Quote:
RecruitMonty said:
Bridges should be easier to destroy. The wooden bridge especially. Tanks with 75mm plus guns firing on some rickety wooden structure with HE rounds should be able to make nice holes in the wooden houses too. I mean they aren't bunkers are they.
|
For my own conscience I don't take Wooden bridges as Wooden, but as Secondary or pontoon bridges (and even at that, rare due to their fragility) - mind you, each of these bridges will take Leopard - one hell of wooden structure that isn't going to be blown easily with random hits. Plus there's that argument that few bridges are 50 meters wide so that any shell that hits the hex can hit them and damage the enough to bring them down. So I'd say bridges are too fragile as they stand(then again, it's a long-time used value so I don't think it needs change, if I need a survivable bridge I can always build a land bridge).
Quote:
Also the way damage to the map from mortars etc (lighter artillery) is frankly laughable. In reality anything of 60mm would leave a mark on the ground. I always find this so frustrating, there you are plastering an area with fire and the only evidence that you have done so is a bit of smoke. I think the cut off point should be lowered so that weapons with smaller warhead sizes can do more damage to the map. It's not just a question of aesthetics, its more realistic. In my opinion.
|
Would make sense if the damae was just cosmetical, but it does influence terrain properties and 60mm or 81mm mortar isn't going to destroy road or dig a crater wide enough for you to hide into
So I'd say the WH effects are good as they are now...