Question to the Devs about Fool's Road

[waldo_ii]

This has been a subject of some debate on the Tactical Gamer forums, and I wanted to know from you what the Dev stance is on blowing up the bridge just outside of the Russian main. Is it supposed to be a target for the Chechens, or is the destructibility of the bridge a unwanted remnant of older versions?

The things that make it seem like the Devs want the bridge destroyed is the fact that it remains destructible, and it has been a target in the past.

On the other side, the bridge is now out of bounds for the Chechens, making one believe that the Devs do not want Chechens going there. This doesn't keep players from destroying it, though. Just today I was on a round where Chechens called in mortars on the bridge, irreversibly destroying one of the sections. Also, there is no sort of land bridge, nor is there a static repair/rearm station across the river on the combat-zone side.

Is this bridge meant to be a target? Was it supposed to be a target in older versions, but isn't now? Was it never a target?


(I would have sent a message to the original mapper, but the beloved wiki remains down, and I don't know where else to get the name of the mapper)

[Rudd]

I remember the glorious days of Brits on Fool's, where the bridge wasn't in the DoD. iirc it was deemed too easy to beat the Brits by destroying the bridge. and in those days the Engineers could repair them.

Now the bridge getting destroyed doesn't really matter that much since Rus APCs can swim, but since it can't be repaired it has obvious implicatinos for tanks and trucks.

there are easier ways to destroy it than mortars

[IronTaxi]

was originally designed to be the achilles heel of the brits...

additionally the militia (never intended to be chechen but I lost that fight somewhere) werent intended to have much in the way of strong vehicles..more light and old assets.. the objective of course being for part of the militia team to cut off the bridge.. optimally forcing the brits to dedicate a team to defending it..

as things come and go,, gameplay changes and general level dynamics made the gameplay devs decide it needed to be omitted.

thats where it stand now anyhow..

[dbzao]

I would just remove bridges from being destroyed until we get a good temp bridge system in place. Too gamey to be repairable, and too easily destroyed by a single C4 as well.

[smiley]

The problem as i see it isn't that the tanks cant get across ( you can actually take them across the river then repair them via the log truck on the other side of the hole) but the fact that you no longer can get log trucks out and therefore lose all your build/resupply/repair capabilities. This really hurts the russians as once you lose your fobs there are no more available at all, this to me seems to be a gamebreaker on this particular map.

[snooggums]

Originally Posted by [R-DEV]dbzao

I would just remove bridges from being destroyed until we get a good temp bridge system in place. Too gamey to be repairable, and too easily destroyed by a single C4 as well.

If the source files are available would it be possible to add a land bridge on the west side of the island to the landing zone around E7? (guessing grid, don't have the game in front of me). This would provide an exit for a blown bridge but be far enough from the main to allow Chechnya to guard it.

[RememberTheAlamo]

I just really hate then people start whining about the blown bridge. It's basically giving up. OK so you don't have tanks - APC's are not as good but they can do the job too. Last round I played as a Russian and Chechens blew the bridge in the first 3 min. We still won without FB. It's a war and why wouldn't do something that helps you win

[M4sherman]

I think we should make bridges repairable to simulate a "Temp Bridge system" but it should require a special create from a special truck that only engineers can drive. Why I say this is because on a certain insurgency map with a british challenger it has become a popular tactic to blow all the bridges but one and wait for the armor to drive accrossed and then blow the bridge when the armor is on the other side where there is only one exit we blow the bridge and the infidels lose the asset until they blow it sky high.

[snooggums]

Originally Posted by RememberTheAlamo

I just really hate then people start whining about the blown bridge. It's basically giving up. OK so you don't have tanks - APC's are not as good but they can do the job too. Last round I played as a Russian and Chechens blew the bridge in the first 3 min. We still won without FB. It's a war and why wouldn't do something that helps you win

It's the supply trucks not being able to get out of main or return to main to reload crates that is the problem. Sure you can win without a firebase, but it is much harder, and there's no forward requesting of HAT kits and so on.

[Orthas]

Originally Posted by snooggums

It's the supply trucks not being able to get out of main or return to main to reload crates that is the problem. Sure you can win without a firebase, but it is much harder, and there's no forward requesting of HAT kits and so on.

Agree, Firebases are in for a reason and denying them would unlikely be the point of destryoing bridges. Also getting ammo and kits would be more of a problem even though you can get both from APCs.