Attacking a Full Bridge Hex by Air

[JonS1]

Maybe the aircraft used napalm...

Yep. Maybe. Then again, maybe the a/c used pink lamingtons and all the engineers were allergic to coconut ... or enormous mallow puffs which smothered all the engineers ... or cute but very vicious fluffy kittens.

To be clear, there is nothing inherently wrong with the rationalisation that maybe these particular a/c carried napalm - instead of some sort of HE based payload - on this particular mission to attack this particular target. I rationalise in-game events all the time. Everyone does. You have to, else you’d go nuts.

The problem is elevating rationalisations to the status of a general answer which explains why a/c can't attack bridges. Ever. Anywhere.

The simple fact is that PzC/MC doesn't have a mechanism for anything* other than engineers** to attack bridges during a game. That's all there is too it. IMO, discussion should be about whether that’s reasonable, if it's even worth doing anything about, and a simple mechanism for how it might be changed. Forming mental pretzels to come up with a generalised rationalisation or justification for current behaviour is a waste of time. IMO.

Regards
Jon :soap:

* exception: pre-wired.
** hmmmm … I wonder if setting one or more of the optional flags in the unit editing screen for the a/c would help … hmmm … *dashes off to experiment*

[Volcano Man]

I understand what you are saying, and to some extent the bridge attack ability should certainly be allowed in Modern Campaigns, but really, is all the sarcasm in your posts really necessary?

[JonS1]

Yes.

Next question?

[Volcano Man]

Exactly.

[HirooOnoda]

I'm sorry, but if most of the strike aircraft have laser guided bombs than any strike in good weather should be able to obliterate something as big as a bridge.

Su-24s had this capability as did most strike craft in NATO's arsenal.

And? I don't think there is any doubt that air strikes could knock out bridges, as you say. I don't see anyone arguing it was too difficult, as of the 1985 games.

Rick

Well given that it is prohibited in the game engine, I would say someone at some time made a pretty darn good argument against the bridges being taken out by strike aircraft.

The real question was, what was that argument?

[Dog Soldier]

Hrioo,
I think that discussion was in the realm of the WW2 simulation for PzC. MC has the same game engine. Maybe there should be a divergence in the PzC and MC games. The ability to knock out a bridge in WW2 by air attack was far different from that of 1985 aircraft.

Still one must tread carefully here as MC also covers the Arab/Israeli conflicts of the 1950's and 1960's. No laser guided smart bombs on those planes. I certainly do not recall any instance of Egyptian bridges over the Suez Canal being taken out by the IDF from the air. They certainly would have if they could.
From a design point, I am not sure how the span of time and changing weapon systems could easily be managed in MC games.

Dog Soldier

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

Howdy Guys, Going off sparse memory here......I read a book some time ago about the 12SS and there was a part in there where one of the higher ranking officers watched 3 P47s drop a bridge in the Seine? (is that the river that runs near Paris?) that was being used by the Germans to escape the Falaise massacre. 3 P47s.....pretty remarkable for the time. But some air units had been assigned bridge targets for awhile before D-Day, so they had a lot of practice. But also have read where more than one strike in more modern times was required to drop a bridge, one just never knows from one to the next.

I thought about bunkers and pillboxes the other day, bridges could also fit in there.....hitting them with air/naval/arty, I assume there would be some kind of damage just like a unit would suffer, so the next turn they would be say 90% instead of 100. Hit them again and the next turn they could possibly be even weaker, of course providing they are hit. Obviously, that would have to be tracked by individual bunkers, pillboxes and bridges. Also, modern ac carry a multitude of ordnance compared to WW2. That may be asking too much of the designers to provide a suitable quick fix. Perhaps it could be considered for future patches, but if it is decided to do it, I'd rather see it done right 2 yrs from now than see an unrealistic attempt in a month. I don't want them to be taken away from future games either, I'm still hoping for a Torch/Tunisia/Mareth combo. :)

The one thing I would rather see is the air strike/arty by map be split into two separate options. I understand in WW2, the arty would be harder to coordinate to fire with a spotter from a different div than it would be in mc due just to the communications alone. But even in WW2, many is the time ac would be flying around looking for targets of opportunity. I've seen it in games where I could spot with air recon and still not use an airstrike on it. If I was missing something, I have no idea what it was, but with ac scouring the countryside, I would think they could hit it because it was spotted by somebody.

I also agree with VM about the sarcasm. I say, if you are going to be sarcastic, at least come across as funny and entertaining about, not condescending.

[Glenn Saunders]

I think that discussion was in the realm of the WW2 simulation for PzC. MC has the same game engine. Maybe there should be a divergence in the PzC and MC games. The ability to knock out a bridge in WW2 by air attack was far different from that of 1985 aircraft.

Yes - and there is a great example where the Brits and French tried to knock out a German held Bridge in 1940 and not only were not successful, but they lost a hell of a lot of ac doing so.

Furthermore, even if it had been done, adding this ability in other games - such as some on teh russian front might provide an option to game players that wasn't in the cards to their counterpart.

Still one must tread carefully here as MC also covers the Arab/Israeli conflicts of the 1950's and 1960's. No laser guided smart bombs on those planes.

I don't know for sure, but the accurancy on bombs in 1985 were not the same level as what we all saw on CNN with the Gun camera footage from Iraq in the first Gulf War, and these weapons are I understand primative compared to what they can do now.

Anyway - the engine doesn't handle attacking terrain. Even if it did, understand that attacking a HEXSIDE not a hex is different again than a full water bridge.

This issue has been raised now with people looking at FULL WATER Bridges which is different again and leads to yet another set of possible game issues.

1) Would NATO for instance try to knock out their own bridges in a last ditch effort when even if the army was accross, there might be civilian consideration?

and

2) Would the WP risk the attack on the Nato Eng, if they risked hitting and knocking out the Bridge?

I don't know the answer to either of these question - or if there are others. But the piont is you need to look at the BIG PICTURE when considering things like this. Otherwise you fix one issue and create one, two or several other issues.

Also try to "look outside the box too". For example, maybe it would be better with the Danube as Hexside Bridges? I dunno - I made it full water bridges because I liked the effect and had hoped this air "attack on terrain" wouldn't come up - I guess that was wishful thinking.

Not sure what the answer to this issue is really.

Glenn

[Dogbert]

I didn't realize I was re-opening an old arguement (although I did remember the thread once I was pointed to it).

I more fully understand the complexities now. I still don't think that it makes sense to be able to attack units on a bridge with impunity, but there are some good reasons why things are they way they are.

I'll trust Glenn et al to make the right choices that balance game play and reality.

[HirooOnoda]

I don't know for sure, but the accurancy on bombs in 1985 were not the same level as what we all saw on CNN with the Gun camera footage from Iraq in the first Gulf War, and these weapons are I understand primative compared to what they can do now.

Well I can tell you that the LGBs that the USN used to attack bridges in Viet Nam in '72 only needed one plane and one bomb during the Linebacker II strikes.

Now imagine 36 Su-24s, each with 8 x 1000 lb LGBs.

I'm sorry, those bridges are toast.

Also, pontoon bridging engineers should lose their ability to keep a bridge under the same conditions.