The removal of unrealistic land bridges.

[Jordanb716]

I'm referring to those "natural" underwater bridges where the ground is just deep enough for a boat to cross but also shallow enough for vehicles and infantry to pass unhindered. I feel that these indestructible crossings need to be removed for gameplay purposes. As an example take the one on Qwai river where the entire river is nice and deep and then out of nowhere for no apparent reason the land just juts up out of nowhere. It feels like another relic from vBF2 that needs to be removed. Wouldn't it be more realistic to have to actually fight to hold the bridge(s) to get armored reinforcements and troops across? Or on the other side the ability to destroy the bridge(s) to slow or stop enemy armor. The only places where we should see crossable rivers like this should be on rivers that are naturally shallow where a good portion of the river is like this. I just wanted to mention this in the hope that up coming maps wont have this **** or at least see it very limited and maybe even to have it removed from current maps if possible. any thoughts?

[Rudd]

agreed mostly, there are places for Fords, but they have to have the associated geographical characteristics surrounding them, such as marsh or scrubland, not be convenient crossing points on rivers in random places.

[SGT.JOKER]

No...cause if some one lets say on your team destroyed all the bridges how would you get your assets across?

[Rudd]

No...cause if some one lets say on your team destroyed all the bridges how would you get your assets across?

[sarcasm]UFO abduction....[/sarcasm]

ENGINEERS!

[thedoombringer0]

there is actualy a sort of marsh swamp near the land bridge on qwai but the land bridge just juts out and spans the whole river where as the swamp does not.

[OkitaMakoto]

No...cause if some one lets say on your team destroyed all the bridges how would you get your assets across?

Repair them.

I agree to an extent, but you also gotta leave it to the mappers and the type of gameplay they are wanting.



But yes, I agree you should have to fight to keep your means of crossing the rivers

Good suggestion Jordan, and well written/expressed

[badmojo420]

I agree, at the very least have clear signs that the water is shallow enough to cross. Some posts, tire tracks leading in, different coloured river bed, etc. On maps like Al Basrah these crossings are almost hidden. I had no idea they existed, until I watched a tank drive past my IED'ed bridge and cross the river.

[unrealalex]

It's easy as hell to blow up a bridge and hard as hell to repair it. Without land bridges, maps like Al Basrah would be reduced to bridge baby sitting, and even then, its easy as hell to roll up with an ied or suicide car and blow it up. No, idea would not work.

[Rudd]

It's easy as hell to blow up a bridge and hard as hell to repair it. Without land bridges, maps like Al Basrah would be reduced to bridge baby sitting, and even then, its easy as hell to roll up with an ied or suicide car and blow it up. No, idea would not work.

I disagree, surely IRL men are detailed to control the main strategic routes in an area, and anyway the British can repair very quickly with 2 or 3 engineers.

its not a problem, its an opportunity for a solution using teamwork

[Airsoft]

No...cause if some one lets say on your team destroyed all the bridges how would you get your assets across?

hope that supply truck can get through quick enough without exploding

[Jordanb716]

its not a problem, its an opportunity for a solution using teamwork

Exactly thank you. It would give an organized team a clear advantage over an unorganized one when it comes to that stage in such a map.

[AnRK]

I agree, at the very least have clear signs that the water is shallow enough to cross. Some posts, tire tracks leading in, different coloured river bed, etc. On maps like Al Basrah these crossings are almost hidden. I had no idea they existed, until I watched a tank drive past my IED'ed bridge and cross the river.

Usually there's a road leading right up to them and over from the other side, it's rare that it isn't already abundantly obvious.

Can't say I agree with the Qwai statement, I think it's definitely feasible for a river to go from been that shallow to been that deep. Bear in mind how broad it is at the point where you can cross on the ford, also it's probably a pretty slow flowing river based on the angle it flows on too (looks pretty much flat come to think of it). I'm no geographer, but it looks ok to me.

This kinda thing should be left up to a mappers discretion though, as long as they aren't in stupid places, or look as though it's really not possible that they would exist where they do. I don't think it's necessary to make people have to work as a team for as many elements of the game as much of the time as possible, so I don't see why this is needed. It's good when a team co-ordinates themselves to get a bridge up again, but I don't think it should always be a hassle to cross a river.

[badmojo420]

Usually there's a road leading right up to them and over from the other side, it's rare that it isn't already abundantly obvious.

http://img83.imageshack.us/img83/5471/screen025ep0.jpg
http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/9954 ... 026ae0.jpg

Those two crossings are damn near hidden. No sign, no road, nothing.

It's easy as hell to blow up a bridge and hard as hell to repair it. Without land bridges, maps like Al Basrah would be reduced to bridge baby sitting, and even then, its easy as hell to roll up with an ied or suicide car and blow it up. No, idea would not work.

So the brits can blow up the insurgents bridges, and since civ's can't repair them, effectively stop all vehicle traffic from their main. Yet when the insurgents try the same tactic, not only can the brits repair. But they have a couple places to cross regardless. It's just very unbalanced. Either add a land bridge for the insurgents or let the civ's repair bridges.

[unrealalex]

So the brits can blow up the insurgents bridges, and since civ's can't repair them, effectively stop all vehicle traffic from their main. Yet when the insurgents try the same tactic, not only can the brits repair. But they have a couple places to cross regardless. It's just very unbalanced. Either add a land bridge for the insurgents or let the civ's repair bridges.

basrah is pretty balanced as it is, insurgents win often, british win less but still win.

[badmojo420]

basrah is pretty balanced as it is, insurgents win often, british win less but still win.

So its your opinion, that the mappers should give the insurgents disadvantages on the map, to make up for the advantages they get in the game mode?

I still think the civs should be able to repair bridges. Or give them some other tool to repair vehicles only with. Like the impact gun off battlefield bad company. Otherwise it's confusing for new people. I read the manual and didn't know until i tried.

[LeadMagnet]

Have to agree with another poster here. Blowing the bridges and still leaving land bridges creates one hell of a choke point (see Ambush). If anything it would also serve as the perfect position to deploy and fortify in .8.

[Bringerof_D]

these land bridges may not make sense but they are necesary as we in PR do not have the mobile temporary bridge placing vehichle thingy that the armies should have

[Oddsodz]

I Feel that this is bad. We need them land crossings. Dam it "Fools road" needs one BIG TIME. It only takes 1 3 man squad from the Insurgent team to screw the Brit team right over on that map. Seen it so many times.

[Sadist_Cain]

No...cause if some one lets say on your team destroyed all the bridges how would you get your assets across?

You wouldn't...

Welcome to the wonderful world of Tactical Warfare