Project Reality Forums

Bringerof_D wrote: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

An idea: get rid of all the land crossings and have engineers able to "build" or deploy one of those extend O bridges. Similar to how the commander deploys sandbags or bunkers etc.

There called River fords.
OR River crossings.

Actually as said, it's up to the mapper on how he wants to have the map played.
So the entire Chinese armor division can cross the river like they're Jesus Christ walking on water, when the bridges go down, fine with me.

The only place where these fords need to be removed is al-Basrah. If Insurgents blow all the bridges up, then GB should be worried and should repair and protect one of these bridges, not 'oh well, lets take the ford'.

Oh and just because the GB doesn't win the map doesn't mean it's unbalanced. Back in 0.5 USMC had 2 Cobras and two A10s and they still didn't win. As it is now, it's just a player side problem and the map can be easily won and IMO it's actually balanced towards the British, they just need to get their sh1t together.
It's always been like that now that I think of it, the only reason why the GB/US never won this map a lot is the natural selection not working online.

No.
It would distract the fighting from govement and leading to a kind of trench-warfare over the bridges.

I agree to reduce crossing on Al basrah, but not remove all of them. It forces them into a choke which can easily be guarded with ieds.
Actually it be fine with making the indestructible bridge at village destroyable.

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

Word.
Let the River crossings ingame.


BTW. you cant repair a bridge if a segment is missing.
Like this

badmojo420 wrote: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.

That's a fair point, but then again I don't think either of them are intentional fords in the river, they look more like they are just points in the river where you happen to be able to cross because it is shallow enough.

Fords are realistic...

Ford (crossing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

They are just overused in many maps but there is such things in real life, they where not just dreamt up overnight

I don't think anyone debating whether they're realistic (I hope not anyway), just their use in game. It seems that a few people want all crossings to be destructible for gameplay purposes.

AnRK wrote:I don't think anyone debating whether they're realistic (I hope not anyway), just their use in game. It seems that a few people want all crossings to be destructible for gameplay purposes.

Topic Title wrote:The removal of unrealistic land bridges.

title suggests they are unrealistic

Yea on some maps it would be very cool to get a real fight over the bridges. But there should also be maps where you can use fords.

The purpose is to fight over the CACHES to win the round.

No, its natural, there all over the world. If you remove them its unrealistic due to your changing nature. take a look:Land bridge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

jOHNNYdOUBE wrote:The purpose is to fight over the CACHES to win the round.

then enlarge the cone of death at the mainbase to keep rapers/campers away?

wait...the idea is that the insurgents can harass their bridge building enemies.

soucy, what u going on about?

I think no one is saying that the phenomenon itself is unrealistic but rather talking about certain land bridges in some of the maps not being natural. I'm not sure, but do the one on Qwai really look like it would IRL? Going from places where it's shallow enough to cross with a jeep to very deep?

Also, as someone mentioned, removing the land bridges on some of the maps is an opportunity to increase teamwork on these maps. Qwai being the best example - Chinese having to hold on to and have engineers close to the bridges in order to secure the advance of their armour.

the german city of frankfurt is named after a landbridge. "furt" is the word for it here. "franken" have been the tribe who used it. a legend says once a dude "frank" escaped with his army over that bridge in the last second from an advancing enemy force. the enemy didnt knew about the secret in the river and had to abort their hunt.

further, it seems a guy "moses" had irl used kind of a landbridge to bring his ppl in safety but thats speculation, too. so pls keep landbridges on maps

agreed

Oddsodz wrote: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.

And it only takes one 3-man squad from the Brits to hold the Militia off.

[R-DEV]Rhino wrote:title suggests they are unrealistic

No, the title suggests that the unrealistic land bridges should be removed. It doesn't say anything about the realistic ones



Seriously, as an outdoors-y kind of guy who's spent many happy hours wading around and through rivers some of the fords we've got in PR are just ridiculous.

I like land bridges... I know where to put my mines...

The removal of land bridges will create a want for engineers, which can be a good or bad thing. However the gameplay mechanics will change. Armor will be even weaker than it already is, bridges will become more key then the flags/caches themselves (people will start making "defend bridge" squads and as stated above, the point is to get the cache/flags), and people won't be able to use land bridges as ambush points.

Notice where the land bridges are on maps... they are on the edges/corners. People will preserve the bridges because they are direct access points, unlike land bridges which take a while to get to. Mappers can go in and make them more realistic, and I think it would be fine.

the things is isnt one of the bridges in AL basrah un destroyable, the on in the villiage to the west i think it is.

Exactly right, if we are going to get rid of land bridges get rid of the indestruct-o bridges.

STORM-Mama wrote:I think no one is saying that the phenomenon itself is unrealistic but rather talking about certain land bridges in some of the maps not being natural. I'm not sure, but do the one on Qwai really look like it would IRL? Going from places where it's shallow enough to cross with a jeep to very deep?

Also, as someone mentioned, removing the land bridges on some of the maps is an opportunity to increase teamwork on these maps. Qwai being the best example - Chinese having to hold on to and have engineers close to the bridges in order to secure the advance of their armour.

the only issue with those ones is that the drop off is too sudden, not gradual enough