Is it gamey to blow bridges?

[Panther G]

I'm playing a PBEM right now where there is large river across the middle of the map with a wooden bridge on each side. There are several fords, so infantry could get across, but if I blew the bridges his armor would be stopped. What is proper? Can I blow them? Should I ask him? Is this considered gamey and unrealistic in any incarnation?

Thanks.

Ryan

[Pzman]

I don't see why it would be gamey. The Germans did that whenever they had the chance. I don't know if it would be very realistic for the Americans or other allies, other than in a battle of the bulge type battle.

[Bigdog]

Big Valley?

[Mattias]

Since bridges are not present in QB's I assume you are playing a scenario. Unless it is part of the scenario design, I say leave the bridges up.

If I were your opponent and all options for crossing my armour was removed by you blowing the bridges I would consider it extremely poor sportsmanship, unless, as I said, it was a scenario that made it very clear that blowing the bridges was an option.

I mean, if your opponent needs that armour in order to have a fair shot at winning the game then he should be given the opportunity to use it.

--

M.

[Panther G]

Spoiler (Count Zero -- Do not look)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

No, not Big Valley, it's All or Nothing.

The scenario did not mention it. Would it be OK if I blew one (the one next to the dirt road and railroad if you want to look), leaving the primary one open? Or is any and all unspecified bridge blowing gamey and unsportsmanlike? This is why I asked, as I don't like my games to end on a bad note (him thinking I cheated, was gamey, unsportmanlike...)

Regards,

Ryan

NOTE: I am playing as Axis defender, if it matters.

[ April 12, 2002, 06:49 PM: Message edited by: Panther G ]

[Mattias]

I for one would be pissed off. I suggest you forget the idea for now and take it up with your opponent before you start your next battle that involves river crossing.

Blowing it up now could very well turning things sour, unless you get an ok from him first.

--

M.

[Splinty]

I would say if it's tactically sound to blow the bridges then go ahead and blow them,this is a war simulation after all.

[Mattias]

Splinty,

The point is that if the blown bridge destroys the fun of playing the scenario it is no fun to play. Some play it for the game, some play it for the simulation but they share the underlying idea of having fun.

[Nice Ed.]

M.

[ April 12, 2002, 07:56 PM: Message edited by: Mattias ]

[The_Capt]

Funny you should mention that scenario.

I am a strong believer in "thinking out of the box" and blowing the bridges is definitely in that catagory for that scenario.

The problem is once you do, you have unfairly unbalanced the scenario in the favour of the Axis.

This is really a flaw in design (it is a wooden bridge) and game engine (stone masonary bridges are damn near impossible to blow up with demolition explosives let alone direct fire). In CM these bridges are too vulnerable and that was not taken into account in the design of the scenario.

It is a viable tactic and all is fair in love and war. But you opponent might be pissed. You may want to play a split version where you blow the bridge and "not" blow the bridge to get a true feel for the game.

Lastly I definitely wouldn't count this as a ladder game.

[Panther G]

OK, I guess I'll ask him. Or maybe do you guys think I should totally abandon the idea as too unrealistic/unfair/gamey/not-within-the-scope-of-CM?

Thanks for all the replies.

Ryan

[Panther G]

Originally posted by Mattias:

I suggest you forget the idea for now and take it up with your opponent before you start your next battle that involves river crossing.

We just started. He sent me one setup turn and I sent mine back, and that's as far as we are. I was looking at the map during the setup planning my strategy for the game and blowing the bridge(s) seemed like a smart thing to do, tactically-wise. However, like I said before, I don't like to end games on a bad note and don't want to cheat or be gamey, so I guess I will have to either ask him or get a new defensive plan.

Regards,

Ryan

[Pzman]

Originally posted by Panther G:

OK, I guess I'll ask him. Or maybe do you guys think I should totally abandon the idea as too unrealistic/unfair/gamey/not-within-the-scope-of-CM?

Thanks for all the replies.

Ryan

As I said before the Germans blew up bridges all the time. Look at the Rhineland Campaign for example. As for fair in the scenario you are playing it wouldn't be. Its within the scope of CM because the Germans destroyed Bridges over the Rhine, and many other places with artillery and HE, from other guns. Its realistic but not very fair.

[Mattias]

If you just started with All or Noting I think there is still time to ask him. Go ahead, can't hurt

M.

[Panther G]

Originally posted by Panzerman:

[QBAs I said before the Germans blew up bridges all the time. Look at the Rhineland Campaign for example. As for fair in the scenario you are playing it wouldn't be. Its within the scope of CM because the Germans destroyed Bridges over the Rhine, and many other places with artillery and HE, from other guns. Its realistic but not very fair.[/QB]

I mean not realistic in terms of the CM engine, having the wooden bridges be so flimsy and easy to destroy. Also, a wooden bridge can hold as many Jagdtigers as you can fit but can be destroyed in a flash. Hmm... I'll ask him right now. Thanks!

Ryan

[Bigdog]

If a scenario designer doesn’t want a bridge blown he puts a heavy stone bridge if there are multiple crossings and he uses wood bridge Blow the thing! Its not as easy as you think you may need 3 turns to accomplish this with 105mm and the gun is exposed to in coming armor

[Count Zero]

Hey, leave the bridge alone!

=)

Seriously, do what you want. I would probably not blow that bridge as the defender, but it`s up to you. I won`t get upset no matter what you do.

(on a side note, I might not get a reply back to you before the end of the weekend, kinda busy right now)

[lcm1947]

Just my personal opinion but I say blowing a bridge was done in war and still is. If it stops the enemy from getting at you this is makes sense. If it slows the enemy down it makes sense and if it makes it more difficult for the enemy then it makes sense. Now if you are simply concerned with how your opponent will take it then ask him. I again personally think it would be very smart - even if I was on the recieving end. I might not like it but I would certainly appreciate the tactic. Besides you're not supposed to consider your enemies feeling or concern. Well at least not in real life.

[Pvt. Ryan]

In real life if a bridge is blown before you you could look for another place to cross or have the engineers build a temporary bridge. In CM you can't look for another off map crossing and building bridges is out of the scope of CM. Therefore I would say blowing the bridges would ruin the scenario if the attacker can't possibly win without armor or AFVs. If the scenario was designed so that the defender was expected to blow the bridges and the attacker could still win with infantry and artillery (and long range armor), then the scenario would still be playable if the bridges were blown. It would a bit of a cruel joke by the designer to give the attacker a larger armored force that is ultimately worthless.

[Patgod]

i would have to say if i'm defending, and your armor is the major threat to my position, and i can stop that threat with a blown bridge...boom.

[Scott B]

I agree with no one in particular.

Actually, I recall from somewhere that at least in the modern U.S. Army, the decision to destroy a bridge has to come from fairly high up-- I want to say corps level-- and I suspect that this may well have been the case historically as well.

The commanders on each side of the battle would have been briefed in advance as to whether the bridge should be targeted; it would be an appropriate thing for the scenario designer to include in the side briefings, at least. In very few circumstances should an attacking unit blunder in complete surprise into an intact bridge without being aware of its existance.

Scott

[ASL Veteran]

Yes, the Captain and I had a small run in on this one. We smoothed it over I'm happy to say - but it was at the expense of completing that particular game. I've played All or Nothing numerous times as the German and you can make life miserable for the British without blowing the bridges. Blowing the bridges does unbalance the scenario. If you are going to blow one bridge, what's to stop you from blowing two bridges? There are two wooden bridges in All or Nothing. If blowing one bridge is going to be your strategy then why not blow them both and make it a clean sweep? Blowing them both makes it a physical impossibility for the British to enter the town, so you can ensure victory that way. In fact, why don't you just blow both bridges by using direct fire on turn 1? Use the 88 on the one in front of town and use the StuG on the one by the RR tracks. I'm sure this will make for a challenging and fun scenario as your opponent surrenders in disgust on turn 5.

As far as blowing bridges goes - well, I have to say the Captain would know better than I, but I don't normally associate direct howitzer fire as a common method of bridge blowing. Generally speaking I think the method would be to set charges. Now if CM had the ability to blow bridges with set demolition charges and such charges were provided in the scenario then it would be apparent that the bridge was meant to be destroyed. Without that though - that tactic is questionable at best because of the unbalancing effect it has on a scenario and because of the unusual nature of blasting bridges with howitzer fire.

[Mattias]

Originally posted by ASL Veteran:

I'm sure this will make for a challenging and fun scenario as your opponent surrenders in disgust on turn 5.

Exactly! Does anybody still have trouble understanding this?

--

Originally posted by lcm1947:

Besides you're not supposed to consider your enemies feeling or concern. Well at least not in real life.

Kidding, right?

In any event, a heart warming thought indeed and apparently at the core of the pro blow movement.

The problem is that by not considering the feelings of your enemies you debase yourself. And if you base your actions on that it doesn't matter if you do "right" or "wrong", from a moral standpoint you have already lost.

It's smack back to the "middle ages"...

--

M.

[ April 13, 2002, 03:50 AM: Message edited by: Mattias ]

[Naja]

Wow! Mattias, a more succinct and eloquent reply I haven't read.... Morality is becoming more fleeting with time...just within grasp at this stage in mankind's reality..must be the ebb and flow of life ...or I'm getting older hehe

Oh well, I still hear that little voice that objects to my stubborn abandonment of decency.

[lcm1947]

OK, OK. Leave the bridge alone. After thinking about it it is just a game and I don't suppose it would be much fun if your opponent didn't have a fair chance. What was I thinking? Still think it would have been cool though to be able to see your opponents face when it blew. Course he would probably want to beat you up.

[Michael Dorosh]

ASL Veteran is absolutely correct - bridge demolition via direct HE fire was certainly not common; why anyone would suggest it was is beyond me.

The scenario was designed, as far as I can tell, without the aspect of bridge demolition being considered, and it should be played that way. If there is no capability for deliberate bridge destruction in CM, why should we assume it is ok to unbalance a scenario with ahistorical bridge destruction (that shouldn't have even been in the code, really.

And come on, guys, how often was this even done tactically? There are way too many considerations regarding logistics for an on the spot Leutnant or Hauptmann to be given the ultimate power of destroying a bridge...Saving Private Ryan notwithstanding). The Bridge at Remagen was ordered destroyed by higher command authority than the field grade officer on the scene; the attempted Nijmegen Bridge demolition was overseen personally by a battle group commander, no?

Look at it this way - your man on the ground in the scenario is not going to know what his headquarters is planning for that bridge. If he was, there would be a provision for planned demolitions.

I think the fact that planned demolitions were left ouf of CM is grounds for a good case against any kinds of bridge demolitions - both from a realism standpoint and a gameplay standpoint.