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

RCMoonPie · Post by **RCMoonPie** » 2008-02-07 19:00

Jonny wrote:In real life bridges are VERY important assets, and tanks can be prevented from reaching the front lines because the bridges are destroyed. This kind of behaviour is what should be shown, not that it can be repaired because then it ceases to be a major asset. Its just something that can be put back up again with a few people around. The CO assets and the CO should have the same kind of influence on the battle.

20 minutes is 3:20 with a full squad of engineers BTW, you may want to increase that time significantly.

Your right....they are extremely important assets.
So by that logic you can see why they are just as important to be repaired as they are to be destroyed?
I am not saying they should be easy to be repaired, or fast to be repaired...but they should be able to be repaired.

Your argument may be that they shouldnt have been allowed to be destroyed to begin with. That may be true to a degree.
But until we have a game mode thats called "secure and defend the Bridge" its not going to happen. There is no emphasis on blowing the bridge or defending it...Until it gets blown.

The bridges should remain just as easy to repair as they are to blow up.
Or just as hard.

That is the game's balance.
The yin...and the yang.

As for the twenty minutes...I was just throwing that out there....but 20 minutes is 1/3 of an average 1 hour map, besides....what if it is blown multiple times in a round...it could be down the entire time. Also...I have yet to see a squad of consisting of nothing but engineers.

kilroy0097 · Post by **kilroy0097** » 2008-02-08 06:03

Ok Jonny. Just stop your argument already. We understand your point of view. We also understand that in this particular mod your request will never happen and so arguing your point is fruitless. This game is about a battle that takes place over an hour or so, sometime longer sometimes shorter. We obviously aren't pulling a 2 month campaign online. So there is no reason to give bridges the sort of attributes you speak of. There is no reason to have them down for the entire game. There is no reason they should be made into some weaker temporary structure. They are fine the way they are. I have already stated what if anything needs to be changed about them and they consist adding or removing hitpoints of bridges or requiring a support vehicle or a supply box in the area. This is the extent of any sort of modification of bridges in the mod. What you are requesting is realism to a fault. A game is a game and has to be fun. If you want ultra realism of this sort then either you will have to design a game yourself or sign up for the military (if you haven't done so already) and join the Corps of Engineers.

Right now, at this point, this discussion is nothing more than a pipe dream.

RCMoonPie just let him have his view point. There is no sense in arguing with him because it doesn't matter. His idea breaks the game and will never be implemented so don't bother.

Post by **Masaq** » 2008-02-08 17:17

Actually Kilroy, I think you're wrong.

The ultimate aim of PR is to move as far towards a relatively realistic representation of modern combat.

That's why logistical support - command posts, firebases, bunkers and supply trucks - have become such a vital part of sucess.

The logical extension of that as the DEVs move closer to their goal is for on some maps, bridges to become highly valued, key strategic objects.

Look at Fool's Road - if the Brits loose that bridge early on, and if the Militia keep it down, the Brits are... erm... "in trouble", shall we say?

hachichin · Post by **hachichin** » 2008-02-08 17:21

kilroy: What are you going on about? I'm pretty sure you are not in a position to give such absolute statements about what will or will not be implemented. Or have you just forgot to add that R-DEV to your alias?

If it would be possible to replace the bridge repair with wrench with a Commander-deployable overlap than nothing fundamental in the gameplay would be changed. Bridges would be destroyed and "repaired" like they are today - just in a much more realistic way. It's an realism/immersion type of suggestion more than anything else.

Even if the overlap-asset would be impossible to implement a dramatic increase in the number of C4's necessary to blow a bridge would make it possible to have the bridges unrepairable once destroyed. The fort on Seven Gates cannot be recaptured by the Chinese once lost. How can you accept this but not the idea of realistic bridges?

Post by **Rudd** » 2008-02-08 18:13

If bridges were to become unrepairable, wouldn't that call for map redesign to maintain balance?

oddly enough, I think I've somehow slid in to the "repairing bridges is unrealistc in this context" camp.

Post by **Masaq** » 2008-02-08 18:17

Every map I can think of with a bridge (except Fool's Road) has a Ford to enable non-swimming vehicles to cross rivers. They're usually out of the way (forcing vehicles to take a long path around) and easy to mine though - giving bridges the natural advantage they should have.

Moral of the story is:

Don't blow up a bridge if you want to use it.
Don't let the enemy blow up a bridge if you want to use it.

Simple.

BloodBane611 · Post by **BloodBane611** » 2008-02-09 04:59

The ultimate aim of PR is to move as far towards a relatively realistic representation of modern combat.

Given. But since some realistic operations cannot be replicated in PR (bridging/ferrying), something less realistic must take its place. I don't support the current system where it takes one engineer about 3 minutes to get a bridge in working order, and one brick of C4 on the surface to destroy a section, but since we cannot actually perform bridging it makes sense to simulate it in some way.

Look at Fool's Road - if the Brits loose that bridge early on, and if the Militia keep it down, the Brits are... erm... "in trouble", shall we say?

This was due to lack of completion by the DEV team, not purposeful creation that way.

I agree that on some maps bridges should be valuable strategic positions. But the current maps are not designed with anything like this in mind. TBH, it doesn't even really matter. If the bridge system gets any sort of major changes made to it, Qwai is probably going to need some balance changes regardless.

Changed or not, this does seem like a whole lot of argument over something that will only significantly change 1 map.

kilroy0097 · Post by **kilroy0097** » 2008-02-09 07:20

Making a bridge unrepairable is ridiculous in this mod. I'm not saying that as a Dev and never claimed to. I'm saying is regardless of how realistic you want to make a game by making a bridge unrepairable ever is removing an element of the game that should not be removed. But if the Devs really want to make bridges permanently destroyed that's the prerogative as Devs. I personally think it's a horrible idea but *shrug* it's not my mod.

I've already suggested alternate solutions to making a bridge more realistic without making it permanently down. Including increase HP of the bridge, making different bridges with different Armor values so only certain explosives can harm it and different bridges with different HP. I have also suggested making a Bridge repairable only with a Commander Truck or a Supply Crate nearby. I think these are valid and realistic suggestions to modification of bridge values.

But everything that has been said to the contrary is simply unrealistic to the mod. If the mod is to strive toward realism but still keeping it playable I think making any bridge in the game (except for maps in which protecting certain bridges are part of the mission - a bridge mode for example) permanently destroyed is not helping the mod but hindering it. But hey Masaq wants to go the route of making bridges permanent either up or down then I can't really say much to the contrary. However I wonder if the other Devs agree with that vision.

RCMoonPie · Post by **RCMoonPie** » 2008-02-09 16:57

Everyone thinks their personal idea is the solution.

BloodBane611 · Post by **BloodBane611** » 2008-02-10 01:48

except for maps in which protecting certain bridges are part of the mission - a bridge mode for example

If a bridge is the only/easiest way to move your heavy assets to the other side of a river, it becomes part of the mission.

To be honest, after thinking about it some more, I think that as long as a map remains winnable after the bridges are destroyed (as qwai would remain if bridges could not be repaired) then there is really no reason not to have 100% realistic bridges. Right now the bridges on Qwai have no effect on the balance of the game, because a single engineer can spend 3 minutes repairing one and move anything they want over them. By giving great incentive to defend them, not only would we have more realistic bridges, but people would act more realistically. Instead of having all your squads pile onto the flags, squads would have to actually secure the bridges in order to be able to continue the assault.

RCMoonPie · Post by **RCMoonPie** » 2008-02-10 01:55

So by that same reasoning....if a force could defend and repell the enemy long enough...that they could have time to repair a damaged bridge.

kilroy0097 · Post by **kilroy0097** » 2008-02-10 08:11

So we need a map called Bridge over the River Qwai where one side has to repair the bridge and the other side has to destroy the bridge. Either way we are all whistling that song while we play. I'm whistling it in my head right now.