VonWebb Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 I am assuming that with CM Normandy we will have the inclusion of Bridges. Will we be able to Destroy those bridges with Engineers or air support? Pretty please Say Yes? Cheers -Lon 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan/california Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Planes were not very effective against bridges in WW2, not at all really. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sequoia Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Everything they've said so far has been yes to water and bridges (at least bridges over water) in the WWII game. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VonWebb Posted February 13, 2009 Author Share Posted February 13, 2009 Surely engineers were though! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadioactiveMan Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Can I have bombs that bounce off the surface of the water like giant skipping stones before crashing into dams/bridges/MG-42 positions? Pretty please say yes... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 I do feel sorry for poor Charles. So many hopes and expectations on his shoulders. I recall Steve joked recently that he was hoping to see a piece of the job stimulus package, put BFC into a fancy office tower - and maybe hire a second programmer. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 Yeah, bridges over water are a must. Being able to destroy them is also a must, even though there are probably few examples of even contested bridges being blown up during active CM scale combat. The exceptional and/or important ones, however, get a lot of attention in the history books. The majority of demolished bridges were done prior to engagement with enemy forces because it simply was a surer bet. Little thought was put towards doing it under enemy fire so as to give wargamers cool, dramatic material for scenarios for hundreds of years to come Air and artillery against bridges were generally ineffective in demolishing a bridge. Sometimes they weakened them enough that they would collapse under their own weight later on, or were at least rendered temporarily unusable due to either damage or risk from the actual attacks at the time they happened. Direct fire, by tanks and SP artillery, could easily take out small bridges if given the opportunity. But for big ones... fuhgeddaboutit Engineers, with enough explosives an time to set them correctly, were the primary way of bringing a bridge down in WW2. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 I would like to see bridges that support only (for example) 10, 20 or 35 tons. It would also be interesting to have bridges degrade, so that after taking substantial damage but before collapsing they'd only be crossable by infantry. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 AIUI, 9th(?) USAAF at least got pretty good at dropping bridges over the summer of 1944. So good they could pretty much guarantee dropping one in a single raid of eight (8) a/c (P-47), each with 1x1,000# bomb. However, that was well behind - 10s to 100s of miles behind - the FEBA. So, OoS for CM on two counts. Firstly, 8 a/c is way more than you could reasonably expect to get in a CM-sized battle, and secondly most CM maps don't extend that far. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sequoia Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 Is it possible we'll get steel girder bridges in addition to the stone bridges we got in CMX1? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 I would like to see bridges that support only (for example) 10, 20 or 35 tons. That reminds me, BFC has been talking about eventually rereleasing a European theatre CMSF version using the reworked WWII game engine. Having a 70 ton Abrams roll onto the middle of a 35 ton capacity bridge could make for some entertaining post-collapse screenshots 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 I want to see a small bridge over a steeply banked stream collapse as a Tiger II drives over it. That is sooo needed. Then I want the NEXT Tiger II to drive across the top of the first one. Oh yes. Wooden bridges can't be forgotten. Even small foot-traffic ones. And trestle bridges. How can I play "Van Ryan's Express" without a friggin' huge trestle bridge? Build me my bridges!!! Ken 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinkins Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 Hey ... no one has read the stimulus bill completely. I bet support for BF is buried in the section for the bullet train from Orlando to Vegas. But don't expert anything for 5 years until the environmental impact is done. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VonWebb Posted February 14, 2009 Author Share Posted February 14, 2009 Well I've been making a "For Whom the Bell Tolls" scenario and it's kinda hard to Sim without actually being able to blow up a bridge... I have to abstract it. which then got me to wishing..... hence the forum post. Engineers working under heavy fire... under the clock. KABOOM. drool. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete Wenman Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 it's kinda hard to Sim without actually being able to blow up a bridge... I have to abstract it. Well you can sort of blow bridges. Have a look at my "A Bridge too Far Scenario " in the repository. A building can be used to make an infantry passable bridge, and as a building can be destroyed in a number of ways. It might work for what you are trying to do. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 Yup, JonS is correct. I should have been more specific. Tactically relevant air support, in CM terms, was ineffective at bringing down a bridge. But a planned attack against a bridge, with enough aircraft in the mix, could do the job (eventually) of bringing down a bridge. Two issues with that: 1. Attackers who have bridges within tactical range (i.e. less than a couple thousand meters) are generally trying to seize the bridge, not destroy it. 2. Attackers who are within tactical range are generally too close to risk heavy air attacks due to the chances of friendly fire. Remember, communications were not as good back then so it would be entirely possible to have seized a bridge by accident just as the air power came in to destroy it, simply because someone didn't (or wasn't able to) communicate what was going on. So practically speaking, the sorts of airpower we simulate for tactical battles should not be taking bridges out. At least not for WW2 setting. Yup, we would also like to have different bridges which allow different sorts of traffic on them. Not sure how subtle we can make it, but it's definitely a part of the design goal for bridges. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VonWebb Posted February 14, 2009 Author Share Posted February 14, 2009 i tried with using rooftops as the bridge and then you can have engineers blast the building right? The trouble i had with that is in the book there is armor... and armor should be able to cross the bridge if it hasn't been blown. Though I suppose you can say that i am being a tad anal about that, lol, because it is "either, or" and i can't have both and if i abstract the demolition then armor will still be able to cross. so hell...... Still balancing the scenario and i'm sure it will be up soon and needs to be tested. so maybe i'll go back and try the rooftop bridge approach again. good jerry rig btw... i read about that awhile ago. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 Yeah, it's possible to make a bridge with rooftops. It isn't pretty and has a bunch of limitations, such as no vehicles can go over it , but I've seen it done. The limitations require quite a bit of coding to address, which is why we never planned on having bridges in CM:SF. Fortunately, they aren't really all that important for an arid environment so skipping them was feasible. Not so with Normandy... bridges are vital for a temperate environment. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sequoia Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 Are we going to get assault boats/rafts like in CMX1? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dietrich Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 Being able to destroy them is also a must, even though there are probably few examples of even contested bridges being blown up during active CM scale combat. The exceptional and/or important ones, however, get a lot of attention in the history books. The majority of demolished bridges were done prior to engagement with enemy forces because it simply was a surer bet. Most of the instances I've read regarding tactical battles for bridges were where the attacking force seized the bridge before the defenders blew it up -- c.f. the Germans' capturing of the bridges on the Bug river on July 22, 1941. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 Dietrich, Yes, that's the most typical scenario. Bridges are not blown when they might help your forces, but as soon as that equation changes then blowing them up is often a top priority. If the bridge is lost before that happens then artillery and air strikes are used to try and "fix" the problem. Usually, though, there isn't ground combat going on within a few hundred or thousand meters of the bridge. Which is why I said there are very few examples in all of WW2 where destroying a bridge within the context of what CM simulates. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSpkr Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 Surely engineers were though!Not as effective as one might think. Recall, for example, the German debacle at Nijmegen. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 Or the German debacle at Remagen Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.