Bridges

[arjan]

bridges arent repairable, like in the case of Jabal, or Fools it can be a real pain in the *** if youre bridge is blown, and youre logistics cant move anywhere, or vehicles.
and offcourse repairing is not an option..

im suggesting more sections in a bridge, so that if a explosion goes of on it, instead of a big crater, a few smaller craters would show up on the bridge, so maneauvering (how do u spell?) would still be possible, but only if you are really, really cautious.

example;


as you can see, you could move a log truck, barely trough it.
but it is possible, it makes the enemy still going after bridges, and maybe even settup ambushes to kill those cautious maneavering vehicles, (so bridges might even come even more important?)
and it would still be possible to move important vehicles and logistics to the frontline, so both are happy, right?

Im going to bed
Good' night

[Rudd]

that would mean that the bridge is made up of multiple destructable objects, not sure if thats a good thing

but would a armoured vehicle...or any vehicle really want to cross a bridge witha hole in it? for fearing collapse

[martov]

that would mean that the bridge is made up of multiple destructable objects, not sure if thats a good thing

but would a armoured vehicle...or any vehicle really want to cross a bridge witha hole in it? for fearing collapse

it is possible to make a lot of small craters, but not on different explosions. changeing the wreck model (as if they were vehicules) would work IIRC

[Ccharge]

what if they make it multiple objects. Like on the southern bridge in bf2v on mashtuur city. Still crossable, but maybe holes all over the place.

[00SoldierofFortune00]

I like the fact that you can't cross them, cus it forces you to change your style of playing. On some maps where it is a requirement like Jabal, I could see it being repairable, but on maps like Qwai where it isn't as important and there is an alternative route it should still not be repairable.

[Trooper909]

theres allways a land bridge on most maps close by anyways so adding this would be pointless imo

[badmojo420]

I don't like it, it would create unrealistic scenarios where tanks are crossing a bridge that is blown to hell. In real life they wouldn't chance their multi-million dollar piece of machinery on a bridge that looks like swiss cheese.

Maybe if you made it weaker so if a heavy vehicle tried to cross it would fall apart.

[goguapsy]

i like the idea. and I think that, if possible, 1 c4 makes a small hole (a tank cant pass), 2 c4s make a bigger hole (APCs and BMPs cant pass) and 3 (Logy/Transports/Jeeps cant pass). if the bridge could collapse it would be awesome. ie. if a tank passes over a 1 c4ed bridge it just wont pass. now, if it tries to pass on a 2 or 3 c4ed bridge the bridge collapses cuz it cant hold it...

[TY2D2]

I think that if someone goes through the time to put high explosives on a bridge, he will make sure he blows apart the whole thing in one go at it, that's the whole point of them being high explosives.

So if you take into account a realistic mindset, it wouldn't be a realistic representation of when soldiers set C4 on bridges IRL, because IRL, they would be sure to destroy the whole thing. There is no point in blowing up small bits of the bridge for someone who is destroying it, he is destroying it to block the enemy, therefore he doesn't want to leave anything there for them at all.

[wookimonsta]

theres allways a land bridge on most maps close by anyways so adding this would be pointless imo

is there one on fools road?

[cyberzomby]

Wasnt it the point that you couldnt move over destroyed bridges, and this having a crippled logistics system?

[master of the templars]

Wasnt it the point that you couldnt move over destroyed bridges, and this having a crippled logistics system?

its to easy to do in the first 10 mins, and on a map like fools road it basically means the end of the Russian team

[UncleSmek]

What about making the engineers being able to restore bridges if there is 2 of them(maybe more?) with a repair station from the supply truck. I think it would give the game a whole other way of playing and setting up the squads wich would change game play kinda alot, and is fun too.

Important bridge gets destroyed, Infantry squad secures the area and waits in for the repair team to come and repair the bridge while the infantry squad protects them..? The amount of time spent repairing the bridge should be different depending on the the damage itself, how big the bridge is and how many engineers working on it. I dont know about you but wouldnt this be really fun? We dont have many maps where APC's and other vehicles depend on bridges but Foolsroad but that can be modified

Repairing bridges like this would really incourage ambushes as guerilla factions which are rarly seen these days in PR.

[Rhino]

.

[Blade.3510]

Exactly...

someone care to explain because i might of missed the joke ops:

[cyberzomby]

When ever someone with R-DEV does you can almost bet your computer on it they are working on a solution for it.

Rhino stated somewhere before they where trying to get some kind of deployable bridge thing to work I believe.

[Cheditor]

Or that they are trying to do something completly evil but thats another story for another time.

[Smegburt_funkledink]

you dont need a modified MBT to lay a bridge

Stiggers new truck:


Something looks familiar here. hmmmm