BRIDGES.....

[Peter Cairns]

Any word yet on how bridges will be treated...

I know the new 8x8 with 1m overlays will make them far more flexible, but there are a number of other issues of Interest.

STRENGTH

You can get bridges wide enough to take vehicles but which can't take a tank. I don't think BF should go down the road of modeling ground pressure and doing calculations so a set of different bridges which you could visually recognise would be better. This could include insering damaged sections etc.

WIDTH

Very important as particularly in rural areas you can get strong stone bridges which are wide enough for a halftrack but not a tank.

ARCH

This is the classic Private Ryan bridge where you get a shot at the bottom as the tank comes over the brow of the bridge, but more importantly for most games it is the way the arch of a bridge can creat a hull down position. If possible this would be really good to simulate.

PARAPITS(?)

A know some models added these, but a range of railings (possibly just the ability to add fences or walls 1m out) would add really variety and can have a rewal impact on the ability to take cover when crossing.

EXOTICS

Rather than have dozens of bridge types I think things like Pegasus or swing bridges should be kept out of the basic game and be added latter in a module such as Market garden....

Peter.

[Soddball]

Something wrong with your CAPS LOCK key? It keeps switching on when you create a new subject.

[Peter Cairns]

Thankyou for that thoughtful and detailed contribution to the discussion.

Peter.

[Cameroon]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

Thankyou for that thoughtful and detailed contribution to the discussion.

Peter.

Same might be said of all caps subjects.

[Cameroon]

As for an on-topic post...

Expanded bridge detail would be a bonus, though if you could overload and collapse a bridge there'd need to be some method of guessing that.

Maybe your visual recognition suggestion gives you an idea of the capacity of the bridge, but you don't have the specifics. That is, maybe you know it will hold a tank but will it hold two?

*shrug*

I think I would like to see at least bridges that can handle vehicles and those that can't. I don't particularly like fords for simulating small, foot-traffic only bridges because of their penalties to movement. The exposure penalties don't bother me, but the speed of movement seems totally wrong as a viable solution.

In the end though, bridges aren't at the top of my interest list.

[Richie]

Diagonal bridges might be nice

[Philippe]

I'm really surprised the designers never included that in CMx1. If roads can cross a tile on the diagonal, bridges should be able to as well.

One thing I have really missed are suspension bridges for scenarios involving large bridges. The standard CMBO bridge looks fine in Normandy, but is completely inadequate for a visual representation of Remagen or the bridges in Market Garden.

There's also a problem with viaducts. In CMx1 if you make a viaduct out of a light bridge you have to put water under it. This leads to situations where you have an obvious viaduct with water under it, which is often just plain wrong, but you have no alternative.

The other problem is bridging deep gorges. Not really sure the answer on this one. With a suspension bridge you don't have a problem. But if you build like a Roman (and many people do) you'll want to stack a series of arches on top of each other. There are some famous Roman aqueducts in northern Spain that illustrate what I'm talking about. I think what you would have to do is to limit the vertical height that a bridge could be stretched -- any more than that and the bridge will start replicating itself vertically.

While we're on the subject of bridges, I would dearly like to be able to specify what the surface of a bridge consists of. I really hate it when a railroad track has to cross a bridge and suddenly turns into a road. It would be nice to have a few bridge surface options like stone, wood, steel, with/without railroad tracks.

And railroad tracks should almost always come in pairs, except on trunk lines to a factory or warehouse.

[Andrew Kulin]

I think what you ask for in your second last point will be do-able with the new engine. Steve said in the terrain thread that there will be the ability to overlay different terrain types over each other so I would think the ability to overlay railway tracks on a bridge, or crossing a road should now be possible.

[Philippe]

Remember that you don't just want to overlay the railroad track visual on a bridge surface. Tracks crossing a bridge won't have the roadbed they have in other terrain. So we'll need a separate bridge surface tile, as well as a special set of straight track tiles (vertical, horizontal, and two diagonals).

[painfbat]

As for the ETO we should have railroad for the tram, as they were in many city's. So w'll be needing an extra railmod and bridges. And what about brooks and alleys? the small bridges across brooks?

Guess it will take some time to complete CMX2

[stoat]

There was more single main line track in France at the start of WW2 than there was double main line. It is cheaper to lay one line with passing sidings than it is to lay two lines.

You must also remember the physical properties of rail as well. Things such as elevated road beds would make good cover for infantry and even better hull down positions.

Another thing. Will we see telephone lines running alongside tracks and into cities, or does this require too much coding for what is a minor detail?

[Philippe]

Did you find that in a history of the SNCF ? I wonder if the single lines you're referring to aren't really a single pair of lines.

[stoat]

The French had a large rail system in the 1930s but if the track is not connecting two major yards, it is probably only single track with passing sidings. It is cheaper that way.

[Peter Cairns]

Rail infrastructure in europe in the 30's and 40's was pretty primative by todays standards and indeed all infrastructure was.

If rail tracks are drawn on a gravel bed, then there is no reason why they can't be the same terrain on a bridge as either side.

If I understand the terrain overlay system you should be able to draw a 1m by 3m by 250m block higher than surrounding terrain, to make a raised bed.

Just as bridges can have high sides and be too narrow for heavy vehicles, it should be easy to make "Gateways that are too narrow for tanks, or even gaps in tree lines that let infantry through, allow LOF but don't let tanks cross.

This may well allow you to "Turkey shoot", armour side on from a road they can't get off... Nasty.

Anyone want to talk about "Bridges"...

Peter.

[stoat]

You should be able to blow them up.

[Peter Cairns]

"You should be able to blow them up."

Or at least parts of them..

Peter,

[Pzman]

You already can blow them up, it just takes a lot of HE.

[Soddball]

Originally posted by Philippe:

And railroad tracks should almost always come in pairs, except on trunk lines to a factory or warehouse.

Not true. There are lots of single-track railway lines. Most of the ones in the UK were closed by the Evil Dr. Beeching but they are not uncommon. Major inter-city lines would have 2 tracks.

[Soddball]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

Rail infrastructure in europe in the 30's and 40's was pretty primative by todays standards and indeed all infrastructure was.

Really? Would you honestly say that the British rail systems of the 1930s and 1940s were primitive compared to today?

I hardly think so.

[Peter Cairns]

Most of the rail we have today is based on the 30's and 40's and before...

Single track lines are not uncommon, I like on the black Isle just north of Inverness and it's largely single travk north of here and on the line to the west coast.

The expansion of rail in France and the rest of europe post war made it very different from what you would see today.

One of the points made in CM1 was that outside major towns many roads weren't even metalled.

So I have no problem with the idea that single track would be more common than double.

Peter.

[Pzman]

I don't think the type of rail line is all that important to CM, its not railroad tycoon after all.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Cameroon:

As for an on-topic post...

Expanded bridge detail would be a bonus, though if you could overload and collapse a bridge there'd need to be some method of guessing that.

Maybe your visual recognition suggestion gives you an idea of the capacity of the bridge, but you don't have the specifics. That is, maybe you know it will hold a tank but will it hold two?

I would love to see Bailey Bridges, pontoon bridges etc. in the game also. I think military bridges should have a weight limit marked on them (the real ones had signs - and all vehicles were supposed to have bridging discs so that bridge sentries would know whether or not the vehs were too heavy)

Ground pressure is already modelled as part of the bogging routine, so why not use it for bridges as well?

[ September 06, 2005, 09:08 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[painfbat]

It would be nice as the Germans used some "panzertrains" during the blitz in Holland and it would also make the scenario's more historical.

Personally I would like a CMx2 with German trains.

[Dirtweasle]

Originally posted by Pzman:

You already can blow them up, it just takes a lot of HE.

Not really... or maybe it depends on what you mean by a lot? I did some testing on this with CMBO Arty while playing in the CMMC-1 and found it was easy, (too easy if I recall the discussion with the GM community correctly), to blow even stone bridges.

[Soddball]

The tall stone bridges are now very resistant to demolition - more so than even heavy buildings.