Engineers and Bridge Repair

[Panama]

In less than five hours a 620 meter bridge can be put across a river. It's not chance based.

Let me also say, that isn't a foot bridge. That's a heavy bridge.

[Telumar]

ORIGINAL: Panama

In less than five hours a 620 meter bridge can be put across a river. It's not chance based.

Let me also say, that isn't a foot bridge. That's a heavy bridge.

Modern or WWII era? Source?

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Panama

In less than five hours a 620 meter bridge can be put across a river. It's not chance based.

Let me also say, that isn't a foot bridge. That's a heavy bridge.

Ummm...

Wouldn't that depend on the river in question? Nature of the banks, speed of current?

Also, what about requisite equipment? Your generic engineer unit may have what it takes for some conditions, but not all.

Thing is, if we somehow were able to simulate all the peculiar conditions for each crossing, including the equipment and expertise a bridging unit of that force and period was likely to have with it, we probably could say it 'wasn't chance based.'

As it is, we don't have that information, and so it is chance based.

It's a bit like deer hunting. Give me enough data -- like real-time position reports on all the deer -- and it wouldn't be chance-based. However, I don't have that data, and so it is chance-based.

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: Telumar

ORIGINAL: Panama

In less than five hours a 620 meter bridge can be put across a river. It's not chance based.

Let me also say, that isn't a foot bridge. That's a heavy bridge.

Modern or WWII era? Source?

Soviets WW2.

Bridge, type DPM-42. 5 hours is the max time listed for any bridge there. This particular one is listed as 240 minutes. Not assault crossing.

That's a lot of pontoon.

Companion to Colossus Reborn. David Glantz.

I would say if you started the turn at the river the success 'chance' would be 100%. But that would be true of any pontoon. Don't know why it's left to a die roll.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Panama

ORIGINAL: Telumar

ORIGINAL: Panama

In less than five hours a 620 meter bridge can be put across a river. It's not chance based.

Let me also say, that isn't a foot bridge. That's a heavy bridge.

Modern or WWII era? Source?

Soviets WW2.

Bridge, type DPM-42. 5 hours is the max time listed for any bridge there. This particular one is listed as 240 minutes. Not assault crossing.

That's a lot of pontoon.

Companion to Colossus Reborn. David Glantz.

I would say if you started the turn at the river the success 'chance' would be 100%. But that would be true of any pontoon. Don't know why it's left to a die roll.

But this is a Russian river. It's big -- but has modest banks and flows at a stately pace across flat country.

And it's a Russian engineer unit of 1942 -- with the equipment and training that implies.

...and even that's assuming there are no special requirements. Like one bridge the Germans couldn't figure out for a while was one they successfully bombed every day -- but every day more heavy equipment had crossed during the night.

Eventually, they realized they'd been bombing a dummy bridge. The real bridge was slightly upstream -- and built so that it was two feet under the surface of the river. Equipment could drive across quite nicely -- but the bridge was invisible. Every night, equipment poured across it -- and every night the Russians rebuilt the dummy bridge so the Germans would have something to bomb.

Presumably, that upped the building time, though. Point is, TOAW covers all sorts of periods, equipment, conditions, and requirements. It seems to me that if in a particular scenario, you want bridge repair to be a certainty, you just have to make engineer units so equipped as to have a 100% chance of success.

If you didn't want the monster engineer assault brigade this might produce, then you could use the bioeditor to create a second 'engineer' weapon stripped of some or all combat value.

...and that last might not be a bad idea anyway. Lots of engineers weren't combat engineers -- whatever TOAW might think.

[ColinWright]

Anyway, what's now being discussed isn't bridge repair -- but ferrying units.

And those are indeed all or nothing. They move into the hex, and units can either cross or they can't. No chance about it.

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

Anyway, what's now being discussed isn't bridge repair -- but ferrying units.

And those are indeed all or nothing. They move into the hex, and units can either cross or they can't. No chance about it.

The same piece of equipment does that also. Pontoons are nothing more than boats.

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

If you didn't want the monster engineer assault brigade this might produce, then you could use the bioeditor to create a second 'engineer' weapon stripped of some or all combat value.

...and that last might not be a bad idea anyway. Lots of engineers weren't combat engineers -- whatever TOAW might think.

Yes, did that one. Also made an engineer unit that kind of simulates a mine laying unit.

Most bridging engineer units would put up a pontoon, leave a small detachment to take care of it if it needed to remain in position, and move on. There were many instances where blown bridges were replaced in this way and the bridge wasn't rebuilt until after the war.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Panama

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

If you didn't want the monster engineer assault brigade this might produce, then you could use the bioeditor to create a second 'engineer' weapon stripped of some or all combat value.

...and that last might not be a bad idea anyway. Lots of engineers weren't combat engineers -- whatever TOAW might think.

Yes, did that one. Also made an engineer unit that kind of simulates a mine laying unit.

Most bridging engineer units would put up a pontoon, leave a small detachment to take care of it if it needed to remain in position, and move on. There were many instances where blown bridges were replaced in this way and the bridge wasn't rebuilt until after the war.

I can imagine. Certain individuals whose name everyone knows perfectly well like to spout the most patent absurdities about this -- but bridge repair and the 'engineer' weapon in TOAW represent only the crudest possible abstraction of several very distinct things.

And that is perhaps as it should be. We can't minutely detail everything. Shouldn't, anyway. Game would be unplayable.

However, even given that it's going to be a few broad strokes, they could be better aimed.

[ColinWright]

One thing that TOAW suffers from is that it's fairly evident that Norm based his game on a detailed study of Korea and Normandy.

Hence the absurd 'bocage.' Hence naval units that work fine -- so long as no other naval or air units are about. Hence the absence of such things as road repair, or truck units, or anyone of a myriad other things that were of vital importance elsewhere but didn't play much of a role in Korea/Normandy.

I don't blame Norm. Essentially, a good plan. 'Will it permit a simulation of all the significant factors I can find here?'

However -- and fairly obviously, to anyone other than [censored], there is the shortcoming that things that were of vital importance elsewhere simply aren't modeled.

[Panama]

Some things have a split personality that is somewhat absurd. A halftrack is one vehicle. It's also an abstract amount of vehicles. So it represents from one to infinity halftracks. Just depends on what the game is looking at. I'm sure that's how all IFV are represented. Have not looked at each of them.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: Panama

Some things have a split personality that is somewhat absurd. A halftrack is one vehicle. It's also an abstract amount of vehicles. So it represents from one to infinity halftracks. Just depends on what the game is looking at. I'm sure that's how all IFV are represented. Have not looked at each of them.

Yeah. That can be dissatisfying. Does one create a unit with absurd amounts of surplus carrying capacity, or does one omit halftracks that were in fact there?

Since they have some combat value, it matters. They were there, but on the other hand, it's not like anyone was mounting charges with herds of half-empty halftracks. They were really carriers much more than they were combat vehicles. It wasn't like those light tanks/cum personnel carriers armies favor today.

If one creates your typical German panzergrenadier regiment of 1942 with its variable number of companies that were actually halftrack-borne, if one puts in all the halftracks, it'll effectively be all halftrack-borne. You can add trucks too if you want to, but they'll be entirely superfluous. The stated amount of halftracks will suffice to move the entire regiment.

Halftracks could be modified so that they have the same carrying capacity as horse teams. That might lead to the numbers needed for your mechanized infantry battalion lining up better with the number actually assigned. However, I don't think that change could be made in the bioeditor.

[ColinWright]

In general, how the system handles equipment and personnel that had some combat value but often had to tend to other business if the unit was to function is a problem.

The guys at the battalion CP may have rifles and even an MG or two, but if they all leave the CP and go off to help hold the line, the battalion isn't going to function very well.

At the same time, they are there. The same applies to anti-aircraft guns, halftracks bringing up more ammunition, artillery crews, etc. They have ground combat value -- but they are spending some or all of their time with other things. It won't help your division fight the good fight if all the 105 crews grab those light machine guns and rush up to the firing line.

[macgregor]

I've got to believe this game is flat-lined (dead) right now. Ralph doesn't even post on his own blog since before the patch. I'd swear if someone isn't posting about the news, it's to try to shoot down someone else's idea. If you two weren't so opposed to each others' ideas, there'd be no one posting here at all. Sad.

[ColinWright]

ORIGINAL: macgregor

I've got to believe this game is flat-lined (dead) right now. Ralph doesn't even post on his own blog since before the patch. I'd swear if someone isn't posting about the news, it's to try to shoot down someone else's idea. If you two weren't so opposed to each others' ideas, there'd be no one posting here at all. Sad.

Bizarre. I wasn't even aware Panama and I were arguing.

You sure you got the right thread?

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: ColinWright

ORIGINAL: macgregor

I've got to believe this game is flat-lined (dead) right now. Ralph doesn't even post on his own blog since before the patch. I'd swear if someone isn't posting about the news, it's to try to shoot down someone else's idea. If you two weren't so opposed to each others' ideas, there'd be no one posting here at all. Sad.

Bizarre. I wasn't even aware Panama and I were arguing.

You sure you got the right thread?

Leave me out of this. [:D][:D][:D]

[Telumar]

ORIGINAL: macgregor

I've got to believe this game is flat-lined (dead) right now. Ralph doesn't even post on his own blog since before the patch. I'd swear if someone isn't posting about the news, it's to try to shoot down someone else's idea. If you two weren't so opposed to each others' ideas, there'd be no one posting here at all. Sad.

First rule of magic(k): What i tell you three times is true. [;)]

Do you want this to be dead? Why are you repeating this so often? Speculation leads to nowhere. Even if you want to provoke a life sign by Ralph it might not be the right means. If you want the game to be alive then do something. Evoking 'things' won't help.

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: Telumar

ORIGINAL: macgregor

I've got to believe this game is flat-lined (dead) right now. Ralph doesn't even post on his own blog since before the patch. I'd swear if someone isn't posting about the news, it's to try to shoot down someone else's idea. If you two weren't so opposed to each others' ideas, there'd be no one posting here at all. Sad.

First rule of magic(k): What i tell you three times is true. [;)]

Do you want this to be dead? Why are you repeating this so often? Speculation leads to nowhere. Even if you want to provoke a life sign by Ralph it might not be the right means. If you want the game to be alive then do something. Evoking 'things' won't help.

It would seem someone who comments that something is dead so often wishes it so. The positive thing might be to comment that after all these years there is still interest in this game. Truely amazing, that.