Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Bridge demolition: Complete failure!

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Close Combat Series >> Close Combat: Last Stand Arnhem >> Bridge demolition: Complete failure! Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Bridge demolition: Complete failure! - 8/10/2010 10:15:03 PM   
xe5

 

Posts: 783
Joined: 5/3/2009
Status: offline 		The Allies briefly had split control of the Heumen Bridge VL but the timer wasnt affected. My FM gets critical in the late-battle so I punch the demo button but get this message instead of a blown bridge. I hadnt seen this happen in LSA before.




Attachment (1)
Post #: 1
RE: Bridge demolition: Complete failure! - 8/10/2010 11:12:34 PM   
D.Ilse


Posts: 330
Joined: 5/2/2009
From: Florahduh, yea that state.
Status: offline 		Bridges have to be in complete german control to blow them..they can not be contested AFAIK.

_____________________________


(in reply to xe5)
Post #: 2
RE: Bridge demolition: Complete failure! - 8/10/2010 11:46:44 PM   
xe5

 

Posts: 783
Joined: 5/3/2009
Status: offline 		Heumen Bridge was in complete Axis control at the time I hit the detonate button. The VL was contested briefly (~30 secs) during the countdown. The manual, which says: "The attempt to blow the bridge can fail if the Germans don’t control all the bridge VLs", should say "...if the Germans dont maintain full control of all bridge VLs throughout the battle."

Not faulting the game mechanic here. In fact it was one of the game's minor design points that I truly enjoy. Wish I could say the same for the manual though.

(in reply to D.Ilse)
Post #: 3
RE: Bridge demolition: Complete failure! - 8/11/2010 12:02:07 AM   
Neil N

 

Posts: 740
Joined: 8/24/2004
Status: offline 		Yeah, I would say that is a manual omission. During testing, I was under the impression that if the germans lose control of the bridge VL at any time, then demolition is not guaranteed

_____________________________

If it does not have a gun, it cannot be fun.

(in reply to xe5)
Post #: 4
RE: Bridge demolition: Complete failure! - 8/11/2010 12:24:53 AM   
RD Oddball

 

Posts: 4836
Joined: 2/10/2007
Status: offline 		Thanks Mick. Will post it as a manual bug(omission).

(in reply to Neil N)
Post #: 5
RE: Bridge demolition: Complete failure! - 8/11/2010 4:31:03 AM   
Andrew Williams


Posts: 6116
Joined: 1/8/2001
From: Australia
Status: offline 		I thought demolition wasn't guaranteed under any situation, even total /complete/full control... clarification needed.

(in reply to RD Oddball)
Post #: 6
RE: Bridge demolition: Complete failure! - 8/11/2010 7:08:23 AM   
D.Ilse


Posts: 330
Joined: 5/2/2009
From: Florahduh, yea that state.
Status: offline 		Stray bullet nicked the wires running from the charges to the detonator.

I think I remember that from a movie, Bridge at Remagen or A Bridge too Far..can't remember where I saw it exact.

_____________________________


(in reply to Andrew Williams)
Post #: 7
RE: Bridge demolition: Complete failure! - 8/11/2010 4:42:10 PM   
RD Oddball

 

Posts: 4836
Joined: 2/10/2007
Status: offline 		I'm sure that was Steve's exact intent since it was a historical reality although I don't know that the exact reason for the failure was known. I believe it was the Nijmegen bridge iirc. Maybe I'm off my rocker.

The clarification should be forthcoming soon. A bug report for the manual is filed and the manual correction being worked on.

(in reply to D.Ilse)
Post #: 8
RE: Bridge demolition: Complete failure! - 8/11/2010 5:27:04 PM   
7A_Woulf

 

Posts: 91
Joined: 1/28/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RD_Oddball

I'm sure that was Steve's exact intent since it was a historical reality although I don't know that the exact reason for the failure was known. I believe it was the Nijmegen bridge iirc. Maybe I'm off my rocker.


It's good being a Geek!
-It's impossible to tell what happened at Nijmegem bridge, the Germans tried to blow it as the first Shermans crossed, but nothing happened. According to Kershaw the recent theory is that the heavy shelling and fighting had damaged the wiring and the Germans hanging in harnesses from the bridge was engineers trying to repair these.

Cheers

(in reply to RD Oddball)
Post #: 9
RE: Bridge demolition: Complete failure! - 8/16/2010 1:13:39 AM   
GaryChildress

 

Posts: 6830
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: The Divided Nations of Earth
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: 7A_Woulf


quote:

ORIGINAL: RD_Oddball

I'm sure that was Steve's exact intent since it was a historical reality although I don't know that the exact reason for the failure was known. I believe it was the Nijmegen bridge iirc. Maybe I'm off my rocker.


It's good being a Geek!
-It's impossible to tell what happened at Nijmegem bridge, the Germans tried to blow it as the first Shermans crossed, but nothing happened. According to Kershaw the recent theory is that the heavy shelling and fighting had damaged the wiring and the Germans hanging in harnesses from the bridge was engineers trying to repair these.

Cheers


It's funny how history works. When the war was still fresh in everyone's memory we took the official stories of the troops and commanders there for granted. Now that over 50 years have passed you see all sorts of "reconstructions" of what "really happened". I forget the name of the show now but there is a show on the History channel or Discover or whatever that tries to look at historical events and using modern day forensics tries to uncover what really happened and why. I remember the show doing a segment on Operation Market Garden. The show came up with several factors that supposedly contributed to the Allied failure such as the ground around Hell's Highway being soggy and not conducive to armored warfare and that the British Airborne troops didn't have sufficient training in urban warfare before heading into the battle.

_____________________________


(in reply to 7A_Woulf)
Post #: 10
RE: Bridge demolition: Complete failure! - 8/16/2010 2:02:48 AM   
LMUBill

 

Posts: 39
Joined: 12/15/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress
The show came up with several factors that supposedly contributed to the Allied failure such as the ground around Hell's Highway being soggy and not conducive to armored warfare and that the British Airborne troops didn't have sufficient training in urban warfare before heading into the battle.


Uh.... it's Holland?

And half the country is actually below sea level?

Oh, wait, it WAS Montgomery's idea.

Had the British airborne troops had any experience before Market Garden? I know a few were active on D-Day but when even the commanding officer is making his first drop something is wrong....

(Although being able to pull the whole operation together in basically 7 days is a feat worth noting)

(in reply to GaryChildress)
Post #: 11
RE: Bridge demolition: Complete failure! - 8/16/2010 2:23:26 AM   
RD Oddball

 

Posts: 4836
Joined: 2/10/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress


It's funny how history works. When the war was still fresh in everyone's memory we took the official stories of the troops and commanders there for granted. Now that over 50 years have passed you see all sorts of "reconstructions" of what "really happened". I forget the name of the show now but there is a show on the History channel or Discover or whatever that tries to look at historical events and using modern day forensics tries to uncover what really happened and why. I remember the show doing a segment on Operation Market Garden. The show came up with several factors that supposedly contributed to the Allied failure such as the ground around Hell's Highway being soggy and not conducive to armored warfare and that the British Airborne troops didn't have sufficient training in urban warfare before heading into the battle.


Good point. I've seen that History Channel show you're talking about. I think it's on the Military Channel (History Channel offshoot iirc). Despite the commanders and soldiers being the most reliable account of battle histories I'm certain there has to be unintentional inaccuracies. Just the confusing nature and scale of war. Even seeing something firsthand isn't always reliable. Sometimes the way things look are always as they are. Impossible to know the exact truth. Just like anything else.

(in reply to GaryChildress)
Post #: 12
RE: Bridge demolition: Complete failure! - 8/16/2010 3:09:21 AM   
7A_Woulf

 

Posts: 91
Joined: 1/28/2010
Status: offline 		Every unit in 1st British Airborne was a combat experienced unit (for an example: Frost had commanded 2nd Para since October 1942), but 'Market Garden' was the first time they fought as an entire division. They didn't have any urban combat experience, but Germans that had fought in Stalingrad were impressed with the performance of 2nd Para. When a German soldier asked a captured British officer (major Gough) if they had much urban combat experience, the officer answered something like: "No, this was our first try in this buissness. Next time we will do better"
Urquhart was a former brigadier of 51st ('Highland') division and in January 1944 he took command of 1st British Airborne, but as I read somewhere: "Airborne troops becomes infantry as soon as they land."

Bigger problems were the fact that the British I Airborne Corps created their signal section on September 2 (and still they didn't have any reliable liaison with 2nd Tactical Airforce), the entire radio system malfunctioned for the British Airborne the two first days, the Brits didn't trust the Dutch resistance (as the US Divisions did and got an advantage from, as working phone lines), they didn't believe in Panzer units around Arnhem, DZ too far away... MG was a military mess up, with great human sacrifices and bravery.

'50 years after' is a significant number, that's the most common length of 'Top Secret' markers on military documents. In other words: -Documents classed as 'Top Secret' in 1945 became available for research in 2005.


< Message edited by 7A_Woulf -- 8/16/2010 10:40:32 AM >

(in reply to LMUBill)
Post #: 13
RE: Bridge demolition: Complete failure! - 8/17/2010 7:25:26 AM   
Andrew Williams


Posts: 6116
Joined: 1/8/2001
From: Australia
Status: offline 		Just had a complete failure on Mook - i held the single bridge VL

(in reply to 7A_Woulf)
Post #: 14
RE: Bridge demolition: Complete failure! - 8/17/2010 9:30:49 AM   
xe5

 

Posts: 783
Joined: 5/3/2009
Status: offline 		Lately 82nd AB G2 has determined with a fair degree of reliability that, while Mook is located on the Maas, it completely doesnt have a bridge.

(in reply to Andrew Williams)
Post #: 15
RE: Bridge demolition: Complete failure! - 8/17/2010 11:17:58 AM   
Mafi


Posts: 335
Joined: 12/19/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: xe5

Lately 82nd AB G2 has determined with a fair degree of reliability that, while Mook is located on the Maas, it completely doesnt have a bridge.


I do not trust all the descriptions on the Internet. But regarding Mook's bridge:

http://home.kpn.nl/been0319/stories14.html

This is a Dutch source, telling the Mook bridge was blown prior to battle.

< Message edited by Mafi -- 8/17/2010 11:21:05 AM >

(in reply to xe5)
Post #: 16
RE: Bridge demolition: Complete failure! - 8/17/2010 1:52:29 PM   
xe5

 

Posts: 783
Joined: 5/3/2009
Status: offline 		Dammit! I told Willie and Joe not to requisition our tactical maps from that Aussie supply depot.

(in reply to Mafi)
Post #: 17
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Close Combat Series >> Close Combat: Last Stand Arnhem >> Bridge demolition: Complete failure! Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.844