recommended ideas for CM3 fords and bridges

[Hans]

May I suggest that a scenario designer could designate fording sites to be "undeteched" by either player (ie the player doesn't know if it IS a useable ford) ford were often not marked on maps and often shifted location due to water levels and other factors.

A player would be able to determine if the ford was useable (and by who, infantry/wheel/track) by running a pioneer unit or leader up to it.

The same thing could be said for bridges, all bridges could not support heavy tanks, the bridge load (and state of the bridge) could also be a random factor to be determined by players recon units.

Hans

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Hans:

May I suggest that a scenario designer could designate fording sites to be "undeteched" by either player (ie the player doesn't know if it IS a useable ford) ford were often not marked on maps and often shifted location due to water levels and other factors.

A player would be able to determine if the ford was useable (and by who, infantry/wheel/track) by running a pioneer unit or leader up to it.

The same thing could be said for bridges, all bridges could not support heavy tanks, the bridge load (and state of the bridge) could also be a random factor to be determined by players recon units.

Hans

This is a terrific idea.

But why a leader? Do officers have some special clairvoyance as far as testing how deep water is, that privates and corporals somehow lack?

This is a truly good idea - hmm, what about an option allowing fords to be placed at random every time you play a specific battle or operation? Just to make things interesting?

[Hans]

Usually leaders (NCO's or Officers) may have had the training on doing a route recon and determing whether a ford was actually fordable (soil density/pressure etc)-or you could just run a vehicle or person(s) into it to see what happens?

Your idea is good too, one could make the fords shiftable by random which would add a nice feature-certain fords would be known to all while some would be known to the defender while others would be unknown to all.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Hans:

Usually leaders (NCO's or Officers) may have had the training on doing a route recon and determing whether a ford was actually fordable (soil density/pressure etc)-or you could just run a vehicle or person(s) into it to see what happens?

Your idea is good too, one could make the fords shiftable by random which would add a nice feature-certain fords would be known to all while some would be known to the defender while others would be unknown to all.

I agree

GREAT idea

this actually makes sense to me

"Usually leaders (NCO's or Officers) may have had the training on doing a route recon and determing whether a ford was actually fordable (soil density/pressure etc)-or you could just run a vehicle or person(s) into it to see what happens?"

I would guess not just any grunt/soldier can be a recon route finder and determine if low water or a shakey bridge is crossable.

great idea!

-tom w

[SFJaykey]

I've never been in the army but I've fished a lot of rivers, and while it can happen fords don't really move around much, except after major floods. Also, the rippling shallower water is pretty easily recognizable from a fair distance, to anyone with even a little training or real-world experience. Since we keep hearing that roads in Russia were poor, I expect there were few bridges as well and fords made up the majority of water crossings, so they would be on maps and familiar to locals. From a realism standpoint I wouldn't want designers to go overboard with hiding them.

Perhaps at setup under EFOW, we could see "Ford?" markers that might be off a little in location, like with sound contacts. Then, a generic "Ford" marker would become visible at the actual location when any unit obtained direct LOS to it. The type of Ford would become evident when a leader, pioneer, or any vehicle moved within a certain distance, maybe 30m. I include all vehicles because I assume drivers received some training in how to judge whether it was safe for their vehicles to cross a given ford.

- Matt

[Hans]

JF Jaykey

Let me explain a bit further. The idea is that the attacker (German in particular and other Axis too) would lack the local knowledge as to where fords are-the well known and used ones would be easily found but the lesser known ones wouldn't be and they were not often marked on maps.

The problem with fords is their trackability, the shallow water is easy to find (usually fine for infantry - but is it too soft or too rocky for tracked vehicles and wheels).

Deeper fords, 3-6 feet, don't show up well but are usable by troops (with difficulty, not by wheels but can be used by many tracks). The other problem with fords are the entry and exit points. These can be a real problem (with the lack of engineer support in CMBB)for wheeled vehicles and even tracked if the exit is a 1-3 meter embankment intergrown with trees.

As a designer I would like some more control on this. This came up as I was trying to adapt a miniature battle to CMBB which centered around the problem of fords.

During the Winter you have a similar problem - determinig ice weight bearing capabilities.

Bridge weight carrying capacity can be estimated by (written tables were carried by engineers and officers) where the main structures/style of bridge could be looked at for the amount of weight it could carry.

Example you find a nice shallow part of the river with a bridge. The question you have is? How much weight can the river bottom take before you bog, and how much weight can the bridge take before it fails? 2.5 ton truck, yep, 25 ton tank????

[Michael Dorosh]

Yes, and Russian maps were not renowned for their accuracy....

You could reflect this by having the fords not appear on the map for the Germans, but must be revealed in the same manner as, say, a minefield, while the Russians - if they were, say, local troops or are considered to have more accurate maps, have done prior recce, etc. - have the fords start revealed.

It comes down to more flexibility for the scenario designer, and more surprises during play.

By all means, if you are so sure that the Germans had 100 percent accurate maps and always did prior recce before their attacks, I would suggest you were free not to use such a rule, should it be included and should it be optional.

[Hans]

Option is the key word. I see a field on the parameters screen Fords known? Yes, No, Percentage, chance of knowing

For bridges known? Yes, No, Percentage

With the yes the bridges and fords would operate as now. with no the bridges would have to be investigated (except a defender would have that knowledge) In percentage the attacker - from prior recon would have either a random amount of knowledge or one set by the designer.

The knowledge would be status of the bridges and fords

I would recommend bridge as:

All (can handle anything, railroad bridges, large modern steel and concrete one)

Light armour-all vehicles except heavy armour (probably above 35 tons)

Wheeled vehicles only (light wooded bridges for farm and truck traffic)

Foot bridge only.

Similar breakdown for fords in regarding to what could travel there before bogging.

These could also be applied to bridges due to damage.

It would be a nice addition to the designers grab bag.

Additionally I hope this would be tied in with military constructed pontoons and bridging ferries.

[Quinxi]

Sounds interesting and much more realistic to me. Too bad items such as pontoon bridges and such are not included in Cmbb.

[Pzman]

Hmm just one though, wouldn't it look silly if you had a road on each side where one of these hidden bridges is? Remember that CM models road bridges not foot bridges. If you do that there should be choice to make roads hidden as well, after all attackers didn't always know where the roads were.

[ May 04, 2003, 05:20 PM: Message edited by: Panzerman ]

[SFJaykey]

OK, here's an alternative idea: instead of fixed "fords" have separate "deep" and "shallow" water tiles. Deep water would be impassible, shallow would be fordable by infantry and passable but with a _very_ significant, perhaps variable, chance of bogging for vehicles. "Shallow water" would effectively replace the "deep ford" tile. "Fords" would be hard-bottom crossings useable by vehicles with low (but perhaps still variable) chance of bogging, and under EFOW could be hidden like minefields, as suggested. Though hidden, fords would be limited to shallow water locations only which would help locate them in a general sense at setup. As has been said, useable fords will often be located at obvious road crossings, or at least where river banks are low and suitable for vehicles, which will also help to locate them at setup.

The idea of shallow water came to mind as I was working on a map with a stream running through it, where I included numerous fords to simulate a creek rather than a mighty river...I think 2 water tiles would add considerable flexibility for the designer, just like having both "woods" and "tall pines" tiles does.

Variability in bridge strength would also add realism...I am sure tanks pancaked small country bridges on many occasions and this would be a fun addition to the game!

(OTOH, considering the time scale and relatively small number of vehicles involved in the typical CMBB game, perhaps this would introduce too much luck into the outcome. Consider: your scenario has only one bridge and you have two PzIVs...the first one pancakes the bridge, leaving one tank doing a U-boat imitation and the remaining one stuck on the far side of the river and no more bridge....maybe this is too much luck affecting game outcome? Thoughts?)

The idea of hidden fords, variable bridge strength, and even hidden roads (I didn't laugh at the suggestion!) leads naturally into a tangent issue that I hope will be addressed in CMX2: Imperfect maps and intelligence. I would _really_ like to see a little mystery in the maps, where terrain features are imperfectly known at least until units have LOS to them.

One way to do this, which might not be _too_ hard to code, would be to allow players to view a rough, large-scale 2-D map, covering the entire battle area but not 100% accurate, at setup and in a popup box during gameplay. The terrain visible through the main viewer would be completely accurate, as it is now, but only become visible as units advance. Terrain out of LOS would be fogged out or blank, and players would need to call up the large-scale map to get an idea (not always 100% correct) of what is on the far side of a hill. Some scheme would have to be devised to defeat "gamey" tactics like deep scouting with half-squads, but hopefully such a scheme is in the works already... One alternative I like would be to extend out-of-command delays to include relay of terrain and enemy spotting info, and relating command delay to the distance by which a unit is out of command range....but Borg spotting is another thread!

Also, in many situations it would seem appropriate to have some clue as to where elements of the opfor is located at setup, to represent advance scouting and intelligence. The amount and accuracy of intelligence on terrain and enemy positions could be set by the scenario designer or be another QB option.

Boy, I am full of ideas! Good thing I don't realize how difficult much of this must be to code...

- Matt

[SFJaykey]

I was just proofreading my previous post, and realize it sounds like I'm contradicting myself by both objecting to hiding fords too well, and asking for less precise maps....

Basically, I don't think it would be appropriate to hide fords too effectively in the current engine, where maps are 100% accurate. I think it's more "realistic" for an attacking commander to know the location of a ford with good accuracy than, for example, where he might find a hull-down position for his tanks two ridges over, which is what we can do now.

If and (hopefully) when CM incorporates more "mystery" into terrain in general, it would be entirely appropriate to hide fords, or at least add some doubt to their precise location, depth, and capacity.

- Matt

[ May 04, 2003, 07:02 PM: Message edited by: SFJaykey ]