Tanks...and water

[Chalk]

As far as I can tell, no tanks have any difficulty crossing bodies of water. I think it would be a lot cooler (and more realistic) if normal tanks and half-tracks had more difficulty traversing deeper sections of rivers and such. That if they ventured too far the engine should eventually flood with water and quit, stranding you there. A change like this would instantly give bridges inherent strategic value, making them very important landmarks to control, even without some artificial "objective" goal placed upon it.

For examply, on Arad (I think) almost none of the german tanks use the bridge to cross the river near their spawn. They all just go straight down the middle of the river or simply wade through it. It looks kinda strange.

But if rivers were actually a hazard, then that would also open up a new door in armoured warfare...Amphibious tanks. Armor that was capable of crossing wherever one wished, useful for flanking when a bridge is being is being too hotly contested to cross safely. Of course the devs would have to introduce a new tank (like the T40, or something).

It just seems to me that no one really even notices the rivers while their tearing around in their tank. Of course, IRL tanks were able to wade most streams and rivers with little worry, but if it was deeper than five or six feet, well...

Of course, if this was changed then some map changes would be necessary as well.

Bah, maybe it's a dumb idea.

[Zell]

No, it's a good idea. It's realistic and like you said, gives bridges a strategic advantage. But I think it's simply and engine limitation. Water in UT2k4 is a bit sketchy.

[Witzig]

Well the River on Arad ain't deep enough to flood a Tank, but certainly able to slow them, a bit...

The River on Barshka is deadly for any Tank that falls into it btw.

[Amarok]

Originally Posted by Witzig

Well the River on Arad ain't deep enough to flood a Tank, but certainly able to slow them, a bit...

The River on Barshka is deadly for any Tank that falls into it btw.

Well, the point is that normally the crews were certainly aware of the "properties" of the rivers they had to deal with, and I think there's a quite clear difference between the "cat-piss" (Bach(D), riera(CAT), riachuelo(E)... )rivers in Arad or Bondarevo and the river in Baraschka, so that your instinct tells you how to get over it... worst case you make exactly ONE error before you know how to make it... this or you're not to be helped at all

[Harry S. Truman]

Tanks crossing bodies of water, even shallow ones, risked getting bogged in the muddy bottom.

I'd like to see the river on Arad still be crossable, but the tank should move very slowly in the muck on the bottom of the river. As it stands, you can cross the river as fast as you can cross the bridge!

[Kurtz]

This is a great idea that would lead to some great battles, but I am also going with the engine limit guess.

[Moz]

I would also like to see an emitter effect. (this CAN be done) so it kicks a tall rooster tail of water up behind it.

[Phoenix-D]

Originally Posted by Harry S. Truman

Tanks crossing bodies of water, even shallow ones, risked getting bogged in the muddy bottom.

I'd like to see the river on Arad still be crossable, but the tank should move very slowly in the muck on the bottom of the river. As it stands, you can cross the river as fast as you can cross the bridge!

Faster, really; you don't risk getting stuck on the edges.

[Zbojnik]

Originally Posted by Harry S. Truman

Tanks crossing bodies of water, even shallow ones, risked getting bogged in the muddy bottom.

I'd like to see the river on Arad still be crossable, but the tank should move very slowly in the muck on the bottom of the river. As it stands, you can cross the river as fast as you can cross the bridge!

Exactly. I think it's a great idea.

[myzko]

Originally Posted by Harry S. Truman

Tanks crossing bodies of water, even shallow ones, risked getting bogged in the muddy bottom.

I'd like to see the river on Arad still be crossable, but the tank should move very slowly in the muck on the bottom of the river. As it stands, you can cross the river as fast as you can cross the bridge!

Me like!

[Chalk]

It doesn't seem like it would be too difficult for the engine to take. I mean, right now if you try to desert from the battlefield it will simply kill you once you get too far (would be nice if they gave a little more warning), why not do the same thing with rivers only kill the tank engine instead. Or the "moving really slowly" idea sounds good to me too, but they've got to move VERY slowly, so that everyone would rather just use the bridge.

Witzig, do you mean that right now, in game, a tank will drown if it tries to enter the river on Barashka?

Also, not all of the river has to be treacherous. The devs could make the river noticeably lighter blue in some areas to indicate that part of the river as tank crossable. Even better, make the location of the blue areas a random feature of the map. Then you would have to spend some time looking for a good place to cross (hey, I think it would be fun...somehow). I know it's pushing the envelope, but I think it is possible. America's Army has randomly placed objectives and player spawns, and it runs on the same engine as RO.

[Black_Pegasus]

I once made a post asking why the water was so shallow on Arad & the bridges being all but defunct, I was promptly flamed about bridges causing bottlenecks....So I gave up :-)

[AGTMADCAT]

Ooh... neat-o. Do it! At the very least the rooster tails of water.

And bridges are SUPPOSED to be bottlenecks. That's the way warfare works.

And most tanks had excellent fording properties in streams, creeks, and rivers as shallow as the one in Arad. So the tanks shouldn't really be in any danger of stalling or the like, nor should they really be slowed down much, but I think if there's a map with a deeper river (though obviously not as deep as the one on Barashka, which is a mammoth), then yes, it'd be great to have tanks be dramatically slowed by between 3' and 5' of water. It'd add a great deal of tactical value to bridges.

I really think, though, that the river on Arad should stall clown cars and half-tracks. Bcause they have their engine intakes on the front instead of on the top, so they're obviously far more prone to being flooded out... *shrug*

I don't really know what the limits on the engine are, though.

And yes, the river on Barashka kills tanks. They plumet down into its icy waters, never to be heard from again. The thing is many dozens of metres deep, so that's a whole 'nother ballpark.

[CKHenson]

What's the point of a water obstacle on the map if 60 ton Tigers can drive in them like it's the autobahn. I'd like to see some kind of bog rule added to the game.