Its always nice to see a special feature added to a map, like the destroyable bridges in Breaktrough, the first few times people think. "Holy ****! some-one blew up the bridge!, how awesome!" Yeah.. well, my suggestion is.. either make all the bridges indestructable again, or make one indestructable. Because as its now, bridges wont last 5 minutes, especially not since the remote bomber is in now.. and some people, in their infinite wisdom decide to race for said kits and destroy all the bridges!!! Turning an already slow map into a lasting boring HELL! These bridges being destroyed adds nothing to the map.. it only makes it more boring then it already is, with tanks only being able to cross at one location. Please rethink this decision.
I like the really like the idea of having destructable buildings/bridges, but not on that map... Like Raptor said, its just boring as hell, i dont even think the map is that fun as it was, but now w/ the destructable bridges, its even worse, and lasts forever.
who builds such long stone bridges anyway? it should be the arnhem bridges and proper roads
You know, you could always cross the shallow part of the river near the west-most bridge, right?
They should make engineers be able to "set up" pontoon bridges at a few locations. That would take out the predictability of the map.
I agree with th pantoon idea maybe we could have tanks that have unfoldable pantoon bridges. also add trucks and other thing that could carry the pantoon bridges. or maybe add heavly armed farries to transport things that are heavy across the rivers or lake. last but not least the farries should be small enought to be highly monuverbole (is that right?).
I agree, once i thought i was a graphics glitch, so I drive my jeep across it, "Vreeeoom.... SPLOOSH" I could still see the shadow, so why not assume its a graphic bug?
The American WayYou know, you could always cross the shallow part of the river near the west-most bridge, right?
I was wondering the same thing, me being so observant forded several times by the north bridge before I looked over once and noticed it was a complerte bridge there instead of the destroyed one.
The shallow water is still there yes but if you know whats good for you you will not try to cross there as you are probably looking at 50% of the enemy's ground forces camping on the opisite side of the river.
Wouldn't Typhoon pilots call that "a target-rich environment" ? :D Besides, if the enemy concentrates armor because it's the only place to cross, wouldn't your tanks also be concentrated there because it's the only place to cross? Also, as far as the bridge beside the ford, I'd rather cross at the ford anyway. Then if defending armor wants a shot at you, they have to come to the bank to shoot down at you, which leaves them vulnerable to tanks supporting the crossing. If you take the bridge, you can be killed by tanks farther back that your supporting tanks can't see. I think part of the problem is the way the bleed works. There's not really an attacker or defender. Since it's an Allied assault, they should bleed until they get a flag on the German side of the river. That way, they would have no reason to blow the bridge, only the Germans would, which, as the defenders, is a feasible option.