"The Bridge of Remagen" Beta-Test Tonight!

(BXpress) #1

[b]heya,
yes, after months of work (and not working) i finally have a beta… ok it was a long time but i think, this map will come true with your dreams;)

Test is Tonight ON and at:

194.24.243.155:27960 planetenemyterritory ET #1 ][ by rwitservice.de

Public Beta Test tonight at 22:00 (GMT+1)!!!
(Fast Download ON)

After 22:00 (GMT+1) the map will stay on the Server for a while! so you can even join it tomorrow or the days after tomorrow :slight_smile:

PS: If you own a page, make some News with the IP etc. :wink: [/b]

([AE]HawkeyE) #2

Wow, it only took you about… long enough :).

(ChiemseeMan) #3

You mean Years of working :smiley: :smiley:
Ok, we have the map on the Page. :banana:

(CrazyGuy) #4

Missing model textures on the mg42 and flag bases.

Some misaligned textures on the beach upper hill.

Whats up with the 2 trees?
1 tree by the bridge lower. The textures are going into the bridge.

(au.Hiroshima>) #5

looks good, clearly has some work to do but shaping up very nicely.

btw for those who haven’t seen it, here’s a trailer and some sound clips from the film staring Robert Vaughan and George Segal. It’s probably not very accurate, but it’s a good fun war movie that is perfect for a wet sunday afternoon with fish & chips and a few beers :slight_smile:
http://www.mgm.com/title_clip.do?title_star=BRIDGEAT

(TFate) #6

Whoops, looks like you forgot to include a few models/skins in the .pk3. :>

Too bad there was no one else on the server when I went.

(Ifurita) #7

Did anyone bother to look at the gameplay or was there 1) no one else on the server, or 2) no one could get past the missing models/skins and misaligned textures? Remember, gameplay makes or breaks a map, misaligned textures don’t.

(Matt-J) #8

if anyone too kscreens post em please i wanan see :smiley:

(au.Hiroshima>) #9

I haven’t played it on a server with others, but here are some initial impressions.

  • more ropes for allies to build at start, currently i think it would be too easy for axis to keep any eye on the two as they spawn right near them. Add another two near the existing ones or a second pair further up the back of the bridge. If you don’t want more ropes, you could have a tall tree that allies can climb up and jump across to the bridge from.

  • access to tower stairs from both sides. http://clanoxygen.com/hiroshima/remagen-towerstairs.jpg

  • needs lots of crates, damaged trucks, etc. on bridge for cover. maybe even a few constructable mg emplacements.

  • a ladders or two up the sides of the bridge near where the rises start, so that players can climb up to the top without having to go back to the towers.
    http://clanoxygen.com/hiroshima/remagen-bridgeladder.jpg

  • the North and South doors and rope ladders (Enterhaken) should be East and West. This would let you have north and south TNT objectives.

  • A floating barge somewhere under the bridge, possibly as an allied spawn point. (hmm, the lack of a default barge model might be a problem…)

Objective wise, possibly have it so axis have to set the dynamite first, this would have to be designed so that the axis cannot halt allied progress by not doing their objective. One idea could be that it gives them more time for each set of TNT planted. (the North & South I refer to here is based on the compass orientation) ie:

  1. First TNT objective is already in place when the game starts, the starting time limit is 10 mins.
  2. Axis must take second TNT objective from North Tower to the center span where they arm it. This adds an extra 10 minutes to time limit for a total of 20. (this is the distraction objective to draw them away from the initial allied attack.)
  3. When Allies defuse the first TNT at the north end of the bridge, this gives the Axis access to the final TNT which they must carry from somewhere* to the base of the bridge support at the south end. nce in place this adds another 10 mins for a total of 30 (*somewhere could be in the command house or in the trenches - far away enough that it’s not a given run.)

This is just an idea and I’m not sure if it is feasable scripting-wise, or even if it would be good for gameplay, but it’s all I can offer until I’ve had a real game. Anyway good luck to all involved in it and I look forward to playing the final on 40-player spampaign servers! :smiley:

(thegnat) #10

Gameplay issues (my opinion - I’m not a PROplayer):

  1. Too few mineable surfaces - the sand beside the river should at least be mineable to blow some attacking Allies :slight_smile: An allied CovOps can easily spot them from the bridge, but that requires teamplay - isn’t that what its all about?
  2. The HQ has absolutely no defense structure around to build. So its way too easy for Allies to plant the bomb and defend it with nades from inside the house.
  3. When the map is out for a few months, players will know how to climb up on the bridge and sneak over it - annoying feature. Being shot from above the whole time isn’t funny. :wink:
  4. No fast way to get out of the water at the shores.
  5. Autospawn should always target the closest flag to the frontline, IMO.

Optical issues:

  1. Missing trees and some more things… mentioned above.
  2. The rock-sand-transition looks somehow unnatural sharp - maybe you can add a nice alpha-volume blending there?
  3. The fogdistance seems to be set higher than fogclip, looks a bit odd, when the half level turns dark-blue at one time.
  4. Some places, where you can see the “end of the world” at the allied bridgehead

Eyecandy-Suggestion:

  1. Use the flag_fg.md3 in models/mapobjects/flag and remap it with a texture similar to yours (have it here - write a pm, if you want it). models/mapobjects/flag/flag_dam.tga is the texture path referenced in the md3.
    That will look way better than the glued, static flags.
(nUllSkillZ) #11

I think some places are too dark.
Perhaps minlight / minvertexlight could solve this problem.

A suggestion for the objectives.
I think it would be better to have crates + red models (with the crates inside the red models) at the start.
Then if someone is starting to disarm replace the red model with a crate that is textured with the construction texture.
And if the explosive is disarmed remove the crates.

Yesterday I had some 4 vs 4 to 6 vs 6 battles (thegnat was also there).
We played the map four times (I think).
And allies always managed to destroy the HQ.
Although the last time it took about 15 to 20 minutes.
Tactic was to swim across the river and to try to get to the first explosive from behind.
I think it’s pretty hard to get onto the bridge for the allies.
Maybe replace the ropes by ladders that can be used by two players at the same time.
Not sure about this.

I think it’s too early to make suggestions for the gameplay.
And I’m also not a pro-player.

@ thegnat:
I had a walkthrough today and the flags moved.
Strange.
Because yesterday they didn’t move.

(au.Hiroshima>) #12

Another idea for the mission could be to have a good old tank escort down half the bridge followed by a doc run and then a final dynamite objective. That would offer a bit more variety while being relatively straight forward and would suit campaigns well. Or even a double objective with axis having to dynamite while the allies have to drive a tank across or something. I’m sure there’s plenty of ideas way back in the original thread. I guess it depends how adventurous you want to be, though it’s a lovely map and it would be a shame to be hasty in completing it. :wink:

(Ifurita) #13

Personally, I’d like to see the game orientation flipped 180 degrees, though I’m not sure if BX is willing to compromise historical accuracy with (IMO) much improved gameplay. I think making the Allies attack South-North would do the following:

  1. Make the fight to get up to the bridge more interesting. The allies actually have maneuver ground on which to attack vs climbing easily camped ropes and ladders
  2. The actual action on the bridge is unchanged, except that maybe the fight for the first flag is more interesting
  3. The final objective would actually be in the town, which gives the town itself some play. Currently, the town is simply a route for the allies to get from spawn to bridge ladders/ropes, which is a shame. Axis don’t really have any incentive to come off the bridge since they have the height advantage and can more easily control the access points.
  4. Putting the objective inside the town still gives the allies several nice avenues of attack while giving the axis a smaller number to defend.
(thegnat) #14

Good points, Iffy.

I also would like to see it flipped, because now, the town is a pretty side-effect to run through. The Axis HQ would have been more likely in the town. :suspicious:

(Ifurita) #15

Ultimately, I like the brushwork a lot and it needs to be better utilized:

  1. The bridge is awesome, but the map is too dark for anyone to really see it
  2. The town is really nice, but it’s just a simple route from spawn to flag #1. Once captured, no one ever sees it again
  3. The trench work and all on the south side is nice, but the smart allies probably just jump off the bridge and swim to the railroad building
(Ifurita) #16
  1. Autospawn should always target the closest flag to the frontline, IMO.

Can you tell me which flag did not automatically change the autospawn. Everything worked fine when I tested it.

(thegnat) #17

Umm, the first one. But as I write, I’m not quite sure if the allies captured the flag right in the moment of spawn. :confused:

(nUllSkillZ) #18

Personally I like the idea of the flipped gameplay very much.
The town is too nice to not to be played.
If historical correctness is a problem there could be two versions of the map.

(Ifurita) #19

I think it would offer a nice variety of gameplay too:

Phase 1: Multi-level open
Phase 2. Narrow bridge, possibly lots of close action depending on how much cover is placed on the bridge
Phase 3: Urban, possibly with multiple levels

(au.Hiroshima>) #20

How about have the Axis attacking with the Allies defending the bridge & town?