TOCarroll
Posts: 215
Joined: 3/28/2005 From: College Station, Texas Status: offline
|
I would tend to agree. Things are easier to destroy than rebuild. Also, and I do NOT mean this as a slur, but most competant soldiers will find a way to bring down a bridge. If you are going to put in a rule, It would probably have to differentiate between classes of bridge (suspension bridge, pontoon bridge, wooden bridge, concrete bridge, ect) and the load bearing capacity. Given that a LOT of bridges in Europe and Asia had to be strengthed (I'm speaking of WW2 period stuff) so that vehicles could cross them, I dont see that it is unrealistic to allow a unit (which probably had some kind of explosives, be it HE Artillery, Grenades, C-4 or Sachel charges) to take down a bridge. It is a compromise, but would require a lot of reworking. TOC
_____________________________
"Ideological conviction will trump logistics, numbers, and firepower every time" J. Stalin, 1936-1941...A. Hitler, 1933-1945. W. Churchill (very rarely, and usually in North Africa). F. D. Roosvelt (smart enough to let the generals run the war).
|