Bridges, rivers and railroads

Bridges, rivers and railroads (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III

Message

Rhetor -> Bridges, rivers and railroads (1/24/2006 7:30:15 PM)
Maybe this is obvious, but I'll write it anyway :-D 1. Bridges, or namely, blowing them up: it might be better, if not all the units had the capability to destroy bridges. Currently a cavalry squad with a machine gun can easily destroy bridges on super rivers, which requires a truckload of carefully placed explosives. 2. Rivers - there might be some intermediate type of river, in the middle between a river and a super river. 3. Railroads - Russia/USSR has a different gauge of railroads; if two different types of railroad gauge were added, it might help all the designers of Barbarossa/WW I scenarios. Just a few thoughts...

golden delicious -> RE: Bridges, rivers and railroads (1/24/2006 7:55:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rhetor 1. Bridges, or namely, blowing them up: it might be better, if not all the units had the capability to destroy bridges. Currently a cavalry squad with a machine gun can easily destroy bridges on super rivers, which requires a truckload of carefully placed explosives. Yeah. Fairly straightforward. Require a minimum % engineering to demolish a bridge. Say 10% for a regular bridge and 20% for a bridge over super river. quote: 2. Rivers - there might be some intermediate type of river, in the middle between a river and a super river. I haven't really felt the need for this. There's no real argument against it, but I don't see it as a priority. quote: 3. Railroads - Russia/USSR has a different gauge of railroads; if two different types of railroad gauge were added, it might help all the designers of Barbarossa/WW I scenarios. Only if it's possible to convert one to the other (which was fairly straightforward as it merely involved lifting up each rail and moving them further apart).

DanNeely -> RE: Bridges, rivers and railroads (1/25/2006 1:05:15 AM)
The problem is that toaw doesn't make a distinction between types of bridge and time needed to destory it. Masonry/rebared bridges need HE, as does any bridge that needs taken down asap. OTOH the pontoon bridges that combat engineers trhow up i nthe field are designed to be easily destroyed. Wooden bridges can be destroyed by hand tools or fire given enough time, and a big enough fire will warp a steel girder design to the point it's no longer able to bear a load.

golden delicious -> RE: Bridges, rivers and railroads (1/25/2006 2:52:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DanNeely The problem is that toaw doesn't make a distinction between types of bridge and time needed to destory it. Masonry/rebared bridges need HE, as does any bridge that needs taken down asap. OTOH the pontoon bridges that combat engineers trhow up i nthe field are designed to be easily destroyed. Wooden bridges can be destroyed by hand tools or fire given enough time, and a big enough fire will warp a steel girder design to the point it's no longer able to bear a load. Even so, I think it's an improvement on the current situation to require engineering capacity to demolish bridges.

Rhetor -> RE: Bridges, rivers and railroads (1/25/2006 3:17:12 PM)
quote: Only if it's possible to convert one to the other (which was fairly straightforward as it merely involved lifting up each rail and moving them further apart). Yep. Converting railroad to a different gauge is a far easier job than destroying them. One could also wish for an option to destroy railroad, which again would require engineering capability, just the same as when destroying bridges.

Rhetor -> RE: Bridges, rivers and railroads (1/25/2006 3:20:55 PM)
quote: Even so, I think it's an improvement on the current situation to require engineering capacity to demolish bridges. Could not agree more.

golden delicious -> RE: Bridges, rivers and railroads (1/25/2006 4:34:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rhetor Yep. Converting railroad to a different gauge is a far easier job than destroying them. Well, what you have to bear in mind with 'broken rail' is that even though it's broken for the entire length of the hex on the map, in reality it could just be that it's been blocked at a couple of sections, that one of the junctions has been demolished, or that a few rails have been taken off and buried someplace. Not really anything complicated.

Curtis Lemay -> RE: Bridges, rivers and railroads (1/25/2006 6:53:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rhetor One could also wish for an option to destroy railroad, which again would require engineering capability, just the same as when destroying bridges. Depends on the time frame. By the end of WWII the Germans, at least, had a rail device used at the end of a train that would split the rail timbers as the train headed up the line. Kind of like unziping a zipper.

Curtis Lemay -> RE: Bridges, rivers and railroads (1/25/2006 6:58:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rhetor 3. Railroads - Russia/USSR has a different gauge of railroads; if two different types of railroad gauge were added, it might help all the designers of Barbarossa/WW I scenarios. The designer has control of the rail repair rate via how many rail repair elements he provides and how they are designed. Same rail gauge - lots of repair crews. Different rail gauge - few repair crews.

golden delicious -> RE: Bridges, rivers and railroads (1/25/2006 7:38:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay The designer has control of the rail repair rate via how many rail repair elements he provides and how they are designed. Same rail gauge - lots of repair crews. Different rail gauge - few repair crews. However, this doesn't work if the units will be called upon to fix both types during the course of the scenario.

Rhetor -> RE: Bridges, rivers and railroads (1/26/2006 9:37:50 AM)
quote: However, this doesn't work if the units will be called upon to fix both types during the course of the scenario. In my WW I scenarios I never have time to finish, I have tried to simulate the different gauge by creating two types of RR repair units - "home" units, which were to be used only within the borders of one side, and "convert" units, which would be used on enemy territory. However, such distinction fails to notice that some railroads become converted in the course of the game.

piero1971 -> RE: Bridges, rivers and railroads (1/27/2006 6:05:25 PM)
bridges: any unit should be able to destroy them, but not necessarely able to succeeed. the closer an enemy unit, the harder the % of succees. the more engineer squads in it the higher the % Railroad. Railoroad destruction should be a concisou decision. any unit sould be able to do it. Railroad repair should be possible but also (at even slower speed) lay down railroad in empty hexes (� la Civilisation) building roads whoudl also be possible but very slow too. as for gauges, easy to do... just make a hey without any rail tracks in between two RR.

Rhetor -> RE: Bridges, rivers and railroads (1/27/2006 7:14:34 PM)
quote: as for gauges, easy to do... just make a hey without any rail tracks in between two RR. The Germans converted Russian railroads in order to use them for supply distribution and troop transportation. If we created a gap, what would be the use of railroad conversion?

JAMiAM -> RE: Bridges, rivers and railroads (1/27/2006 7:29:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rhetor quote: as for gauges, easy to do... just make a hey without any rail tracks in between two RR. The Germans converted Russian railroads in order to use them for supply distribution and troop transportation. If we created a gap, what would be the use of railroad conversion? Indeed, especially since full supply does not trace across such "gaps" in rr lines. They must remain continuous to function as supply lines.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.71875