Why are there no bridges?

[htfeafafaf]

It would be really nice to have bridges.

[Seleucids]

This is actually very hard to do

[Obelix]

I recommend reading following thread and linked ones in it:

Had some similar thoughts in the past.

[Grautvornix]

There were a nuber of discussion is the subject e.g. the one below, but it seems to be quite complex to implement. My sugestion is to create bridges as a structure like a wall (with very low height) and the properties of a field (you walk on it and can cross it).

Bridges need these properties: 

• they need to be buidable - animations will be needed (builders cannot step left and right to the bridge unlike building a wall).

Question: where should we allow building bridges: on map-defined points only (as in settlers IV) or everywhere? (I'd rather opt for predefined points as a start - simply to avoid that one clutters the entire naval map with criss-cross bridges that block ships.

• they need to block pathfinding for ships while they exist, and not anymore if completely destroyed
• they need to enable pathfinding for land objects while they exist - and not anymore if they are damaged to more than a percentage to be defined (or completely destroyed?)
• they need to be destroyable (ships only or also land-based siege engines? If ships only, which ones?)
• they need to be repairable by land forces - animations will be needed

I anyone could come up with a test implementation as a mod on one test map, this would be phantastic! Unfortunatly, I am more or less illiterate in programming...

Edited March 23 by Grautvornix

[Outis]

11 hours ago, Grautvornix said:

My sugestion is to create bridges as a structure like a wall (with very low height) and the properties of a field (you walk on it and can cross it).

The prospect of bridges is great, but the prospect of walls you can walk on is awesome.

[Guest]

I think we can look into the game Stronghold for some guidance or maybe ask them how they did it.

[Grautvornix]

@OutisWalking on top of walls along their extent while being a bit protected could indeed be an interesting side-effect.

Which brings me to a (most likely stupid) question: A soldier positioned on a wall has some protection against enemy fire. I the same soldier is behin that wall, does he have the same level of pretection, more protection, or less protection? 

From my simple mind I would guess being behind a wall shoudl provide more protection.

Most likely implemented as expected. Can anyone confirm, please?

 

[Atrik]

54 minutes ago, Grautvornix said:

A soldier positioned on a wall has some protection against enemy fire. I the same soldier is behin that wall, does he have the same level of pretection, more protection, or less protection?
[...]
Most likely implemented as expected.

  The last sentence is very funny!

It's implemented as what's the easiest to do currently. When the unit is on a wall, he has a state of being "turreted", this is what boost his defenses. When not, it doesn't have any bonuses, regardless of if he is behind a wall or whatever. The projectiles make their lives without ever acknowledging walls.

For sure would be nice to have this enhanced.

On 23/03/2026 at 9:13 PM, Grautvornix said:

My sugestion is to create bridges as a structure like a wall (with very low height) and the properties of a field (you walk on it and can cross it).

You are right that bridges might have similarities with potential bridges (entities, not terrain as currently is) about how we could build them. But there aren't anything supporting walking across them currently. Units don't walk on fields, they just don't get any obstruction from them, so they actually walk on the ground. 
So yes, not really a simple task to get this into the game.

[Grautvornix]

Thanks, I knew it! And sorry for the change in topic.....

There was a lot of discussion in the past if walls protect at all except against direct access, i.e. they block movement but nothing else.As a consequence, you should ideally build your walls around your buidings/troops at a distance that exceeds enemy firing range (might cost a lot of stone).

Would it be possible to provide walls with an aura that reduces firing range by some margin? (from any side, except if positioned on that wall)

[Dakara]

OH YEAH BRIDGE ME DADDY 

[Nicolaus_von_Kues]

Stronghold , Praetorians anda AoE IV

They have good concepts of how to make walkable bridges and walls.

[Nicolaus_von_Kues]

12 minutes ago, Nicolaus_von_Kues said:

Stronghold , Praetorians anda AoE IV

They have good concepts of how to make walkable bridges and walls.

Multi-layer / Multi-level Pathfinding.

Pathfinding: Grid-based (CCmpPathfinder) with passability classes tied to terrain. Bridges must support land units on top while blocking naval units below.

Dynamic changes: Construction, destruction, or damage must update passability in real time.

 

Performance: Avoid full global recomputation on every change.

It would be a huge problem to be constantly destroying and building bridges.

 

Other ideas with bridges and walls.

Portals / Vertical Links: Define connection points (ramps, stairs, ladder zones) between layers.

When a bridge is built:

Mark upper tiles as walkable for land units.

Keep lower area impassable for ships.

Destruction: Remove the upper layer passability and force path invalidation/recalculation.

This is similar to how Stronghold, Age of Empires IV, or modern Total War titles handle elevated walkable structures.

 

ii- Dynamic Navmesh + Grid Hybrid

Use a grid for fast coarse terrain movement.

Use a recast/detour-style navmesh (or equivalent) for precise dynamic obstacles and walkable surfaces.

On bridge build/destroy:

Locally re-bake or update the affected navmesh region.

Add/remove off-mesh links for vertical movement.

Advantages: Handles complex shapes well; good support for dynamic environments.

Many modern engines and assets (e.g., Unity's A* Pathfinding Project or Recast) support this.

Another interesting alternative is:

Passability masks / cost maps + obstruction system.

It sounds complex...

[Grautvornix]

@Nicolaus_von_Kues If the pathfinding issue could only be solved - which appears to be quite complex - then we can define these features: 

• bridges, that block ships, allow passage of any civilians or troops, can be built up to a limited length, but also destroyed, e.g. by ships (also by whales?)
• ramps (iirc there might exist historical evidences of this being used in siege tech) - can be built up to a limited height and destroyed
• tunnels/portals/secret passageways (you discover an entrance and when entering it, reappear at another place on the map, must work in both directions, could start somewhere in a mountaineous area but never ends in or under a building). This needs to be defined when creating a map. Alternatively short passageways could be built by the player himself with a limited radius from his CC or fortress.transfer capacity shouold be limited though (cannot send a whole army through). 
• roads that have an accelerating aura for everyone, inlcuding enemies - pathfinding being particularly complex here as roads can be entered and left anywhere, as opposed to the other structures that have an entry point and an exit point.

Still brainstorming...

 

[Nicolaus_von_Kues]

14 minutes ago, Grautvornix said:

tunnels/portals/secret passageways (you discover an entrance and when entering it, reappear at another place on the map, must work in both directions, could start somewhere in a mountaineous area but never ends in or under a building). This needs to be defined when creating a map. Alternatively short passageways could be built by the player himself with a limited radius from his CC or fortress.transfer capacity shouold be limited though (cannot send a whole army through). 

This is very common in RTS.