Forums

Hello gentlemen,

Just would like to join some debate after a longer time, so why not to start one? I would like to ask you about your preferences with some of the rules used in Panzer Campaigns series.

Let´s start with the problematics of destroying and blowing-up the bridges.
Which way do you prefer to have it in the scenario - ability to blow the bridges with your engineers, or by the Wired Bridges rule? What do you think are the pros and cons of those two types, and which one do you think is more realistic?

I´m not sure myself about this one, I mean I mostly use it in the way the scenario was created, although it´s not a problem in the editor to delete the wired bridges rule from the scenario, as it´s just something like two mouse-clicks in the pdt datas. I see as well that in some scenarios the wired bridges rule is more balance-creating or let´s say neccesary to achieve more historical results - Minsk ´44, Stalingrad ´42 and so, I think that Market Garden´44 has this by default too, right?

As I´ve said, I´m not sure about my own preference regarding this one, but there are aspects I like on each of them.

Without Wired Bridges rule - here, you can simply decide which bridges to destroy and which not, taken you have enough time to destroy the bridge in advance of enemy units trying to take it, you can be more or less sure it´ll be destroyed in a few turns (it depends on the engineer unit´s strenght and the strenght of the given bridge). Thus you don´t have to wait ´til the enemy units arrive and see if this particular approach is ´´sealed´´ or not. So you can plan your defense a bit more ahead let´s say. On the other side, you mostly won´t have enough engineers to cover the whole area of bridges on a particular river, so some bridges won´t be destroyed for 100%. But you can again calculate it into your plan of defense. Ok, I must save some space for you as well, so I´ll continue later on this one.

With Wired Bridges rule - you don´t have to care about putting down the bridges at all, it´s done or not done automatically, you only have to guard it in case it won´t be destroyed and the enemy will start using it to cross the river, or if the particular bridge isn´t wired at all. I also like that you are never sure to the last moment if there will be a tough battle for the bridge that wasn´t destroyed, so there is a big uncertainty element in your defensive planning. What this rule portrays very well I think, is the situation where the attacking force comes to the bridge only to find it destroyed (blowing up in our case in Panzer Campaigns), so instead of seing enemy´s work at blowing the bridges in his rear without really having to have it in your line of sight, (we don´t speak about the air recon that in real life could see and report if the bridge is out or not), we have also the uncertain factor in our attack-advance that only after arriving to the bridge itself we can find out it´s state. In this case I consider this rule to be more realistic.

So what are your opinions guys? Feel free to comment, suggest etc., just don´t shoot me

I am not sure if the ability to have wired bridges has always been in the PDT settings or if it was added at some point during the evolution of the series? I suspect it was added sometime after S43 as in that title there are Italian engineer units fixed at certain bridges and i think i remember Glenn saying that this was to ensure those bridges were damaged as the wired feature was not available.

Anyway it seems that in the this feature seems to be more prevalent in the later titles allow the scenario designer to control which bridges can be damaged, in most titles there are always a fair few engineer units and this can lead to the defender going on mass bridge damaging missions to delay an advance or channel it into a certain area, so on balance i think i prefer the wired bridge rule but it is not a game breaker for me if it is not in use.

Your right about wired bridges being added later Lord Foul. I myself find them a bit annoying when I'm trying to get across a river but it's all a roll of the dice and you do get to capture one or two. Beta testing a Moscow'42 scenario I had three out of five bridges blow up in my Germans faces if I recall correctly.

Maybe i think that wired bridge rule needs adjust, i explain this, wired bridges without garrison (any kind of unit over the bridge exit hex) cant blow up or have divided by 2 the wired value, when are units present using the stack value of the units on this hex you increase or not the % of blow up the bridge EXCEPT if enemy attack with an engenier or assault unit (units made to shock attacks have better options to take a bridge) then you use the basic wire %.

Sometimes using wire bridges is a little lose all the time the bridges and as attacker you cant do something to prevent it... maybe if the unit that arrive has somekind of bonus to reduce wire value...

Normally I'm not a big fan of features that I don't have any influence on, and Moscow '42 has some percentage/statistical advantages for both attacker and defender in terms of features neither side can influence.

However, being able to blow up bridges at your leisure can result in significantly slowing down the attacker, and you can use your often perfect knowledge of where the enemy units start to determine which bridges to blow. In combination with being required to cross bridges in T mode, that can mean crossing even a minor river could turn into a more time consuming affair that it is in most other wargames.

So, due to the way attacking across bridges works, I prefer wired bridges in this game, even though I haven't yet played a scenario where bridges are really important (in Moscow '42, rivers tend to be frozen, and taking advantage of the "snow=unfrozen rivers" mechanic seems a bit gamey).

(06-13-2013, 10:56 PM)ComradeP Wrote: [ -> ]...even though I haven't yet played a scenario where bridges are really important...

Wait until you play Minsk 44--several large rivers span the map, with relatively few armor-capable bridges over most of them--a lack of bridges can stop the Sovs cold.

Early in the game I was lazy about keeping bridge units up with the leading units, which led to lengthy delays in building engineering bridges.

It doesn't matter to me which rule is in play, I will adopt accordingly.

For example in Normandy 44 I fought like mad (as the Germans) to blow all the bridges between Utah and Omaha. I manage to get all but one which turned into a harsh fight of attrition which I eventually lost.

I remember a Minsk 44 scenario where I used my roaming bands of partisans to 'blow' bridges behind the German lines (with the wired bridges rule). It screwed up the German supply and told me ahead of time what bridges I needed to replace and which I could drive hard for.

On a slightly different tack in S43 (that did not use the wired rule) i also blew bridges on major roads that were not over rivers because of the severe movement penalty this could cause, this is the only title i have played were i ever considered damaging bridges anywhere else than over a river.

I'm playing a scenario from Minsk at the moment "5th Guards Tank Army is Committed" as the Russians and bridges are blowing up all over the place, many of them seem unmanned.
It is very frustrating and is slowing down the advance greatly.

I think however we have to accept that blowing up bridges only took a couple of men if the bridge had been previously primed with explosives.
Those couple of men could not be realistically shown on the map and so we have to leave it to our imagination that they are in fact there.

Cheers,
Gordon

For me will be best combination of the both thing. I mean if engineer succeed blow-up bridge => then they set up wired status on the bridge. This give small chance to save some bridge as happend in history time to time.
Petr