Bridge building

[T.C.]

This would be a good idea as a technology - the ability for an army to build a bridge across a previously un-crossable section of river. And more importantly, the ability to burn bridges as you retreat, or as a method of warfare.

Thoughts?

[rude dude]

That would nice. Just as forts are build-able so should bridges.
And if a supply lines system is implemented it could boost its reliability and usefulness (usefulness of the supply lines system).

[rude dude]

Sorry double post error.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Burning bridges is definitely necessary. It would be even cooler if you could destroy bridges during battles with artillery.

[Spetsnaz GRU]

I think it's a great idea T.C. Not the greatest example, but this reminds me of the Persian invasion of Greece, the one with Thermopylae where the Persians used a pontoon bridge to cross into Europe (I think) before meeting the Greeks. Correct me if I am wrong, but in a programme I saw something about a Persian pontoon bridge in the Greco-Persian wars.

[rude dude]

Yes destructible environment in general sounds goods. And well, depending on the thing destroyed, there could perhaps be quiet noticeable effects on the campaign game such destroying/damaging a bridge may hinder a trade route or destroying a cities wonder may make it harder for you to gain the local populations support etc..

[panzerschreck]

great idea and new system of deployables!

[MathiasOfAthens]

I think it's a great idea T.C. Not the greatest example, but this reminds me of the Persian invasion of Greece, the one with Thermopylae where the Persians used a pontoon bridge to cross into Europe (I think) before meeting the Greeks. Correct me if I am wrong, but in a programme I saw something about a Persian pontoon bridge in the Greco-Persian wars.

Built out of their ships.

[Muizer]

Nice idea, but not without implications. Assuming the game will still be turn-based, how would bridge building and destruction fit in with this? If turns are very short, I suppose you could have armies halt a turn to construct a bridge. OTOH if the turns are long, an army would have to be able to approach a river, construct a bridge and move on within one turn.Which would essentially mean rivers are just another "high movement cost" campaign map terrain type and the ability to construct bridges would be a fairly abstract one at the campaign map army level.

[-Concrete-]

It could cost you 20% of your movement points or something along those lines.

[AMW]

it is good idea spcially if you want to delay the enemy army, so you just damage the bridge.

[General Stilicho]

I think in a interview they mention the possibility of interactive rivers.

[T.C.]

Nice idea, but not without implications. Assuming the game will still be turn-based, how would bridge building and destruction fit in with this? If turns are very short, I suppose you could have armies halt a turn to construct a bridge. OTOH if the turns are long, an army would have to be able to approach a river, construct a bridge and move on within one turn.Which would essentially mean rivers are just another "high movement cost" campaign map terrain type and the ability to construct bridges would be a fairly abstract one at the campaign map army level.

There's lots of checks and balances possible - removing movepoints for one turn; temporary bridges staying in place for a few turns only; high cost; only possible with a general in the army (or a general with a specific trait) specialist unit ability even.

I think in a interview they mention the possibility of interactive rivers.

Link?

[UghUghUgh]

The source is that german article and it does not say "interactive" river, but CA is experimenting with ships on rivers. I translated parts of that article in another thread.

[General Stilicho]

The source is that german article and it does not say "interactive" river, but CA is experimenting with ships on rivers. I translated parts of that article in another thread.

Somtimes things get distorted in my head. LOL

[bob_2000]

It would be great if it worked and the AI actually knew when and when not to burn bridges. But I see the AI making a mess of it.

[Adufka]

Very nice idea...i like it

[Otherdude]

It'd be an interesting feature...perhaps overpowering for the Romans, though. In Julius Caesar's commentaries on the Gallic Wars he mentions with reasonable detail the method they used to bridge the Rhine in only a few days, burned it when they were done, and re-bridged it again later in even less time because they'd already figured out an efficient means of doing it. The Germans retreated without any major opposition, probably when they realized they weren't prepared deal with an enemy like that.

For those interested:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesar's_Rhine_bridges

[familyguy1]

I like the idea. Especially if you are just expanding your empire and there is randomly a bridge there. You should be able to have the option of burning it down if you want to isolate yourself.

[Crusader Invasion]

I really like this idea. Perhaps there could be a real road building mechanic to go along with it? The world could start with little-to-no roads and bridges and it would be up to the player to build and destroy them section by section. However, I don't think the AI could really handle it unless there's a major upgrade in that department.