• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

Tactics Bridge protection in Orel

komet

Grizzled Veteran
May 27, 2006
51
0
By now anyone who's played the Germans in Orel knows the frustration of having to deal with three out of four blown bridges on their side of the map.
Thus, having to rely on the main bridge which can be targeted for artillery/or tank fire if the Russians have the high ground. It seems to be now that anyone who plays the German side still assumes that crossing the river is a right, not a privilage.
That frustration has prompted me to now do "bridge patrol". A MK III, or MK IV, serves well especially when that stupid suicidal clown car is encountered primarily. I've found that just the presence of a tank there to greet the Russian sapper is discouraging enough, however, one can expect a stubborn sapper to push his luck.
Just keeping an extra bridge open other than the main one can weigh in the German's favor as the game progresses. This is even more critical now that the scoring system has been upgraded.
 
I find that blowing the Ruskie bridges first pretty much stops any ruskies even getting to the E field.

Played on a server toady where us axis blew all the bridges ASAP every round. We totally dominated the map after that point despite lower player numbers.

So bridge blowing works both ways. The only difference is that the allies have the clown car which can do a very quick bridge blowing run compared to the halftrack or a tank.
 
Upvote 0
One problem is that you can blow all of the opposing team's bridges and then set arty on the last undestroyable bridge near the village, and effectively cut off all of the crossing points. I'm not sure if this is a map flaw or just good strategy, though. It helps now that the round-change arty exploit has been fixed.

But if you can get every objective capped, and need the lake or north bridge as the final, this can help slow the other team down enough to seal the deal. Probably the best use of artillery in this map; anywhere else the map is too wide open and artillery points too narrow to be very effective.

One thing that needs to be addressed is the fact that vehicles can drive through the water unharmed. IMHO this is a map exploit -- it certainly gives the BA a slight edge since it doesn't even have to find a good crossing point to make it across, unlike the tanks that can't make the steep inclines out of the water. Perhaps version 2 should add steeper inclines so vehicles can't drive in and out.
 
Upvote 0
Shadowman said:
One thing that needs to be addressed is the fact that vehicles can drive through the water unharmed. IMHO this is a map exploit -- it certainly gives the BA a slight edge since it doesn't even have to find a good crossing point to make it across, unlike the tanks that can't make the steep inclines out of the water. Perhaps version 2 should add steeper inclines so vehicles can't drive in and out.
Orel needs alot of fixes. It's so frustrating because it has great potential but in it's current state it's about 50%fun 50% completely aggravating. The top 3 problems to me are the destroyed bridge icons you can't tell are destroyed or not till you drive all the way up to it and waste 10 minutes. Giving Satchels,nades,and smgs to tankers????...NO, now everybody just pulls out the satchel when their tank is wrecked, it's completely idiotic. Add sapper class and give them satchels!!! Hey there's an idea!. Water needs to be immpassable. And many more problems.
 
Upvote 0
Quietus said:
The top 3 problems to me are the destroyed bridge icons you can't tell are destroyed or not till you drive all the way up to it and waste 10 minutes.

If you look really closely, you can tell that some bridges have two targets while others still have 3. The ones with only 2 are destroyed. But I agree with you: I've noticed that most people can't tell; maybe they're using a lower resolution than I do and it's more difficult. Instead of 3 destroyable parts to a bridge, it would suffice to have two endpoints and a single destroyable center, with only one bullseye on the map. No need for more; once one section is destroyed, the bridge is out.

Giving Satchels,nades,and smgs to tankers????
At first I liked having the satchels as a tanker, especially on a giant map where you can get stranded, although the more I play it, the more I think that there should be only 1 or 2 sappers per side with satchels. This would also make it more difficult to blow the bridges -- make the enemy actually have to work for it, in other words.
 
Upvote 0
Shadowman said:
If you look really closely, you can tell that some bridges have two targets while others still have 3. The ones with only 2 are destroyed. But I agree with you: I've noticed that most people can't tell; maybe they're using a lower resolution than I do and it's more difficult. Instead of 3 destroyable parts to a bridge, it would suffice to have two endpoints and a single destroyable center, with only one bullseye on the map. No need for more; once one section is destroyed, the bridge is out.


At first I liked having the satchels as a tanker, especially on a giant map where you can get stranded, although the more I play it, the more I think that there should be only 1 or 2 sappers per side with satchels. This would also make it more difficult to blow the bridges -- make the enemy actually have to work for it, in other words.
The only time I can definitely tell if a bridge is blown or not is if 2 or all the sections have been destroyed which is rare. Hopefully the mapper will get back soon as all these things are not difficult to implement. A bunch more problems with it have been discussed in previous threads so let's hope they are all addressed.
 
Upvote 0