World of War Heroes – Official Thread
@Cernel Realism is not really a goal of this map. No bridges can be destroyed in Warcraft, unless it is a bridge meant to be destroyed as part of some story line, cutscene or mission. And even then, the same bridge would magically be restored by the time a new player arrived to the scene Jokes aside, my Warcraft map also seeks simplicity:
Land bridge = Land, air and ammo units may cross into the other territory.
Air bridge = Only air and ammo units may cross into the other territory.
(and yes, for artillery shots to be able to travel into another territory to hit enemies, these enemies should realistically be standing and waiting just past the border line. And this will definitely not be the imagined scenario of every border crossing.)
The map will have a lot of impassable mountain ridges, air only passable mountains, impassable as well as passable rivers and so on. Some regions of the map are dominated by unhindered travels through territories while other areas will have maze like characteristics
I think that I want to just follow my original plans for the bridges.
I suppose you would need here a feature request by which you can move ammunition into a territory only if other units are attacking that territory through the same connection as the ammunitions are moving. Basically something on the lines of the naval bombardment requiring offloading from the same sea zone.
Otherwise, don't you think it would make no sense that you can fire ammunition into a territory from a border whence no other units are invading? This would be substantially like a battleship bombarding a territory not from the coast where the sea borne assault is actually happening! For example, if France is only one territory, I could make D-Day on the north of France and have my battleships in the Mediterranean supporting D-Day firing across the entire France to the shores in Normandy!
So the “Air Bridges” and their final look is now done and implemented (note the bit smaller air bridge pictures):
I'd avoid pointless bridges. Unless I'm missing something, for example, the rightmost bridge is between two normally adjacent territories, so why the bridge?
I understand that the drawing of the map has a road there, but, then, I would rather redraw the borders as to assure that bridge is actually useful (for example, splitting the territory to the bottom-right into two..
Since a bridge should be at least much easier to defend than an open border, it would be great if you could modify the attack power of units that just moved through a canal. This would be a feature request, but just letting you know that I'd be available for giving the canal codes, in such a case, if provided with the list of bridges connections.
@Cernel The plan is to let ammunition be able to fly/be thrown over borders, bridges and air bridges. And yes, it is only realistic to hit an enemy with medieval artillery weapons if the enemy was right on the other side of a river. Probably always impossible to throw rocks over a small mountain range / air bridge. But this will be a game mechanic. It is inspired by the 1 move mortar shots of Age of Tribes and the 2 move Rockets. I found it pretty fun to acquire those weapons and bombarded from a distance, a helpless enemy So I think that it is great fun and that it adds a special dimension to the map. But there are some other things to take in mind on this map. We are not talking about huge territories like France, Ireland or whatever. Some of the Warcraft map territories are not bigger than it is possible to visually, with your ingame eyes, see to the other side of the territory, even though it is still a considerable distance. The artillery units are also expensive. Also, the ammunition units are mostly on the weak side with low hit/kill chance, ranging from 10%-50% (1-5 on d10) right now. Primarily the units are for ruining/bombarding factories/fortifications, that are so strong that they matter greatly in battle, killing many attacking units.
I agree that the bridge picture + a normal border is not optimal. I can say that this case is the only occurrence on the map. I hope players can just ignore it, and think "Ahhh, I have two ways to cross, here AND here ... yay!" I think it will create just as much confusion to see a "missing" bridge than a bridge to much.
I don't think I want to complicate the mechanics of being able to cross a bridge. There will be a lot of stuff going on on this map as it is, and I think the very simple way of handling bridge crossings is most fitting to the setting. But I appreciate you being there to help out