Is it gamey to blow bridges?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by lcm1947:

Just my personal opinion but I say blowing a bridge was done in war and still is.

If anyone can provide a real life example (you may want to start your searches with the Battle of the Bulge, it is possible there are examples there) of a company commander ordering the destruction of a bridge without higher command authority, let him speak now. I would be genuinely interested in knowing what level of command was the "norm" for the ordered destruction of a bridge in a tactical setting.

[jjelinek]

In reality there would have been a possiblity that the Germans would have blown the bridge. Could be a design flaw in the senario. It was designed by KwazyDog. Can we get his input here?

If it would make you feel better don't blow them until the Briitsh have units on them. You wouldn't be expected to be so kind as to hold your fire until they can get off the bridge would you? Oops, I missed your squad and hit the bridge. Sorry.

Also there is a slim chance that British could win if the bridges are blown. There are two fords for the infantry to cross. There is line of sight across the river in some areas for the British armour. Also the British have a fair amount of artillery to provide support where the armour cannot.

[Kingfish]

*****SPOILER******

*

*

*

*

*

*

Spoiler info for the 'Courseuless-sur-Mer' scenario.

Speaking of blown bridges, here is a very rare pic (to me at least) of a destroyed wooden bridge in a scenario I was playing earlier today. The bridge took a direct hit from a 14" round. I was actually aiming for the area to the right of the PB, and you can see several craters there.

Is this what destoyed wooden bridges look like taken out by DF? Just want to know if this image is rare.

[Kwazydog]

Heya Guys!

Hehe, Ive been so busy I havnt even noticed this thread was about the scenario I designed My thought...

Hmmm, hard call, but I didnt really expect the Germans to blow any bridges to be honest. The German player has been ordered to stop the brits at ALL costs though, so I imagine that his orders could cover such a situation. The British player has been informed that he needs to move fast, too, before German reinforcements arrive.

If I were playing the Brits, I dont think I would be uspset if the Germans did take them out myself. I do feel that the German player should only do it as an last resort to stopping the British, not in the first turn or two. The Bristish player should also be ready to call in smoke on any important bridges within a moments notice, too, so as to protect them if necessary.

Worst case, there should be plenty of room for them to position their tanks opposite the town to cover the advance of their troops across the ford, though I have played it so many times now it is hard to have an objhective opinion to be honest.

Dan

[Panther G]

OK, I decided not to blow either bridge. For the following reasons:

(a) Decisions like this would not be commanded from such a low echelon

( It isn't all that fair

© Destroying the bridges would be wasting valuable HE ammo

(d) There are no units really available to take out a certain bridge

(e) Multiple other things I left out

Thanks for all the replies.

Regards,

Ryan

[russellmz]

hehe for a scenario that invloves having to blow a bridge on purpose try the scneario in my sig. has engineers tossing their demo packs onto a bridge to simulate setting charges.

and don't worry about play balance: the other side has quite an incentive to make you blow the bridge.

[Jazz]

Just an alternative to blowing the bridges. Sight them in with every thing you have an make it miserable to cross them

[Holien]

Just read the thread and it has been said previous.

The rule of thumb is don't blow unless the designer says this is acceptable.

Or if you are playing a close friend and don't mind taking the grief that comes from doing that.

When playing a close friend you can take any liberty (Gamey action) you want as they know where you live and can take any disputes off line.

H

[Panther G]

Originally posted by russellmz:

hehe for a scenario that invloves having to blow a bridge on purpose try the scneario in my sig. has engineers tossing their demo packs onto a bridge to simulate setting charges.

and don't worry about play balance: the other side has quite an incentive to make you blow the bridge.

Yeah, I played that a while ago, and it was very fun. I reviewed at the depot if I remember correctly...

Originally posted by Jazz:Just an alternative to blowing the bridges. Sight them in with every thing you have an make it miserable to cross them.

Hehe... Will do.

Regards,

Ryan

[ASL Veteran]

Originally posted by KwazyDog:

The British player has been informed that he needs to move fast, too, before German reinforcements arrive.

If the German is intent on blowing the bridges then it is physically impossible for the British to move fast enough to prevent the destruction of the bridges

I do feel that the German player should only do it as an last resort to stopping the British, not in the first turn or two.

In my mind, there is no difference morally between blowing the bridges on turn 1 or on turn 40. If you are going to blow the bridge you are going to blow the bridge - timing makes no difference since the water obstacle is just as impassible in either case.

The Bristish player should also be ready to call in smoke on any important bridges within a moments notice, too, so as to protect them if necessary.

As soon as I realized what was being done I did drop smoke in front of the offending gun with my onboard mortars - problem was that it only took three shots from his 150 IG to drop the bridge so smoke is not a sufficient deterrent. The smoke had barely started to come out of the shells before the bridge was smashed.

Worst case, there should be plenty of room for them to position their tanks opposite the town to cover the advance of their troops across the ford, though I have played it so many times now it is hard to have an objhective opinion to be honest.

Dan

Alas my good friend, the two fords are not in front of the town, but over by the RR tracks (I forgive your foggy memory ). If the fords were in front of the town I think it would make it easier for the British though. The ground in front of the town is actually too low for tanks to fire very deeply into the town - but that is actually beside the point since the German wouldn't have to even be in the town to defend it. Let's say the British player did try to cross the fords with infantry alone? First thing the German does is place a ton of armor on the back side of that mountain to cover the road from the ford by the (blown) RR bridge. Armor and IGs can also cover the open ground in front of the church from behind the mountain without fear of reprisal. The British artillery is plentiful, but he wouldn't know precisely where the German was and there is a lot of terrain to hide in.

Ya know what? I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is - I guarantee victory as the German with both bridges blown. Anyone want to take me on as the British? E-mail me if you're interested. I never tire of torturing British players in this scenario. Adding bridge destruction into the mix will make it that much more sweet. (Full disclosure requirements: I've played this scenario PBEM at least 5 times as the German - one time vs Kwazydog himself.)

I really think this is an issue that should be addressed in CMBB - bridges should be permanent structures not subject to demolition. What's the point of putting a bridge in a scenario if it is going to be blown up? Try playing Augen Zu as the German if the Americans blow up the bridges on turn 1. How about that Arnhem operation from the disk by Wild Bill? If the British could blast that bridge what effect would that have on the operation? The balance effects blowing bridges have on a scenario are so significant that CMBB shouldn't even allow for bridge destruction.

BTW Dan, haven't seen a turn from Mortain in ... oh, I think its been six months! That's okay, just finish up with CMBB instead!!

[Mattias]

Originally posted by ASL Veteran:

Can I tag along on that bet? It took me 6 turns to blow up both bridges and I'd like to see the limey who can run those Churchills fast enough for that

As ASL says, after that the British player is toast.

M.

[RaggedyMan]

Perhaps as a middle-of-the-road suggestion, maybe blow *one* of the wooden bridges up and then, knowing that you are going to demolish the bridge of your choosing, concentrate your defenses on the other approach. This will leave it "still-playable" but will require a bit more ingenuity on your attacker's part...plus, if they are wooden bridges, then in my mind I see them more as a local solution particular to a county, city or locale rather than a feature of the country's infrastructure.

Or you could go the tried and true method and just blame it on aggressive termites.

[Panther G]

Originally posted by ASL Veteran:

How about that Arnhem operation from the disk by Wild Bill? If the British could blast that bridge what effect would that have on the operation?

They couldn't if they wanted to. The brits don't have any units that could take out a tall stone bridge. What effect would it have? Well that depends if units had already gotten across. If they had then the German player fights his way in from the Arnhem side of the city. Anyway, the british mission in that scenario is to capture both sides of the Arnhem bridge intact and hold it. Blowing the bridge would be doing the German's work for them, denying Allied units a intact bridge over the Rhine.

Regards,

Ryan

[ASL Veteran]

Originally posted by Panther G:

They couldn't if they wanted to. The brits don't have any units that could take out a tall stone bridge. What effect would it have? Well that depends if units had already gotten across. If they had then the German player fights his way in from the Arnhem side of the city. Anyway, the british mission in that scenario is to capture both sides of the Arnhem bridge intact and hold it. Blowing the bridge would be doing the German's work for them, denying Allied units a intact bridge over the Rhine.

Regards,

Ryan

Yes, I see you thinking of reality here. Nope, an operation currently can be destruction or advance so the British don't actually have to capture both sides of the bridge in order to win the operation (since I think it is a destruction operation). In fact, if you've played the operation before you will note that all the German reinforcements come in on the other side of the bridge (in the green set up zone) and very few units are allowed to remain in the black set up zone on the "British" side of the bridge - and none enter on that side. However, if you doubt the effect that the destruction of the bridge in the Arnhem operation would have, perhaps you can try it vs the AI while replacing one of the bridge tiles with a destroyed bridge tile in the editor. I would take you on myself, but I think it would be too boring to play.

Yes, I know that the British are not capable of destroying the bridge in that operation, but you have to agree that bridge destruction has a dramatic effect on the play balance of a scenario - that's the whole point I'm making. Nobody has yet shown that it was common practice to destroy bridges with howitzer fire either. On top of that you also have the matter of who gives the authorization to blow a bridge? If it above battalion HQ then it is (to coin one of Steve's favorite terms) outside of the scope of the game. Especially since bridges were generally destroyed before the enemy troops even reached the immediate vicinity.

[ASL Veteran]

Originally posted by RaggedyMan:

Perhaps as a middle-of-the-road suggestion, maybe blow *one* of the wooden bridges up and then, knowing that you are going to demolish the bridge of your choosing, concentrate your defenses on the other approach. This will leave it "still-playable" but will require a bit more ingenuity on your attacker's part...plus, if they are wooden bridges, then in my mind I see them more as a local solution particular to a county, city or locale rather than a feature of the country's infrastructure.

Or you could go the tried and true method and just blame it on aggressive termites.

Bridge blowing is like Caesar crossing the Rubicon. Once you've blown one you might as well blow both cause you've made a choice in how you are going to play. There is no way to justify blowing one as being okay and blowing both as being not okay. As a matter of fact, I would say that if your concious tells you that blowing both is probably gamey, then you should probably not blow any at all.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by ASL Veteran:

Yes, I know that the British are not capable of destroying the bridge in that operation, but you have to agree that bridge destruction has a dramatic effect on the play balance of a scenario - that's the whole point I'm making. Nobody has yet shown that it was common practice to destroy bridges with howitzer fire either. On top of that you also have the matter of who gives the authorization to blow a bridge? If it above battalion HQ then it is (to coin one of Steve's favorite terms) outside of the scope of the game. Especially since bridges were generally destroyed before the enemy troops even reached the immediate vicinity.

Yes, you both reconfirm my two main points

a) tactically, bridge blowing was not very often in the hands of a lower level commander

if blowing a bridge was going to be considered acceptable in game play terms, BTS would have coded demolition rules into the game. (The whole point about Arnhem Bridge being a prize to the allies is a bit beside the point - the computer programming doesn't know that, and the player has no incentive to not destroy it, the fact that the British player in that scenario has no way of doing so is a happy coincidence for all concerned.)

I too would also like to see an answer to my question about real life bridge demolition on a tactical scale - ie who gave the order, and how close were the enemy at the time. If anyone has an example of direct fire HE dropping a major span, would be thrilled to read about that too.

[RaggedyMan]

Originally posted by ASL Veteran:

Bridge blowing is like Caesar crossing the Rubicon. Once you've blown one you might as well blow both cause you've made a choice in how you are going to play. There is no way to justify blowing one as being okay and blowing both as being not okay. As a matter of fact, I would say that if your concious tells you that blowing both is probably gamey, then you should probably not blow any at all.

I guess we're passing each other on this one, ASL Veteran. My suggestion to blow one of the two bridges is from the assumptions that: a) the attacker would logically turn back if there were NO bridges in an area to cross, making the scenario a non-encounter, and as long as there is one way across, high command will send units across it. If this was an operation or a widescale offensive to which I was defending, I would blow every damn bridge except one to create the kind of bottleneck that would be easy to control, especially until I could leverage reserves to move up and support the poor bastards holding off the attacker.

But I think this goes back to earlier posts about "the game" versus the "tactics". And it will ultimately fall that the bridges are too easy to demolish and there was perhaps a slip of thought in the approach that people might take to the scenario. I do think, however, that from a tactical (non-game) point of view blowing at least one of the bridges would be in the defender's interest.

But to say that if you blow one you may as well blow the other, looking at it from a scenario standpoint, is too emotional of an argument for a rational situation. Now if we were dealing with younger players who might not understand that you should leave an approach so that the fight can happen, I would agree with you. But there seem to be far too many level heads on these forums, IMO, for that to be a real, unworkable problem.

I guess we're very lucky that the chaps at Battlefront put the editor in with the kit, so we can at least change the wooden bridges to stone ones for the sake of mooting the argument. Anyway, I'm very curious as to where the actual authority rested vis-a-vis, bridge demolition. As I recall from Wacht-on-Rein (sp?), in particular, somewhere around Bastogne, there were small groups of engineers frustrating the German advance by blowing up bridges? Damn my memory, I saw something referring to this briefly on the History Channel a while ago, shame on me. :confused:

[Marlow]

Originally posted by RaggedyMan:

I guess we're very lucky that the chaps at Battlefront put the editor in with the kit, so we can at least change the wooden bridges to stone ones for the sake of mooting the argument. Anyway, I'm very curious as to where the actual authority rested vis-a-vis, bridge demolition. As I recall from Wacht-on-Rein (sp?), in particular, somewhere around Bastogne, there were small groups of engineers frustrating the German advance by blowing up bridges? Damn my memory, I saw something referring to this briefly on the History Channel a while ago, shame on me. :confused:

Trois Ponts. A company of engineers blocked the advance of KG Peiper by slowing down the German attack, and then blowing a couple of bridges. I have no idea what level the orders to blow the bridges came from.

[ April 15, 2002, 08:32 AM: Message edited by: Marlow ]

[xerxes]

I never knew bridges could be blown up at all. I thought that since you can lay demolitions on a bridge they couldn't be blown up. I'm currently having people playtest a scenario for me and I just realized I have two key wooden bridges. If both bridges are blown, the German player will absolutely and totally lose.

Guess I better ban it in the briefing or look at making them stone.

[The_Capt]

Before everybody surries away trying to find obscure historical references for Dorosh let me shed some light on this, and Michael if you have any doubts just ask Capt Heth who the finest Engr officer the CF has produced in 20 yrs is..

Bridges, bridges, bridges....

"Bridge over troubled waters"

"Who's-his-nuts jumped off the Talahasy Bridge"

The mighty bridge question. Well in reality it depends on the Operational and sometimes Strategic importance of the crossing which determines who controls the button.

Now that authority can be given to the local commander or a "blow on looming capture order" but in reality not very often is given. Bridges which have to come down are given to Engrs for their gentle handling. Any bridge which has to be brought down by Direct Fire (a realistic tactic btw) has either not had Engrs available or was not suppose to come down at all.

So the bottom line is "no" it was not common and normally an order would be given to deal with the bridge or not prior to deploying to an area.

Now what this has to do with the question at hand is beyond me. Unless you are planning to sight your trenches from historical photos too and attempt a digital reinactment of the entire battle then my short answer is "who cares". If a player has been given the resources to do something within a scenario then he has the God given freedom to exercise those resources pretty much as he sees fit.

This is not an ethical question or larger statement on the condition of humanity. It is a simple case of "in game" tools being given to a player and being used in a certain way.

Now that being said, if you have an agreement on what you can or can't do during the game then by all means live by them, otherwise all is fair.

Now there is a flaw in the scenario and that is the fact that those bridges are in fact easy to blow up making the game unwinnable by the Brits. I would recommend that if anyone is going to play this game they do agree to a "no blown bridge rule". When ASL Vet and I played, I blew a bridge in large part because we did not have an agreement and also because I did not realize how quickly those bridges go down (which is in itself a problem). For one I would not play the scenario without an agreement and the opening brief should be re-written to reflect this.

If one wants to include the bridge demolition angle replace the things with heavy stone bridges and give the Allies CAS this may even up the field enough and force the Brits to move more quickly.

Now I will say one last time, gamey is a matter of taste. And the time to come to an agreement on what is gamey and what isn't is at the beginning of a game. Once the first turn is played if you haven't laid down the ground rules then don't whine about one thing or another just make do and carry on.

Now let's all get along and play nice

[ April 15, 2002, 09:55 AM: Message edited by: The_Capt ]

[ASL Veteran]

Originally posted by RaggedyMan:

But I think this goes back to earlier posts about "the game" versus the "tactics". And it will ultimately fall that the bridges are too easy to demolish and there was perhaps a slip of thought in the approach that people might take to the scenario. I do think, however, that from a tactical (non-game) point of view blowing at least one of the bridges would be in the defender's interest.

The fact is that the scenario is difficult for the British player to win in it's current form vs a skilled German opponent without any bridges blown. Blow even one bridge and the scenario's balance is altered dramatically in the German's favor. I've posted on this board in the past that I couldn't lose as the Germans - and that was without any bridges being blown. Just as I guaranteed victory with both bridges blown, I can guarantee victory with one bridge blown. Without the threat of a British assault against either one route or the other, the German can concentrate all his forces on the one remaining route available to the British.

But to say that if you blow one you may as well blow the other, looking at it from a scenario standpoint, is too emotional of an argument for a rational situation.

Not really, because the balance of the scenario is being altered in your favor in either case - it is just being altered more with both bridges than with one bridge. In other words, you are giving yourself a handicap. The difference is by how large a degree. It would be similar to beginning a non bridge scenario and choosing between giving yourself a +25 bonus or a +50 bonus without consulting your opponent to find out if he is agreeable to your handicap or not. The fact that you feel that giving yourself a +25 bonus is okay and giving yourself a +50 bonus is not okay is similar to robbing a 7 Eleven and saying "well if I just take cash from the register and leave the cash in the safe" that you are somehow morally justified in your action. Once you have decided on the robbery you have already committed yourself to the immoral course of action - in our case playing a scenario against an opponent while artificially stacking the odds in your favor. If you are going to commit to robbing the 7 eleven you might as well take the money from both the register and the safe as long as you are going to be there. You are just as guilty of robbery in either case. No, our specific issue isn't robbery, but I suppose you could say that you are robbing your opponent of the chance of victory by artificially stacking the odds in your favor.

As I recall from Wacht-on-Rein (sp?), in particular, somewhere around Bastogne, there were small groups of engineers frustrating the German advance by blowing up bridges? Damn my memory, I saw something referring to this briefly on the History Channel a while ago, shame on me. :confused:

That issue (who can destroy a bridge and how is it done) is but a side issue to the main point - Should a player for either side be able to dramatically alter the balance of a scenario in his favor by actions taken within the game that your opponent has no ability to influence or counter? In a sense, this is like the gamey recon on steroids. At least you can counter gamey recon by playing differently tactically or by choosing a different force mix. Bridge destruction is going to happen regardless of what you do. If you are set on destroying a bridge there is very little your opponent can do to stop it. Finally, I would just like to highlight this part of your own sentence small groups of engineers which would imply that these groups are setting charges on the bridges - something not currently done in CMBO.

So There!!

[ASL Veteran]

Originally posted by xerxes:

I never knew bridges could be blown up at all. I thought that since you can lay demolitions on a bridge they couldn't be blown up. I'm currently having people playtest a scenario for me and I just realized I have two key wooden bridges. If both bridges are blown, the German player will absolutely and totally lose.

Guess I better ban it in the briefing or look at making them stone.

Indeed, this is precisely what I am referring to - a player's ability to dramatically alter the balance of a scenario in his favor without his opponent's ability to influence this action. I consider it to be beyond gamey - this is completely rotten in my mind. I recommend making them stone - although stone bridges can be brought down by a determined player as well it does take a little longer to accomplish.

[gibsonm]

Michael,

Current doctrine for the ADF is that demolition of major (highway) bridges are authorised by a 2 Star (Div Comd) or higher.

Hope that helps,

[Le Tondu]

Originally posted by The_Capt:

.............Now I will say one last time, gamey is a matter of taste. And the time to come to an agreement on what is gamey and what isn't is at the beginning of a game. Once the first turn is played if you haven't laid down the ground rules then don't whine about one thing or another just make do and carry on.

Now let's all get along and play nice

Well said TC. Well said. That has to be the clearest bit of sanity in this entire thread. Thanks.

[xerxes]

Here's related question. If the Scenario briefing says, "you are under orders not to destroy the bridges" would you destroy them anyway?