The removal of unrealistic land bridges.

[Jordanb716]

I'm referring to those "natural" underwater bridges where the ground is just deep enough for a boat to cross but also shallow enough for vehicles and infantry to pass unhindered. I feel that these indestructible crossings need to be removed for gameplay purposes. As an example take the one on Qwai river where the entire river is nice and deep and then out of nowhere for no apparent reason the land just juts up out of nowhere. It feels like another relic from vBF2 that needs to be removed. Wouldn't it be more realistic to have to actually fight to hold the bridge(s) to get armored reinforcements and troops across? Or on the other side the ability to destroy the bridge(s) to slow or stop enemy armor. The only places where we should see crossable rivers like this should be on rivers that are naturally shallow where a good portion of the river is like this. I just wanted to mention this in the hope that up coming maps wont have this crap or at least see it very limited and maybe even to have it removed from current maps if possible. any thoughts?

[Rudd]

agreed mostly, there are places for Fords, but they have to have the associated geographical characteristics surrounding them, such as marsh or scrubland, not be convenient crossing points on rivers in random places.

[Emnyron]

I take it then that you have personaly observed the areas these maps are based on then?

Other than that, I must say that I approve of the landbridges, they are awesome places for one motherfu*ker of an ambush

[SGT.JOKER]

No...cause if some one lets say on your team destroyed all the bridges how would you get your assets across?

[Rudd]

Originally Posted by SGT.JOKER

No...cause if some one lets say on your team destroyed all the bridges how would you get your assets across?

[sarcasm]UFO abduction....[/sarcasm]

ENGINEERS!

[thedoombringer0]

there is actualy a sort of marsh swamp near the land bridge on qwai but the land bridge just juts out and spans the whole river where as the swamp does not.

[[R-DEV]OkitaMakoto]

Originally Posted by SGT.JOKER

No...cause if some one lets say on your team destroyed all the bridges how would you get your assets across?

Repair them.

I agree to an extent, but you also gotta leave it to the mappers and the type of gameplay they are wanting.



But yes, I agree you should have to fight to keep your means of crossing the rivers :P

Good suggestion Jordan, and well written/expressed

[badmojo420]

I agree, at the very least have clear signs that the water is shallow enough to cross. Some posts, tire tracks leading in, different coloured river bed, etc. On maps like Al Basrah these crossings are almost hidden. I had no idea they existed, until I watched a tank drive past my IED'ed bridge and cross the river.

[unrealalex]

It's easy as hell to blow up a bridge and hard as hell to repair it. Without land bridges, maps like Al Basrah would be reduced to bridge baby sitting, and even then, its easy as hell to roll up with an ied or suicide car and blow it up. No, idea would not work.

[Rudd]

Originally Posted by unrealalex

It's easy as hell to blow up a bridge and hard as hell to repair it. Without land bridges, maps like Al Basrah would be reduced to bridge baby sitting, and even then, its easy as hell to roll up with an ied or suicide car and blow it up. No, idea would not work.

I disagree, surely IRL men are detailed to control the main strategic routes in an area, and anyway the British can repair very quickly with 2 or 3 engineers.

its not a problem, its an opportunity for a solution using teamwork