Project Reality Forums

LtSoucy wrote:Ya 2 crates, 2 engis. Or you could do 1 commander truck, and 2 engis. It would really increase realism and make it so you have to really keep CO trucks alive.

Why not go like 4 crates, then time taken to build the bridge is taken in to account even more so. The trucks would have to go back and rearm- or a Command post would have to be built right on the bridge.

Cyrax-Sektor wrote:how would the Insurgents repair their bridges with a Brit engy kit?

They wouldnt and why should they be able to, if nothing else that alone sounds a good idea for implementing this idea. Whens the last time you heard of a terrorist building anything more then a bomb, they havent skills or resources to build bridges capable of carrying trucks and 60 ton tanks.

They should have that shovel though

If devs wanted them to be able to build a bridge still then its easy enough to give them a truck with crate I guess or make caches count also

So this would emphasize the importance of Insurgent bridges, leading to defense units guarding them. Another aspect of teamwork is lovely.

However, if supply crates were used, the Insurgents could still use the engy kit, using the old crates from a previous British passing. This emphasizes the BAF protecting the British engineer. Maybe even disposing of any traces. Also, like you said, certain Insurgent vehicles could carry crates.

I say the non-lethal technicals on Basrah start off with no crate, and they must arm it off a cache, simulating stowing supplies in the back of the pickup. Once packed up and ready to go, the technical can go to a bridge, drop the crate, resupply, return. Then the Insurgent engineer would set to work, relying on his team to protect him.

There can always be bright ones in a box full of dim bulbs. A rare Insurgent or two with the engy kit could know how to repair a bridge. It's not as far fetched as every single Insurgent knowing how to fix a bridge.

I'm seeing the negatives. A beginner could set off a bomb car over the bridge or a tard could purposely destroy them improperly to hinder the team. Those inevitabilities aside, this new take on bridges would be interesting.

Dr2B Rudd wrote:Why not go like 4 crates, then time taken to build the bridge is taken in to account even more so. The trucks would have to go back and rearm- or a Command post would have to be built right on the bridge.

hell i think that beats my 2 supply crates...it would be better

the thing about the insurgents maybe u could not reapiar a bridge but make like a river crossing out of sand bags...(not much modeling to do tyhis..just sink a bunker under the water line so it looks like a walk way)

it could be built from like the cars

4 crates is way to much, that means it takes more crates to rebuild a bridge then to build an firebase or bunker. I say 2 crates with 2 engis. And i say insrgents cant rebuild them. Would make it so they also must defend the bridges in the hopes of jihading.

It would nerf the current gameplay style on al basrah too much! I dont see any logical fault with what your saying. but you are suggesting that a portion of each of the forces focus on the bridges. which is unrealistic. You dont want the amasing infantry combat that is focused in the city to be annihilated do you? I think its a bad direction because when the brits will be focusing on covering an engineer to fix a broken bridge (which the wont!!!) the suicide cars and rpgs can spam them with fantastic results, and kick the british force's asses. And to be honust the brits allready have a slightly over-shortened timer to deal with, and this idea would totally ruin the map. in short, if you implement this, then you gotta change everything else! And the balance will be awful.

Psykogundam wrote:It would nerf the current gameplay style on al basrah too much! I dont see any logical fault with what your saying. but you are suggesting that a portion of each of the forces focus on the bridges. which is unrealistic. You dont want the amasing infantry combat that is focused in the city to be annihilated do you? I think its a bad direction because when the brits will be focusing on covering an engineer to fix a broken bridge (which the wont!!!) the suicide cars and rpgs can spam them with fantastic results, and kick the british force's asses. And to be honust the brits allready have a slightly over-shortened timer to deal with, and this idea would totally ruin the map. in short, if you implement this, then you gotta change everything else! And the balance will be awful.

Couldn't agree more. It won't improve teamwork, it will just be another pain in the *** for the British which are already at a disadvantage on this map because they don't have much time, their tickets run out quick, or they get suicide bombed.

Do you guys honestly want to waste more tickets and time repairing a bridge? Because like Psyko said, no one will be defending them as they repair, so the "teamwork" aspect is moot. The teamwork on this map needs to come from helping each other locate and destory caches, not other things which take the focus off that because we already have too many of those like everyone camping and killing insurgents at the CO built bunkers on VCP, camping armor, British troops running around and kill insurgents (pointless) instead of cache hunting, or spending too much time blowing up insurgent bridges etc.

LtSoucy wrote:4 crates is way to much, that means it takes more crates to rebuild a bridge then to build an firebase or bunker. I say 2 crates with 2 engis. And i say insrgents cant rebuild them. Would make it so they also must defend the bridges in the hopes of jihading.

Well, a bridge like the one at VCP is a huge engineering project, I would venture that it is more so than a bunch of sandbags and some camo netting

But for gameplay purposes, I see your point.

But insurgents defending the palace bridges = free intel points for the brits. Challenger 2 will just run over there and rock their world; they have no cover and the tank doesnt need to come to IED range to get the bridges. Perhaps we should make the western palace bridge indestructable with the blurb that british forces are trying to avoid colateral damage or something? I don't like this idea myself, but realism vs gameplay is a hard discussion.

The UK bridge is a wide open area if you cant defend that with APC scopes and constant fire then you havent much of a chance of winning the game anyway with the city being the real challenge to control.

If the team or a squad even has to work together to fix the bridge hopefully it 'clicks' that this is a good idea every time an area must be locked down

Sabre_tooth_tigger wrote:The UK bridge is a wide open area if you cant defend that with APC scopes and constant fire then you havent much of a chance of winning the game anyway with the city being the real challenge to control.

If the team or a squad even has to work together to fix the bridge hopefully it 'clicks' that this is a good idea every time an area must be locked down

The APCs should be camping a bridge the entire round. The good crews would be the only ones defending, thus taking good men away from the objectives.