• Announcements

    • PITTPETE

      NEW Career Subscriptions now available   06/08/2019

      The all new highly anticipated / requested "Career Based Subscriptions" are available through www.WWIIONLINE.com/account only, starting at $9.99! There are three new subscriptions being added; 1) All Infantry at $9.99/mo, 2) All Air Forces at $9.99/mo, 3) All Ground Forces (Army Persona) at $12.99/mo. Continue reading to learn more and get back into the fight now! View the full article on battlegroundeurope.com
imded

Bridge AO/DO do we need it?

107 posts in this topic

Keep the point system. Just lower the amount of points per RTB.

Lets say 2-5 points.

This would in turn make it more of a tactical move, rather than getting

points.

As for trying to get points for rank, you would have to do it the 'olde fashion way'.

Blow up FBs, kill shiat, etc. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be against it because it can result in one non-HC player* seriously messing it up for the rest of the playerbase. The disadvantages far outweigh the advantages. For example when attacking Givet High command (with support of playerbase) want to keep Givet bridge up but one player has the opinion that in the circumstances the bridge should destroyed. That player can then spawn a bomber and blow the bridge which would be really determental to a respective side. You could expect something like this on chat if Axis (vice versa for allies as well) just kicked the flags from Givet but someone blew the bridge:

"WTF why the **** did <player A> bomb that bridge when we had just kicked their flags and 10 tanks and 30 infantry ready to cross to the West side which they had 0 supply for!"

What do you do with than one player who bombs the bridge in the situation?

1) Nothing as they were playing within the confines of the game

2) Warning from GM

3) Temporary ban (either first time or a '3 strikes')

That player might not be able to read English so could be completely oblivious.

In theory it adds more depth to the game but IMO in practise it won't really change anything and will only be noticeable when a small number of people do oen thing to the deterimant of others.

If you wanted depth you could disable '.own'/health statuses for bridges but I think that would just be another chore which would not add to the enjoyment. In real life you can odviously see the difference between an undamaged bridge and a bridge that is seriously damamged but in the game there is only 2 models: Bridge standing and bridge destroyed.

*Not a dig at HC, just there is a difference between HC & non-HC players

Edited by parallama

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Problem is people would just destroy them non stop to get air points.

Well, maybe if the air points game wasn't so borked they wouldn't have to. Add it to the list, right?

Even still...

This is a good idea. I don't like having to wait for HC to place an AO or DO on a bridge, especially when you ask, "Who has map?" and nobody answers, and when you go to the TS3 channels, they're all empty.

When you ask repeatedly, someone finally answers and say, "oh, they're AFK".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you prefer having to repair bridges all the time?

And you're right about the air points being too hard to get.

Easiest way to get air ranks = join HC lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would be against it because it can result in one non-HC player* seriously messing it up for the rest of the playerbase. The disadvantages far outweigh the advantages. For example when attacking Givet High command (with support of playerbase) want to keep Givet bridge up but one player has the opinion that in the circumstances the bridge should destroyed. That player can then spawn a bomber and blow the bridge which would be really determental to a respective side. You could expect something like this on chat if Axis (vice versa for allies as well) just kicked the flags from Givet but someone blew the bridge:

"WTF why the **** did <player A> bomb that bridge when we had just kicked their flags and 10 tanks and 30 infantry ready to cross to the West side which they had 0 supply for!"

What do you do with than one player who bombs the bridge in the situation?

1) Nothing as they were playing within the confines of the game

2) Warning from GM

3) Temporary ban (either first time or a '3 strikes')

That player might not be able to read English so could be completely oblivious.

In theory it adds more depth to the game but IMO in practise it won't really change anything and will only be noticeable when a small number of people do oen thing to the deterimant of others.

If you wanted depth you could disable '.own'/health statuses for bridges but I think that would just be another chore which would not add to the enjoyment. In real life you can odviously see the difference between an undamaged bridge and a bridge that is seriously damamged but in the game there is only 2 models: Bridge standing and bridge destroyed.

*Not a dig at HC, just there is a difference between HC & non-HC players

So, what I get from all this is that no matter what, someone will do

the wrong thing, no matter what.

Well, in that case. We should NEVER CHANGE THE GAME.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Would you prefer having to repair bridges all the time?

And you're right about the air points being too hard to get.

Easiest way to get air ranks = join HC lol.

Ha, that's what I did...

I'd hate to have to repair bridges ALL the time.

There has to be a better way than waiting for HC to drop and AO/DO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ha, that's what I did...

I'd hate to have to repair bridges ALL the time.

There has to be a better way than waiting for HC to drop and AO/DO

Hazards of war. Bridges come and they go.

AT an active AO near a bridge. One side wants it down the other wants it up. So we have a battle for the bridge.

Others spread across the country side. You need a very friendly HC to put up

AOs for you, or DOs as the case maybe. << we all know how well that would work.

Edited by imded

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would like to see the Bridge AO/DO system removed.

Make ALL the bridges Destroyable and Repairable.

We have AI that can be taken out and repaired.

In other words, if I show up with a Sapper or Engineer, I could destroy the bridge. (or bombs, guns, etc.)

As for Repair, I show up with a Engineer and it gets fixed.

NO ao or do required.

This would promote some behind the scenes tactics for the stealth squads.

In my mind this would be a new facet to the game. Should not require too

much coding I would think.

What are your thoughts.

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the idea has more value once pontoon bridge PPOs are introduced. It is a radically different way of playing the game as bridges will be mainly destroyed most of the time would be my guess. I think if the bridge AO/DO mechanic can be turned off. Make auto repair 48 or 72 hours on bridge repair and allow destruction/repair of bridges without an AO/DO requirement would be interesting to try for a campaign.

Edited by stonecomet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is yall's solution to the 'friendly fire' problem that not having an AO/DO would create?

If no AO/DO is needed for bridge destruction/repair, what stops a guy from spawning in to the other side and repairing the bridge in conjunction with his previous side's planned attack?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is yall's solution to the 'friendly fire' problem that not having an AO/DO would create?

If no AO/DO is needed for bridge destruction/repair, what stops a guy from spawning in to the other side and repairing the bridge in conjunction with his previous side's planned attack?

Same thing that stops it now (the other sides HC can place a DO on an AO'd bridge to accomplish the same effect)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

with limited quantities of AO/DO for bridges, it takes forever to accomplish

the task at hand. Many times the HC if any, are busy to do the task.

and during the TZ3 it is almost impossible to get it done.

:cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Remove AO/DO requirement for bridges.

2) Color code bridge status on map, yellow for below 50%, red for destroyed.

3) Remove all points for bridge destruction unless an AO is on the town itself to prevent exploiting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1) Remove AO/DO requirement for bridges.

2) Color code bridge status on map, yellow for below 50%, red for destroyed.

3) Remove all points for bridge destruction unless an AO is on the town itself to prevent exploiting.

#2 why? even now we have to look at it with '/own'

#3 why? if it does, not many will do it. It takes a boring grind to get up in

rank this way.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing that occurred to me is players spawning on the opposite to take down bridges to support their normal side's effort. No friendly air near, no problem I will switch sides and take down the bridge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I disagree. Because a number of things like buildings can not be manually repaired. I don't think that a CP destroyed in the first week of foghting should be down for the rest of the campaign with no way to fix it.

When, during WWII, were there construction companies working in cities, building new buildings? At most, there should be citizens or military work details clearing rubble and making roads passable. If the fighting goes through a town, the buildings which were destroyed during that fighting should stay destroyed until after the war.

Also, consider that this is supposed to be more than just a PVP combat. This is supposed to simulate WWII. There are supposed to be tons of worker bee types in the background, repairing buildings, fueling planes and vehicles, and so on.

Repairing buildings, no. Maintaining vehicles and such, yes. How would anyone repair damaged buildings during wartime, with scarce resources and limited manpower, not to mention the threat of the fighting coming back through if the tide of battle turned?

3e11af4614ff10a74c38644ef167379a.jpg

The factories alone would shut down the campaign in a few days if they did not self repair, bacause they cannot be manually repaired.

Factories were priorities, so they had dedicated work crews to get them back in operation. Even so, many factories had production lines going in bombed out buildings, because it was too wasteful to repair the roofs and walls just to have them bombed out again.

And if we it were changed so that we could repair everything manually and all auto repair was removed? We would need to seriously up the number of available engineers.

Very true. But, on the other hand, one engineer magically repairing a bridge in a few seconds isn't very realistic, either.

I too like the idea of open bridge repair and assault.

Absolutely! As been said, bridges were major objectives. They should be in the game as well.

-Irish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it takes 80 repair kits to put a bridge back up.

engy carries only 4

so he does 20 runs at the bridge, time depends on how close to bridge fru is.

If min distance, it takes about 30-45 minutes typically,

1. setting up mission

2. driving to bridge (some are far away)

3. desp and come back as engy.

4. run, repair, run, restock, repeat, repeat, repeat........

I have done this many times.

So, bridge DOES not go back up in seconds as odonovan1 suggests.

As for why would an enemy come to your side to repair bridge? He just

gets a DO on bridge from his side. And on top of that, his character is stuck

and cant get back to his own side for 15 minutes minimum. So, effectively he

is sidelocked and not playing for that much time.

Look there will always be cheaters. For the most part the CRS crime team

is doing a great job curtailing infractions. Keep doing .reports.

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+10 for this concept.

also brigades should not be able to move across a river when bridge(s) between two towns are down. (just like they can't move if a link cp is enemy owned).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the idea that pilots will be flying around destroying bridges for points is being blown out of proportion. The only pilots interested in bombing bridges for points are new pilots, and while I cannot speak for allied air, for the Germans, this means at least 3 runs to a bridge with a stuka... for ~30 points. An extremely time consuming venture.

I find that this game overestimates the effectiveness of air against ground targets, which is evident by the insignificant points pIilots are rewarded for ground kills. A bofors can kill a plane with one hit for a significant reward. A plane killing a bofors gets a few points.

Which brings up another point... why do ground units need to see the circle around planes? Plane vs plane, I can understand since its hard to pick out a target against terrain, but why does an AA gunner need to know exactly where I am at 3 km? Just showing some more how biased this game is against pilots. Maybe tanks should have circles around them also, or infantry since they are worth 1/2 point to a pilot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One thing that occurred to me is players spawning on the opposite to take down bridges to support their normal side's effort. No friendly air near, no problem I will switch sides and take down the bridge.

Why would they have to go to the other side.

A: they can just take it down without joining the opposing side.

B: then they would have to wait for SIDE LOCK to end too.

So, very un-practical.

The side you are on would be able to repair or destroy without AO or DO.

This would add another dimension to the game. People would have to go

and look and do what is needed.

I would also leave the points in. Have you ever tried repair or blow bridge

by putting 1 charge/repair and despawn and come back every time to

get 10 points per? In addition, you have to walk back to the bridge and to fru.

To get a 1k points, that would require you to do 100 trips.

A noob may do it for a bit, but, after awhile the shear boredom

would kill you. AND the bridge would still be up/dn.

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like this idea. It's time to get rid of the AO/DO for bridges.

But, keep the .command to check if it's up or down. Fog of war and all...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a reminder.

On another post. I stated everything that can be destroyed should be repairable.

Maybe separate the engineers to 2 different units.

  • a construction engineer that builds and repairs.
  • a explosive engineer that destroys things. only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I support all bridges being able to be destroyed or repaired at all times.

But, if we do that, we need to lower the rank you get for destroying it and repairing it.

From the current 10 to just 1.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.