Military Engineering in PzC

[SGT Rice]

DS; thanks much for your comments. :) Some responses below.

I seriously doubt a senior commander in the role of the player had such detailed information about each company in the army.

True; but then why do players in PzC know the exact strength and morale state of every company under their command? I think its because the player is not only serving as the army commander, but also as the corps and division commanders. Every two hours we determine the precise deployments of companies & battalions; I don't perceive an overall design intent to limit the player's knowledge to what the senior commander would know.

(a) Repairing damaged bridges (vice erecting new ones that require permanent 'maintenance' crews).

How would you determine which bridges could be repaired and which could not? Some were steel and concrete monsters. Where would get the materials even if you could repair a bridge in less than a month? I use a month because I rarely see highway construction in peace time take less time when a bridge is involved. How steep are the banks? How fast is the current? Is the river low or high at the time of the scenario? From the pictures I have seen of military bridges built during a battle, the effect of traffic, currents debris crashing into the bridge, it seems very reasonable

Later in the post I suggest that the labor requirements could vary randomly from one project to the next. Above you're describing many of the reasons why they would vary. Variation is all well and good, however, once an engineer unit is on site and has assessed the bridge site, then the 'degree of difficulty' would be known, would be reported up the chain of command, and could be planned for. The amount of variability from that point forward should be much less, following some sort of normal distribution of results.

Here's a quote from Deutsche Reichsbahn - The German State Railway in WWII by Arvo L. Vecamer

"Damaged bridges took longer to repair. Portable bridges, ferries or other trans-shipment methods were used until the bridges had been repaired. But with few exceptions, most of the bridges destroyed by the Soviets were quickly made operable again by the Germans. Some examples:

The bridge at Kaunas: destroyed on 24 June 1941; repaired on 17 July 1941
The bridge at Riga: destroyed on 02 July 1941; repaired on 12 July 1941
The bridge near Petseri: destroyed on 09 July 1941; repaired on 24 July 1941"

These are rail bridges; much heavier work than a typical road bridge. The source doesn't indicate how long the repair work took; obviously less time than interval the between destruction and repair.

Somehow I don't think comparisons with what we see in peacetime are particularly relevant; military engineers in wartime aren't worried about inspections, lawsuits, unions, getting paid, Miller time, etc. ... their main concern (when they're not under fire) is how pissed off the CG will be if the work isn't finished when he needs it

© Allowing a bridge engineer to abandon a constructed bridge if they have an urgent mission elsewhere or are facing annihilation.

This has already been added in the recent round of patches.

That's very good to hear.

From my reading of the designer notes in the games in this series, that is exactly why engineers can "clear" a minefield as they do under the rules now. They do not go out to find every mine in the hex.

I suspected as much. But if most of the mines are still in the ground, why is the minefield permanently removed from the scenario? It's simply been marked, with some lanes cleared through it, correct? If the unit that did that job moves on, then who is 'maintaining' those markings and lanes so noone else blunders into the minefield? Why couldn't that minefield be restored (i.e., the lanes resown with mines) in much less time than sowing a new minefield?

But my main point was; why is minelaying so slow/random while mine clearing is quick/automatic?

As commanders, we have far more information in the games than the actual commanders ever did. Uncertainty makes these games fun! It causes you to plan contingencies, adapt to quickly changing conditions and anticipate some things just do not work as planned.

I agree. I'm not suggesting that military engineering should be completely predictable; I suggest two ways in which uncertainty should be introduced, (1) by randomly selecting the amount of work required for any given engineering project and (2) in the speed with which that work is completed by the assigned units.

However, implicit in your statement is the fact that some things DO work as planned, and military engineering is one of the more deliberate and calculated things that happens on the battlefield. But under the current implementation, I have a much better idea of what will happen when a company of T-34/85s tangles with a company of Panthers, than I do of what will happen when a company of engineers tangles with a Bailey bridge.