Pillbox on bridge- too gamey?

[Jack Trap]

Please rate the "gameyness" of putting a concrete pillbox on a bridge right in the middle of river, oh yeah at night!

I know, I know thats pretty obnoxious. But still, what a fun surprise for a night game. I could even stack several along the expanse.

So 1 through 10 on "gamyness" ....

[Stalin's Organ]

0 (zero) - as long as the bridge is still crossable when the pillboxed is KO'd.

If not then 10!

[Lars]

On the bridge? It might not last as long as you think. Everything up and down the river will have a shot at it.

Keyholed and boresighted down the bridge? Just typical German gameyness.

[David Aitken]

The Germans at Arnhem were a bunch of gamey so-and-sos!

Keep in mind that bridges in CM are very basic, when in reality they could be quite complex. The 'Pegasus' bridge captured by British paras in Normandy was a very interesting raising bridge, and bridges like those at Arnhem and Nijmegen had a vertical superstructure which could harbour marksmen.

I'm not sure how bridges are modelled in CM in terms of cover, but the average European bridge (old stone arched type or newer concrete-and-metal type) would afford a good bit more protection than the visual representation in CM would suggest, at least from flanking fire, and often from longitudinal fire as well. The film about the Remagen bridge has a good example of this.

[Ales Dvorak]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jack Trap:

Please rate the "gameyness" of putting a concrete pillbox on a bridge right in the middle of river, oh yeah at night!

I know, I know thats pretty obnoxious. But still, what a fun surprise for a night game. I could even stack several along the expanse.

So 1 through 10 on "gamyness" ....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What do you get?

[mikeadams]

Several larger bridges did have concrete pillboxes, though usually at the ends of the bridge, rather than in the middle. I agree that, as long as it allow movement across the bridge, this is perfectly acceptable

[Scott B]

Too gamey? I say not gamey enough. Aren't there some flak vehicles or SMG armed jeep rushes you can throw in or something?

Maybe if you had two pillboxes side by side on a bridge, blocking the way across, and maybe a third facing the opposite direction.

Actually, there's a thought; does the pillbox stay in place after the bridge is destroyed?

Wait a minute, I'll go check.

[Scott B]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scott B:

Actually, there's a thought; does the pillbox stay in place after the bridge is destroyed?

Wait a minute, I'll go check.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope (just checked). Blow up the bridge beneath the pillbox and the pillbox goes away. You're actually making the pillbox more vulnerable if your enemy can afford to destroy that section of bridge.

Scott B.

[Pak40]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scott B:

Nope (just checked). Blow up the bridge beneath the pillbox and the pillbox goes away. You're actually making the pillbox more vulnerable if your enemy can afford to destroy that section of bridge.

Scott B.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The whole purpose of capturing a bridge is so that you can use it. How are you going to get your men and tanks to the other side if you blow the bridge?

[Pak40]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jack Trap:

Please rate the "gameyness" of putting a concrete pillbox on a bridge right in the middle of river, oh yeah at night!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was done quite frequently in real life, so its not gamey at all. Arnhem Bridge had a pillbox near either end to protect the bridge from both directions. The Germans knew that an attack could come from anywhere with the allies airborne capabilities.

[Jack Trap]

I haven't checked yet, but would a ko'd concrete p box stop or slow traffic? That's the gamey part to me. Just leave -t out there let it get ko'd an train a bunch of AT's keyholed to that position.

I think that its pretty damn gamey, but on principal I enjoy creative use of ones assets, this is after all a game.

[Maximus]

Well actually it wouldn't be too gamey in sense to the limitations of the current CM engine if one would design a bridge that had a small land island in the middle and then put the pillbox on the island.

[Hans]

Question unanswered?

Can you move past the destroyed Pillbox?

[Juju]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:

I'm not sure how bridges are modelled in CM in terms of cover, but the average European bridge (old stone arched type or newer concrete-and-metal type) would afford a good bit more protection than the visual representation in CM would suggest.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Terms of cover? Brigdes? In CM? None whatsoever. Units on bridges, as on roads, are 100% exposed in CM.

[Pak40]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hans:

Question unanswered?

Can you move past the destroyed Pillbox?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The pillboxes are quite wide, however the pillbox can be placed to the side of the road so that they only block part of the bridge, allowing vehicles to pass. On a big bridge this is not a problem because the bridge is wide enough. Visually it not too pretty because part of the pill box is hanging over mid air, but at least it's a way to simulate a pillbox being on a bridge.

[Jack Trap]

My experiments have shown thus:

Dead pillboxes are semi-passable or "fudge-able" if I may. They're a bit like houses in that way.

A stretch of bridge could not be blocked by a single p box. The vehicles can squeeze through/pass a side. They can not go through the center though.

So if you created a slalom of p boxes - you are an ass.

As I think about there are two better approaches:

1) Sacrifice for blockage; buy a cheap truck or 1/2 track, or better yet...

2) Stack the bridge w/ dead enemy vehicles- like I discovered that the hard way in a personal favorite: All or Nothing!

[Scott B]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pak40:

The whole purpose of capturing a bridge is so that you can use it. How are you going to get your men and tanks to the other side if you blow the bridge? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I did not make the assumption that the player's mission was to do so - sometimes capture of a bridge is important, and sometimes it isn't. The reason I said, "if your enemy can afford to destroy that section of bridge" is that the reverse can also be true. If your mission is to get your men and tanks to the other side, I assumed most readers would read into it enough *not* to blow the thing.

[BFawlty]

I would agree, as stated above, that the "gameyness" would be in the inability to pass over the bridge once the pillbox is destroyed. So as Stalin sytated 0 if crossable 10 if not!

[Pak40]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scott B:

I did not make the assumption that the player's mission was to do so - sometimes capture of a bridge is important, and sometimes it isn't. The reason I said, "if your enemy can afford to destroy that section of bridge" is that the reverse can also be true. If your mission is to get your men and tanks to the other side, I assumed most readers would read into it enough *not* to blow the thing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've never heard of both sides wanting to destroy a bridge. There is always at least one side that wants to capture the bridge, sometimes both sides want to capture the bridge.

Let's look at your quote one more time

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> You're actually making the pillbox more vulnerable if your enemy can afford to destroy that section of bridge.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The "enemy" in this qoute is on the offensive. The defensive side had a pillbox on the bridge. Logically, the offensive side is trying to get to the other side of the river so he can continue on with his offensive. If the offensive side is trying to capture the bridge, why on earth would he destroy it just to kill the pillbox?

Even if there were multiple bridges on the same map the order from the brass would be to capture all of them, not destroy them.