Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
ZEBBEEE

New AO logics for bridges? (Updated)

10 posts in this topic

<brainstorming>

Starting point is to give more freedom to the playerbase without requiring HC to be available, but still keeping the opportunity for HC to put a constraining order if it can help a global strategic plan.

Bridges are an important element of the environment and could become real secundary objectives to fight for.

 

Idea:

1. Each side of a bridge would have a capture building (bunker? Checkpoint?)

 

2. Default rules would apply with NO NEED for HC-placed AOs:

-If your side owns both flags of the bridge, you can rebuild it (only).

-If not (just one or none), you can destroy it (only).

This is thus valid for both sides, anytime, by default.

 

3. Both HCs can still place an AO for counter-orders:

-sabotage AO: you can destroy it (only) also when owning both flags of the bridge

-secure AO: side can repair it (only) also When you don't own both sides (just one flag or none of it)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see your idea but lets make it a bit different.  2 Guard Shack/Bunkers 1 on each side that you have to cap both to use the bridge for anything other than inf.  AI with either MG or ATG set on each side or one of each.  Only the guard/bunker that is next to town has INF only spawn having only Rifle, Smg and Eng to protect or rebuild it.  I would suggest that this option be only at Major Bridges near towns.  If you do this to ever bridge in the game it would way to difficult to even attack 1/10 of the map. If you applied to all bridges then we would need to have bridging equipment to ford at will but thats another idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Capture points could be bunkers .

although I wouldn’t make it spawnable as we already have FMS to do this . It should become a real secondary capture objective . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Updated initial topic: added 

Both HCs can place still place an AO for counter-orders:

Both HCs can still place an AO for counter-orders:

-sabotage AO: you can destroy it (only) when owning both flags of the bridge

-secure AO: side can repair it (only) When you don't own both sides (just one flag or none of it)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree with the ownership mechanism where you have to capture the bridge before a vehicle can cross it. It will be very gamey feeling if there is some invisible wall that prevents vehicles from crossing the bridge. Players in all games in general hate visible walls. If we want to prevent trucks rushing over "enemy" bridges I would rather give them some AI defenders which would target the trucks or infantry trying to cross. So all of a sudden instead of a gamey capture the flag so you can make the invisible barrier across the bridge disappear, you have something that you can obviously see and deduce will be a barrier to you crossing, such as an enemy ATG. This gets even dicier with bridges that divide towns, it would give the defenders a massive advantage to have a bridge that enemy armor can't cross because of an invisible barrier, and someone only infantry need to get to the other side that will be packed with defenders and capture the bridge flag building.

Similarly, being able to destroy the bridge only if you own both sides of it makes for some gameplay problems. For one, its a bit ahistorical that you can't simply bomb the bridge and need "boots on the ground" to be able to destroy it. Furthermore, since bridges are usually adjacent to the enemy town, the defenders have a very easy way to defend the bridge and thus deny you the ability to destroy and/or repair the bridge. As far as the AO/DO system, I would personally do away with it completely. I think the concerns for griefing are unfounded since its already pretty easy to take out a bridge with a bomber, versus trying to log in as the other side and sabotage a bridge as a lone engineer. I would simply cut the HC out entirely and leave it up to the playerbase to decide what they want up or down.

I still like the idea of having a capturable bridge, but I think we need a more plausible mechanism for what capturing a bridge does other than blocking vehicle transit or allowing you to destroy. I think both of those will break the sense of immersion when player's bombs don't even scratch the paint because your side doesn't own both flags (or vehicles hit an invisible barrier). One option is to have rebuilding tied to the repair status like zebbeee said, so that way if you want to rebuild the bridge there could be some extra small arms action around this. I also like the idea of a "sabotage" HC function which would be tied to flag ownership. Since sabotaging a bridge would be easier than bombing it, capturing a bridge flag to prevent a HC sabotage command would be interesting. Other options would require we have actual supply ties to the roads/rails as was originally envisioned, so you could theoretically cut supply by capturing bridges around enemy towns.

Share this post


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

I disagree with the ownership mechanism where you have to capture the bridge before a vehicle can cross it.

Id agree with this

You OWN the bridge to gain benefit of controlling automatic resupply travel over it etc.
You CONTROL who can or cant drive on it by going and doing it yourself, regardless of who actually owns the real estate.

If you want to stop guys from crossing the bridge, you shoot them
If you want to stop supply from crossing the bridge, you shoot the bridge
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, aismov said:

I disagree with the ownership mechanism where you have to capture the bridge before a vehicle can cross it. It will be very gamey feeling if there is some invisible wall that prevents vehicles from crossing the bridge. Players in all games in general hate visible walls. If we want to prevent trucks rushing over "enemy" bridges I would rather give them some AI defenders which would target the trucks or infantry trying to cross. So all of a sudden instead of a gamey capture the flag so you can make the invisible barrier across the bridge disappear, you have something that you can obviously see and deduce will be a barrier to you crossing, such as an enemy ATG. This gets even dicier with bridges that divide towns, it would give the defenders a massive advantage to have a bridge that enemy armor can't cross because of an invisible barrier, and someone only infantry need to get to the other side that will be packed with defenders and capture the bridge flag building.

Similarly, being able to destroy the bridge only if you own both sides of it makes for some gameplay problems. For one, its a bit ahistorical that you can't simply bomb the bridge and need "boots on the ground" to be able to destroy it. Furthermore, since bridges are usually adjacent to the enemy town, the defenders have a very easy way to defend the bridge and thus deny you the ability to destroy and/or repair the bridge. As far as the AO/DO system, I would personally do away with it completely. I think the concerns for griefing are unfounded since its already pretty easy to take out a bridge with a bomber, versus trying to log in as the other side and sabotage a bridge as a lone engineer. I would simply cut the HC out entirely and leave it up to the playerbase to decide what they want up or down.

I still like the idea of having a capturable bridge, but I think we need a more plausible mechanism for what capturing a bridge does other than blocking vehicle transit or allowing you to destroy. I think both of those will break the sense of immersion when player's bombs don't even scratch the paint because your side doesn't own both flags (or vehicles hit an invisible barrier). One option is to have rebuilding tied to the repair status like zebbeee said, so that way if you want to rebuild the bridge there could be some extra small arms action around this. I also like the idea of a "sabotage" HC function which would be tied to flag ownership. Since sabotaging a bridge would be easier than bombing it, capturing a bridge flag to prevent a HC sabotage command would be interesting. Other options would require we have actual supply ties to the roads/rails as was originally envisioned, so you could theoretically cut supply by capturing bridges around enemy towns.

1. Where did you read anything related to preventing trucks crossing the bridge if not owning it? Never mentioned anything related to this.

2. "being able to destroy the bridge only if you own both sides of it makes for some gameplay problems"

Please read my topic more carefully. I said the opposite: you can only repair it when owning both sides, except if HC put a sabotage AO on it for tactical reasons. Still, friendlies need to bomb/sap it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was something that porsche brought up a few posts back and another poster in a different topic as well. I'm not sure if I understood the mechanic correctly but that was what it sounded like since I don't see how you can make it where infantry can cross but tanks can't. That is why I think it is just better to have AI stationed there so that if a lone truck tries to cross they will get destroyed. More realistic.

I reread your post and yes, you did state that you can destroy it no matter what combination of flags your side controls which I think is a good model. I agree that holding flags on both sides should be a requirement to rebuild a bridge as it represents your side "controlling" the area and having a secure bridgehead.

As for the sabotage AO I think thats a good idea as well as long as a few infantry still need to make the trek and physically plunge the detonator and it is not just a auto-destroy button available to HC done outside of the confines of the game world (going with the theme that as many things in WWIIOL should be player-interdictable in some reasonable way).

For the secure AO my one concern is that it would get abused as an easy way to build a bridge under fire. Attacking a town and bridge is down but defenders have it well defended? Place a secure AO on it and *poof* bridge is up and tanks are rolling. Often times blowing the bridge is one of the last ditch defenses for defenders and it requires the attackers to start thinking outside the box a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, aismov said:

For the secure AO my one concern is that it would get abused as an easy way to build a bridge under fire. Attacking a town and bridge is down but defenders have it well defended? Place a secure AO on it and *poof* bridge is up and tanks are rolling. Often times blowing the bridge is one of the last ditch defenses for defenders and it requires the attackers to start thinking outside the box a bit.

Thanks for the corrections and feedback!

Secure AO would simply be similar to the current DAO: engineers need to physically get there despite the bridge being not controlled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I totally agree about the bridges aos/dos...making it hard for the playerbase to fix an obvious to them issue without needing HC to 1st remove an ao/do somewhere on the map, and then replace it with one that was needed 30 mins ago;)

Artificial gameplay barriers like this need to be removed. 

Bridges were highly prized in the war and were blown only under the direst of circumstances.  Our engies make them a lot more trivial. Perhaps make them need more engies to fix?

...no, current game numbers would preclude this.

Of course, making river crossing ppos would alleviate  a lot of the issues,  plus INCREASE the gameplay options. Don't over complicate things - a staged build raft system for both sides, with no build zones too close to enemy held cps.  Only usable for trucks and infantry - no tanks but perhaps scout cars.

 

Edited by dropbear
Video inserted
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.