Bridges over the rivers...

[Dayve]

I was watching 'Rome: Engineering an Empire' today on the history channel... And the first thing it talked about was how Caesar built a bridge over the river Rhine, went over with his army, had a bit of a look around and then left... And it made me think of how bridges in RTW are everywhere... There are like 4 bridges over the Rhine when they shouldn't actually be there... Gaul and Germania should not be able to reach each other and you shouldn't be able to just march over it willy nilly at your own leisure... You need to build boats or a damn bridge to get over...

Is there anything that can be done about this? There has to be something... Even if it means only limiting it to one bridge over the whole river... Or putting in a land block and making the trip from Gaul to Germani possible by boat only by going around the water to the north of it... But surely you shouldn't just leave it like this.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

I've asked around trying to find ways of removing bridges, but they are hard coded. It's silly to have so many, but we'd have to sacrifice roads to get rid of them, and we can't do that. We need lots of fords. That would be most accurate.

[Cozur]

it would be nice to remove all the bridges, except where they where really needed... would add more fun to the strategic part of the game, having to defend key positions

[Teleklos Archelaou]

If anyone can find a way to do it, we'd be all ears. Until then it's just wishful thinking I'm afraid.

[Warlord 11]

I remember the reason I joined the forums here was to suggest a way to do this. It had the rivers being ocean, with land bridges across to represent places where one could ford the river. I had found it on the forums here (I think) But when I suggested it I was told it caused various bugs. Of course, now I can't find it.

Edit: Found it. https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=52483

[Teleklos Archelaou]

Yeah, it would cause no roads to go between the places. It's a shame that we do have fords - and we do have roads that lead right up to a ford - but we just can't seem to figure out how it would be possible to have fords still with paved roads. Probably hard coded it seems.

[Simmons]

I remember the reason I joined the forums here was to suggest a way to do this. It had the rivers being ocean, with land bridges across to represent places where one could ford the river. I had found it on the forums here (I think) But when I suggested it I was told it caused various bugs. Of course, now I can't find it.

Edit: Found it. https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=52483

The map would have to be considerably larger so the rivers didnt look to big, it might work on a map as big as SPQR 6.1's

[khelvan]

Rivers as oceans = no land trade, and other various issues.

[Slider6977]

Well you did extend the map, with the additions of rivers and fords. So please explain whether or not you can remove the ones in Europe, Egypt, etc. I'm not sure if your stating that this is not possible with the 'hold-overs' of the vanilla map (europe area, etc) or just hardcoded that bridges have to exist with roads.

If it is the second, then I say it is somewhat historical to actually remove all but a couple river or ford crossings in certain areas. Yes, no river equals no road route across the river which equals no trade. But trade would not have existed, at least in any large capacity between ancient gual and germanic tribes. And if it did in any small measure, it wouldn't have existed in more than a couple of areas with naturally shallow water. As a said example, thre Rhine would have had a very few crossing points even up until the time of Caesar, when Rome owned most of the area on the west side of that river.

So my suggestion is to eliminate those ford areas all together. It will affect trade, but again, how much trade existed across that particular river at any time period represented in the game? It will just eliminate that road leading across the river connected to the other province. All other roads would exist. And historically, it would reflect the fact that ancient germany was a bit of a no-mans land, as it was difficult to reach and certainly would have posed more a threat to an army than it would have gained a civilization in wealth.

I would even suggest adding additional trade resources to those provinces that have a river trade route across to germany, to reflect how much more valuable a province it is than its neighboring provinces are in trade. Perhaps simply adding the trade resources that are present in the neighboring provinces, reflecting that these objects will still be traded, but would need to travel a longer route through this province (and consequently, major city) to make it across the river to other tribes and civilizations. And if this in anyway conflicts with that province having to many resources, do a little swap between that province and one with only one 'mark' resource (alpha, etc., you guys know what I mean).

Anyway, just my suggestion. Take it or leave it.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

If there is only one ford, or ten, the automatic road placement (we can't say where they go or not really) will go for the one. And then it will upgrade into a bridge when the road is placed and better bridges as the roads get better. There will still be the same number of bridges as exist whether there are one or many fords.

If we eliminate any river crossings where they shouldn't have fords/bridges, then we will have no way to cross the nile through many provinces - the system is too stupid to have 'ferries', so the bridges end up being not really just bridges, but bridge-systems, which mostly should be ferry crossings. It was not that hard to cross the Nile (if you controlled both sides) - you just got in a boat. But if the only option is to march for a year or two south and then back north, it will be just as wrong as having 'bridges' over it. Humans can uses boats more easily there - but the AI will have a bugger's chance in ever getting around it. That is probably the worst outcome in all of this - the AI has poor pathfinding and gets hungup in many places on the map where line of sight is obscured.

It just really makes me want to be able to have fords more instead of bridges - and seeing them there in the game (in places without roads) makes it all the more irritable.

[Dayve]

Ah well i guess we're just gonna have to live with it... The next build of EB will be so great i doubt anybody will notice it anyhow.

[Slider6977]

It just really makes me want to be able to have fords more instead of bridges - and seeing them there in the game (in places without roads) makes it all the more irritable.

Not to mention the fords are only about as wide as the bridges. I would love to fight across the river, with my entire army marching across a larger ford (as occured at Issus with Alexander, etc.) not just a narrow passage that is still pretty easily defended compared to a bridge.

[-Praetor-]

Can you change the icon of the little bridge in the strategymap, and replace it with a small barge, boat, ferry or something?

It wouldn`t solve the problem, but at least, would make-up it.

Bye.

[-Praetor-]

Can you change the icon of the little bridge in the strategymap, and replace it with a small barge, boat, ferry or something?

It wouldn`t solve the problem, but at least, would make-up it.

Bye.

[Teleklos Archelaou]

As long as the bridge still appears on the battle map, there's not much reason to change the bridge on the strat map. If we could do the former though, you'r right - we would look into changing the little strat map bridge too then.

[eadingas]

Well, the battle map models for bridges are certainly editable, but I don't think we could make them look like fords... maybe with some alphas we could make parts of them invisible, and then make them very flat or something...

[Dayve]

It's a shame this game was so rushed and clearly just created to make money for the game they are putting all their real effort into - MTW2... Hopefully MTW2 will be as well thought out and enjoyable as MTW and STW...

But if this hadn't been so rushed and so much hadn't been hardcoded... EB could have made this game reach its highest potential... So could RTR, but i can't say that there because i got a lifetime ban for breathing on their forums... Or was it because i sneezed?

[Cheexsta]

But if this hadn't been so rushed and so much hadn't been hardcoded... EB could have made this game reach its highest potential... So could RTR, but i can't say that there because i got a lifetime ban for breathing on their forums... Or was it because i sneezed?

No, you were banned because you decided that your opinions needed no justification. You were quite content with telling us how much our mod sucks, without giving any suggestions as to how it could be improved. Not to mention the fact that the current RTR dev team is almost completely different to the team that made RTR6.x, so your insults were not only unjustified, but they were directed at the wrong people.

Anyway, so we don't stray too far from the topic at hand: I'd like to see bridges gone from the battlefield, too, but I don't know if it's possible. It has already been suggested that the bridge model simply be made invisible and lowered to the level of the riverbed, but I don't think that will work; anyone who has played a 1.5-based mod will have noticed their troops' tendancy to drown in the water when they try and cross the river by going under the bridge. I think the same thing will happen here if you place the model so low as to make the troops cross the actual water.

It's just one of those things that modders will have to live with. I'd love to see wider rivers, no "automatic bridges" and instead make them buildable in the same way as forts and watchtowers, but none of that is possible.

[sithlord85]

It's a shame this game was so rushed and clearly just created to make money for the game they are putting all their real effort into - MTW2... Hopefully MTW2 will be as well thought out and enjoyable as MTW and STW...

But if this hadn't been so rushed and so much hadn't been hardcoded... EB could have made this game reach its highest potential... So could RTR, but i can't say that there because i got a lifetime ban for breathing on their forums... Or was it because i sneezed?

Dayve you rock dude......tell them like it is.
______________________________________
"I don"t fear the dark side as you do Obi wan"

[Trithemius]

Dayve you rock dude......tell them like it is.

Oh stop that. How is that helpful at all?

[Dayve]

No, you were banned because you decided that your opinions needed no justification. You were quite content with telling us how much our mod sucks, without giving any suggestions as to how it could be improved. Not to mention the fact that the current RTR dev team is almost completely different to the team that made RTR6.x, so your insults were not only unjustified, but they were directed at the wrong people.

Anyway, so we don't stray too far from the topic at hand: I'd like to see bridges gone from the battlefield, too, but I don't know if it's possible. It has already been suggested that the bridge model simply be made invisible and lowered to the level of the riverbed, but I don't think that will work; anyone who has played a 1.5-based mod will have noticed their troops' tendancy to drown in the water when they try and cross the river by going under the bridge. I think the same thing will happen here if you place the model so low as to make the troops cross the actual water.

It's just one of those things that modders will have to live with. I'd love to see wider rivers, no "automatic bridges" and instead make them buildable in the same way as forts and watchtowers, but none of that is possible.

Do you want to know why that is? Because i went to the RTR forums for the first time in months, and the first thing i saw were people slamming EB in every way possible. And i hope you banned your members that were saying "RTR will be better than EB, fact!" without giving any reasons, just like you banned me, with a lifetime ban i might add you bunch of nazis.

Your members do exactly what i did. They all sat there and said exactly the same things i said. "RTR pwnz EB, period", did you ban them? No i doubt it.

And i tell you what, i'm glad RTR has a completely different development team because up to now the RTR mods have been a joke realism wise. The gameplay has been good i give you that, but RTR should change its name to Rome: Total Gameplay, because realism does not factor anywhere in your mods upto now. There are bits of realism here and there, but most of this realism is just the opinion of your old development teams.

[khelvan]

Please do not use the EB forum as a place to air problems from another forum. I don't want to have to lock this.

[Simmons]

Oh stop that. How is that helpful at all?

What do you expect from a sith lord always sowing discord and malcontent

[Cheexsta]

Dayve: no, there has been no preferencial treatment, and we have actually had to stop people making negative comments towards EB. Of all the posts about EB that I've seen on the forums, around 80-90% have given constructive opinions. The rest were given unofficial warnings, just as you were, but they ceased to continue. Had they continued to "slam" EB without giving any specific points as to how it can improve, they would have been banned too.

Khelvan: my apologies, however I felt the need to correct Dayve. If he wishes to continue discussion on the topic, I will be more than happy to do so via PM.

[Dayve]

I don't see why the fans of EB and RTR have to hate each other. I like both RTR AND EB. RTR is good at the moment because no other mod is complete that i enjoy playing, and i like EB because it is as historically accurate as RTW will ever get.

[Cheexsta]

I won't disagree with that, and I've stated it multiple times to many people. RTR certainly does have plenty of room for improvement (which, I might add, is being addressed in 7.0), but it is probably one of the more stable mods out there. And if it weren't for the reinforcement bug, I'd definately be playing EB a whole lot more.

Anyway, now that we have that bridge built (how appropriate ), time to stay on-topic. I was actually thinking yesterday that the lowered bridge model solution may actually work. My previous fear was that doing so would drown everyone's troops, but now I'm not so sure; I've noticed that soldiers can usually get up to a certain level of water before they drown. If you could lower the bridge model so that the soldiers remain above this level as they cross then the solution may work.

However, there's still the problem of bridges not being present in places where they would have existed in history (eg through important trade routes and so on), but that may be fixable through custom tiles. Maybe.

[Ludens]

I don't see why the fans of EB and RTR have to hate each other.

Well, I think the majority of fans does not care. The antagonism is just caused by a vocal few. It is a bit like soccer: most people are there to see a good game, although they do hope their side wins. Only a few hardcore supporters are looking for a fight, but when they start rioting they get all the headlines. However, hooligans are really just a minority.

[Dayve]

Well, I think the majority of fans does not care. The antagonism is just caused by a vocal few. It is a bit like soccer: most people are there to see a good game, although they do hope their side wins. Only a few hardcore supporters are looking for a fight, but when they start rioting they get all the headlines. However, hooligans are really just a minority.

Oh i don't know about that... I've seen them on the telly... All it takes is one person to throw a chair and the whole team joins in!

[sithlord85]

Oh i don't know about that... I've seen them on the telly... All it takes is one person to throw a chair and the whole team joins in!

hahahaha
______________________________________
"I don't fear the dark side as you do Obi wan"

[Ludens]

I've seen them on the telly... All it takes is one person to throw a chair and the whole team joins in!

Just like I said. The hooligans get all the media coverage.