
Remember back in AW where the only bases that were capturable were the pond bases? Each section was connected by a bridge that was destroyable, sometimes taking it out was the best way to stop the bases being rolled over by T-34s and flak panzies.
I remember those days. Would love to see that concept developed here in Aces High 2. Maybe for the vehicle bases???
-
The idea does interest me, but making the bridge destroyable would be a bad idea.
HiTech
I can see how having the bridge destroyable in the MA's could be an issue. You would end up with high level bombers running around porking bridges with ease. Hadnt really thought of that aspect of it.
Really, making them indestructible wouldnt take anything away form the tactical aspect of it... I was thinking more along the lines of something that can be captured and held.
But... for scenarios, I do like the idea of them being able to be blown up. Could they be set up like the airfield runways? Extremely difficult to take out, and very short downtime?
-
Look something like this? These bridges were pretty tough... The Ludendorf was shelled and bombed massively by both sides before it finally fell... Bridges, HELL YES!!! Destoyable, HELL YES!!!
Just give us a way to repair or build them!!!
Actually, it would be great to have rivers as borders between countries.. That way players would be forced
to fight for the crossings, before they could spawn farther into enemy territory...
(http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv226/RipChord929/DVC00413-1.jpg)
-
How bout if you have a 'town' object that spans a river with a bridge across it, you have multiple bridges. The 'main' bridge is indestructable, but perhaps two or 3 bridges that are fully destructable (and regen in about the same time frame as a hanger) Obviously a fair amount of damage would be needed to take down bridges... more than a hanger, but less than HQ (obviously).
-
This may have been brought up already as i have not read every post in this thread.. :uhoh
But...
Depending on how wide the rivers are, as shown on the map in the first post there are manned guns on either siede right on the bank. If one side holds 1 side of the bride and another side the other, then anyone can get on, jump in the gun, lay waste to the opposite side and drive an M3 over. I lovee the idea dont get me wrong, but what i just stated would make it a little too easy to capture an opposing side where terrific fights could take place.
Again this might have been brought up already, and if so i am sorry.
Just my .02
:salute
We had talked about making sure the auto guns dont shoot at each other, but it should be easy enough to make sure the manned guns are placed in such a way that they cannot hit any vital targets on the other side. Either with some indestructible buildings, or hillside. Good input RMrider :aok
-
We had talked about making sure the auto guns dont shoot at each other, but it should be easy enough to make sure the manned guns are placed in such a way that they cannot hit any vital targets on the other side. Either with some indestructible buildings, or hillside blocking their line of fire.
The intent of the guns would have been to defend the bridge, not hammer the town on the other side... so they would have been pointed down the road on their side of the bridge, not across the river. Putting objects that will block any effective fire against critical buildings should accomplish that.
Good input RMrider :aok
-
This idea kind of reminds me of that FSO in the battle of the buldge, now that was fun!
-
How bout if you have a 'town' object that spans a river with a bridge across it, you have multiple bridges. The 'main' bridge is indestructable, but perhaps two or 3 bridges that are fully destructable (and regen in about the same time frame as a hanger) Obviously a fair amount of damage would be needed to take down bridges... more than a hanger, but less than HQ (obviously).
That's a good idea!
-
Just put the manned ack *IN* a trench so they are forced to shoot above 5 degrees, dig a hole and have the ground just above level with the gun when its flat...problem solved
-
Just put the manned ack *IN* a trench so they are forced to shoot above 5 degrees, dig a hole and have the ground just above level with the gun when its flat...problem solved
Only problem with that is that then it would be no good for defending against GV's...
-
Only problem with that is that then it would be no good for defending against GV's...
ok how about having a hill bordering the river IE:
TOWN1 RIVER TOWN2
___ ___
_______/ \____/ \___________
The hills dont have to be high, just high enough to block the views of the guns
-
ok how about having a hill bordering the river IE:
TOWN1 RIVER TOWN2
___ ___
_______/ \____/ \___________
You forgot...
TOWN1 BRIDGE TOWN2
___/----\___
_______/ \____/ \___________
RIVER
:D But yea... that would work
-
ok how about having a hill bordering the river IE:
TOWN1 RIVER TOWN2
___ ___
_______/ \____/ \___________
The hills dont have to be high, just high enough to block the views of the guns
levees?
-
Just put the manned ack *IN* a trench so they are forced to shoot above 5 degrees, dig a hole and have the ground just above level with the gun when its flat...problem solved
Could use some of those arty people been wishing for in towns :rock
-
Manned guns in the towers at either end of the bridge? Well, of course! Would they be able to hit the other side of the river? Well, of course they would! To me its a simple question, if it could be used that way in reality, then it should be that way in the game... I guess players would have to pay attention then, wouldn't they? In the military, what is your first general order? Answer, "I will quit my post, only when properly relieved!!!" In plain english, that means that you have to pay attention, or the enemy will take advantage of your ineptitude.... Stand your post troop!!! or get stomped on!!! Its the way of warfare!!!
Seriously, these bridges would serve to focus the fighting in the game, vital targets always do!!!!
Indestructable bridges? OMG, your kidding right? Take a great idea, and ruin it!!! Honestly, if ya don't want them to cross? And ya don't have the forces to keep them out? DEMO THE BRIDGE!!!! Make them rebuild it,
or wait the 45mins till it pops!!! Hell, the defensive "Hero Play" would be to dump the bridge into the drink, while its crowded with badguys, LOL!!!
-
Rip think about what you say for a minute.
This statement sums most of it up.
Make them rebuild it,
Change it to
Make RipChord929 rebuild every time 2 bomber pilots want to kill your fun. And see if you think the same.
HiTech
-
I would!
-
I would! Why push the easy button!
-
HT, I'm not thinking of having preset demo charges on the bridge, that would be too easy as well!!! (even tho that WOULD be the case in reality) I was thinking more of an engineer/pioneer function based on Halftrack vehicles... This would allow demo, but also give the attackers a chance to prevent demolition of their prize...
Such as a PioneerPanzerWagen carrying demo or bridge supplies... Roll onto the bridge, drop your demo, back off the bridge, find a hiding place, and wait... If the Redguys find and kill ya, NO MO DEMO!!!
(http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv226/RipChord929/PioneerPanzerWagen2517.jpg)
Of course the Bombers would clobber the bridge, thats what they are supposed to do!!! Especially if the bridge had a strategic function in the game.. Example: If the bridge is down, supplies are cut to all captured bases on the enemy side of the river.. So fuel and ammo is limited to 25% until the bridge is repaired.. That would guarantee LOTS of attn, LOL!!! Thats the whole point, to focus the fight, and give a new tactical situation to the game, right? Or did I miss the point of the bridge completely?
(http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv226/RipChord929/DVC00432-1.jpg)
-
The idea does interest me, but making the bridge destroyable would be a bad idea.
HiTech
It's just too easy to bomb accurately in AH with a fleet of heavies.
If we had targets that required precision bombing perhaps dive bombers would get some use? Light bombers diving in to take something out?
As it easy a few P-47s (or one) or a group of Lancs fills the role dive bombers and light bombers had.
Sakai
-
I would!
there you go hitech he just said it would be ok for you to code in to have him exit out of whatever flight he is in to rebuild the bridge when some fight killing tardlet wants to do his thing. :D
-
:aok :aok :aok Sounds like a plan
-
The idea does interest me, but making the bridge destroyable would be a bad idea.
HiTech
Au contraire, Pierre.
One way you could destroy them that could earn a player perks and not be too easy to do (a la Dive Bombing Heavies) would be to add an enginering group to the halftrack loadout. If the engineers and halftrack survive at the bridge for say 10-30 minutes, Voila, blown up.
But they have to stay within x proximity of the bridge for x time and the engineers can't lose more than say half their number being strafed off the bridge. Make it harder yet: One track/LVT has to take troops, one supplies. If you can coordinate say several tracks to work on the bridge at once, it could lessen your time.
-
Ok...
There is a lot of talk about whether the bridge should be destroyable or not. Here are some thoughts:
Destroyable Bridge:
1) Could be destroyed by bombing from the air, but would require MUCH more damage than a hangar. Down time could be short.
OR
2) Could be destroyed by "engineers", who would attack the bridge the same way troops attack the map rooms. 10 are needed to reach the bridge intact.
I think (1) would work better than (2), given that we dont have engineers in the game (yet). I also dont see the need for adding a whole new troop type just to take out bridges, when even on a large map, there would only be a few of them.
Right now, a hangar requires 3000 lbs of bombs to take out. If you think about it in game terms, a bridge like we are talking about "should" require more than that to take down... since a hangar is really nothing more than a corrugated metal building. A HQ takes 38,000 lbs of bombs to take down. So if a bridge were somewhere in the middle... say, 20K lbs of ords to take out, it would take more than a single attack to take it out.
Is that realistic? No. But it does solve the problem of Porkins taking out the bridge just for S&G's. Regen time on the bridge would need to be fast too... so Ol' Porkins cant drop his load, bail, and make another run.
Now... even if bridges were made indestructible, they would still be an important element if added to the game. The fight isnt really about "blowing up" the bridge... its about CONTROLLING the bridge. The fight is going to be cenetered at capturing the "Bridge Towns" on either side. Air strikes will still be called in to flatten the town on the other side... LVT's could still be used to cross up or down river to avoid a heavily defended bridge... PT's could still be used to provide support to the ground units, and/or enhance AAA capabilities. And when all else fails... RUSH THE BRIDGE with GV's and troops and try to overwhelm the defenders. And the best part is, both sides are going to be trying to take the opposing map room at the same time to secure the bridge. Can you imagine the carnage? Oh the horror!!! :aok
I think the real point of adding the bridges are going to be for the strategic value of gaining the ability to get ground units into enemy territory. Take a look at the pic below:
(http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l273/woosle_2006/BridgeMap2.jpg)
By making the spawn points from the bridge bases the only way to get ground units across a river and into enemy territory rapidly... the focus of taking the bridge towns becomes gaining the ability to USE those spawn points. In the pic above, the "green" team has taken B2 and B3... allowing them to now attack A20 and A21 with ground forces. If they did not have B3... there is no fast way to get ground forces to those bases.
Would I like to see engineers and destroyable bridges and useable roads that effect GV movement and the ability to cut off supplies? Yes.... BUT, I think that the nature of AH2 is such that if bridges were destroyable, they would become targets of opportunity, taken out by high level, precision bombers with no real danger to being shot down. And that just isnt how bridges were dealt with during the war.
If I had to choose between having bridges set up in this manner, or not having them at all... I would prefer to have them.
-
How bout if you have a 'town' object that spans a river with a bridge across it, you have multiple bridges. The 'main' bridge is indestructable, but perhaps two or 3 bridges that are fully destructable (and regen in about the same time frame as a hanger) Obviously a fair amount of damage would be needed to take down bridges... more than a hanger, but less than HQ (obviously).
i'll do you one better bud. Make 4 destructable bridges per main bridge. Place 2 on one side, each 2-3 km apart from each other, and on the other side place them 2-3 km apart. Make it 18000 pounds to destroy a destructable bridge and have downtime be 10 minutes. That way camping a bridge would be much harder and the strategic value of bridges is still maintained. Do the "all roads lead to rome" kinda style and have it be something like
(http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc191/KnightCH/124759502312408.gif)
Keeps the strategic value of crossing and makes v-bases harder to defend.
-
In my opinion, even if the bridges cannot be destroyed, this idea might get some fun GV fights going. I really like the idea of buildings at both ends of the bridge. GV street fighting is fun!
My vote would be to put some of these bridge choke points on to one fo the maps, then do a little experiemting with destructable bridges. Vary the bridge down times for awhile, until the right balance is found. I suspect that if you made the down time pretty short, similar to hangar down times, but kept the distances between the buildings on each side you might find that destroying the bridge wouldn't actually stop the fight. It might continue at a distance while both sides await the bridge respawn.
I think the important thing is to design the bridges in such a way that a tank can find "some" small amount of cover on the bridge, so dodging from structural element to element is possible as one is crossing the bridge.
-
i like it
-
i'll do you one better bud. Make 4 destructable bridges per main bridge. Place 2 on one side, each 2-3 km apart from each other, and on the other side place them 2-3 km apart. Make it 18000 pounds to destroy a destructable bridge and have downtime be 10 minutes. That way camping a bridge would be much harder and the strategic value of bridges is still maintained. Do the "all roads lead to rome" kinda style and have it be something like
(http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc191/KnightCH/124759502312408.gif)
Keeps the strategic value of crossing and makes v-bases harder to defend.
Not sure on that one... I think it would be too hard to defend against tanks rolling over 5 bridges. 2 might be ok (1 of each) but I just dont know. I think 1 bridge... no matter what kind it is... is the way to go.
-
you might find that destroying the bridge wouldn't actually stop the fight. It might continue at a distance while both sides await the bridge respawn.
BINGO! And you can use LVT's to try and cross, and PT's for support. No matter how it plays out... having different teams holding the 2 sides is going to lead to a HUGE firefight!
But lets not forget... the best way to take a bridge is "Both sides at once". The team that plays it right, will attack both towns at the same time, and will take them at about the same time. Would require a lot of teamwork, but it could be done.
-
(http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc191/KnightCH/124759502312408.gif)
This would eliminate the point of a bridge and the end result would be forces by passing each other.
Simply put the whole Idea of a bridge is to make a defensible bottle neck that promotes a place to fight for GV's.
This is a classic example of how realism many times is not fun. What is the end result of destroying the bridge. Fighting ends. No fight no fun.
HiTech
-
Now, trying to capture a bridge INTACT against a prepared defence? What do you think is going to happen?
I'll tell ya, They're gonna blow it up in your face!!!! Preferably with YOU ON IT!!!!
DUH!!! :confused: LOL!!!
Gamewise, destroying the bridge is just like porkin troops, to stop the horde... When outnumbered, Its the best defensive move you have.. Attackers can resupp troops, or rebuild the bridge, Same'o Same'o!!!! Many german tanks in Normandy went into battle with 1/2 empty ammo bays, fuel tanks, and Bellies, because the 9th Airforce had blasted all the bridges, preventing resupply... Its called INTERDICTION!!!
On offence, bridges are prime targets.. To interdict enemy resupply, and reinforcement... And to prevent enemy escape from a trap of his own making.. This is just plain military and historical FACT... Illustrated best in Normandy, on the Don Bend, at the Rhine river, and in the First Gulf War.. Sure, troops can escape, by swimming for it... But they have to leave their equipment behind... War is a tough biz, huh!!!
If a bridge IS captured intact, it is purely a freak occurrance.. Due to enemy ineptitude, or malfunction of equipment, or they are running so fast that they dont have the chance to set their demolition charges...
This should be a possibility, but a far remote one... SOP for any any army would to assume that the bridges would be DOWN!! And prepare their forces accordingly, to FORCE a crossing... By air, or LVT, whatever!!
A major river crossing, against a prepared defence, is possibly the most difficult operation attempted by an army in the field... Game wise, it should take more than a pack of girlscouts, or gang of milkrunners...
PLEASE, DONT PUSH THE EASY BUTTON ON THIS :pray
RC
-
I dont see any game play advantage to make a bridge (which has capturable towns either side of it) destructable in the MA.
Basically the same porking (as would be directed to the bridge) would be directed to the town like vehicle fields either side. The bridge just becomes a thin strip of land.
I do see advantages for destructable/rebuildable bridges in "events". However to do this a bridge needs ownership (in order to recieve strat and supplies) and which "town" will you give ownership to?
Giving each town ownership of half a bridge induces a real world scenario. ie you do actually need ownership of both sides of the river to rebuild it but can destroy regardless of which side (if any) you own.
For MA usage bridge hardness is set to near indestructable via object settings.
I like roads however I think spawns should spawn along roads and not between them hence on AKP's map above there would not be a spawn between A21 and B3 unless there was also a road. Like wise there would be a spawn between A20 and A21.
-
Ok...
There is a lot of talk about whether the bridge should be destroyable or not. Here are some thoughts:
Destroyable Bridge:
1) Could be destroyed by bombing from the air, but would require MUCH more damage than a hangar. Down time could be short.
OR
2) Could be destroyed by "engineers", who would attack the bridge the same way troops attack the map rooms. 10 are needed to reach the bridge intact.
I think (1) would work better than (2), given that we dont have engineers in the game (yet). I also dont see the need for adding a whole new troop type just to take out bridges, when even on a large map, there would only be a few of them.
Right now, a hangar requires 3000 lbs of bombs to take out. If you think about it in game terms, a bridge like we are talking about "should" require more than that to take down... since a hangar is really nothing more than a corrugated metal building. A HQ takes 38,000 lbs of bombs to take down. So if a bridge were somewhere in the middle... say, 20K lbs of ords to take out, it would take more than a single attack to take it out.
Is that realistic? No. But it does solve the problem of Porkins taking out the bridge just for S&G's. Regen time on the bridge would need to be fast too... so Ol' Porkins cant drop his load, bail, and make another run.
Now... even if bridges were made indestructible, they would still be an important element if added to the game. The fight isnt really about "blowing up" the bridge... its about CONTROLLING the bridge. The fight is going to be cenetered at capturing the "Bridge Towns" on either side. Air strikes will still be called in to flatten the town on the other side... LVT's could still be used to cross up or down river to avoid a heavily defended bridge... PT's could still be used to provide support to the ground units, and/or enhance AAA capabilities. And when all else fails... RUSH THE BRIDGE with GV's and troops and try to overwhelm the defenders. And the best part is, both sides are going to be trying to take the opposing map room at the same time to secure the bridge. Can you imagine the carnage? Oh the horror!!! :aok
I think the real point of adding the bridges are going to be for the strategic value of gaining the ability to get ground units into enemy territory. Take a look at the pic below:
(http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l273/woosle_2006/BridgeMap2.jpg)
By making the spawn points from the bridge bases the only way to get ground units across a river and into enemy territory rapidly... the focus of taking the bridge towns becomes gaining the ability to USE those spawn points. In the pic above, the "green" team has taken B2 and B3... allowing them to now attack A20 and A21 with ground forces. If they did not have B3... there is no fast way to get ground forces to those bases.
Would I like to see engineers and destroyable bridges and useable roads that effect GV movement and the ability to cut off supplies? Yes.... BUT, I think that the nature of AH2 is such that if bridges were destroyable, they would become targets of opportunity, taken out by high level, precision bombers with no real danger to being shot down. And that just isnt how bridges were dealt with during the war.
If I had to choose between having bridges set up in this manner, or not having them at all... I would prefer to have them.
I really like the first idea, and the example on the map looks really fun! Some good GV fights to be had at that bottleneck. :aok
-
Just because a bridge is destoyed that doesn't nessesarily end the fight. There's always LVT's which can cross and I'd think there would be PT spawns into the river. And that discounts the possibility that tanks could still fire at one another from opposite sides of the river.
Then there are always those pesky aircraft who just might keep the fight going trying to capture both sides of the bridge so when it comes back up they own it.
But hey, what do I know. I only play the game. If HT says the fight ends then I guess it ends.
-
Just because a CV is destroyed, it doesn't end the fight. We still have PT boats and ack.
Sarcasm.
The bridge doesn't need to be destructible, there's no need for it to be. Far too big of a target for our laser-guided bombsights and long range GV laming.
-
Oh it wont end the fight... but the question is, how do you make it so that bridges arent big fat easy targets for the high level porkers. Then there are the guys that just blow stuff up cause its there.... like porking an airfield while you are almost ready to take the town... making it harder to defend after you get it.
:huh
-
(http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc191/KnightCH/124759502312408.gif)
This would eliminate the point of a bridge and the end result would be forces by passing each other.
Simply put the whole Idea of a bridge is to make a defensible bottle neck that promotes a place to fight for GV's.
This is a classic example of how realism many times is not fun. What is the end result of destroying the bridge. Fighting ends. No fight no fun.
HiTech
No thats where landing craft come in :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
:pray :pray please??? :pray :pray
:D
-
Ok...
Hitech... is it at least possible that we get a set up like this in game, so we can give it a try? Make the bridges indestructible... and set up the bridge towns like we have been talking about?
I think once we get in the fight with taking the bridges, very few are going to worry about them being destroyable or not... they will be enjoying the new tactical aspects of taking bridges. PT's and LVT's can still be used to bypass a heavily defended bridge, making them valuable assets in bridge taking.
So... My request become this:
1) Can the bug be worked out that prevents units from going under the bridge?
2) And can we get bases and bridges like this added to a new map?
Please? :pray
Pretty please? :pray :pray
-
The idea does interest me, but making the bridge destroyable would be a bad idea.
HiTech
He has obviously shown interest... no need to beg. ;)
1) Can the bug be worked out that prevents units from going under the bridge?
This is a VERY good question for HiTech. I'm sure its possible, but only he can answer how feasible it is.
i'll do you one better bud. Make 4 destructable bridges per main bridge...
This would eliminate the point of a bridge and the end result would be forces by passing each other.
Simply put the whole Idea of a bridge is to make a defensible bottle neck that promotes a place to fight for GV's.
This is a classic example of how realism many times is not fun. What is the end result of destroying the bridge. Fighting ends. No fight no fun.
That was exactly why I suggested only 2 destructibles. If you have a main bridge that is indestructible, then 2 destructible bridges, the 2 destructible bridges provide a flanking option, but you'd be largely unprotected on the smaller bridges, and the bridges could be blown up, possibly while you're on them. The key here is layout.
My suggestions summarized below...
(http://lh5.ggpht.com/_W_VZ3X_WCOU/Sl8YxPdZA8I/AAAAAAAAHE0/btb8qdkhLyI/s720/AH2BridgeTown.PNG)
I am also all for PT and LVT spawns.
-
What it comes down to... is it needs to be play tested. We can sit here and talk about it all day as to whether the bridges should, or shouldn't be destroyable... and what effect that will have on the game. But until we actually get to go in and test the set up, we are all just speculating.
Lots of great ideas in this thread... I had no idea when I started it how many people wold be interested in this, and how many other ideas it would generate. :aok
I know HTC isn't going to do anything with implementing this until after the beta test is over... but this is definitely something I would like to see at the top of Hitech's yellow legal pad when it is.
-
I would assume that any bug that does not allow PT boats and LVTs to travel under the bridge spans is something to do with the way the object is modelled.
The object just has to be appropriate.
We had (crude) bridges in scenarios 4/5 years ago that could be sailed under and crossed by vehicles. They were also destructable. (basically a couple of runway objects tilted at an angle and joined in the middle)
-
Hey guys... the new terrain is out!
This is a friendly reminder to HiTech (as requested), and a bump to a great idea.
-
Yup... and things seem pretty stable now too. I sent them an IM reminder not long ago on this topic, so hopefully it has made its way to the "Yellow Legal Pad of Things To Do". Combine this with the new, err... old... err, reborn... strat system HiTech mentioned the other day, and we have a winner! :aok
-
:aok
-
:rock :rock :aok this would be awesome plz HiTech??
-
moin
that looks so nice, can you imagine the grat fights we going to have at this places :D.
hope we will get it some days.
what is hitech saying about this idea?
cu chris3
-
GIMME GIMME GIMME! I wants this!!!!! more bombing targets!!!!
-
This would be a lot of fun and a great addition. :aok
Hats off for thinking 'outside' the box. :salute
-
Sounds exciting! :aok
<S> SWkiljoy
-
Sounds to me like it would be an interesting gameplay aspect, if done right. HiTech...? :)
-
Imagine dr7 in panzer at the other end collecting the bridge toll....Cash only no E-ZPass!
-
Like this idea. :aok
-
In regards to FYB's idea of having two capture points, will they function as a normal town like the ones we have near bases now? And I think we should have the troops needed to captrure the town lowered to 5 for each side as, like you said, each side would be smaller than a normal town. But we would have MG's or, maby more likely, flack at each end of the bridges, so as to protect against aircraft, and GV's as well as troops.
I think we should have it so that either side can destroy the bridge with bombs, so if you are intending to flaten the towns, roll on through and captrue the towns once you are on the other side by droping some troops from the M3's, you have to be carefull not to hit the bridge. This would limit high alt bombing, and restrict it more to divebombing, and maby shelling. This would also allow the other side to attack the bridge if it is clear they aren't going to get it back.
-
moin
maybe the bridge should be belong to ouer spawn sistem.
Example. the bridge city is between a1 and a2. if the bridge city is copled in ouer hands you can spawn direckt from a1 to a2. if we lost one side of the bridge city we can only spawn to ouer side of the bridge.
what do you think?
cu chris3
-
Very neat idea , and it would make for interesting combat and even scenario possiblitys abound . And if on a map they could be put into the borders of all 3 countrys to provide initial base takes and jumping off points . +1 :aok
Nutte :salute
-
Very neat idea , and it would make for interesting combat and even scenario possiblitys abound . And if on a map they could be put into the borders of all 3 countrys to provide initial base takes and jumping off points . +1 :aok
Nutte :salute
+10000000000 and :aok
-
:huh Hehe... just saw this. Yeah, I was playing around with the map editor last night, and most of this could be done. But, for the bridges to be realistic, we need to be able to go under them. We need HTC to fix that, and to do some official maps with these features on them.
I haven't read this whole thread yet...This was done years ago... theres even a film out there some where. We made the bridge out of 2 runways waffled together ( 1 inverted, since they are transparent from underneath) this eliminated the collisions. ANyone have this film??? Hblair was in it and some others. This definately is do-able. It was crossable, had anti aircraft and Shore batts. ANd planes could fly under. This was with the terrain editor years ago. The new Editor looks awsome!! I believe it would be much easier and better looking to day.
NUTTZ
-
I just happen to have the double-sided runway. :aok
-
COOL. You have any films of old North Africa/Tunisia or the bridge?
I found the link it's old January 2002. I see the discussion is whether the bridge is destroyable or not. If you read this old link you will see there are grey areas, parts could be destroyable and parts cannot.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,44394.msg396912.html#msg396912
Enjoy the old read.
NUTTZ
-
Well of course the WHOLE thing won't be destroyed, the parts above land would probably remain, while the parts above the water would probably collapse. If it were left up to me, we would have the Arnem bridge in place of the ones we have now.
-
Awesome idea. :salute I need to read the wish list stuff more often.
<S>
-
+2 :aok :aok
-
+1 for me
make that two :aok
-
other than a few details,,I see nothing more than ten pages of YES
P.S. sorry for the major bump,, not sure how I missed this great idea ,,,WTG AKP.
-
just realized this was an older thread :lol
YES, this is a great idea :aok
+1
-
I can see an issue or two on why it wouldn't work but instead I'll just give this a big
IN
(http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/4788/lockh.gif)
wrongway
-
It could be possible that the new changes to the towns and bases are a prelude to something like this. Honestly, the current town layout, wouldn't really fit well with an idea such as this one, but the new one most definitely would. This idea will also need some tweaking to factor in the new manned AT guns as well.
-
I can see an issue or two on why it wouldn't work but instead I'll just give this a big
IN
(http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/4788/lockh.gif)
wrongway
Someone was asking in another thread ( http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,291968.msg3720426.html#msg3720426 ) about this one, so I pointed them to the link. Yeah, given the rules about bumping old threads, I am sure it will be locked. But a lot of people, including HiTech, thought the idea had possibilities, and several had good ideas to make it work better. I admit there are some flaws, and some details that would need to be addressed... but it is certainly workable.
-
This thread isn't even that old. September of last year? That is 10 months ago. This thread should be stickyed anyway.
-
Wrongway, perhaps you'll tell us WHY it won't work instead of this constant ambiguity. And I serisouly doubt that this thread is going to get the Skuzzy stick.
-
Honestly, if you have the same idea as someone else and you make a thread about it, you will get replies like "Use search next time" but if you bump an old thread it gets locked. How are you supposed to bring attention to a previously discussed idea?
IN
-
+1 :aok for bridges.
+2, if maproom stand up on some bridge!
+3, if two map-rooms stand up on bridge sides! (and town is suitable for noe attack).
-1 for things for which i need a new pc.
:salute
-
Coming soon the the AvA:
(http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/1845/27180323.jpg) (http://img132.imageshack.us/i/27180323.jpg/)
-
did u make that??? :x
-
Major old thread punt today, bu ...
My votes are still 1++ for these ideas.
-
Coming soon the the AvA:
(http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/1845/27180323.jpg) (http://img132.imageshack.us/i/27180323.jpg/)
Oh, how I hope it gets approved soon!!!
-
Honestly, if you have the same idea as someone else and you make a thread about it, you will get replies like "Use search next time" but if you bump an old thread it gets locked. How are you supposed to bring attention to a previously discussed idea?
IN
Actually, I would think a good way to do it would be to start a new thread and refer to the original thread with a link.
For example:
Subject: Rivers & Capturable Bridges Redux.
I was perusing the wish list, using the excellent and informative SEARCH function when I came across the idea of Rivers & Capturable Bridges. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,267808.0.html) I think this is a great idea and should be revisited....yada yada yada.... why I like it....etc.
Same topic. Not Punted. Gives people reference to what has been discussed before and allows new discussion.
Easy Peasy. :aok
Wrongway, perhaps you'll tell us WHY it won't work instead of this constant ambiguity. And I serisouly doubt that this thread is going to get the Skuzzy stick.
OK. Drop the river and the bridge. You essentially have a capturable double spawn. What happens when one side captures both spawns? Fight over.
How does the other side get it back?
Are there yet two more spawns into the original spawn, making it a quadruple spawn?
Basically, once the bridge is captured there is no way to recapture it.
You're probably better off now with double spawns where you can camp each other as you spawn in or GV bases within driving distance of each other like on that Tank Island in the middle of the big, wet map.
wrongway
-
Coming soon the the AvA:
(http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/1845/27180323.jpg) (http://img132.imageshack.us/i/27180323.jpg/)
:) :eek: :O
-
OK. Drop the river and the bridge. You essentially have a capturable double spawn. What happens when one side captures both spawns? Fight over.
How does the other side get it back?
Are there yet two more spawns into the original spawn, making it a quadruple spawn?
Basically, once the bridge is captured there is no way to recapture it.
You're probably better off now with double spawns where you can camp each other as you spawn in or GV bases within driving distance of each other like on that Tank Island in the middle of the big, wet map.
wrongway
(http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l273/woosle_2006/BridgeMap2.jpg)
Just use the spawns into the "bridge town" the same as you would any other. It really isnt that much different than those V Bases on (the map I cant remember) that are sitting right next to each other... or think of it instead as a V Base with only 2 hangars that are independent of each other... and more thing required to destroy to take it. Would it be hard to hold without securing the bases around it? You bet... but think of the fights it would promote.
But... like I said earlier, the design and number of hangers and such could vary... it is the idea of having a bridge to fight over that is the main point.
-
Coming soon the the AvA:
(http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/1845/27180323.jpg) (http://img132.imageshack.us/i/27180323.jpg/)
Nice! :aok
-
I like :aok :aok :aok
-
Wrongway, I imagine they would be similar to bases themselves. I would guess the only functional difference would be a reduced number of ack guns, and a tent or designated rally point (say, where the armor battalion stationed at that town is to meet for orders) replacing the VH.
Would be very interesting strategicly. Aircraft can take bases on their own, so you would question their impact on the game. But fighting a large GV battle from across the river, each side trying to force a crossing (hey look, here's where the DD sherman and the DUWK would come in handy).
-
Especially useful for a special event or in the AvA where a CM could adjust the downtimes so the bridge is out of action only temporarily, and adjust the hardness depending on how hard you want it to be to kill it.
You could simply have destroyable bridges and only enable GV troop transports.
You want to take bases, you gotta defend your bridges.
Instead of bases being the only objective, bridges add a new layer.
It could lead to some good battles over bridges instead of just over bases.
And it's just cool, How many real battles and even war movie scenes had to do with capturing, defending or destoying bridges?
To me it's a natural for a scenario.
-
(http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l273/woosle_2006/BridgeMap2.jpg)
Just use the spawns into the "bridge town" the same as you would any other. It really isnt that much different than those V Bases on (the map I cant remember) that are sitting right next to each other... or think of it instead as a V Base with only 2 hangars that are independent of each other... and more thing required to destroy to take it. Would it be hard to hold without securing the bases around it? You bet... but think of the fights it would promote.
But... like I said earlier, the design and number of hangers and such could vary... it is the idea of having a bridge to fight over that is the main point.
Thanks for the visual.
Wrongway, I imagine they would be similar to bases themselves. I would guess the only functional difference would be a reduced number of ack guns, and a tent or designated rally point (say, where the armor battalion stationed at that town is to meet for orders) replacing the VH.
Would be very interesting strategicly. Aircraft can take bases on their own, so you would question their impact on the game. But fighting a large GV battle from across the river, each side trying to force a crossing (hey look, here's where the DD sherman and the DUWK would come in handy).
Sit on the shore and pick off the sitting DUKWs.
:devil
wrongway
-
Well when you put it that way, yeah, it sounds like a crappy idea. But you must admit that it would be fun. It would probably produce some of the best GV fights in the game.
-
It would be cool if we had small airbases with dirt runways with only fighters enabled. Maybe replace the towns with that on a few bases.
-
The point of having a fighter only base right next to an airbase is what exactly :noid?
-
The idea does interest me, but making the bridge destroyable would be a bad idea.
HiTech
How about engineering troops to rebuild the bridge or as is done now , Field Supplies. It adds to the strategy side for the ground and air game. Provides additional targets for bombers, provides a need for Tankers to take and hold ground, provides a new area for combat air patrols and encourages everyone to fight at a natural choak point.
-
Traveler, the problem with this (and all bases, but V-bases in particular) are easily bypassed and left to starve from lack of support (a V base won't get any air support if there are 2 enemy air bases in the way. Also, once the hangers go down, what you see around you is what you have; no more supps, and no more tanks).
That has always been something I would like to see resolved, but I can't think of a way to fix it without objectives and flight restrictions like in a scenario, or without adding massive belts of flack batteries (say, as many guns in the strats all crammed into the same square mile, 2 miles deep) in between the area you want to block off.
-
Still support this idea. :aok
-
Some great ideas to promote strategy and good tactics. Giving people something to fight for gives them purpose and reason to participate.
-
Really digging this idea! Oh man, I just wanna come and stuka a bridge now!
-
So this means I will see you all in the AvA as soon as the terrain pictured on page 11 of this thread is accepted by Skuzzy, right?
-
So this means I will see you all in the AvA as soon as the terrain pictured on page 11 of this thread is accepted by Skuzzy, right?
Hey Ranger,
Just thought of a good way to advertise. When it's coming close to your map being in the cycle, take a few screenshots of what makes the map different from the standard MA maps and create a post "Destructable Bridges, new towns? Check out the AvA! (screenshots)"
Or... something... =)
-
Got em ready & waiting. :aok
The terrain is submitted. I have no idea when/if it will be added to the mix, but I check every day. :joystick:
-
+1
-
major :aok