I started to think :hmm: about it. I tried some things, like those proposed in "canal unit" thread and more. I made a graphic to start testing (see attachment).

Possibilites:

1. bridge as immobile naval unit
(+) naval units can pass under the bridge
(-) passing thru the bridge takes full turn (load/unload)
(-) I doubt AI will be able to use it
(-) the bridge can be used only by its owner, unless captured from the sea :( This makes it practically useless.

2. bridge as immobile ground unit
(+) bridge can be used only by its owner, but can be captured thousand of times by ground units "passing" thru it
(+) you travel thru it just like on normal land, no problem for AI
(-) river becomes impassable for naval units (not a big deal)
(-) it requires more work from the scenario-maker - each bridge has to be prepared separately with underlying land copied from the map to cover the linking ground (again, not a big deal)
(-) when you cross thru the brige, it will "disappear" under the current unit, thus uncovering the underlying land. it's only graphical glitch, but it doesn't look so good :(

3. bridge as a resource...
- working on it...

C'mon, join me with your ideas on it. I want this bridge on Anduin river.

I think it would work best as a naval unit.

But I wrote that I tested it and it sucks. No one can pass thru the bridge except it's owner, and it can't be captured from the ground. It's really stupid when your unit stands next to a nice bridge, no one guards it, but yet you can't pass nor attack.

Here is the 3rd option, nothing fancy, just an overlay graphic to represent a bridge. There is not much space for the bridge in resources.pcx, that's why it looks small and crappy.

Naval vessels can't pass, but other than that, there are no probs with this one.

One simple question: Are you using air transport for this scenario? ;)

Sorry, I didn't think about taking the bridge within someones borders... :( This only may work outside of every border.

double post.

Originally posted by Arne
One simple question: Are you using air transport for this scenario? ;)

unfortunately, "air-bridge" works exactly like naval bridge, just worse, because it can't be captured, only destroyed :(

The resource idea is actually pretty good, I just didn´t realise before:)

How about replace (gfx) of single Snowcaped Mountain? And then rename Mountains with (may be) something like "rocks". So you could have a rocky bridge. Everyone exept naval units could pass it (if a road is on it).

An additional "bridge" ressource will make the roads running hidden over the bridge. This way you need only a part of the same bridge gfx for the ressource -> so you could make the bridge much bigger.

(sidenote: I dont use snoopys terrain, so it looks a little strange)

I can't seem to make it work and still having snow-capped mountain look good, but even if I sacrifice the snowy mountains completly, then it would still allow only one bridge in game, what about bridges in other places, directions? Won't work.
Following your idea, I also thought about putting bridges right onto the plains/grasslands terrain, but it turned out that civ3 combines quarters of tiles instead of whole parts with those files.

Originally posted by embryodead
I can't seem to make it work and still having snow-capped mountain look good, but even if I sacrifice the snowy mountains completly, then it would still allow only one bridge in game, what about bridges in other places, directions? Won't work.Not sure, if I understand you right. It's true, there is only one direction for this bridge. This was touhged (only) for the single bridge on Anduin river, from NW to SE, not for general use. I think, its "easy" having still snowcapped mountains and a bridge: You only have to edit the upper left gfx in "mountains-snow.pcx." That is the single-tile mountain, so you have to make sure, nowhere else on the map is a single tile mountain with snow ontop, if there is no other NW-SE bridge. If you need a second direction (I think, only NE-SW and NW-SE would make sense becouse of Civ3 coastlines) you could make the same thing with normal mountains, but be carefull: many rivers are starting at normal single tile mountains.

You could made the 2nd direction also by editing one of the 2 tile snow mountains. But I don't know the terrain rules, for merging a single tile hill/mountain with the next one together. This seems to be a try and error job when placing on the map.

Originally posted by embryodead
Following your idea, I also thought about putting bridges right onto the plains/grasslands terrain, but it turned out that civ3 combines quarters of tiles instead of whole parts with those files. Yes, I wozld also think, this wouldn't work.

I tried making railroads being the gfx for the bridge, but I couldn't find out, how to place RRs on water. And even if I could place RRs on water they still won't work as bridge.

Originally posted by embryodead
... (+) naval units can pass under the bridge ...


Sry, but I believe this is an absolute must for a bridge. It wouldnt be a real bridge if naval units couldnt pass it.
So perhaps an water based recource or something? Is that possible?

Originally posted by Arne
Not sure, if I understand you right. It's true, there is only one direction for this bridge. This was touhged (only) for the single bridge on Anduin river, from NW to SE, not for general use.

This is of course not for general use, but any scenario will need more than one such bridge.


I think, its "easy" having still snowcapped mountains and a bridge: You only have to edit the upper left gfx in "mountains-snow.pcx." That is the single-tile mountain, so you have to make sure, nowhere else on the map is a single tile mountain with snow ontop, if there is no other NW-SE bridge. If you need a second direction (I think, only NE-SW and NW-SE would make sense becouse of Civ3 coastlines) you could make the same thing with normal mountains, but be carefull: many rivers are starting at normal single tile mountains.

Sorry, I should have said that it was the palette that was messing things up, the rest I know. If I'll be in a need of exactly 1 bridge for a scenario, I'll think of it, though generally I was thinking of something that would allow placing several bridges on the map, on various terrain (keep in mind, that if the bridge+terrain in the example only fits that one configuration; it won't look good with different coastline). Also, in case of middle-earth, single tile mountains can't be sacrificed.

I tried making railroads being the gfx for the bridge, but I couldn't find out, how to place RRs on water. And even if I could place RRs on water they still won't work as bridge.

But why on water? (it's impossible anyway). I'll try this with ground, might be actually a good idea.

Originally posted by [Ant]Wimp
Sry, but I believe this is an absolute must for a bridge. It wouldnt be a real bridge if naval units couldnt pass it.

:confused: Would it be a bridge if ground units could't pass it? :rolleyes: As far as I got it, the purpose of impassable rivers, was having a natural borders, with only certain places passable. At least in case of Anduin, that's the most important thing.

So perhaps an water based recource or something? Is that possible?

It won't make ground units pass thru water ;)

I am pretty sure there is no way to make both naval and ground units pass. The naval bridge idea only lets bridge owner's units but others will never pass, so it's really pointless. If bridges are the only ways to pass such river, they must be accessible to anyone, or capturable by ground units.

I don't really get the resource idea, is the tile supposed to be a land tile, or?

And is it possible to (pre)place a land unit on water? Or is that idea also based on a land tile?:confused:

@Arne
The railroad idea was good (see attachment). It looks nice and works just like resource one; only in one direction, but works in different coastlines. I'm thinking of using this in one direction, and resource one in the other (a smaller bridge, or a ford).
One problem that comes to my mind is that railroads appear when city is destroyed, or did they fixed that?

@mrtn
Yes the tile is just a land tile, with resource over it, so it looks like a bridge with water flowing underneath (sure it needs some work :) )
That's why I said it's nothing fancy, since it doesn't affect rules at all, just adds small graphic, so the pass looks like a bridge.
No, you can't place a land unit on water. But in the naval bridge idea, the bridge was immobile naval transport.

I just tried a slew of experiments (most of you probably already know the results of some of these ...)

Experiment: I set up a string of coastal hexes as a river and tried to find a way to build a bridge.

1. Setting the resource value (road) to >1 for coastal allows roads and bridges to be pre-placed there. Although the human player can, the AI will not use them (nor, now that I think of it, did I try to pillage them while standing on them :D ).

2. I created a unit called a barge. Has anyone noticed that MF=0 units cannot be built!? Annoyed me no end (there were other things I wanted to use that for). So I set coastal to "wheeled units can't pass" and the barge to "wheeled" and pre-placed one. Again, the human player could use it, the AI could not (I didn't bother to play around with other naval units trying to capture it).

3. Just to be thorough I tried, in the same tile (i) a road (ii) a railroad (iii) a road AND a barge (iv) a railroad AND a barge. I even had the AI set-up in a cul-de-sac, the only way out which was over the "bridge" -- it wouldn't do it.

So, QED, we cannot have proper bridges in this fashion :( .

... Sorry, Rocoteh, wherever you are ...

-Oz

I think I like the resource idea the best... You mentioned that it only allows for a small image... What if you broke up the image into several resources. Then you can preplace them in the tiles around the place the bridge should be. I don't know how difficult this might be to get aligned correctly (or even if you could) but it might be the best option.

@Kinboat -- Who ever thought that your quote from Krushchev would be so fitting? :cool:

-Oz

:lol: That's a bit harsh; calling Embryo a politician.

:lol: @ the quote. sorry :)

@Oz
Seems it I didn't try all ideas, glad you did, though it still means we can't have a bridge allowing both naval and land units pass.
However, for this setting, I am pretty happy with the results of railroad/resource bridge. Indeed, railroad can be pillaged, but if I place a ford resource under the bridge, it'll still look ok. Fords will be also an excuse to keep the boats out :p
@Kinboat
I tried, but it doesn't work too. Since resources are much smaller than terrain, they cover only the center of a tile. If you try to make several resources next to each other, there is about 30px space between them.

ps. Oz, as for your MF=0 problem, a hint: Immobile flag :)

Originally posted by embryodead

ps. Oz, as for your MF=0 problem, a hint: Immobile flag :)

... *sound of hand slapping forehead repeatedly * ... :crazyeye:

Then, of course, there is the option of using a city graphic as a bridge. This being very unreliable and well, not very viable. But, it could be used in a scenario where you do not control cities, but what use would that be.

Anyways, Plexus is rambling...

Originally posted by embryodead
Indeed, railroad can be pillaged, but if I place a ford resource under the bridge, it'll still look ok. Fords will be also an excuse to keep the boats out :p Sorry, buit I'm afraid, ressources are placed over RRs. So you will have the ford over the bridge. Btw, pillagig was the main reason for trying RRs on water. And it dosn't work if there is nothing additional allowing pass the wate for ground units.

Another idea: Are you using victory points in your scenario? If not then you could use this gfx. Big (+) for this: every civ will try to hold this bridge. (-) Well, these "bridges" are also possible in only one single direction, becouse only one gfx for VPs exist. May be combined with Ressorses or RRs this will work. :)

You're right Arne :(
Victory Point Location is nice idea. It's unremovable I believe, so it won't cause any problems. The importance of this for AI is also nice, thought I fear that VPL's will be needed in (some) LotR scenarios.

Ok some crazy ideas that I won't be able to test myself until friday, so please be my guest. ;)

according to this thread:

Planes moving like Civ2 and invunerable to ground units (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19627)

Airunits with hidden nationality can share a tile with units from another civ. So how about using preplaced inmobile air units with hidden nationality checked above a coastal tile. One airunit for each civ. (only one needs grafics)

unfortunately, "air-bridge" works exactly like naval bridge, just worse, because it can't be captured, only destroyed

I have no idea what you mean with air-bridge but maybe this could be combined

hmm as a matter of fact I'm beginning to think I do now what you mean... sh*t

an air unit could still be used only for the grafics over a land tile.

Of course ships can't pass, but land units can without having to attack.


If the grafic will still disappear when you move a unit over the bridge (and I'm affraid it will) then how about placing the unit (or city grafic or whatever) on the tile next to the bridge (which cannot be reached anyway and let it have one huge frame covering the adjecent tile.

this was so easy with civ2 :(
but since ships can't pas small land bridges anymore it has become way more difficult.

But how would something like a bridge as a resource be any better than just a small strip of grassland between the two shores??? If boats cant cross it anywayz...

<<It isnt is possible to load naval units onto an immobile ground unit, right?>>

Originally posted by [Ant]Wimp
But how would something like a bridge as a resource be any better than just a small strip of grassland between the two shores??? If boats cant cross it anywayz...it looks better, thats the only reason.

I figured the size of the resource squares would be the problem with that... But the Victory point idea sounds good.

If you are using the resource method, these have to be preplaced anyway, so why not use the allow roads on coastal tiles and just preplace the bridges that way?

It isn't as nice to look at as the resource method, but that can be fixed by making the bridge a coastal recource. The positive side is that both land and naval units will be able to cross the tile. The only real downside is if the tile is pillaged then the bridge can never be replaced.

Or am I missing something?

@black_rose
You answered to most of your doubts already ;) (yes, the bridge disappears, or gets destroyed) but the idea to use a unit with offset on adjacent tile is really interesting (especially that it can be placed over inaccesible water, so no one will ever destroy it). I'll test it today, and post the results.

@Wimp
As Yoda said, the resource idea is just visualisation. At least for me, it looks much better to see the actual bridge on the river, rather than a piece of land pretending to be a bridge.

@Kal-el
You missed one thing - Ozymandias' post - he wrote that he tested it and it doesn't work for AI (AI won't ever pass thru such road). Also it shouldn't be possible to pillage the bridge (until it's just a graphic) since AI loves to pillage and sooner or later the bridge would be gone for good.
BTW when I tested it I couldn't even get my units thru such bridge.

Originally posted by ozymandias


So, QED, we cannot have proper bridges in this fashion :( .

... Sorry, Rocoteh, wherever you are ...

-Oz [/B]

In fact I am spending most of my time digging
in the sources to get a real accurate Order of Battle
for my revision of ACW, including "built-in" leader-factors
for leaders such as Longstreet and "Stonewall" Jackson.

Yes, the rivers...
I am really looking forward to Conquests. I hope there
will be a solution there.

In the summer of -62 CSA only had 2 strongholds left
at the Mississippi: Vicksburg and Port Hudson.

Not easy to recreate that in the official version, but I
intend to change that in the revision.

Edit: Procifica and I tried countless times to solve
the "River Problem" without result.



Rocoteh

Thanks everyone for the brainstorm, especially black_rose whose idea turned out to be the best :) It works flawlessly (for me - it won't help Rocoteh, since ACW has different needs). Whichever map we will use for LotM, I'll be able add bridges (offset units) and fords (resources), assuming that we use the impassable Anduin idea.

Glad to be of help!

esp. since I will probably end up using the grafics you make myself as well. ;)

btw, I still think there is something, other than a bridge, possible with hidden nationality air units. I just have to figure out what it is hmm...

IMO, the resource icon based bridge is the best way to go. Looks good and is functional.

Originally posted by TopGun69
IMO, the resource icon based bridge is the best way to go. Looks good and is functional.

Absolutely, it looks really good and will help create the appropriate atmosphere for the scenario.