Wired Bridge rule question for Glenn.

[Mr Grumpy]

It states in the rules...

"manual bridge destruction using engineer units is not allowed during the scenario since the destruction of bridges is controlled entirely by the auto destruction feature."

That seems very clear, but in my teamgame of F40 (using the latest patch) it is possible for the German player to manually damage bridges that have not become damaged under the wired bridge rule, but the Allied player cannot manually damage a bridge that has passed the wired bridge test.

So the wired bridge rule as stated only seems to apply to the Allied side?

Now if this is how the rule is supposed to work (which does not seem logical to me) and is not a bug, the rules manual needs to be changed to reflect how the rule actually works. :)

[Glenn Saunders]

Given what you are saying, I would say the game code is working as designed.

Wired Bridges came into the series with MG44 where bridges manned by a handful of men, not even represented by a game counter did blow bridges in the faces of Allied units.

While designing Scns I had occasion where a German PzG Units was trying to block Hells Highway and in doing so, capture and blow a bridge. This I found couldn't be done and this was when I learned from John his intent was to not allow the Germans to "double dip" if you will on the Bridge demolition issue.

Of course the Allies wouldn't really have occasion to blow and bridges in MG44.

Then, when France 40 came along, I again used the wired bridges feature and this started out more as a means for Bridges over Streams in the Ardennes - which in turn just cost the Axis additional MPs an slow them down to perhaps a more historical rate. What this was simulating was more road damage, trees fallen over forest roads.

Of course the Wired Bridges extend beyond the Ardennes and here I was trying to combat somehing I saw (and heard complaints about) in Sicily. Here the German Player went on such a bridge blowing spree that, even though he was often cutting off his own troops, the extensive Bride blowing was so greatas to neutralize the Allied advance. My goal with France 40 was to not allow this "Damn the Army - Blow the Bridges" as to become a gamey way to win.

Now generally the German Army is on the advance in France 40, but if they have occasion to blow a bridge the old fashion way, then I would say so be it - Go for it.

Anyway - there is the design intent for the rule and why it works as it does. Blow bridges is normally a valid tact for the defender and we don't want to allow them too much flexibility.

Glenn

[Dog Soldier]

I would not say there is anything wrong with what you have observed. The WIRED Bridges rule was designed to limit the ability of one side to blow bridges manually with engineers....as the rule you quoted above states. The defender is usually the side that is thus limited.

The reasoning was to prevent the defender from blowing bridges helter skelter deep in their own rear areas long before they were threatened by the attacker's advance.

It makes sense that the attacker could, still manually blow bridges. I see no historical reason to prevent the Axis (as in your F40 example) from doing so if needed to protect a flank etc. The Axis army would certainly had the capability to blow bridges during the campaign. Why restrict them from doing so? The Allies have bridge engineers in the CG scenarios, just not as many as the Axis.

I see Glenn beat me to the post....

Dog Soldier

[Mr Grumpy]

Ok, thank you for your information and i understand your reasoning for creating the rule, however i still think the rule as written in the manual strongly suggests that manual bridge damage is not possible if the designer selects the rule of that scenario, i quote again "manual bridge destruction using engineer units is not allowed during the scenario since the destruction of bridges is controlled entirely by the auto destruction feature."

"Not allowed" seems to suggest both sides to me? I am assuming the engine has been changed but the manual has not?

I hope no one thinks i am "nit picking".

[Ricky B]

I can see some logic to allowing the "other" side to blow bridges if needed, as otherwise they can't do anything about bridges at all. But as Darran brings up, I always thought from reading the rule that the "other" side couldn't blow bridges any more than the "wired" side could do. I agree with him that a clarification of this in the rules would be a good thing!

Rick

[Volcano Man]

Well, I am > 90% certain that it did not always work this way, it used to work exactly as the manual suggests; wired bridges meant that neither side can manually detonate them, the destruction of bridges is directly controlled by the wired status. I thought I remember raising an eyebrow when I noticed it different. I always thought that the reason this whole rule exists is so a designer can strictly limit the damage to bridges and control specifically which ones will be blown up. At some point, and I don't know when, the rules were changed to allow the named wired side to blow up bridges manually.

Here is the problem. In a games where both sides are more or less on the offensive, it just isn't very logical. One specific example is Stalingrad '42 where the bridges are wired for the Russians, the Germans cannot blow any bridges, they rely solely on the advancing Russians trigger the wired bridges, and then on the probability of said wired bridge set in the PDT. This is all fine and dandy, but once the Germans start their counter attack Winter Storm, the Russians are on the defense and they can blow every bridge in the path of the German counter attack force anywhere they want. It doesn't make sense to be honest, and it directly contradicts what the rules state.

I mean, why exactly would the Germans be strictly limited on the bridges they can blow up in Stalingrad '42, but the Russians are given complete freedom to blow any bridge they want, once they decide they need to blow up bridges to stop the Germans from relieving the pocket?

But whatever it is, whether it should be the way it currently is or not does not really matter: either the rule itself is incorrect or the manual is incorrect (or at the very least, needs to be clarified). ;)

[Glenn Saunders]

I've sent a note to ask John to clarfy it and eiter correct the DOCs or if it isn't a doc issue as you suspect than correct the code.

I just don't recall the Attacker every blowing bridges and can't think ofa scn whee it would be required, but then again anything can happen in a campaign.

Glenn

[Mr Grumpy]

Thank you Glenn. :)

[Vaevictis]

In Stalingrad 42 Wintergewitter scenario the Russian ability to blow bridges is vital, and makes for some nail biting moments. I'm glad the wired works only one way in that case.

[Volcano Man]

In Stalingrad 42 Wintergewitter scenario the Russian ability to blow bridges is vital, and makes for some nail biting moments. I'm glad the wired works only one way in that case.

I guess it all depends on which side you are playing as to whether or not it is "fair" or not, and it is not like the Russians need any more assistance in S42 campaign either (which is what I was referring to). :P