Matrix Games Forums

Situation: you want to get the Grenadier Guards BG past 107 Panzer in Gemert to Uden and beyond.

You attack with the Grenadier Guards BG from Helmond and support with 1/501/101 from Uden.

But, instead of being the attacker on the tactical map...

...you defend the 'to Uden' VL because the mission is to get the Grenadier Guards north (to Uden) to relieve 1st AB Div at Arnhem.

On the next turn you can exit both BGs to Uden.

Or repeat the process by leaving 1/501/101 in Gemert and "attacking" from the south with another XXX Corps BG.

It's an old soldiers tunnelling trick... my old dad was a tunneller  (so says my mum)

Thats BS and unrealistic, shouldn't this be in the bug section

I would prefer to see this situation handled similar to the way it is on major bridge maps. When two BGs enter a major bridge map from opposites sides of the bridge, the neither BG's teams can reposition to the other BG's deploy zone until the second battle. And neither BG can "cross the bridge" on the strategic map until that side controls the intact bridge on the tactical map.

pretty sure that your preference is how it was explained to me as the way it should work.

The complicating factor with my preference being - how do you determine when the attacking side has taken the 'land bridge' between the attack and support BG deploy zones?

1st battle only currently then all bets are off.... but the southern BG shouldn't be able to deploy North until then.

But currently Each BG's deployment is tracked when they enter a map... so it should be doable.

Was thinking that control of the map's 3 point VLs might determine control of the 'land bridge' but a good number of maps dont have any major VLs (another design decision explanation modmen would appreciate).

I'll buy having to fight 2 battles to be able to 'leapfrog' off of the map.

How about just checking if a path can be traced between the two entry/exit VL's without going through enemy controlled territory on the map?

Interesting as pointed out elsewhere.

In the past a single BG on a map that is split by an enemy force can still exit by any available Exit VL's... even though many of it's teams may be "seperated" by enemy controlled land.

So, I guess as it works now is as it has always worked and is consistent.

What it does raise is more questions though.

It doesnt quite work the same as it always has. In the past, exiting via a controlled VL meant that the moving BG had itself gained control of the VL, "bridging" enemy-controlled territory in the process. Now, another BG can gain control of the exit VL, allowing the moving BG to circumvent the process of actually having to cross (bridge) enemy territory.

well, yeees.

but

The bridged area  having been broken/re-taken  previously still allowed all of the BG to cross that enemy held land even though it may have been the bulk of the Active BG  (who knows what the inactive part of the BG was up to?).

To me this would indicate that only part of the BG could exit via the seperated VL's - probably best modelled by having teams depleted and in dissaray. (?)

Exit VLs have always had the potential for ahistoric tactics. Its even more anomalous to have the ability to 'leapfrog' a BG from map to map without the necessity of the BG manuevering on a tactical map. Especially given the strategic movement restrictions now imposed by blown bridges.

If you only control the exit VLs boxed in blue with other BGs, you can move a BG from the Meuse-Escaut Canal to Grave in 7 turns without it even having to appear on a tactical map.