Training Campaign Bridge question -- possible spoiler

[Dunhill06]

Hello,

I am playing the final scenario in the Russian training campaign and am seeing something odd here. One of the objectives is a bridge. I have attempted to send some tanks over the bridge, but when they reach the bridge they turn around and begin heading back to the setup zone.

In other words, the game is treating the bridge as unpassable terrain and as there is no other direct route to that part of the map, the AFVs are trying to go all the way around the map to get the indicated waypoint, eg the other side of the bridge.

Question: Is this right? The bridge is unusable by armor?

[Michael Emrys]

Question: Is this right? The bridge is unusable by armor?

Haven't played that scenario all the way through, so haven't gotten to the point where I could check that. But yes, some bridges won't carry the weight of a tank. As I recall from the manual, wooden and I think stone bridges won't bear tanks.

Michael

[YankeeDog]

SPOILERS:

Yeah, there's a little curve ball thrown into that scenario. Teaches you bit about proper route recon.

IIRC, there are two bridges on that map, The one on the left side (from the Soviet point of view) is a "light" bridge, and can be used by infantry only. However, the gully this bridge spans is passable by vehicles, so you don't really need the bridge to advance vehicles this way.

The bridge on the right side is a "medium" bridge, and can support vehicles up to and including medium armor, but not heavy armor. So it will support your T-34/85s, but not your IS-2s or ISU-152s. Further, this bridge spans a band of swamp that is *not* passable by vehicles, so vehicles do need to cross this bridge in order to advance into the village along this side of the map.

The easiest way to tell if a given vehicle can cross a certain bridge or not is to start to plot a movement order with that vehicle (any movement order, doesn't matter), and put the cursor directly over the middle of the bridge. If the vehicle is too heavy for the bridge, the cursor will change to a "no-go" icon. If it's OK, the cursor will remain as the standard movement plot cursor.

[Michael Emrys]

The easiest way to tell if a given vehicle can cross a certain bridge or not is to start to plot a movement order with that vehicle (any movement order, doesn't matter), and put the cursor directly over the middle of the bridge. If the vehicle is too heavy for the bridge, the cursor will change to a "no-go" icon. If it's OK, the cursor will remain as the standard movement plot cursor.

This works, I believe, for all terrain types and I find myself using it a lot in RT due to the prevalence of non-negotiable terrains in this game. Careful recon and thought regarding route choice from the first turn is really advised.

Michael

[YankeeDog]

^ Agreed. A couple of minutes spent initiating a movement order and waving the cursor around the map during setup yields very useful information.

Rule of the 7 "P"s definitely applies here.

[Dunhill06]

Ok got it, thanks all for the speedy and detailed responses! Very helpful ...

[warrenpeace]

Frankly I'd love to see a right click terrain info tooltip in CM2. This would be very helpful to new players.

[Michael Emrys]

Rule of the 7 "P"s definitely applies here.

[perks up ears]

Care to share the complete list?

Michael

[YankeeDog]

[perks up ears]

Care to share the complete list?

Michael

It's an old Navy saying -- "Proper Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance."

[YankeeDog]

Frankly I'd love to see a right click terrain info tooltip in CM2. This would be very helpful to new players.

I can see how this would be useful in other situations, but probably not in this one, as what can cross over which bridge is conditional on both sides of the equation -- That is, simply having a tooltip that reads out "Medium Bridge" when you right click on a bridge isn't helpful unless the player knows exactly which AFVs are "medium" and which are not, which a beginning player probably wouldn't know.

IMHO, the movement order + cursor test is really the best way to do this specific thing. "no-go" = cannot cross. Simple.

[Michael Emrys]

...or at least makes it less likely. But then, that doesn't roll off the tongue quite so euphoniously, does it?

Michael

[Andrew H.]

...or at least makes it less likely. But then, that doesn't roll off the tongue quite so euphoniously, does it?

Michael

No, it prevents it entirely. Failure means that the planning obviously wasn't "proper".

QED.

[Kilroy Lurking]

SPOILERS:

You can also send your heavy tanks through the woods on the right flank. You might want to clear out any infantry first ......

David

[Vergeltungswaffe]

It's an old Navy saying -- "Proper Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance."

I'd always heard is was an army saying, but the only thing a quick search yielded was:

"Proper Planning and Preparation Prevents Piss Poor Performance” is known as the “7 Ps.” There are many variations of this expression, such as “5 Ps” and even “12 Ps.” The expression is believed to have originated in the military during World War II.

“In marketing efficiency, the five P’s — an infantry division slogan in World War II — Prior Planning Prevents Poor Performance” was cited in print in 1956. “Proper Planning Prevents Poor Performance” was cited in print in 1961. “The PPPPPP factor applies: ‘proper preliminary planning prevents poor performance’” was cited in print in 1966