Remove bridge repair with wrench (and other bridge-related suggestions)

[BloodBane611]

You need to have a little more faith in your fellow players moon, one squad with a firebase can defend the bridge for the whole round.

I strongly disagree. For any pub match, that bridge would go down in no time flat. Even in a PR Tournament match, the chinese team would need to defend two bridges simultaneously, while the US forces could easily focus on each bridge and destroy them permanently. It would no longer be about capping flags, but destroying the bridges. Then the US could easily outclass the PLA, with chinese assets stuck on the west side of the map while us LBs are free to roam. It would destroy that map to have no repairable bridges. It would no longer be playable.

Any modern unit is going to be prepared to bridge obstacles to allow them to continue their assault. The fact that we cannot replicate without a great deal of work that no one is prepared to do that means we need to settle for some lesser level of realism.

[hachichin]

Well it wouldn't destroy the balance if it was a lot more difficult to blow up a bridge. If it took 8 C4's or something like that it would require a lot of time and coordination for a squad to blow up a bridge. Not like now when all it takes is a single C4.

Fact is it's so easy to destroy a bridge at the moment that one does not even have to be on the ground to do it. Just load up a LB with an Engineer and drop explosives from the air while passing by. With two engineers onboard you can take out both bridges within 10-15 secs of eachother. Hardly balanced the way it is now...

EDIT: The post was written before I read Bloodbanes post above.

[RCMoonPie]

Well from what I have read here....there is balance already.
They are easy to blow up.....and just as easy to repair! LOL
I saw in another post where that maybe bridges are required to be down for 20 minutes or so.
That might be a solution. It takes that long for a jet to spawn doesnt it?
Maybe say that an engineer must remain in a bridge radius for 10 to 15 minutes before repairs can start?

I dont know.

[kilroy0097]

The only change to bridges would be to give different bridge models different HP so it takes a noticeable different amount of munitions on it to blow them and hence different fix times.

Obviously little wooden bridges should take no more than one C4.
Steel supported wooden base bridges should take one or two C4.
Heavy Steel reinforced bridges should take two C4 or maybe 3.
Stone bridges should take two C4 or maybe 3.

If you look at the damage potential of one C4 and adjust the HP of the bridges accordingly then it would take an engineer that much longer to fix a bridge. I may not be feasible to have one engineer sit there for 30 minutes fixing a bridge. So you throw three or four engineers on that bridge and fix it under 10 minutes.

Leave the mechanics of the game the same. Just tweak it slightly to show difficulty.

It's still a game after all. If you want to build bridges then go build bridges but don't expect a "GAME" to give you the realism you desire which is obviously building bridges. There are better things to argue about.

[Rudd]

It should take several C4s but NOT BE REPAIRED. It is a major asset in any RL war, so it should be in PR as well. I would prefer a spread out enemy and defending those structures than just all piling into the flags. Its much more fun sneaking to the bridge to C4 it than dying several times.

It should be able to be maintained, but not rebuilt. ie, the engineers can shore it up to stop it falling as quickly, but once it is gone it does not come back and the battlefield is quite different.

On Qwai you are not prevented from crossing in APCs, you just go through the river. Tanks however are stopped for good. So are Jeeps. It is a major asset that is not useable properly if it can be repaired, it should set one team back severely if it falls, so they are forced to defend it. It also helps the US, because they can bring over some TOW HMMWVs if it is up.

I see your point, If this was to be implemented It would have to be a boatload of c4 too keep gameplay up and realism up.

[RCMoonPie]

It should take several C4s but NOT BE REPAIRED. It is a major asset in any RL war, so it should be in PR as well. I would prefer a spread out enemy and defending those structures than just all piling into the flags. Its much more fun sneaking to the bridge to C4 it than dying several times.

It should be able to be maintained, but not rebuilt. ie, the engineers can shore it up to stop it falling as quickly, but once it is gone it does not come back and the battlefield is quite different.

On Qwai you are not prevented from crossing in APCs, you just go through the river. Tanks however are stopped for good. So are Jeeps. It is a major asset that is not useable properly if it can be repaired, it should set one team back severely if it falls, so they are forced to defend it. It also helps the US, because they can bring over some TOW HMMWVs if it is up.

I like this suggestion is well but with a few tweaks.

I would make the bridge destruction happen in stages then.
1st attack weakens the bridge. Heavies such as tanks and APCs cannot pass. But smaller vehicles such as jeeps, landrovers and humvees could still traverse. Since this may be hard to code, the bridge could be modeled after the first attack with debris that blocks a tank's path but still doesnt prevent smaller vehicles or infantry from passing.

After the 2nd attack, The next stage of bridge destruction would weaken the bridge so that it was impassable by ANY vehicle. Once again the bridge is modeled so that the destruction is represented with minimum passage by only infantry on foot. The bridge destruction and debris would block all vehicles and infantry would have to take care that they didnt fall to their death on the girders and holes in the concrete.

The 3rd and final attack leaves the bridge totally destroyed and unpassable by any means. The bridge remains destroyed for the rest of the round.

I would make it so the bridge could be repaired from the second stage of destruction, back to the 1st stage of destruction, but no more repairs beyond that could be made. The bridges could never be repaired back to its fully functioning state for the heavier vehicles.

State.............Level destruction.....................Repair to previous state

No attack.................none...................................none needed

1st attack................no tanks/ only small vehicles...........no repair

2nd attack.................no vehicles at all.....................repair to 2nd state***

3rd attack.................non passable..........................no repair possible

***The bridge could be repaired at this point several times and maintained at this level, but if no repairs are made it progresses to next stage of destruction.


I hope my simple graph translates.
If not I will edit. LOL

[RCMoonPie]

I understand what you mean but it is not, as far as I have been led to believe, possible. The maximum number of 'states' is two. It could well be done with more objects, but that would increase the number of 'networkable objects', probably not by much though so it may be worth doing.

So the game itself just doesnt allow it? Cant go from state to state to state?

Although I have an idea I will be posting that could change that, I just need some free time to write it up.

Cant wait.....something needs to be done that the game would allow.

I have been told that wrecks will be more of an obstacle, so they could be used if you really need to block it for a while.

This would work I think....I would like to see multiple "husks" on a spanned bridge. this would provide cover for assaulting across.

Also, the concrete could not be replaced with concrete for a LONG time, only the holes covered up.

I agree with the concrete thing....but I have seen 1st hand, holes in overpasses covered up with a large piece of 1 inch thick steel plate.
Large holes too.
We are just going to have to agree to disagree.
Like yourself I will need to have a little more time but I will make a post in support of this fact in the near future.

[RCMoonPie]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
RELEASE No. 20071130-06
November 30, 2007

Alternate Qayyarah Bridge crossing planned for civilian use
Multi-National Division – North PAO

QAYYARAH, Iraq – An alternate bridge, designed as a temporary replacement for the Qayyarah Bridge that was damaged as a result of a terrorist attack with a vehicle borne improvised explosive device Nov. 23, is in the primary planning stages and should be operational for local civilian use sometime in the near future according to Col. Stephen Twitty, commander of the 4th Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division.

A tactical bridge span was emplaced within 72 hours on the damaged bridge for Coalition and Iraqi Security Forces’ use, but is not intended to act as a permanent repair to be opened for civilian traffic use.

As another interim measure to provide relief from the inconvenience, three water taxis have been implemented north of the bridge to transport the steady stream of roughly 60 to 75 people an hour across the river.

Two engineers from the Ninevah Directorate of Roads inspected the site Nov. 25 and prepared a report for their headquarters in Baghdad, who will make the final decision on specific construction parameters.

“We are working with the Government of Iraq to provide relief to the Iraqi civilians; they are the primary individuals affected by this senseless act of terrorism,” said Twitty. “Specific plans for construction to enable the area’s residents to drive across the river are being worked on by the Provincial Government as a high priority.”
*******


The above was a temporary fix done in a matter of hours(not weeks) to make the bridge passable.

[BloodBane611]

What if the bridges were given flags? Shift the tactical significance of these bridges from simply allowing you army to move assets, to in fact giving players a reason to move to, cap, and defend them. Or move the control points from their current locations at gov't offices to ones closer to the bridge, so that the area you need to control effectively covers the bridge as well.

On the other hand, given the large amount of tweaking required to get this to work out, we could say leave the current maps as they are. In the future, maps with bridges could be designed to be harder to destroy and impossible to repair, but by putting flags on them we give players VERY good reasons to defend them. I just don't see many players deciding to defend bridges for the sole purpose of allowing their squadmates in tanks to drive past them every 30-60 minutes. With a flag on them, I think it is much more plausible.

[RCMoonPie]

I like that idea too.
I just think some maps would be ruined if the bridge was destroyed for the entire round.
You would have some people quit the server to search for another if their precious tanks were rendered useless and denied access to the rest of the map.

[RCMoonPie]

72 hours? Not gonna happen in game.

Well no schit.
But from your statement.....you do concede this is a game.
While 72 hours cant be replicated, it can be made to take a very long time...in game.

If you are looking for that degree of "realism" in game. Then you are going to have to accept other changes as well...
All vehicles that are destroyed....remain gone until the end of the round.
No endless supply of ammo or changing of weapons at an RP.
Why not if you get killed....you remain dead until the end of the round.

Why not?

You have no argument for keeping those things mentioned above if you cant accept the bridges at least being repaired to a usable status...in game.

Period.

Not every idea or suggestion can be accepted by all as a winner.
You need to realize this.

[.blend]

Just scale the time down. If a game takes, dunno, 60min, then it should take 20min to repair a bridge. Or something like, just a question of balancing. But it definitly shouldnt be all too fast, so the (dis-)advantage can be used effectively by the according team. And make it a commander asset that repairs the bridge by itself, so engies dont need to sit there repairing forever. But of course they would need to build the asset first

[kilroy0097]

Wow. This discussion has gone in one big circle.

About the only two thing I've heard in the entire discussion that would make sense is different repair times and different amounts of explosives for different types of bridges. Or the requirement of a Command/Supply Truck or just the Supply Crate next to the bridge in order for the Engineer to start repairing it. That's it. Just those two.

The rest is irrelevant since it would break the game. No bridges for the rest of the game is unacceptable to the flow of the game. Having them take 30 minutes to repair is also unacceptable because the benefit vs time ratio is not worth it and so no one would do it and so you break the game. Having bridges repair themselves takes away from the teamwork element of the game and therefore breaks the game. Unrealistic requests from the PR Devs to do something that is ridiculous from a game perspective and some that are not even possible with the BF2 engine, simply are a waste of time. Not because they are not interesting to talk about. Certainly we can discuss this till the internet goes boom. Doesn't mean it's ever going to be put into the Mod. So please look at the game as a whole and see what is reasonable to ask and what is completely unrealistic. This happens to be in the fictional realm of requests. Sorry but true.

[RCMoonPie]

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
I agree!

I especially like the way you pointed out clearly...
were talking about a game!

[RCMoonPie]

The vehicle thing I agree with, I would like to see a huge motor pool at the start, but we all know that it will get baseraped.

But by your logic that is acceptable. Baseraped or not....if they all are destroyed....no more vehicles.

Do you realise that the bridge falling does not stop you from fighting? It just means you dont have heavy armour support.

yes I realize this is an option....just as it is to have a bridge repaired to a usable state although it not be 100%.

The spawning/kit request thing is to show that it is a battalion fighting, not a platoon on its own. Although, after trying the no respawning thing with some of my clan, it is very fun and leads to some interesting things happening.

So you can accept that some things are "to show" or to represent what is "reality" for the sake of the game. But you cant accept that a 20 minute partial repair time of a bridge in game...is "to show" or to represent a longer build time in real life?
Do you not get it?
I am aware of the real life time to repair a bridge and I can differentiate this world and that of the game.

Back to the bridge:
Its a great big concrete and steel f***** that you have shown to take WAAAAAAAAYYYYYY longer than we have in-game to repair. What is your problem with a little realism in this mod? Did you have a problem with bullets being deadly because it certainly sounds that way.

The times that I have shown were a bridge repair done in a matter of hours, and were posted in response based on a statement you made earlier in the thread, that a bridge CANNOT be repaired at all in a theater of war, and that it would take many weeks or even months.

I dont have any issue of adding "realism" to the game.

But bridge repair has a place in this mod whether you agree or not.
This game/mod is a scale of or a representation of reality.

Time itself can be made to scale as well as be a representation of what is real.