Forums

I have noticed that US Jeep Scout Sections can use light bridges whereas Willy's MB's are restricted to medium - Is this correct as I was under the impression that they were the same vehicle?

Hello Wolf:

Nice catch on the bridge ratings for jeeps/willies.
I hadn't noticed the scouts can use a light bridge (thanks for the tip!) but you're correct the two vehicles are effectively the same minus whatever weight a .50 or .30 cal pintle mounted MG may add.

There are a few other bridge glitches it seems to me, and now that bridge buidling engineers can build a medium bridge it's exacerbated the problem.

The armored unit ratings for instance.

I believe the entire Allied Army (WF) can cross a river on a medium bridge.

The German tanks, heavier for the most part, have many units that require a heavy bridge such as the Tigers, Leopards, and all the super big boys.

I would like to see a Jumbo Sherman (M4A3E2) require a Heavy Bridge.

The Allied Jumbo tank, rated by the designers at 42 tons, is capable of crossing a medium, while a Jag V Leopard at 46 tons requires a heavy.
Then the Panther, at 45 tons, can use a medium.
So it would appear the original design used ~45 tons as the break point between a med/heavy requirement.

I think the Allied Jumbo should require a heavy bridge at ~42 tons.
Most Jumbos (over 60 percent) included the 76mm modification by war's end, and I think that could have added additional weight as well.

I know little or nothing of bridge design or other concerns, I only feel the scenarios could play better (and design better) by rethinking what needs a heavy and a medium (and in the case of jeeps) a light bridge.


Regards,

Dan

(09-17-2011, 11:03 PM)Dan Caviness Wrote: [ -> ]Hello Wolf:

There are a few other bridge glitches it seems to me, and now that bridge buidling engineers can build a medium bridge it's exacerbated the problem.

The armored unit ratings for instance.

I believe the entire Allied Army (WF) can cross a river on a medium bridge.

The German tanks, heavier for the most part, have many units that require a heavy bridge such as the Tigers, Leopards, and all the super big boys.

I would like to see a Jumbo Sherman (M4A3E2) require a Heavy Bridge.

The Allied Jumbo tank, rated by the designers at 42 tons, is capable of crossing a medium, while a Jag V Leopard at 46 tons requires a heavy.
Then the Panther, at 45 tons, can use a medium.
So it would appear the original design used ~45 tons as the break point between a med/heavy requirement.

I think the Allied Jumbo should require a heavy bridge at ~42 tons.
Most Jumbos (over 60 percent) included the 76mm modification by war's end, and I think that could have added additional weight as well.

I know little or nothing of bridge design or other concerns, I only feel the scenarios could play better (and design better) by rethinking what needs a heavy and a medium (and in the case of jeeps) a light bridge.


Regards,

Dan

Nice catch there, Wolfman.

And Dan, I'm in 100% agreement with your post above.

Thanks John, good to hear from ya...

It's a small thing but it can be used to isolate entire areas of maps from the lumbering beast tanks. It works well with EF in several scenarios.

There should be no difference anymore between heavy and medium bridges since Bridging engineers can only construct medium bridges (program limits). Most tanks in the game have since been modified to be able to cross medium bridges (some may have been forgotten, like the Churchill Crocodile for example).
From a design point of view this was the best option. It is near impossible to find out how much weight each bridge could carry in an historical scenario anyway.

Huib

(09-21-2011, 09:52 AM)Dan Caviness Wrote: [ -> ]Thanks John, good to hear from ya...

It's a small thing but it can be used to isolate entire areas of maps from the lumbering beast tanks. It works well with EF in several scenarios.

I think the new Matrix crew screwed with the game scale by changing the effects of the bridges.
Yes, some of the Jeeps were done wrong. But, it is the larger/heavier armor that should be most effected by bridge size.
The Germans used "scout" teams to move in advance of their heaviest armor to ensure the bridges would be able to hold them.

I agree with you Dan. And, remember the bridge problems that were encountered during the "Bulge", as they moved their Tigers forward. Besides the fuel issues they were constantly bypassing river crossings. Some where the bridges were not even blown, but just too small to use. Some for simply being not wide enough. :eek1:

I think what the "team" did was to take away the designer's input and infused themselves into another part of the game, to micro manage things such as bridge type.
It seems an artificial solution.
But, obviously that is my personal opinion? :smoke:



HSL

(09-23-2011, 07:18 PM)Herr Straßen Läufer Wrote: [ -> ]I think what the "team" did was to take away the designer's input and infused themselves into another part of the game, to micro manage things such as bridge type.
It seems an artificial solution.

What the team did was add another feature to the game. A feature that does not affect any of the original designers scenarios, as a special engineer is required to produce a bridge capable of carrying vehicles.

Jason Petho

(09-23-2011, 11:21 PM)Jason Petho Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-23-2011, 07:18 PM)Herr Straßen Läufer Wrote: [ -> ]I think what the "team" did was to take away the designer's input and infused themselves into another part of the game, to micro manage things such as bridge type.
It seems an artificial solution.

What the team did was add another feature to the game. A feature that does not affect any of the original designers scenarios, as a special engineer is required to produce a bridge capable of carrying vehicles.

Jason Petho

Back to my original point Jason - was the difference between Jeep Recon and Willys MB design or error?

(09-23-2011, 11:46 PM)Wolfman Wrote: [ -> ]Back to my original point Jason - was the difference between Jeep Recon and Willys MB design or error?

A coding error, it will be fixed in the next UPDATE.

Jason Petho

(09-23-2011, 11:21 PM)Jason Petho Wrote: [ -> ]What the team did was add another feature to the game. A feature that does not affect any of the original designers scenarios, as a special engineer is required to produce a bridge capable of carrying vehicles.

IMO, another artificial one:

http://www.300thcombatengineersinwwii.com/bridges.html

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/.../FM5-5.PDF

http://graywolf1.home.pipeline.com/joebegin.html

http://www.nzta.govt.nz/network/maintain....html#long

How long does it take to put up?

A standard bridge (30-metres long, single span) can be assembled within a week at the need arising. Longer-span bridges may take longer owing to the need to build piers to support them.

Obviously civilian installation?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailey_bridge

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sport...626767.cms

"An army engineering regiment (with about 800 to 1,000 men) has started the work for the Bailey bridge today. We will complete the bridge within the timeframe and hand it over to the games organisers," a colonel-rank officer said.

The Bailey bridge will come up on three pillars. The army has been given five-day deadline to construct the bridge.

Another civilian installation.

In a six minute time frame (with a lucky die roll) engineers, in the game, can build a bridge that can carry a King Tiger?
I just don't see it. But, in CS they can because it was thought of as a "good addition" that did not effect previous scenarios, regardless of what it will do for future scenario designs? :chin:

Not the way I see it.
I'm still having trouble with regular engineers being able to construct a foot bridge within a six minute time frame. :eek1:



HSL


PS. Sorry to hijack your thread Wolfman. This is my last comment on this subject ... here. :rolleyes: