Tanks crossing blown bridge

Please post bug reports, complaints and generally venting that you have not yet received the game here.
Post Reply
User avatar
HvMoltke
Posts: 112
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2003 11:27 am
Location: Munich/Bavaria

Tanks crossing blown bridge

Post by HvMoltke »

I have had a strange experience, I blew a bridge across a main river as German in the campaign game, held the sholder hexes and a bunch of Russian tank units crossed exactly this non-existent bridge while footstopers didn`t.
Is that a bug or didn`t I read the manual properly. That says a main river hex can not be crossed by tanks and if a bridge is destroyed I think that hex becomes a main river hex.
If necessary I`ll attach the pictures I took.
User avatar
BrubakerII
Posts: 339
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2002 4:00 pm
Location: Adelaide Australia

Post by BrubakerII »

Hi Helm.

Can you attach the pictures for us so we can see the river/conditions?

In mud conditions, blowing a bridge will stop all movement across it. fullstop.

In snow conditions, destroying a bridge 'should' stop all mechanised and mobile movement ie. tanks, halftracks and trucks. It is possible for footsoldiers to cross presuming they have enough OP's (which generally requires they start next to the bridge in that turn).

Don't forget, some of the 'mechanised' units you may be viewing may actually begin their turn as foot infantry and only become mechanised when the use extended (trucks etc) movement. Many panzer divisions fall in this category: an armoured regiment (cannot cross), a mechanised infantry regiment (who may or mat not genin their turn as foot infantry), a mounted infantry unit (who may or may not begin their turn as foot infantry), and a recon battalion (which will be mechanised or equal to).

In addition, the Germans also have motorised infantry units whose state changes when using advanaced movement.

Hope this helps.
[8D] SSG Beta Tester [8D]
User avatar
HvMoltke
Posts: 112
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2003 11:27 am
Location: Munich/Bavaria

Post by HvMoltke »

Hi Brubacker II
I tried to attach pictures of the situation before and after the crossing happened
How do I see whether it works or not?
Wallenstein
Posts: 91
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2003 11:41 pm
Location: Austria

Post by Wallenstein »

Hello!
Can you specify the hexes where the crossing took place?
User avatar
Rob Gjessing
Posts: 525
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2003 5:09 am
Location: Sydney Australia
Contact:

Post by Rob Gjessing »

Are you sure the bridge is over a main river? It could be a minor river.
Isn't that bizarre?
User avatar
HvMoltke
Posts: 112
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2003 11:27 am
Location: Munich/Bavaria

Post by HvMoltke »

Hallo Rob
I had a more careful look at the situation and ...you are right its only a minor river. So just blowing bridges doesn`t always solve the problem, you have to look what kind of river the bridge spans.
User avatar
BrubakerII
Posts: 339
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2002 4:00 pm
Location: Adelaide Australia

Post by BrubakerII »

Hi HvM

Just caught up with this thread again.

Looking at your pictures I think Rob is right - that is the river is a minor one. This means therefore there is no 'major' obstacle for armour to cross in good (snow) conditions, despite the road being out

[note: whether this is realistic or not is another topic]

Recreating your situation I found that the cost to move from one side of theat broken bridge to another was 10 OPs. The armour could accomplish it when using advanced movement, wherby they get huge amounts of extra OPs, enough in fact to launch them across the river and beyond.

The reason the motorised infantry could not do same was as follows - a unit may not mount trucks (ie. become motorised) when adjacent to enemy units. This is the case of those motorised infantry. Therefore, they could not gain those extra OPs necessary to get over the river. Simple eh?

What I would have liked to try but didn't was moving the motorised infantry back one hex using normal movement, and then seeing whether using advanced movement would have pushed it across as well. I suspect the fact it would have been motorised on a road would again not have allowed it to have contact with enemy forces, and it would have in that case just been able to retreat further ;)
[8D] SSG Beta Tester [8D]
User avatar
Fred98
Posts: 4019
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Wollondilly, Sydney

Post by Fred98 »

BrubakerII wrote:
The reason the motorised infantry could not do same was as follows - a unit may not mount trucks (ie. become motorised) when adjacent to enemy units.

I didn't know that. You learn somthing new every day :)
User avatar
BrubakerII
Posts: 339
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2002 4:00 pm
Location: Adelaide Australia

Post by BrubakerII »

I think what can be confusing is the difference between mechanised and motorised units. Althought they look nearly identical, they are not in one very important way: mechanised can use advanced movement when adjacent to the enemy (as can armour) whereas motorised follow the rules of all wheeled transport.
[8D] SSG Beta Tester [8D]
User avatar
Rob Gjessing
Posts: 525
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2003 5:09 am
Location: Sydney Australia
Contact:

Post by Rob Gjessing »

Given this isnt a bug, maybe a moderator (or someone make me one :)) should move this to the general forums..
Isn't that bizarre?
User avatar
BrubakerII
Posts: 339
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2002 4:00 pm
Location: Adelaide Australia

Post by BrubakerII »

A have made you a moderator Rob. It took about 2 hours, a welder and a whole heap of old bike parts. It is quite ugly at present but I will give it a lick of red paint on the weekend to pretty it up.

Let me know where you want it posted to and I will advise the postage.

regards.
[8D] SSG Beta Tester [8D]
User avatar
Rob Gjessing
Posts: 525
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2003 5:09 am
Location: Sydney Australia
Contact:

Post by Rob Gjessing »

Do I have to pay for postage? Stick it on an FTP site and I'll grab it from there..
Isn't that bizarre?
Post Reply

Return to “Korsun Pocket Support”