Well yeah. My idea is that commander or engineer should be apple to build a bridge across river or ravine. Sounds simple. Now why do we need bridges? Well to across obstacles. I think they would add a nice tactical element. They are just like any other building but your units can move on them. They also make a nice objective. You have to defend them or destroy them. They can give you a shorter way to front lines or if destroyed make road to the front line longer. I haven't seen any build able bridges in supcom and I have not played TA ( must try it sometime) so I thought this would be nice feature to have.
Tunnels also could be fun but risky if discovered. I wound not want be bombed while in side a tunnel.
Sounds like fun, build bridges to connect bases or to get reinforcments to the front faster. It could also be a nice thing to target for harass.
You could just air drop guys or use amphibious units. The commander will most probably be amphibious too.
There has been some discussion about bridges, tunnels and (air)transports, but I haven't seen definitive answers from devs to any of these. At the moment teleports seem to be the only confirmed feature allowing to cross terrain with obstacles. Now that the PAs terrain system supports radical height differences, I imagine that when it's coupled with random generation we will inevitably see canyons, mountains and ledges that absolutely need to be crossed. In my opinion it'd be a bit dull if teleportation would be the only way to do that. So yeah I'm in for tunnels, bridges, slopes, elevators and basically anything that enables crossing of diffucult terrain features. From what I understood about the dynamic CSG system, it should be technically possible to dig tunnels reaching from one side of the planet to the other. How cool would that be?
I'm all in for tunnels! Would be really cool. But a question comes to mind. Would it be underground tunnels, say Nudus Networks from Starcraft 1 - except you actually have to dig an underground tunnel and walk down there - how would your opponent destroy it? Or would it be: Screw that mountain, I can't be bothered to go around it, I'm going through it! The last kind of tunnel would seem cool, since you could knock down the mountain/tunnel (I guess?) to prevent your opponent from using it anymore. Or just spam defenses/have an army waiting for him when he comes out. I'm not really sure about bridges, I think it could prove problematic. Say you have a map with a few chokepoints on either side with a chasm in the middle, so instead of trying to bring down your opponents fortress, you would just build a million bridges. I guess it could be limited by length or amount?
It would be very interesting to see bridges and tunnels. Tunnels might be more difficult from a programming stand point.
Bridges are right there in the Confirmed features and suggestions thread, currently classified as "Acknowledged, but unconfirmed", based on this (albeit dated) post:
That doesn't confirm the ability to make your own bridges. Bridges could easily refer to terrain which overlaps itself and is usable by units. That is a difficult problem by itself because of the difficulties in UI and the fact that many RTS games have used a heightmap which maps each horizontal coordinate to a vertical one. For example Populous the Beginning very obviously used a heightmap. From what I hear about the terrain system bridges are possible and it should be possible to give the player terraform tools. So why not make bridges that way?
Bridges have always been important part of warfare. So it would be natural to have them. They would have to be balanced of course. Tunnels could be like "hidden" bridges that are under ground. Tunnels are easy to destroy as are bridges. That is why they are risky to build but the reward could be winning a battle. I don't know anything about making games so I am not sure how it could be done in PA. I have seen other games with bridges that can be built like in Company of heroes but you always have to place them on specific spot. Now going around a choke point is just out maneuvering your opponent. That is also what warfare has been like for last 3000 years or more. That is why I think bridges add more depth to the gameplay.
Bridges would be cool. If you mean underground tunnels, they've been discussed. viewtopic.php?f=61&t=42074&start=40&hilit=Underground
From topologic kind of view bridges and tunnels are the same. From generation they are opposite. But the mesh in the end is the same.... ...kinda.
I think building bridges is a useful game mechanic, as it represents one option to change the terrain to fit your strategy by opening new routes. While thinking on that, the opposite mechanic also comes to mind. With deformable terrain you could restrict the given routes by blocking choke points, e.g., collapsing canyons, destroying bridges etc.
I am in favour of bridges, but not tunnels. I would envision that you could select the "bridge" from the build menu, and then drag it as long as you wanted. It would then be made in discrete blocks starting with the on-ramp, then continuing to the other side of the gap where it intelligently makes an off-ramp. I'm picturing the bridges as being similar to the ones in the original Worms in case my description isn't clear:
