How do I blow bridges up ? (staf&testers Q)

[YankeeDog]

I've just finished reading Mark Zuehlke's brilliant On To Victory that covers the Canadian campaign from late March through May 1945 liberating Holland.

Blown bridges were commonplace during those battles ... [snip]

I would still argue that, for the purposes of a CM scenario, even in those environments where water crossings are common and critical, it's better to start the scenario either (a) immediately after the bridge has been blown, in which case the scenario is depicting the battle to secure an alternate crossing (or secure the areas around the abutments to the blown bridge, so that a new temporary bridge can be built), or ( sometime before the bridge has been blown, depicting the German delaying action so that they have time to properly charge and prime the bridge.

CM is intended to present an interesting slice of tactical action, not the entire war, 24 hours/day, 7 days/week.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have the eye candy for things like bridge demolition. But realistically, 90% of the time, an event like this that changes the situation at the operational level is either the instigator for the kind of critical tactical engagement that makes a good CM scenario, or is the denouement to the CM scenario. Either way, it's a bookend, not part of the main narrative.

[GhostRider3/3]

I knew in CMx1 you can have battle damaged buildings, or ones on Fire... LOL Since Fire is not really modeled yet does any of the Beta testors or Admins know if there are verying degrees of battle damaged buildings? Also will damaged also be modeled with Bridges, or do we simply just not finish a bridge to give the impression that it has been destroyed?

I am just anxious to begin some beautiful artwork.... LOL the Editor is my canvas...

Semper Fi.

[dieseltaylor]

How about taking an FOO with your sneaky night-time commando force and he calls in the artillery on the bridge?

[Dingchavez]

I knew in CMx1 you can have battle damaged buildings, or ones on Fire... LOL Since Fire is not really modeled yet does any of the Beta testors or Admins know if there are verying degrees of battle damaged buildings? Also will damaged also be modeled with Bridges, or do we simply just not finish a bridge to give the impression that it has been destroyed?

I am just anxious to begin some beautiful artwork.... LOL the Editor is my canvas...

Semper Fi.

hi,

like in CMSF, you can chose to destroy walls, or the entire building, in the editor.

Concerning bridges, you can chose whether they are intact or destroyed.

[heckler_rider]

hi,

Concerning bridges, you can chose whether they are intact or destroyed.

Hey, where's Elliot Gould? He should be in the frame somewhere!

[pagskier]

What about the defensive team beeing able to blow a bridge? is that possible?

[YankeeDog]

I think Steve from BFC's response on p. 2 of this thread was pretty clear:

Absolutely... you can't blow a bridge at all A bridge can be destroyed by HE fire, but that's a different thing.

[Wicky]

Now that's a clue - load up a truckload of combat engineers, drive to the bridge and blow 'em up....

...a truck of explosives.

Steve

I think Steve from BFC's response on p. 2 of this thread was pretty clear:

[pagskier]

aah but I tought as attacker, could id be moddable into a scenario?

I mean you set a blow up button or something like the IED or something but it`s a blow bridge option.

Pre-game stuff in a prepared position.

[umlaut]

You can put a destroyed bridge at the beginning of the scenario

Is it then possible to have a platoon of engineers rebuild it?

[ChrisND]

Is it then possible to have a platoon of engineers rebuild it?

Er, no. That's a major operation that takes a lot of time, specialized equipment and personnel, and usually isn't done while being shot at. Seems rather pointless to simulate.

[YankeeDog]

Is it then possible to have a platoon of engineers rebuild it?

In good conditions, a team of 40 combat engineers was supposed to be able to set up a single section Bailey Bridge (60') in 3 hours. That length of time is really beyond the scope of a CM scenario.

Short, foot traffic-only bridges might be able to be set up more quickly. But I still think you're talking about an outlier in CM terms.

If you want to create a scenario like this, create a defense scenario where the defender has only infantry (no vehicles) across the river, and has to keep the attacker from gaining objectives that have line of fire to the area around the dropped bridge, so that the engineers can work. Then just set the scenario length to the length of time it would take for the engineers to raise a new bridge span. If the defender can hold on to the bridgehead until the bridge is up, he wins.

Again, you miss the eye candy of having animations of engineers working away at the bridge, but that's about it.

[JSB]

In CMSF, there was no bridge and a lot of whiners saying "Oooh, that's not fair, I just wanted to create a map with a bridge!"

Now that there will be bridges in CMBN, the first idea coming is to blow them up...

[Dingchavez]

Ben oui, parce que c'est ça qu'on aurait fait dans CMSF !

Of course, that's what we would have done in CMSF :-)

[DaveyJJ]

I would still argue that, for the purposes of a CM scenario, even in those environments where water crossings are common and critical, it's better to start the scenario either (a) immediately after the bridge has been blown, in which case the scenario is depicting the battle to secure an alternate crossing (or secure the areas around the abutments to the blown bridge, so that a new temporary bridge can be built), or ( sometime before the bridge has been blown, depicting the German delaying action so that they have time to properly charge and prime the bridge.

I agree completely. Just pointing out that bridge demolition, right up to the time an attacking force was present, was fairly common in some campaigns.

[Michael Emrys]

In CMSF, there was no bridge and a lot of whiners saying "Oooh, that's not fair, I just wanted to create a map with a bridge!"

Now that there will be bridges in CMBN, the first idea coming is to blow them up...

Rules are for breaking, bridges are for blowing up.

Michael

[MikeyD]

Really, the more we talk about it the more blown bridges sounds like sewer movement in CMBB. You'd do it a couple times just for fun, abuse it a few more times, then either get bored or disgusted with it and never use it again. Like I said before, there's nothing to stop you from targeting bridges with your artillery. And after the fourth time that you've collapsed another bridge with 155mm you'll probably never want to do that again, either.

[Dingchavez]

It is not a matter of DOING it, it is just a matter of KNOWING that you can do it :-D

[dieseltaylor]

Why would the French build a two lane road to what looks like a footbridge? And the style of bridge also suggest it is not built for any serious load. BTW if the footbridge were to one side a ford could sensibly be placed to link the roads.

I love the game but when talking of realistic scenery it helps the realism if roads and bridges actually work together. However perhaps this is just a quick knocked up example : )

[George MC]

Why would the French build a two lane road to what looks like a footbridge? And the style of bridge also suggest it is not built for any serious load. BTW if the footbridge were to one side a ford could sensibly be placed to link the roads.

I love the game but when talking of realistic scenery it helps the realism if roads and bridges actually work together. However perhaps this is just a quick knocked up example : )

I'm not sure where the screenie is from but that's a scenario design issue i.e. two lane road to what is only a footbridge. There are several bridges available in the game (differant spans as well) so in this case one of the heavier road bridges would have been more appropriate.

FWIW all the maps currently in CMBN I've seen are very realistic and the designer has gone to great lengths to create a believable environment.

[Paper Tiger]

dieseltaylor

I think what you're looking at is a screenshot of a previewer's early attempts at constructing a map with a broken bridge feature. I don't recall ever seeing such a 'bad' design like that during the entire course of playtesting. Since that is an example of intelligent design then perhaps it will help some folks who call for randomly generated maps why this would be such a waste of BFC's valuable coding time. I'd take one look at that and quit in disgust.

[Dingchavez]

Well, it was just an example to show that you can put a destroyed bridge on the map, I picked a bridge completely randomly, don't lose your sleep or jump out of the window.

If you prefer, here is the same map with another type of bridge. I don't want a wave of mass suicide among the forumers ^^

[dieseltaylor]

Thanks guys : )

Just goes to show how with some clever black propaganda you could put people off!!

The later version is beautiful!!

[Michael Emrys]

That river looks more like a drainage ditch. And the water looks more like concrete. (Just to throw in a grumpy note.)

Michael

[MarkEzra]

That river looks more like a drainage ditch. And the water looks more like concrete. (Just to throw in a grumpy note.)

Michael

With all due respect to DingC: rookie mistakes in map design are common in ANY game editor. In fact I used several RR Bridges for QB Map road bridges just because they looked so cool. Naturally I finally came to my senses and replaced them with appropriate road bridges. The latest DingC pic looks like he failed to paint a water tile before placing the destroyed bridge.

As you can imagine, I've spent a great deal of time in the CMx2 Editor. For those of you who will be new to it:

It's straight forward and the novice can grasp the basics pretty quickly. Especially when they read the manual (Cut DingC some slack..no manual). The CMx2 editor can allow the novice, with patience and practice, to produce maps that boarder on art.