BastianSchulz

Town D-Line's Bridge

Recommended Posts

E-Line

As another recent topic in the forums states also the E-Line definitely needs a rework. Attacking on this line is depending on team really difficult. Focus on E2 to E3 to E4.

 

D-Line

However, my main point is that I really hate the bridge on D4. It's horrible. How often two tanks just go there and block the entire width..

Now if you think it's somehow possible to destroy them with AT-stuff, well, if behind every window or corner is a camper / sniper it's really difficult to even pass the bridge/come from other directions,

and on the other side there's the direct spawn (it's like too narrow there, the spawn for D4-defers need to be at a greater distance to D4). For example the C-Line bridge is a bit better.

 

Btw, concerning AT-weapons yes they also don't have distance limitation yet, so 100% damage hundred meters away are same as one meter away, right? 

Well if you think now "just shoot from the forest from (between D3 / D4)" it's not that easy, there are often sniper as mentioned, especially on O1 Building, u wanna hit the target

because repair costs for AT-stuff is expensive..  and and and.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

E line is broken, very broken. Attackers will never win if the enemy has D line. It's too close to D line's spawns. As attackers, you cannot lose E3. Ever. The instant that happens, D line's spawns are magically closer than E line's spawns and cannot even be disabled. Not to mention how close E4's spawn is to the objective, and the fact that you can actually jump the wall in spots. The opening facing the river really needs to be blocked, since it makes it comically easy to hold E4. I have gone 60-10 kills defending E2, and still ended up losing the game, because enemies can reinforce faster than the actual intended defence spawn. The entirety of E line needs to be redone, and moved further away from D line.

 

D lines is pretty bad too. The spawns (especially D3-D2) are out of place, making routes for attackers and defenders different. This is always a problem. Basically, both teams barely ever meet in areas outside of capture points, and D1 is impossible to defend, since the defense team can use the top road, and attacking team has to cross open field. D4 is actually one of the better capture points, but it needs more cover on the cap. An overturned APC and some crates would go a long way. If there are no tanks, it's basically jeep rush heaven over the bridge, unless somebody decides to bring a bazooka.

 

As for AT weapons (except rifles) It is working as intended, and realistic. These weapons have explosive charge warhead which is what does the damage, so it shouldn't matter what range you hit from. As for dealing with tankers on Town, may I recommend investing in an amphibious car on one soldier. It's hard when the enemies harden a point with tanks, especially when you have no tanks of your own. Some War matches are basically unwinnable, but you have the opportunity to do high damage to your opponent, with cheap infantry units.

Edited
wording

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zoaron    705

Yes, E line and D line attack on town are a pain, especially if the defender has tanks.

 

When you have D and E line you just cant lose either one of these lines or attacking will be even harder; being on E line to pass the bridge you need to cross the D3 enemy spawn, being on D line you will have a continuous flow of enemies coming from the E3 spawn. 

 

It is import to flank, using also amphibian vehicles, though getting APCs into town is hard.

 

That’s why I'd like to see a river crossing (bailey bridge?) at the direction of D - C line to allow easier flanking also with APCs (like in the forward airfield map between A and B line).

This would make the battle more interesting and a bit easier for the attackers to get into the town.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fegaris    1,744
On 2/14/2020 at 8:29 AM, BastianSchulz said:

However, my main point is that I really hate the bridge on D4. It's horrible. How often two tanks just go there and block the entire width..

Ehm...is not exactly this supposed to be benefit of tanks in War matches ? ....

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Akinaba    462

Funny thing I've got the same heaby sthoughts on just the same exactly place. And I have some things to tell out there. Just to be patient.

 

Overall the e-d line interraction and both crossings are heavily situational and almost unplayeble if attackers got only one of those lines and defenders got the other. Flanking and bust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mastah    1,206

Terrible mistakes have been made when making changes to this (and all other) map in order to fit in those annoying spawn area's. Town map used to be way more fun in the past. Especially relocating E4 across the river (but also silly reworks of C4 houses) and removing the complete boulevard area behind D4 (and replacing it by a spawn area next to and under the bridge) heavily mutilated the map.

 

Removing spawn 2.0. areas and then reloading the beta version of this map (and tweaking it here and there) is the cure. Goes for all maps. 

 

Oh btw... why not adding a (pontoon) bridge between E and A lines to start with. Would make life much easier.

Edited

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Akinaba    462

Now lets firstly talk about the D-line bridge problems. Well almost one problem in fact.

 

Though I think that D-line bridge is takable I will say that having a good team on the other side would make it almost impossible challenge for atteckers if not be able to fast capture or deep flank it.

 

Well back on topic the main problem of that capture point is sheer openeness and I'll say some boredom of the capturepint itself. Think yourself the whole capturepoint aside of the chapell and an AA side represents nothing but a plain stone bridge. With no single cover or whatsoever on it. So to get to it ANY side must either rush through the whole bridge to the very middle of it or lay quietly down at the very start of it.

 

First scenario suggests that the attackers have some fast vehicles (and if they don't they're pretty much screwed). And if defenders have tanks they very much screwed either way.

Second scenario suggests that attackers would have some cover or blindspots on the very bridge against defenders. But in fact they're not. (I'll show you later).

 

On top of that defenders have much more fast and easy access to the bridge capturezone (however it doesn't help them sometimes for some reason). And just as I said they also have so much height and sight advantage over the attackers side it looks laughable. Take a look at it yourself:

 

Town-problems.png

 

Here are some views from the sniper spots:

Spoiler

From right to left:

08.png

 

09.png

 

10.png

 

11.png

 

Get tanks on those marked placed and thin attackers chances will become even thinner cause they will have close to no chance to pick those tanks off from that far open field or far localted forest patches. Needless to say that those tanks are also are free to manuver on that bridge as much as they want having an easy backdraw when needed.

 

On top of that that tiny "blindspot" I marked on the drawing in fact isn't that "blind" 'cause the single sniper with top range optics can zero almost all efforts to lay here to the ground just from the church itself:

Spoiler

church.png

 I can see that the church should probably indeed provide an advantage and the bridge is probably supposed to be that flat surface.

 

But it is really close to no fun to lay down on the only possible spot to capture and hoping other side just doesn;t have that optics. Really not the cleverest and funniest way to fight over the bridge.

 

P.s. Oh and almost forgot the attackers resting point has an awesome obscure vision to almost all of the brige making this vantage point pointless.

 

So here I will try to suggest how and what we can do something with that.

Edited

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Akinaba    462

Before the start I'd like to point out that an area was allready adreesed several times in some previous threads namely in Gorgeous

Namely I will point out the drowing of our beloved @RadicalEdward2

We here will pay attention to the D bridge suggestions. I believe bothe the rocks and the E4 tunnel are very good and improving suggestions.

7A8yv32.png

Edited

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Akinaba    462

Now what we could really have at this pint is really three things;

 

1. Provide more LOS obscure for the defenders at some random places to increase the attacker chances of safe approach

2. Provide more cover and vantage points on the attacker side for the same reason as above and to also make the approach gameplay more interesting

3. Make the capturepoint itself more intersting by adding vairous assets on the bridge itself, providing eben more cover and tacticool gamepley inside the capturepoint and  forcing tanks and vehicles move and manuver much more and much complicated then now.

 

To fulfill all the following requirements I dared to draw:

suggestion-small.png

 

From center to edges:

 

1. We would fill the bridge with small but interesting assets that we allready have nearby, namely concrete and sandbag barriers with oprtional wires:

Spoiler

Here they are on the town side

12.png

 

 

I draw them too large just to make them clear. Indeed they has to be just enugh to provide some cover and to force vehicles to move the S-pattern just as they would on any propper block post.

Concrete ones would force this pattern for vehicles while sandbags would provide cover for the stair outs.

 

This is frankly the main side of a plan - forcing tanks not to feel that comfortable at the bridge while providing more place for infantry to cover.

 

2. To provide cover on both sides we could put two red blockpost cabins with barriers on either side just to support the whole conception of the blocked bridge.

 

3. Rocks on the attackers side of the river will provide some cover for attackers while could serve as resting point for defenders (they are going there anyway). Same thing coul be used at the other side of the bridge on the same bank.

 

4. Line of sights (LOS). Two trees on either side of the rivers serve to provide much needed LOS blocks for the ranged weapons while some propperly put clearance would provide equal lobg rabge (sniper) vantage points on the attackers side.

 

P.s. we also could decrease the capturepoint zone to concrete blocks border.

Edited

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Akinaba    462

Its generally all I wanted to offer. I only want to provide some more illustrations of how it should look from inside the first person view.

 

I'm bagging you pardon for my mad painshop skills.

 

Main attackers Line of Sight  blocks and clearance concept:

Spoiler

FOV.png

 

Sniper view on what would be the attacker side. It probably could even have an extra tree

Spoiler

fov2.png

 

And the attacker and defender view from the center of the capturepoint

Spoiler

Right-side.png

 

left-side.png

 

Sorry again for my paint skills but that was the fastest way to get to the point. Beside that I believe you all got the message:

 

MAKE D-LINE BRIDGE INTERESTING PLS!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mastah    1,206

Where does this " lets spam bridges with sandbags" fetish come from that we see in H&G these days.

Look up pictures from intact WW2 bridges at that time and there is little to no sandbag spam to be seen.

 

Guard houses at the entrances and car/truck/tank wrecks halfway up might do but please, stop the sandbag spam for sake of immersion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Mastah said:

Where does this " lets spam bridges with sandbags" fetish come from that we see in H&G these days.

Look up pictures from intact WW2 bridges at that time and there is little to no sandbag spam to be seen.

 

Guard houses at the entrances and car/truck/tank wrecks halfway up might do but please, stop the sandbag spam for sake of immersion. 

To provide cover for advancing infantry? Sandbags are smaller than car wrecks, they would block the pathway for vehicles.

Talking immersion, irl bridge would be either exploded by retreating defenders or kept clean of obstacles for friendly forces to use. In a game those are just decorations that provide stage for shooty shooty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Akinaba    462
1 hour ago, Mastah said:

Where does this " lets spam bridges with sandbags" fetish come from that we see in H&G these days.

 

Guard houses at the entrances and car/truck/tank wrecks halfway up might do but please, stop the sandbag spam for sake of immersion.

Open the paintshop and suggest something more intersting. Everybody would undobtfuly liked it. It also nowhere a sandbag spam.

 

Those photos you are talking about are most probably after the bridge saw the heavy fight. I doubt the captured french town suited for controllable traffic transition would have a wrecked tank just in the middle of its main bridge. Irl as @b.j.blazkovitch say the bridge would be either blocked or demolished.

 

Though I understand the wish of having more destructed assest the simple truth is that we have none in the game irl and there is nobody to make up those for us out there. I would like more assets on that bridge. Not a problem if it would be something else then a roadblocks. Litterely enything will do in it's current state and that is what it all was about frankly. That and loss bolocks and clearance for attackers-defenders interracion.

Edited

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mastah    1,206

I see additional sandbags on D-bridge on the mock-ups now as well so with the current sandbag spam all this (and other) maps objectives and crossings it's started to get annoying.

Anyways, I just wish to see it differently to avoid more 'prop' spam to be added to maps in order to balance the messed up maps thanks to spawn 2.0. and, lets say, ill thought out map reworks.

 

Lets take C bridge (small derail here) as an example. 

Before Town map rework, the C4 capture zone was at the non-town side of the bridge and, once capped, you could spawn at the town side in the house near the ramp.

In my opinion (not saying it's a fact) this worked very well for both defending as the attacking side; attacking side had more momentum capturing C4 and less chance to be completely 'bridge' raped by tanks and snipers from the other side. The attackers on the other hand, simply HAD to cross in order to prevent the opponent from capping C4 because it'll give them a good vantage point with the acquired spawn zone in the town.

 

Rework C line this way again and it becomes less of an unfair bottleneck for the attacking side and forces the defending side to not camp their side of the river with tanks/recons and wannabee infantry recons.

 

The same trick could be done to E line (actually as it used to be). Move E4 to the other side of the river again or replace the river crossing by a CLEAN bridge at least. 

However, this means we'll get two identical situations (d bridge and e bridge) in a fairly small arena. Therefor adding a new bridge crossing between the outskirts of E3 river side area and somewhere between A1-A3 riverside. By doing so, removing the utter useless river crossing which is a death trap most of the time anyway. It'll give the attacking side a better option crossing the river. Defenders have a spawn zone nearby so are fairly capable to quickly respond to/ deal with threats from that direction by spawning there.

 

Just a thought. There is just SO much wrong with Town map ever since they first touched it.

Like they removed this beautiful boulevard behind police station and replaced this by that awkward high wall with an impassable / indestructible fence. At the same time created an annoying spawn area for vehicles there (used to be at the garage of police) instead of the small alleys that used to be there and offered great CQC fights.

Or what about removing the pontoon bridge between B4 and Church?

Or that silly MASSIVE wall next to Church with these fantasy staircases to heaven. It used to be an easy accessible hilltop with a church atop.

Or the vast emptiness behind Church towards A2 that still sees no houses there? (@RadicalEdward) made a nice sketch putting a graveyard there with, i believe, also some houses behind it.

 

Etc etc.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Akinaba    462
4 minutes ago, Mastah said:

The same trick could be done to E line (actually as it used to be). Move E4 to the other side of the river again or replace the river crossing by a CLEAN bridge at least. 

However, this means we'll get two identical situations (d bridge and e bridge) in a fairly small arena. Therefor adding a new bridge crossing between the outskirts of E3 river side area and somewhere between A1-A3 riverside. By doing so, removing the utter useless river crossing which is a death trap most of the time anyway. It'll give the attacking side a better option crossing the river. Defenders have a spawn zone nearby so are fairly capable to quickly respond to/ deal with threats from that direction by spawning there.

 

Just got an insane thought of what if...

 

to make an entire E3 river a shallow or semi-shallow crossing connecting both crossings into one and wide?

 

shallow.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mastah    1,206
On 6/4/2020 at 8:04 PM, Akinaba said:

Just got an insane thought of what if...

 

to make an entire E3 river a shallow or semi-shallow crossing connecting both crossings into one and wide?

 

shallow.png

 

That would make little sense from map logics point of view.

It would suggest the river is very shallow but 10 feet ahead it's so deep it needs a bridge to cross that's even tall enough to let boats (heck even planes) cross underneath? 

 

Honestly i've had enough of those river crossings at large rivers that, not only pretty unrealistic, simply work as death traps and just show poor map design.

 

River crossings should be limited at streams. Not applied to (huge) rivers like the one on airfield map (b line).

It's completely bollocks.

Instead, pontoon bridges could be used again.

 

However, by relocating the objectives E4 and D4 (and C4 for that matter) towards the opposite side of the river and, when capped, provide a spawn location at town side for the attackers (situation from a long time ago) the D line bridge crossing problem would be less of an issue. It does favor the attacking side a tad, but we may see the defending side being forced to dig in a bit less and move out. 

 

I believe it will be much more intense battles and better for game flow.

Edited

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Snihjen    0

Reading this tread,  I see nobody mentioning the fact, that the attackers can shoot directly INTO the e3 defender spawn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
liverare    161

7KAXOH0.png

 

Just stick a simple bridge connecting D-line to C-line, that opens up a bunch of attack opens then. Plus, the bridge would be so remote (more so if the defenders don't have C line) that you could quite easily sneak an APC into the town via the other bridge/fords.

 

The cost to defenders:

  • Cost manpower to defend or be exposed

 

The cost to attackers:

  • Longer route to travel
  • Risky

 

The benefit to defenders:

  • Successful defence = costs attackers much more time

 

The benefit to attackers:

  • Break through stalemates/meat grinders
  • Useful for both sides of the map
Edited

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Akinaba    462
22 hours ago, liverare said:

7KAXOH0.png

 

Just stick a simple bridge connecting D-line to C-line, that opens up a bunch of attack opens then. Plus, the bridge would be so remote (more so if the defenders don't have C line) that you could quite easily sneak an APC into the town via the other bridge/fords.

 

Not quiet sure if this will improve the situation or rather make it worse. Cause this only opens another sneaky flaky way for attackers to come. In other words - this map that is allready heavily depend on how fast an attacking side will park an APC on the town side will start depend on it even more heavy. Not a real improvement on my taste.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
liverare    161
14 minutes ago, Akinaba said:

Not quiet sure if this will improve the situation or rather make it worse. Cause this only opens another sneaky flaky way for attackers to come. In other words - this map that is allready heavily depend on how fast an attacking side will park an APC on the town side will start depend on it even more heavy. Not a real improvement on my taste.

I would definitely use it to sneak an APC into the town, but the cost is time & risk

sometimes a match is such a meat grinder that it's just necessary before I and others quit out to find less boring matches

 

Although this could be balanced if a longer bridge was moved upstream a bit to the larger island. That way, it's a lot less likely for an APC to sneak into the town without being noticed.

Edited

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites