Page 2 of 4
Posted: 2008-02-04 02:24
by nedlands1
Posted: 2008-02-04 03:51
by BloodBane611
That is what I'm talking about nedlands!
Do the number of posts alone have any bearing on whether you are right or wrong?
It's not about posts. It's about the fact that jonny not only has shown his knowledge as well as logic skills, but that he knows what he is talking about when it comes to the engine itself. When he makes suggestions, it's generally based on what could conceivably work. Don't put words in our mouths about what we are or are not defending. We've got plenty of words of our own.
Anyhow, I do think that bridges are both far too easy to destroy and rebuild. Using the current system used for bunkers/firebases and other deployables, requiring a supply truck and build order, and then requiring the bridge to be built by several engineers after placing the initial static (as was the case with AA in 0.6), would be much more realistic than the current system, i.e. a single engineer can easily either destroy or repair a bridge.
Posted: 2008-02-04 05:01
by +SiN+headhunter
Well i agree they shouldn't be repairable with wrench's.
The shovel represents a building tool We should be able to RE-BUILD it.
Very good piont about the C-4 it'll make demolitions a skill.
Posted: 2008-02-04 05:16
by Deadmonkiefart
The slightly more common, smaller wooden bridges should be repairable by an engineer. The large concrete and steel bridges of AL Basrah should at least take 2 engineers to repair. Also, it should take slightly more explosives to destroy. Mabe you could make it so that explosives placed on top of the bridge would create small to medium sized holes, while explosives placed on the supports and pillars should take out significant sections of the bridges.
Posted: 2008-02-04 05:16
by RCMoonPie
[quote=""'[R-CON"]nedlands1;600079']
Project Reality Forums - View Single Post - blow torch for engie's?[/quote]
Great post!
[quote="BloodBane611""]
It's not about posts. It's about the fact that jonny not only has shown his knowledge as well as logic skills, but that he knows what he is talking about when it comes to the engine itself. [/quote]
Thats really great. But it doesnt answer why everyone takes it as an insult to their ego when someone doesn't like their idea or suggestion or remark.
BloodBane611 wrote:When he makes suggestions, it's generally based on what could conceivably work. Don't put words in our mouths about what we are or are not defending. We've got plenty of words of our own.
No words were put into mouths and I didnt speak for anyone. Please show me where this occured. There was nothing wrong with me pointing out your defense of the post. It always amazes me at the sensitivity level of some people who play these games about the buisness of killing and war.
BloodBane611 wrote:Anyhow, I do think that bridges are both far too easy to destroy and rebuild. Using the current system used for bunkers/firebases and other deployables, requiring a supply truck and build order, and then requiring the bridge to be built by several engineers after placing the initial static (as was the case with AA in 0.6), would be much more realistic than the current system, i.e. a single engineer can easily either destroy or repair a bridge.
I do agree with this.
I just dont recall this idea being posted and described in this manner until this very post in regards to the truck, build order and several engineers. Perhaps I missed it.
Posted: 2008-02-04 05:27
by RCMoonPie
Jonny wrote:@ Artez:
I did not mean that, but thanks for another reason anyway.
@ moon:
Vehicles respawn because the military brings them to the field in masses. People respawn because they send in a battalion, not a platoon to fight. Bridges are not brought with the troops ready made to use the parts to repair other bridges quickly. They must be repaired later.
Your argument seems to be that you think the bridges are easily reparied in just a few minutes, mine is not only that they are not but that they need specialist, and unavailable, knowledge and equipment to rebuild to any useable standard. Also that one man is NOT capable of it.
You should try suggesting longrange artillary pieces because thats more realistic on a battlefield of less than 18km^2.
Wrenches and shovels do not build bridges. You need to think seriously about the world around you if you think it is possible. Broken down cars represent popped tyres and disconnected wires, broken bridges represent a dangerously unstable bridge. You can replace tyres and reconnect wires, but you cannot rebuild a bridge without waiting days for the concrete to cure to a safe strength.
Dude.....I am not in disagreement about the facts....and I realize how long it takes to construct or reconstruct a bridge! I know first hand what it takes to get logistics(bullets, band-aids, and beans) to the field.
My issue is how are you going to represent this fact within the game so that it has playability and remains a FPS, and not a RPG about construction.
Thats all.
Posted: 2008-02-04 10:34
by kilroy0097
Considering one of the main roles of the combat engineer in the real world is to build bridges, repair existing ones or build structures and defensive positions I really don't see any problem with an engineer fixing a bridge. BTW have you tried that recently? I've spent 10 minutes in the game constantly repairing a bridge before it came back up blackened and smoking. That's 10 MINUTES of me pressing my button in one location. Never mind if the bridge is multiple sections. Hell I could spend 20 minutes fixing a bridge and that's all with the possibilities of going under fire and being shot out in the open.
No I think it's just fine the way it is and more than difficult enough to do since engineers can't sit in vehicles and repair things around them anymore.
Although I wouldn't mind seeing a
Buffalo vehicle to remove IEDs. Now wouldn't that be kind of cool.
Buffalo vehicle is in the back right of the picture.
Posted: 2008-02-04 10:36
by Pain
Why not make the repair of bridges more specific?
To repair a bridge you need:
- 2 engineers around
- a truck around
- and a repair order from commander/sl
Without that equipment and direct orders from com or sl the bridge cant be repaired.
or maybe put somethin in the game like this:
Orig text for 2nd pic: wrote:U.S. Marine Corps Lance Cpl. Bryan P. Kippes drives his M-60A1 Armored Vehicle over the bridge he launched near Gharmah, Iraq, recently. Marines from Company D, 2nd Tank Battalion serving with Regimental Combat Team 5 in Fallujah, laid the bridge to help infantrymen with 1st Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment after a bridge was deemed unsafe. U.S. Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Ryan C. Opick
<<<Link to pics>>>
Posted: 2008-02-04 17:24
by Sadist_Cain
Mobile bridges have been suggested before.
What about seeing the return of the Engineer truck and having that able to
help engineers repair bridges.
LOVE nedlands suggestion... Can that be a deployable asset?
Posted: 2008-02-04 22:07
by RCMoonPie
Jonny wrote:Because bridges CANNOT be repaired on a battlefield, only replaced...
This was found with a minimal search, and from just last year.
Multi-National Force - Iraq - Iraqi, Coalition Forces engineers repair Tigris River Bridge
Posted: 2008-02-05 00:30
by BloodBane611
For any operation where troops are not in a very well controlled area, they are not going to have the time or security to rebuild a bridge. Surrounding a bridge with tanks, attack helicopters, and troops in order to rebuild it just cannot happen everywhere. In combat engineers are going to use bridging vehicles or pontoon bridges.
The problem is that no solution I have thought of is not needlessly complicated, and none of them are particularly easy to implement. I think increasing bridge strength, and requiring more engineers to rebuild, maybe even that a supply truck or repair vehicle is nearby, are all good ideas. But to make this 100% realistic would totally destroy the balance of maps like Qwai.
Posted: 2008-02-05 15:58
by RCMoonPie
Just trying to understand you......I swear Im not trying to be an ***.......
But by the logic of your posts, its your wish that once a bridge is blown...thats it.
Its gone for the entire round.
As far as the quote...a 12 hour bridge repair is "simulatable" I think...for a game.
Posted: 2008-02-05 16:04
by RCMoonPie
BloodBane611 wrote:I think increasing bridge strength, and requiring more engineers to rebuild, maybe even that a supply truck or repair vehicle is nearby, are all good ideas. But to make this 100% realistic would totally destroy the balance of maps like Qwai.
Agreed.
Posted: 2008-02-05 17:57
by RCMoonPie
Jonny wrote:Thats right Moon, The flags on Qwai may need to be moved and blowing the bridges would stop both teams getting tanks and jeeps across. So once you are pushing forward to the enemies main you need to hold the bridges, or at least one of them, if you want any heavy assets with you. Thus bringing defence of critical structures into any decent battle plan.
Okay....I see your point and agree....
but....a "decent battle plan" in regard to "defence of critical structures" just isn't going to happen in a server full of 64 strangers, some of which dont even speak the same "nomenclature".
The ability to repair "mission critical structures" does serve a purpose...in the fact that it keeps the players of the game who are playing with purpose from getting hosed by those players who dont give a rats @ss about the game, and who do not follow orders from the commander.
See my point?
Posted: 2008-02-05 18:45
by .blend
I think bridges should definitly be made more mission critical, but not by making them totally unrepairable.
It should just take VERY LONG and require multiple engies to repair a bridge. That way destroying bridges would still give an advantage, but it wouldnt be the end of everything if for instance some noob would abuse a bridge to test how good c4 works.
But my own, a bit farfetched idea(everyone seems to have one) would be to make the repairing take reaaallly loooong, like 20min or so. Now, of course that wouldnt be any fun for the engies, so one would need a "bridge repairing team" commander asset. just a modified supply box or a truck would do. Like in RL, that asset could be blown up to hinder ur progress and thus u from using vehicles, so it would need to be protected. It would last awhile, so the enemy can take full advantage of the change, but it wouldnt last forever, so the battle stays dynamic.