• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

[Mechanic] Bridge Usage

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jul 13, 2012
155
72
235
35
#1
In has come to my attention (by playing DK1/DK2) that bridges can really abused in terms of placement and usage. I can use a bridge to quickly scout out water/lava areas in earlier games by building as far as I can go, dropping a unit on them, and then building further. Bridges just magically appear (ok, all rooms magically appear but that could be because of claimed tiles and the Keeper's powerful magic).

This suggestion comes in two parts: one, that bridges are placed like traps. Perhaps they still stay in the room GUI, but require a trap designing room to build them. Or they don't require to be built, but a worker must still go to the location of the bridge segments and do some hoopla magic to cause them to appear like when reinforcing walls or claiming tiles. Two, the possibility of drawbridges on castle/dungeon walls, and perhaps even being able to defend the walls, provides a whole new strategy.

If a worker must physically place bridges down, it means that water/lava becomes an obstacle as opposed to just something I can drop bridges down and immediately traverse. If I had a guard room from DK2 on the opposite side, I could pretty much ensure that you could not build your bridges to get to me and would have to find another way across, or take out my defenders (like a typical siege). This could also open up siege-like mechanics to take down walls and wipe out defenses stopping you from effectively get over the moat. A special catapult and ballista built in a workshop-like room suddenly become very useful tools for attacking someone else.
 
Dec 19, 2011
405
45
235
31
Auckland/New Zealand
#2
In has come to my attention (by playing DK1/DK2) that bridges can really abused in terms of placement and usage. I can use a bridge to quickly scout out water/lava areas in earlier games by building as far as I can go, dropping a unit on them, and then building further. Bridges just magically appear (ok, all rooms magically appear but that could be because of claimed tiles and the Keeper's powerful magic).

This suggestion comes in two parts: one, that bridges are placed like traps. Perhaps they still stay in the room GUI, but require a trap designing room to build them. Or they don't require to be built, but a worker must still go to the location of the bridge segments and do some hoopla magic to cause them to appear like when reinforcing walls or claiming tiles. Two, the possibility of drawbridges on castle/dungeon walls, and perhaps even being able to defend the walls, provides a whole new strategy.

If a worker must physically place bridges down, it means that water/lava becomes an obstacle as opposed to just something I can drop bridges down and immediately traverse. If I had a guard room from DK2 on the opposite side, I could pretty much ensure that you could not build your bridges to get to me and would have to find another way across, or take out my defenders (like a typical siege). This could also open up siege-like mechanics to take down walls and wipe out defenses stopping you from effectively get over the moat. A special catapult and ballista built in a workshop-like room suddenly become very useful tools for attacking someone else.
I can see what your saying, you have a point, I could see what your suggesting working..
But remember bridges were easily claimed and sold and were often at the center of conflict, often were used at choke points and often created choke points. I agree people were really cheap with bridges, claiming large areas and scouting with them for sure. Perhaps making them expensive to build or having them wear out quickly would be a more practical solution, just my thoughts ?? Having bridges built or placed by imps could potentially slow down the game as well, conflict could be down to getting a bridge placed, players could line the shore lines with cannons or ranged creatures and the game would go nowhere.

The way bridges were used in Dungeon Keeper had me constantly watchful of them as it was just as easy to loose them as it was to create them if you can see where I am coming from.

Good subject, certainly a lot to think about.
 
Jan 7, 2012
446
171
340
23
#3
These Bridge fights were a pain, When the enemy had a similar strong army, the endless back and fore claiming of the bridge was really annoying, especially because of the mentors messages.
your bridge is under attack
the enemy has claimed your bridge
your bridge has been claimed
you claimed a bridge
your bridge is under attack
... -__-
Cannons and ballistas could be very expensive and ranged units could be overthrown in an unawary moment with some good flying units, together with an own bunch of ranged fighters.
Loosing creatures and expensive defences instead of bridge claiming imps and fear traps while struggling for these bridges seems to be a higher price for defending a river or a stream of lawa.
Which means that these river fights would end quicker and more exiting if bridges would be destroyable trap like constructions.
(Maybe there could be trap bridges too, which collapse when heavy/many units walk over them)
 
Jul 13, 2012
155
72
235
35
#4
@Maltesers & @[email protected]: You both make great points. I think the idea behind the bridges stems a lot more with adding a more interesting mechanic to attacking other factions (AI or player). It pulls in elements from games like Stronghold where you had to siege a castle by busting through a wall, and more from later games where walls could only be taken down by siege equipment. In this case, making it more realistic/difficult to place bridges down becomes just as much a part of the siege assault as taking down walls and defenses as you're effectively filling in the moat around a dungeon/castle so to speak. Just as they could shoot out the soldiers trying to fill in the moat in Stronghold, one could take out the imps trying to place down bridges across the moat. Would this necessarily slow down gameplay? Not really. You could be firing ranged units on the one side of the moat taking their defenses out, or at least focusing defenses on them, while your imps are putting down the bridges. Siege equipment could also be taking out their defenses forcing the enemy to send units out to take out your equipment.

I feel it pulls a lot from what made Stronghold special. Do I try to attack the broad side of their defenses with a very strong siege force or try to find some weaknesses by flanking them? Moats/rivers expose your troops to whatever defenses are available meaning high losses through a bottleneck, but also meaning some pretty crazy battles when you send a massive army across (like [email protected] said). Or you take workers and find another way across that is not being held by a player. Or open up fronts at multiple places on their defenses to split their forces trying to defend.

I like the idea of trap bridges. I think a basic one is something like a drawbridge if a door is connected to a bridge. But there's a wide range of traps that could work as well like the suggestion above with collapsing bridges. Breaks the menagerie of the bridge roulette in the DK games.
 
Oct 14, 2012
16
4
10
27
#5
I was personally quite a fan of the bridge fights in DK2 and used them quite alot in the multiplayer map "islands" (the lava one where you start with only the wooden bridge and later can get the stone bridge) to attack people from the flanks and rear.

But I can see where you are coming from with the easy scout method, also those bridge fight were quite fast over when one side claimed the bridge and then sold it. But the trap bridge kind of a idea seems like a good idea, I always found it a shame that you could not build some doors or traps on bridges in the DK series.

Instead of using bridges you could also let your imps or with a spell fill up the moat with dirt so that a "land tile" becomes available.
And the enemy could destroy these "land tiles" by using spells like "earthquake" on them so that they collapse. Claimed land tiles should be stronger and take a couple of earthquakes before being destroyed and turned back into lava/water
Also filling up lava should take longer then filling up water.
 
Jun 27, 2012
349
120
220
34
#6
first of all, I think there should be one bridge. I didnt like the micromanaging of constantly rebuilding bridged because they where burned away by the lava.

Maybe bridges could be limited to straight bridges, not being allowed to go around corners anymore. Either way the price should go up quite a bit to limit their use, so that the most narrow crossing becomes very appealing to lay a bridge there.
 
Likes: Amon
Aug 5, 2012
54
5
5
UK
#8
Instead of players being able to claim the whole bridge at once, make each tile a separate room, and allow traps to be placed on bridge - this is the only room where you can build traps in the room.
 
Jul 13, 2012
155
72
235
35
#9
Claiming individual tiles of a bridge would be a great step forward, but I still feel the mechanic of building bridges should be much slower. When looking at rooms in DK, it required an imp to claim land before a room was a possibility which took X amount of time. Bridges should IMHO take equal time to the imp running to the location of the bridge, and an equal time of claiming land per bridge segment. To me, it seems like a break in balance when there already is a set time needed to be able to claim and build a room, but really no constraints for bridge placement making the possibility of abuse without any consequences a real possibility. With a system above, an enemy can always defend against imps thereby stopping a bridge being built right into their territory and keeping an attacking player at a disadvantage (if they cannot start claiming your land, they can't cast spells to support their troops and therefore give the defending player a clear advantage).
 
Jan 7, 2012
446
171
340
23
#10
I have a question about the lawa.
When a creature without fire immunity gets pushed into the lawa and dies there, will the corpse still be usuable?
It always looked weird when I put my fireflys to bed after they took a 30 second bath in a hot pool of molten rocks...
Will the WftO units vanish (turn to ash) after being killed in lawa?
 
Likes: Amon
Aug 5, 2012
54
5
5
UK
#11
This is the wrong topic for a lava question but I would presume that corpses would turn to ash after being in lava for a while.

Would tides having water below, on (movement slowed) or so far above a bridge that it's untraversable help?
 

Nibel

Dwarven Worker
May 21, 2014
11
0
25
36
Riga, Latvia
#12
Vaernus wrote just the thing I noticed playing DK2, I played only campaign mode though... It makes too easy to just magically summon bridge and get your army where you want, so bridges must be placed like traps for sure!!!
 
Nov 13, 2013
634
257
380
21
#13
Hi Nibel, this is a VERY old topic, so it would probably be best if you created a new thread on bridges instead of unnecessarily necroing this one :). Please keep forum rule number 1 in mind:
DO NOT
Bump or resurrect threads without providing something worthwhile to the discussion.
 
Likes: Lord of Riva
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom