destroying a bridge

[LiveNoMore]

Hi All!

I may have missed this in a prior post, but is there a way to destroy a bridge other than using arty or air assets? I have these engineers and paratroops running around with demo packs and I can't get them to destroy even a small wooden bridge. You would think they might want to do this to stop the retreat or advance of enemy units.

Thanks

[A Canadian Cat]

Direct fire from tanks or other HE equipped guns.

I do not believe that demo charges are effective.

[sburke]

I do not believe that demo charges are effective.

Nope. I've even tried placing walls near a bridge and blowing those and so far have had no effect on bridges.

[womble]

Having a vehicle loaded with HE rounds cook-off while parked on a bridge will do a fair whack of damage to it. All you have to do is entice the enemy SPGs in, then have your paras close assault (with their demo charges) and wait for the big-badaboom... Or accomplish the same with some sort of longer ranged anti-armour asset, though that wouldn't even involve the demo charges indirectly...

[agusto]

It would be nice feature to be able to blow up the bridges with demo charges. Especially if you could manually trigger the charges so that they detonate right in the moment where an enemy unit crosses the bridge.

[Michael Emrys]

It would be nice feature to be able to blow up the bridges with demo charges. Especially if you could manually trigger the charges so that they detonate right in the moment where an enemy unit crosses the bridge.

No theoretical reason why that should not be allowable, although keep in mind that prep time might run from a few to many minutes and would be very, very difficult to do under fire. What might be easier to do would be to make it possible for the scenario designer to designate bridges pre-prepped and ready to blow at the owner's discretion as long as he retains possession.

Michael

[Pak40]

It's not planned to be in the Market Garden module; Steve mentioned this a while back. Besides it takes a whole lot of TNT to blow a bridge. I don't think a couple or even a few demo charges are going do much damage. And what damage is done could easily be fixed by engineers.

[Erwin]

Michael was referring to "pre-prepped" bridges. So the work of wiring em up would be already done when the scenario starts. Interesting idea. But, there would have to be an Achilles Heel. Like it takes "x" turns to actually blow the bridge, during which enemy paras for example could neutralize the triggerman (like we could do with IED triggermen in CMSF?) or otherwise capture the bridge.

[YankeeDog]

It's not planned to be in the Market Garden module; Steve mentioned this a while back. Besides it takes a whole lot of TNT to blow a bridge. I don't think a couple or even a few demo charges are going do much damage. And what damage is done could easily be fixed by engineers.

Yep.

It not only takes a a fair amount of TNT, the charges have to be set pretty carefully. Just strapping a couple of 20-lb. demo charges to the girders and setting them off ain't gonna do it. Unless you're just going to overkill it with hundreds of pounds of explosives (e.g., big-bore artillery or aerial bombs), to drop a span of more than a lightweight footbridge, you usually need to drill/excavate holes in the structure at strategic points to place the charges, and/or carefully set cutting charges at strategic points.

Timing also matters -- to demolish a bridge efficiently, you usually need to set multiple charges so that they go off more or less simultaneously. If they go off staggered, the first charge detonation will often blow out/sever the fuses for the other charges, and the bridge won't drop.

So so to actually set charges, prime the fuses and blowing a bridge with a team of engineers is largely out of CM's scope. What might be arguably in-scope would be having a bridge already primed and ready to blow, which the player could detonate at command. I would argue, though, that for gameplay purposes it's better to start a scenario premise like this immediately after the bridge has been blown.

[A Canadian Cat]

So so to actually set charges, prime the fuses and blowing a bridge with a team of engineers is largely out of CM's scope. What might be arguably in-scope would be having a bridge already primed and ready to blow, which the player could detonate at command. I would argue, though, that for gameplay purposes it's better to start a scenario premise like this immediately after the bridge has been blown.

Or alternatively have the scenario end be when the bridge would have been blown. "You must secure the bridge and surrounding buildings before the order can be received to blow the bridge."

[Pak40]

Michael was referring to "pre-prepped" bridges.

Yea, I was really responding to the original poster and the "demo charge" post. So, to sum up:

- Steve has already responded that they will NOT have pre-prepped bridges for demolition.

- Demo charges on a bridge will not do sufficient damage to blow it up.

also, I was hoping they would implement a new type of objective that would "time out" to simulate the bridge being blown. But I suppose one could easily use a 'touch' objective and have the scenario end to simulate the bridge being blow.

[YankeeDog]

Yep; "We estimate that enemy engineers will finish setting and priming charges on the bridge in about 40 minutes, so you need to seize it by this time." is also a great scenario premise.

Would it be nice to have the eye candy of the bridge going sky-high at the end of the scenario if you fail? Sure. But tactically, the dropping of the bridge span is really the end of one fight (the fight to secure the intact bridge), and the beginning of another, (the fight to secure an alternate passage across the river). As such, they're best done as two separate scenarios.

[Michael Emrys]

Michael was referring to "pre-prepped" bridges. So the work of wiring em up would be already done when the scenario starts. Interesting idea. But, there would have to be an Achilles Heel. Like it takes "x" turns to actually blow the bridge, during which enemy paras for example could neutralize the triggerman (like we could do with IED triggermen in CMSF?) or otherwise capture the bridge.

Rather than it takes a specified length of time to push the plunger, I'd prefer to see that the player with the demoed bridge loses points if he blows it early. The longer he waits, the fewer points he loses. I think this more closely resembles the kind of pressure on a real commander. There would probably be tactical reasons for keeping a bridge intact for one's own use. At any event, it should be an option available to a scenario designer.

Michael

[YankeeDog]

Rather than it takes a specified length of time to push the plunger, I'd prefer to see that the player with the demoed bridge loses points if he blows it early. The longer he waits, the fewer points he loses. I think this more closely resembles the kind of pressure on a real commander. There would probably be tactical reasons for keeping a bridge intact for one's own use. At any event, it should be an option available to a scenario designer.

Probably the best way to do this in the game right now would be to give the player holding the bridge an exit zone across the bridge, and units he must keep alive (i.e., exit the map) for points. Typically, unless a defender thinks he actually has the strength to hold onto the bridge long term and potentially use it for a counterattack (in case he wouldn't be blowing it at all), the reason a defender wants to keep a bridge open is so retreating units can escape across it.

At least against the AI, the player can cease fire at any time, so he can cease fire and "blow the bridge" as soon as he feels he's exited enough units to win the fight.

Pretty good premise for a battle in a fighting withdrawal campaign, actually. If you make the units that have to cross the bridge and exit the map the player's core units, the player has a strong incentive to get them across the bridge and off the map, so they can fight in the following battles.

[Michael Emrys]

@ YD,

Yeah, something like that could work too. But I think we are getting way out in front of BFC on this issue. At this point, I'd like to hear some comment on how they see this, and if we hear nothing, assume that this feature—if it ever appears—is a long way down the road.

Michael