• 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

On ‎11‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 7:26 PM, forrest said:

I'd bomb strategic bridges all day.

And it would take all day long. Flight time and accuracy. 20+ minutes minimum per run. In reality, bridges and AF are not that close to each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎11‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 5:27 PM, merlin51 said:

I prefer to put ammo box on bridge
and just stay there reloading and repairing
Goes faster than despawning

But you are not getting more points. You will only get 10 points with this scenario, not the max possible.

End result, not many will put that much effort into. I really don't see the grieving here.

Back in the day when a fairmille could get you 30 points per one shot at a bridge, despawn and rinse/repeat. Then it was worth it. Took me a couple of hours to get up in navy ranks. But at 10 points per rinse/repeat. No way I would have put in 6+ hours to do the same ranking. It was extremely BORING.  Did I say it was BORING doing that for a few hours?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the issue with flyers getting points for bombing bridges? I do not understand it why ground-pounders should worry, after-all half the time it's happening in their interest i.e. their own bombers are dropping bridges their own HC is requesting down. The enemy bombers are not bombing them, killing bofors in the AB, so that can't be it either, and, they're providing targets for the fighterboys would shoot at. As bombing is so ineffective, generally, one would have thought that a reason for patrols to intercept such bombers would be in the interest of everyone....

 

Why the opposition, what does it matter  to a ground-pounder if someone ranks a little more quickly in a bridge mission, afterall, you can be certain that bomber-pilots are not ranking quickly from normal missions. If I had a penny for every time I've dropped a stick across a town from fractionally too high - and still most unrealistically low - and received nil points for nil kills, I'd be a rich man!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

@fidd, I don't think the point was to specifically and maliciously take points away from dedicated pilots as it was a possible solution against griefing a non AO/DO bridge situation. Although I clearly see the concern from a dedicated pilots point of view. I believe the whole points system could use an overhaul, especially the air game. But I'm not much of a pilot in this game so not much to contribute there. Anyways, I though infantry were called squishies and ground-pounders were pilots that attack ground based objects like bridges and squishies. I don't think squishies do care about the amount of points a pilot gets for bombing a bridge. Probably do not give it much thought in that context.

I consider STO bombs to be pretty high up there on the development list. Only problem I see there is we do not have friendly fire. Way too much greifing opportunity if we had friendly fire in this game in this game, without campaign side lock, FTP accounts and a harsh but fair punishment system.

That is why the current system is difficult to change because it affects many areas of the game. I get why we need AOs and DOs on bridges. I do think that some of the more thoughtful and knowledgeable players could come up with a better system. Whether and when CRS could implement such a system is another matter.

S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, fidd said:

What is the issue with flyers getting points for bombing bridges? I do not understand it why ground-pounders should worry, after-all half the time it's happening in their interest i.e. their own bombers are dropping bridges their own HC is requesting down. The enemy bombers are not bombing them, killing bofors in the AB, so that can't be it either, and, they're providing targets for the fighterboys would shoot at. As bombing is so ineffective, generally, one would have thought that a reason for patrols to intercept such bombers would be in the interest of everyone....

 

Why the opposition, what does it matter  to a ground-pounder if someone ranks a little more quickly in a bridge mission, afterall, you can be certain that bomber-pilots are not ranking quickly from normal missions. If I had a penny for every time I've dropped a stick across a town from fractionally too high - and still most unrealistically low - and received nil points for nil kills, I'd be a rich man!

hmm.. wonder if we could give points for just dropping bombs on an AO'd town in addition to any kills.. Certainly will give ppl some effort points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ever try and get a AO/DO on a bridge during the day? Its like pulling teeth. At nite, just as bad but in a different way.

Seldom when asking does it happen, cause HC is focused elsewhere. Just feel lucky when you get an answer as to who is running the map.

Half the time or worse, HC wont listen to you. Point out a FUBAR situation and they get defensive. You come back the next day and you were right and many towns gone.....

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/22/2017 at 4:16 PM, imded said:

Ever try and get a AO/DO on a bridge during the day? Its like pulling teeth. At nite, just as bad but in a different way.

Seldom when asking does it happen, cause HC is focused elsewhere. Just feel lucky when you get an answer as to who is running the map.

Half the time or worse, HC wont listen to you. Point out a FUBAR situation and they get defensive. You come back the next day and you were right and many towns gone.....

 

Yup. Well said. We nearly lost a town just because HC did not place an AO on the bridge. 

I had to PM a HC member after I already called for an AO over and over on a Bridge . I finally got it but not before a Char made it over that bridge and rolled into town . Luckily they did not mass bum rush from the south FB that was across river . 

AO finally came I took down Bridge 5min later AO on town was pulled. 

So much easier to defend one approach then a pincers approach.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a bridge is down, it should stay down until after the combat had moved on. There would be no way engineers could rebuild a bridge with girders and concrete and all the rest of it while under  fire and it would take days/weeks to rebuild it to the point heavy equipment could cross it. A downed bridge could also be tied to supply. There would be 2 options while the bridge is down.......rubber boats and pontoon bridges. Effectively, blowing bridges could hurt either side as far as wrestling the advantage to advance because the 2 alternatives would take time. So it would behoove both sides to be more conservative about glibly blowing things up. To heck with the point thing if that is all that matters. You'd have to become much more creative about how you are going to cross that river. And if bridges were tied to supply..........blow them up AFTER the enemy has taken control of the town. It would create a whole new dynamic to the game. Supply would be much more critical than just a few factories in cities and each side being assured they have a steady, endless supply. Removing AO/DO from HC to place on bridges means that pilots would have to be much more responsible about where they drop bombs.....hence no points and would need to be tied to offensive/defensive considerations. IMHO these things should be part of a cooperative collaboration between the squads and HC.(ever heard that before??)  It is rather ridiculous for an advancing army to knock out bridges because they were a precious commodity, except to maybe trap a retreating enemy. Bridges should be a strategic and precious commodity which, in the game, is not even a consideration.

zimm out

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎11‎/‎25‎/‎2017 at 8:09 PM, zimmer said:

If a bridge is down, it should stay down until after the combat had moved on. There would be no way engineers could rebuild a bridge with girders and concrete and all the rest of it while under  fire and it would take days/weeks to rebuild it to the point heavy equipment could cross it. A downed bridge could also be tied to supply. There would be 2 options while the bridge is down.......rubber boats and pontoon bridges. Effectively, blowing bridges could hurt either side as far as wrestling the advantage to advance because the 2 alternatives would take time. So it would behoove both sides to be more conservative about glibly blowing things up. To heck with the point thing if that is all that matters. You'd have to become much more creative about how you are going to cross that river. And if bridges were tied to supply..........blow them up AFTER the enemy has taken control of the town. It would create a whole new dynamic to the game. Supply would be much more critical than just a few factories in cities and each side being assured they have a steady, endless supply. Removing AO/DO from HC to place on bridges means that pilots would have to be much more responsible about where they drop bombs.....hence no points and would need to be tied to offensive/defensive considerations. IMHO these things should be part of a cooperative collaboration between the squads and HC.(ever heard that before??)  It is rather ridiculous for an advancing army to knock out bridges because they were a precious commodity, except to maybe trap a retreating enemy. Bridges should be a strategic and precious commodity which, in the game, is not even a consideration.

zimm out

Was only trying to make a simple change as in comparison to an extensive work in code. Taking the AO/DO away is so much more simpler code wise than what you suggest. This would be an easy fix and your thoughts could be more down the line. Good suggestions tho.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/19/2017 at 11:16 AM, imded said:

But you are not getting more points. You will only get 10 points with this scenario, not the max possible.

You may have a point, i was thinking in terms of getting the bridge back open ASAP

 

12 hours ago, HATCH said:

Where is the "Two Thumbs Up!" emoticon?

This one?

4e5cf7d4ccb9c59b6620a9c71944d51e.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, imded said:

Any thoughts on this CRS??

I dont know about CRS, but personally i think unfortunately we do
If for no other reason, to make sure that johnny no brains does not
1) Decide to go repair the bridge that you took down in an effort to prevent the enemy from rolling 60 tanks over the top of your town you are defending
2) To make sure that same johnny nobrains doesnt decide to go blow up the bridge you are driving 60 tanks across

Both assuming johnny is on the side that should NOT be changing the bridge state

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I partially agree with the original idea.

A bridge is a complex element of the terrain and has a lot of influence on a battle.

A good alternative would be to have two area capture points on each side of a bridge. If you « own » both sides you can rebuild it (only). If not, you can destroy it (only).

but it is difficult to code yet.

Edited by Zebbeee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Zebbeee said:

A good alternative would be to have two area capture points on each side of a bridge. If you « own » both sides you can rebuild it (only). If not, you can destroy it (only).

but it is difficult to code yet.

That it may be, but it is an awesome idea
And i could see later it having a lot more value, when there is an affect-able supply system.
Capture the bridge control the flow of supply, blow a bridge behind the lines, hinder supplycoming across it to locations that link back across it etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, merlin51 said:

I dont know about CRS, but personally i think unfortunately we do
If for no other reason, to make sure that johnny no brains does not
1) Decide to go repair the bridge that you took down in an effort to prevent the enemy from rolling 60 tanks over the top of your town you are defending
2) To make sure that same johnny nobrains doesnt decide to go blow up the bridge you are driving 60 tanks across

Both assuming johnny is on the side that should NOT be changing the bridge state

Never thought about that.. the bridge griefer.  MB the Bridge AO count should go up and with less time pulling or placing AO/DO on bridges?  Again however when you have to rely on HC to place them and you don't have any on.. that's the down side. Its a double edge sword and TBH if there are no AO DO on them for repair or destruction you can also repair the griefers work also. Its no different than having your bridgehead blocked with tank traps, sandbag walls and bunkers by whom ever put them there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And when Jonny's on the other side? How to enforce him to destroy the right bridge that needs to be destroyed asap, instead  of fixing the one at the back line, 500 miles from the enemy fire?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, stankyus said:

Never thought about that.. the bridge griefer.  MB the Bridge AO count should go up and with less time pulling or placing AO/DO on bridges?  Again however when you have to rely on HC to place them and you don't have any on.. that's the down side. Its a double edge sword and TBH if there are no AO DO on them for repair or destruction you can also repair the griefers work also. Its no different than having your bridgehead blocked with tank traps, sandbag walls and bunkers by whom ever put them there.

To fix the bridge, you need a bunch of engineers to put a bunch of repair kits
to remove a few PPO's you just need a few riflemen real quick.

It is a lot more work to fix the bridge, and the damage might already be done before you can do it
(or take it back down which ever the case may be)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, merlin51 said:

To fix the bridge, you need a bunch of engineers to put a bunch of repair kits
to remove a few PPO's you just need a few riflemen real quick.

It is a lot more work to fix the bridge, and the damage might already be done before you can do it
(or take it back down which ever the case may be)

To repair a bridge now you need many engineers plus a AO.  What does a bridge AO take now.. 10 minutes to pull an AO, HC to set AO after and 10 minutes for the AO to set? if the HC is on the ball that's 20 minutes plus.  Like I said its a double edge sword and TBH, without the ability to create some sort of pontoon bridge bridges we either need to get rid of the AO/DO limit on bridges or increase them with no delay in dropping and placing, or scrap the AO/DO on bridges period.  I don't see pontoon bridges in the near future so that leaves us with the AO/DO to deal with and personally I believe the best route is to get rid of them short term and see how it goes. If it goes badly work in a better solution then what we have now... IE no limit on AO/DO and add the MOIC the ability to drop the bridge or repair it.. any bridge anywhere.  A simple click on the bridge in map screen and AO/DO it. I think for one, like yourself who wants to see as much historical realism.. well its historical and a scientific fact that a bomb hitting a bridge will damage it or even destroy it.  It would be cool also if damage would include vehicle weight.. mb a 50% damaged bridge will crumble under the weight of a Tiger tank but not under the weight of a P4D.  Another thing would be to show actual damage to the bridge as its bombed like half of the road blown away or a crater in the middle.. you still can get infantry across but not any vehicles... rail bridges can have girders fallen down blocking traffic.. right up to the point that the bridge is down completely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, merlin51 said:

we did that, remember?

We did? LOL no, I don't recall a time when we did.  MB it was not that impressive or game changing.  So how did it go?  MB now since its in the news again, mb we should give it another try like we have done with supply, cap timers, movement timers etc. The game is ever changing mb it should we should give it another look?

What do you think about looking at visual damage states instead of a up or down bridge? 

Secondly I am not poopooing the AO/DO framework, just the get rid of the limit and timers and extend the ability to set the AO for MOICs which can be nominated from the PB. Then you control the griefers. Often the MOIC is boots on the ground in the AO where there are no HC to monitor the local action.  Another solution is to only allow HC to place the AO/DO on bridges anywhere on the map but a MOIC in the towns linking brigade has jurisdiction over the Attack or Defense of the current town.. You could further the control a bit by allowing any HC on to void the order.  That way when HC is on, he still has command of the map, but when there are no HC on the MOIC has the ability to set the local AO DO on the bridge.  I'm not requesting this out of a vacuum, being a TZ3 allied player with NO HC on where bridges being down could have saved us, or having them up so we could take the town back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, stankyus said:

We did? LOL no, I don't recall a time when we did.  MB it was not that impressive or game changing.  So how did it go?  MB now since its in the news again, mb we should give it another try like we have done with supply, cap timers, movement timers etc. The game is ever changing mb it should we should give it another look?

You dont remember when someone turned on bridge damage (pre AO's) not sure if it was in a campaign, may have been intermission
It wasnt impressive that i remember just all the bridges got wrecked, whether you wanted it or not.

bridge AO/DO limits probably could be higher, im not sure what they are now? but probably dont need heavy limits

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/28/2018 at 2:45 PM, Zebbeee said:

A good alternative would be to have two area capture points on each side of a bridge. If you « own » both sides you can rebuild it (only). If not, you can destroy it (only).

but it is difficult to code yet.

It would be a huge bump to game realism to shift the strat mesh concept from >>capture towns<< to >>capture bridge sites<<, along with a few towns that inherently are transportation route throttle points.

Having the capture points as proposed would make that approach (theoretically) possible.

Though to do that, CRS would have to add a number of missing rivers to the map, including this one, after which the 1940 Allied strategic plan was named:

DyleRiversmall.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree never really understood the design decision .. at least not now with truck resupply and mobile spawns.

Maybe if they were thinking on making supply being actually simulated I guess destroying bridges behind frontlines would make it hard to repair and had a significant impact on the front..

But currently even if a squad destroyed all bridges in one timezone this would be repaired in a matter of hours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, pbveteran said:

I agree never really understood the design decision

Think it probably went something along the lines of this

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.