Pontoon and Bailey bridges

Pontoon and Bailey bridges (Full Version)

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

Message

alaric99x -> Pontoon and Bailey bridges (7/29/2006 9:15:21 PM)
I don't want to give the wrong impression, I love this game but I'll allow myself another comment. Pontoon bridges are placed far too easily. For example, a bridging unit can move ten hexes along a super river and allow friendly units to cross at each hex it enters. This unit has effectively emplaced and dismantled its pontoon bridge 10 times in one game turn. This shouldn't happen, the bridging unit should have something like an "emplace" command that ends its movement for that turn, something like digging in. Pontoon bridges take time to emplace. I read about bridging the Rhine in WWII taking 36 hours. On excercise at Ft. Hood, in 1984, my unit (2 FSB, 2 AD) waited about 14 hours for a pontoon bridge to be completed, although that was at night. With more advanced technology, during the 2nd Iraq war, I read about one bridging unit very pleased because they had emplaced a bridge in 4 1/2 hours. One more point is that bridging operations in TOAW are always successful. No matter how many enemy units there are on the other side of the river, there is nothing to stop a bridging unit from emplacing a bridge.

JAMiAM -> RE: Pontoon and Bailey bridges (7/29/2006 11:36:07 PM)
I see this as generally more of a scenario design issue than a game engine problem. Some designers have IMO gone overboard in assigning ferry-bridging assets to too many units, and giving the units too high of movement allowances.

alaric99x -> RE: Pontoon and Bailey bridges (7/30/2006 1:40:43 AM)
OK, that may be so, but whether you have 5 bridging units or 55 they still shouldn't be able to build bridges on 10 hexes (or 7, or 12, whatever) as they move along a river. How about making them decide where the bridge is actually built by using something like the dig in command that establishes the bridge in only one position and terminates their movement at that point?

alaric99x -> RE: Pontoon and Bailey bridges (8/23/2006 8:05:19 PM)
I'm moving this one up too hoping for a few more comments, sorry.

golden delicious -> RE: Pontoon and Bailey bridges (8/23/2006 8:40:03 PM)
This would probably be easier to implement than your original suggestion. I also think JAMiAM's point is rationalisation- obviously there are motorised pontoon units which can move fast, but can't provide bridging facilities in two places in quick succession. How about this: the ferrying capacity of a unit only counts if it's on "defending", "entrenched" or "fortified" status? That would remove the most egregious errors.

alaric99x -> RE: Pontoon and Bailey bridges (8/23/2006 8:59:09 PM)
Thank you[&o] That's it, that would do it, and it seems much more realistic to me. A bridging unit in mobile deployment doesn't indicate an emplaced bridge.

Captain Cruft -> RE: Pontoon and Bailey bridges (8/25/2006 1:38:43 AM)
I agree. Easy enough to code too ... [:)]

Curtis Lemay -> RE: Pontoon and Bailey bridges (8/25/2006 6:42:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: golden delicious How about this: the ferrying capacity of a unit only counts if it's on "defending", "entrenched" or "fortified" status? That would remove the most egregious errors. What if the bridging capacity isn't in an independent bridging unit, but is an integral part of a combat unit? (Think of a large-scale scenario).

golden delicious -> RE: Pontoon and Bailey bridges (8/25/2006 7:19:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay What if the bridging capacity isn't in an independent bridging unit, but is an integral part of a combat unit? (Think of a large-scale scenario). This wouldn't be a problem. In order for the above solution to work, bridging units have to be able to use their own assets to enter the super river hex in the first place. It is only to allow the transit of other units and of supply that it would be necessary to dig in. So your corps can cross the river as they do now- but if you wanted one corps to help out another without enough ferry assets, it would have to stop in place while that one crossed.

alaric99x -> RE: Pontoon and Bailey bridges (8/25/2006 8:36:17 PM)
Right, I don't see a problem with this either, your unit either keeps moving or stops and emplaces a bridge. If this change were implemented I guess that scenario design would change a little. Designers would probably be more likely to create separate ferry bridging units (if possible) rather than including such assets in other units.

Veer -> RE: Pontoon and Bailey bridges (8/25/2006 8:41:18 PM)
quote: How about this: the ferrying capacity of a unit only counts if it's on "defending", "entrenched" or "fortified" status? That would remove the most egregious errors. Another advantage of that would be that the other side could bomb or bombard the bridging unit - removing it from "entrenched" status and thus signifying a broken pontoon bridge. Will supply be able to flow over these bridging units though?

alaric99x -> RE: Pontoon and Bailey bridges (8/25/2006 8:58:00 PM)
I would guess that supply would function the same as with a permanent bridge. If the bridge is blown, supply stops. Repair the bridge and supply flows again. An emplaced pontoon bridge would also allow supply to flow. If the bridging unit isn't entrenched anymore, supply stops until the bridge is emplaced again, IE when the unit is entrenched again.

golden delicious -> RE: Pontoon and Bailey bridges (8/25/2006 9:28:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Veer Will supply be able to flow over these bridging units though? I'm not entirely sure how the code works but, ideally, only if the unit is dug-in.

LLv34_Snefens -> RE: Pontoon and Bailey bridges (8/26/2006 11:24:00 AM)
quote: Original: Veer Will supply be able to flow over these bridging units though? At the moment you need to have about 50%+ in major ferry (All units' abilities combined) to be able to get supply across a major river.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.6523438