The start of actual news

[silverstars]

Out of curiosity, could a glider just be modeled as an immobile vehicle? Then it could have random ammo attached to it, provide cover(but not much) and concealment?

[Sublime]

This is getting idiotic. John - they said NO to the bridges. And you're entire list is still like what.. 12-15 bridges? For the whole war? You had Ost Front, early war, China.. I'd side with Steve - it would be something that would take a buttload of programming, could go wrong 2 bazillion ways where everyone would scream, and wouldn't add much to the battle one way or another.

John are you just out to try to argue, and attempt to disprove anything Steve says? They can't advance in every single direction simaltaneously. This is why the glider thing is pointless - especially so since Steve mentioned they wouldnt provide cover. This is why the bridge thing is just getting idiotic. After all, the games with all the features still have bugs, and theres WAAAY more important tactical stuff that WAS used everyday thats NOT included. For example - elevation/depression, fire, some fudge or workaround for AT assets being used in buildings, etc etc etc

[Sequoia]

I know it's Elmar's favorite vehicle and I would never ever say don't include a vehicle (well except maybe the Maus) but what was the usage of Crusader AA's in 1944?

[Darknight (DC)]

I know it's Elmar's favorite vehicle and I would never ever say don't include a vehicle (well except maybe the Maus) but what was the usage of Crusader AA's in 1944?

They were included in the AA Troop of Armoured Regts in the CW Armoured Divisions.

There were a lot of AA assets in Normandy to start with but the fact that the Allies pretty much dominated the skies over France rendered most Allied AA assets redundant by about Autumn 44.

They are still a cool addition (and something else to play with).

[Ultradave]

I would just like to say that I'm glad you aren't cancelling Market Garden. As an alumnus of the 82d Airborne Division, I'll buy it whatever content it contains :-)

And thanks again for supporting the Mac.

[Sergei]

There were a lot of AA assets in Normandy to start with but the fact that the Allies pretty much dominated the skies over France rendered most Allied AA assets redundant by about Autumn 44.

Kind of like Allied tank destroyers - German tank offenses were very few and within, so units were given infantry support tasks.

[Broadsword56]

Just to improve the atmosphere around here and get off the now-pointless bridges topic:

How about a little bone about the terrain and map aspects that Market Garden will bring?

I've been wondering a lot about how, for example, the tactically significant raised roads would be handled. Will we need to make them on our own using long lines of hard elevation points all across maps, and then line them with treeless heavy forest tiles to prevent vehicles from being able to leave them freely? Or will the game give us a new kind of road tile, for example?

New buildings -- Industrial buildings (or even just some more versatile roof options) are another thing so many of us have asked for. Will we see things like a factory chimney, perhaps? A chateau/castle-like independent building?

Dike-and-polder topography -- I can envision just depressing elevations for an open field, softening the ground with a fair scattering of mud tiles, and then bordering it with higher-elevation dikes. So far, so good. But what about all those drainage ditches that run all through the fields? Those of us who have tried already to simulate Dutch terrain using CMBN have found the scale of the action squares makes it very difficult to get a ditch effect that isn't overly large, and which still is sunken enough to provide a tactical benefit. The other especially vexing thing has been getting infantry to move within a ditch and not expose themselves by pathing around it.

[Pak40]

Steve,

Insignificant number of bridges blown? You must have lots of fingers!

John, I'm quite sure he meant in a tactical situation where the allies actually had a chance of capturing the bridge before it was blown.

[JRMC1879]

Steve,

Then, there's that Son bridge, too.

The above is by no means complete, but it does serve to make a useful counterargument.

Not that I'll get it anyway, but what I was seeking was a relatively simple model of handling bridge demolition, via time fuze or command detonation, as a function of bridge size and durability. This is what Tractics had, and it was fine for the intended purpose. Was looking for something similar, as opposed to, say, Finite Element Analysis and hydrocode! Bridges could be, and were, rigged for demolition and/or blown up within CM time frames.

Regards,

John Kettler

...Edited to show those that were in anyway a remotely tactical situation covered by a CM time frame.

[Sequoia]

I don't consider this likely but I thought I'd ask anyway. Will the Free Dutch Princess Irene Brigade be included? They were in XXX Corps (though I believe they were too far back down the road to actually become engaged in fighting in the Market-Garden battle).

[The Steppenwulf]

...Edited to show those that were in anyway a remotely tactical situation covered by a CM time frame.

Precisely and this was exactly my point! I recall there being another bridge blown in OMG but the demolition was not within the context of a local enemy action attempting to seize said bridge. In any case, seizing bridges before they explode seems to be the type of objective - not to mention dramatic cutscene - associated with other more gamey WWII franchises and I understand perfectly why BF would choose to avoid that kinda' party.

Nevertheless, I think Broadswords right - time to move on with more interesting questions and ideas...

[sburke]

Anybody happen to notice we have chimney's in Gustav Line? Yep chimney's. B***h to place but pretty cool.

The building on the right is as intended, the building on the left is what they look like when you get lazy. I guess properly speaking they are stovepipes.

[John Kettler]

Sublime,

Steve made an assertion, and I presented evidence to the contrary. That in no way means I expect him to change his mind, but clearly, there's more to this bridge blowing stuff than he seems to believe was the case. Digging up the accounts was informative. And, no, not 12-15 total, 38 by the Polish Underground alone. British paras destroyed five on D-Day. We got one. If you bothered to look at what's there, you'd find in some cases a bunch of bridges were blown in one specific area. How many bridges, other than the Ponte Vecchio, crossed the Arno? The Germans blew up every one.

As for gliders, at no point have I ever said they would provide cover. They do, though, provide concealment. I believe, too, there was an instance in which a unit was either in or behind a glider fuselage when fire came in. This generated enough target location uncertainty that the unit was only shot at generally, rather than directly targeted with aimed fire. The men survived. I think having gliders would be cool, but if they can't be done, for reasons I thought well explained, that's how it is. Anyone who's ever played BIA, though, knows how much atmosphere they add to the proceedings. I, too, thought maybe, if nothing else, they could be flavor objects. Oh well.

Pak40,

I presented a number of such cases from the Bulge (U.S. on scene commander blew bridge over Salm and prepared to blow three bridges at Trois Ponts), the campaign into Germany and elsewhere. There were numerous coups de main during the war which, had they failed, would've seen even more bridges destroyed. The seizure of the Orne bridge is one such. The Brandenburg Regiment stopped others during Barbarossa, as did Russian Army diversionary units later when the Russians had the strategic edge and were advancing.

Sergei,

I believe a lot of the Allied AA gun crews were stood down and fought the rest of the war as infantry. Doable when you generally own the skies! As for British SPAA, think Skink!

JRMC1879,

Cute! Incorrect, but cute! The engineering rules were pretty good. They had multiple classes and types of bridges, what it took to down them, what it took (time and charges, not to mention transport requirements and manning) to prep them for downing, rules for detonating them, success probabilities, things which could lower those chances of succeeding, etc. Far from your flip roll boxcars type crack!

One of my earliest battles with miniatures involved a tiny German rearguard, consisting of some infantry with a few Panzerfausts and an MG-42 thrown in, a decently crewed StuG III, some Pioneers and a needs to be ready soon bridge demolition. Oh, and it's commanded by the aptly named Leutnant Gelb, a man whose combat stability is by no means assured. The German player has to somehow stall the American forward elements (a few Shermans, some trucked infantry and an MG jeep?) long enough for the Pioneers to finish the job. Can he? Will they? And the worse the lumps the engineers take, the longer it takes to prep and blow the bridge. Quite the nail-biter! The scenario came from the Wargamer's Corner of the still amazing AFV-G2 magazine.

Broadsword56,

I very much take your point about the terrain issues, and I hope BFC can figure out some way to make terrain features much smaller than an AS. Proper slit trenches are very much needed, and drainage ditches fall under the same rubric. Here's a marvelous example of your drainage ditch issue, with the tactical significance readily apparent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-S73822,_Arnheim,_Grenadiere_gehen_durch_Gräben_vor.jpg

Having practically ripped my hair out in frustration, I absolutely concur that concur that infantry AI needs retraining on use of low points in the ground. My idiots thought moving across the elevated upper rear lip of a gully (when I thought they'd stay in it) was a good idea. Until they got badly shot up. Would guess, though, we won't get such pathing coding until after we get follow the leader pathing for road movement. Very good news indeed re possible/likely (given Steve's emoticon choice) amphib vehicle pack!

And here's hoping we by then have the whole entrenchment hiding, gun camouflage, gun movement, gun recrewing and similar sorted out. It should be possible to bring guns into (which we can already do) and out of action (which we can't), by which I mean picking up the trails, hooking up the gun, haring off somewhere and setting up the gun again. Should be doable for weapons up through 3-inch/PaK 40 class within CM time frames.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Battlefront.com]

I've been wondering a lot about how, for example, the tactically significant raised roads would be handled. Will we need to make them on our own using long lines of hard elevation points all across maps, and then line them with treeless heavy forest tiles to prevent vehicles from being able to leave them freely? Or will the game give us a new kind of road tile, for example?

No new road type. Raised roads will have to be created the way they are now... you raise the terrain and then put the roads of choice on top. The reason for no raised roads is what height do we set it to? What type of road surface? Too many variables unless we made a specific "raised road tool" where you set the variables and then draw. But there is zero support for such a tool and that means we should skip it.

General rule... if something can already be done in the game, reasonably well, then we should leave it aside and focus on something that can't be.

New buildings -- Industrial buildings (or even just some more versatile roof options) are another thing so many of us have asked for. Will we see things like a factory chimney, perhaps? A chateau/castle-like independent building?

Dunno. We're not going to go nuts with new building types.

Dike-and-polder topography -- I can envision just depressing elevations for an open field, softening the ground with a fair scattering of mud tiles, and then bordering it with higher-elevation dikes. So far, so good. But what about all those drainage ditches that run all through the fields? Those of us who have tried already to simulate Dutch terrain using CMBN have found the scale of the action squares makes it very difficult to get a ditch effect that isn't overly large, and which still is sunken enough to provide a tactical benefit. The other especially vexing thing has been getting infantry to move within a ditch and not expose themselves by pathing around it.

We're still looking into this. There's some serious performance issues that come along with various suggestions.

John, I'm quite sure he meant in a tactical situation where the allies actually had a chance of capturing the bridge before it was blown.

Obvious to just about everybody else, I guess. But I'll tackle that in my next post.

I don't consider this likely but I thought I'd ask anyway. Will the Free Dutch Princess Irene Brigade be included? They were in XXX Corps (though I believe they were too far back down the road to actually become engaged in fighting in the Market-Garden battle).

No. That's the sort of thing that if we do it will be in a Pack.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Steve made an assertion, and I presented evidence to the contrary.

No, you presented a counter argument to a position I never took. That's because you didn't read what I wrote and didn't grasp the context.

First of all, do you seriously think that I, of all people, am not aware of bridges being blown during the course of WW2? Not to mention being aware that the Arnhem road bridge was blown TWICE during WW2? Think before you type.

Second of all, I clearly stated that bridge blowing is irrelevant to tactical wargame such as CM. I've gone over the reasons for that so many times it makes my head hurt just thinking about it again. Yet I did so (again) in this thread or the other one you were participating in. Either way, the case is pretty clear. The number of times a bridge was blown during a CM type battle could probably be counted on my hand. And I'm talking the entire war.

So please... reconsider your position. You're asking for something which has no relevance to CM. I've explained that many times and have said we aren't going to simulate it.

Cute! Incorrect, but cute! The engineering rules were pretty good. They had multiple classes and types of bridges, what it took to down them, what it took (time and charges, not to mention transport requirements and manning) to prep them for downing, rules for detonating them, success probabilities, things which could lower those chances of succeeding, etc. Far from your flip roll boxcars type crack!

Obviously you misunderstand the difference between scribbling something down on a bit of paper and then throwing a die with computer programming.

You also seem to not understand the scale difference between Tactics and Combat Mission. Might as well fault Combat Mission for not having strategic bombing campaigns or factoring in the results of a successful raid on Schweinfurt.

One of my earliest battles with miniatures involved a tiny German rearguard, consisting of some infantry with a few Panzerfausts and an MG-42 thrown in, a decently crewed StuG III, some Pioneers and a needs to be ready soon bridge demolition.

We have always, and will always, judge Combat Mission's successes and failures as a sim based on how well it relates to real warfare, not how it relates to other games. If we did that we might as well compare ourselves to Company of Heros. I'm sure they have bridge demolition.

Steve

[jakla1027]

What about American Units/equipment? M-18 Hellcat? Us Yanks weren't involved to much in Market Garden other than the Airborne troops. So how much new American stuff will we see in this module?

Thanks

Just reposting to try & get an answer,

Thanks again

[Battlefront.com]

Yanks aren't getting much new because the focus of Market Garden is on, er, Market Garden But we like to make exceptions to rules and therefore the Yanks do get some new stuff. Not a lot, though.

Steve

[Jorge MC]

are we going to see any m-43 german cap and any parkas? in future CM

[PsychoGeriatric]

Not wishing to beat a dead horse on the issue of bridge demolition not being included in the Module, but I would like add some further information.

It seems to me that the occurrence of bridge demolitions during the whole of world war 2 in the tactical context of CM is completely irrelevant.

The Module is specifically focused on Market Garden. Hence it's the actual incidence of demolition or potential demolition on a tactical level during the op that is relevant.

Market Garden was all about capturing bridges intact. The failure to do so at Son had disastrous consequences for the whole op. The planning priorities were made on the assumption that all bridges had been potentially rigged for demolition (which I know runs in the face of Gavin's/Browning decision to give priority to securing the Groesbeek Heights instead of the main bridges in Nijmegen; as well as the choice of dropping zones at Arnhem).

So based on my knowledge these are the relevant examples during Market Garden:

Arnhem Sector:

The second most important objective in the Arnhem Sector was the Railway bridge several miles to the west. Had this bridge been secured intact it may have changed the outcome of the operation. 2nd Bn detached C Company and a section of engineers for this task.

The leading elements of this force were proceeding up the bridge ramp when the Germans blew it. C Company was subsequently surrounded and captured trying to reach Frost at Arnhem Bridge, depriving him of a significant reinforcement.

Nijmegen:

5 bridges were demolished/damaged before they could be secured. They were the road and rail bridges at Honinghutie, the road bridges at Blankenberg and Hartet (all over the Maas Waal Canal) and the Mook railway bridge further south.

Here is an extract from “The Sword of St. Michael: The 82nd Airborne Division in World War II” by Guy Anthony LoFaro page 469 regarding the Honinghutie bridge.

“The 82nd did succeed in taking one bridge on 18 September: Bridge 10 over the Maas-Waal Canal at Honinghutie (in actuality there were two bridges at Honinghutie, a railroad bridge and highway bridge, but the latter was the primary target). Although it was considered the most important of the canal bridges because it was on the most direct route from Grave to Nijmegen, it had not been assaulted the day before. To this day there exists some confusion over whether responsibility for taking the bridge rest with the 504 or 508th, whose defensive areas were southwest and southeast of Honinghutie respectively (the Honinghutie bridges were the northernmost of the Maas-Waal Canal bridges). Given the initial array of forces it seems most likely that Honinghutie was a 508th responsibility, and it appears that Lindquist opted to delay an attack on Honinghutie in favour of sending Warren into Nijmegen.

Whatever the reason it was not until the early morning hours of 18 September that Lindquist radioed Major Holmes, his 2/508th commander, and told him to take Bridge 10. Holmes assigned the mission to First Platoon of F Company under Lieutenant Lloyd L. Polette. Approaching the bridge from the southeast, Polette and his troopers were approximately 300 yards from Honinghutie when the Germans defending the bridge opened up on them. The First Platoon went to ground. Polette felt that if [he] could make one last rush he could get the bridges’ “It was just breaking day and the light was in our favour,” he wrote afterwards. So he got his troopers up and led them forward, but the enemy fire was too intense. Within minutes twelve of Polette’s troopers lay dead or wounded and the platoon was still 150 yards short of the objective. Polette positioned those who could still fire so they could get the Germans at the bridge in their sights and sent a runner back to radio for help. In particular, Polette wanted support from the battalion’s 81mm mortars. “From time to time we could observe Germans walking, or attempting to get on the bridge,” he recalled. “We kept them at a disadvantage with rifle fire. It was apparent that the enemy was attempting to destroy the bridge.” At about 0930 hours, Second Platoon of E Company under Lieutenant Thomas Tomlinson arrived in the area and added its fire to that of Polette’s platoon. For about an hour the German defenders (a hodgepodge of Luftwaffe ground soldiers and students from an army non-commissioned officer school) and the paratroopers traded small arms and machine gun fire, the latter unable to get any closer to the bridge and the former hampered as they attempted to set up the demolition charges. Ultimately, however, the Germans did emplace some charges and at 1030 hours two explosions rent the air. When the smoke cleared Polette and Tomlinson could clearly see that although the railroad bridge had been completely destroyed all was not lost because the highway bridge remained, damaged, but still standing. Under cover from a section of 81mm mortars that had finally arrived, some of which were transported to the area on the backs of several cows that had been pressed into service as beasts of burden, Polette and Tomlinson led their troopers in a wild charge. By 1200 hours the bridge was in American hands. For his actions that day, Polette was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross.”

(I think it would make a very nice scenario and Steve should consider auxiliary cows as a playable unit )

Summarising the remaining bridges:

Blankenberg Bridge (B Company 1/504th) - The Germans blew it just as some troopers were charging onto the bridge’s roadway. Destroying it beyond repair.

Hatert Bridge (2nd Platoon E Company 2/504th) - The bridge had already been blown by the time they arrived.

Mook Railway bridge (B company 1 and 3rd platoons 1/504th) - Bridge blew up in their faces killing two and wounding three.

In addition, the Heumen Bridge (the southern most bridge on the Mass-Waal Canal) was known to be rigged for demolition. In a desperate rush, C company 1/504th captured it before the explosives could be detonated.

Finally for Nijmegen, it is well known that both the main railway and road bridges could potentially have been detonated during the river assault and GA assault from the South. Why this did not happen is still a controversy.

Eindhoven Sector:

This is the Sector about which I have the least knowledge. However the demolition of the Son Bridge certainly occurred in a tactical context during the attempt to capture it.

Now before I get bashed, with all the tactical CM counter arguments, I must say I'm on the fence with this one. Whilst it is a shame that bridge demolition will not be modelled into the MG module, I really would prefer that BF focus their time on other new features such as fire in buildings, building damage modelling for FIBUA (otherwise the Oosterbeek perimeter may collapse within a day), fortification of houses and flame throwers FTW.

[Nelson 1812]

A tweak I would like to see added perhaps to all modules is the reinforcement times at the beginning to include the first five minutes ie... 1 minute, 2 minute and so-on.

Reason for this is to enable some scenarios to introduce units gradually at the very beginning.

For example if a scenarios starts with a scouts meeting.... the scenario can then have an increase delay time for the first response by defending headquarters.. ie couple of minutes.

I understand the units would remain invisible, until the reinforce times, but it would allow attackers a little more bite, in their approach.

Just a thought.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Bridge demolition is already in the game.

http://webandofbrothers.yuku.com/topic/16475/a-simple-bridge-destruction-test#.UaB7jJxOlXk

[Baneman]

Er... while we're on the subject of "more" - with MG coming soon with (presumably) more urban combat - could I reiterate the plea for the UI to display the Floor the team are on ?

Please ?

[Juri_JS]

I agree that a bridge destruction option for engineer units is not very realistic for a tactical war game, but what about an option to place mines during a mission. Planting a whole mine field takes a lot of time, but placing a few mines to block a road can be done within a few minutes.

Moreover I wonder if it would make sense to give troops the ability to dig shallow fighting holes (not to be confused with the deeper foxholes) during a mission.

[Paper Tiger]

A tweak I would like to see added perhaps to all modules is the reinforcement times at the beginning to include the first five minutes ie... 1 minute, 2 minute and so-on.

This has been asked for We'll just have to wait and see if it happens. I would like to see reinforcements arrive anytime after the mission starts so that the player doesn't have to wait 5+ minutes to use artillery that the designer doesn't want the player to have for a pre-planned barrage. I have quite a few missions on hold that would greatly benefit from this feature.

[c3k]

Asked and answered, your Honor.

If you want to SIMULATE bridge blowing, then set a hard time limit for capturing a bridge objective. If the objective is NOT captured, then assume the defenders were able to blow the bridge. If the objective IS captured, then assume the bridge is captured intact.

Incorporate the above into your campaign, if you have made one.

Actually SHOWING a bridge being demolished is not required.

Ken