Bridges and bridges

[Al]

There is actually a pretty easy (to say anyway) method of handling this if it could be coded.

Change the code so that when a bridge is abandoned by a unit, it doesn't disappear. It becomes a "counter" with no MPs, that stays in place and "has Bridge" across the same hex side. The Engineer then becomes "no bridge" status and moves off. The "counter" would have to be a neutral variety, like an entrenchment or minefield.

Could that be programmed? No idea, not a programmer.

I think this idea was tossed around during one of the several discussions about being able to destroy bridges with airpower. If I remember correctly, the PzC team didn't want to go this route

[Dirk Gross]

I think there was also discussion that it's not just a bridge, but the engineers are operating and/or maintaining the bridge. I have no problem with the current system. Changes could easily lead to "gamey" situations.

[Glenn Saunders]

I think there was also discussion that it's not just a bridge, but the engineers are operating and/or maintaining the bridge. I have no problem with the current system. Changes could easily lead to "gamey" situations.

Exactly.

Besides, you can abandon it now - and if you built it with a Btln that can break into Coys, you can leave one coy behind. But I don't see transferring the bridge to another unit as something that will happen.

And dropping the bridge as a counter won't work either - as a counter can't occupy a hexside.

Glenn

[Steel God]

And dropping the bridge as a counter won't work either - as a counter can't occupy a hexside.

Hi Glenn;

The Engineer unit that builds a bridge doesn't occupy the hex side either, I was thinking if one counter could be programed to show a bridge over an adjacent hex side, than another, neutral type, counter could also be programmed that way.

But you know me Glenn, I'm anything BUT a programmer. ;)

Paul

[MasnarT]

Bridge engineers are so unpredictable. Dogs are easier to command than these unruly bastards, it seems they just sit around doing nothing!

:hissy:

agree ....
hanging some of them is the best way to make them act faster

[Glenn Saunders]

But you know me Glenn, I'm anything BUT a programmer. ;)

I guess the basic issue here is we are content with the current implementation of the Bridge Rules. We feel the time it takes to build them is OK. We feel that an Engineered Bridge would require the unit to maintain the bridge and see no need to change this to allow for Engineers to switch who controls a bridge or whay allowing two bridges to occupy a hexside would make th game better.

....if it is not broken .... just why would this change make sense? Where are the examples where the existing rules are not working right?

Interesting discussion all the same but I can't see one thing I could use to convince John he should spend time and make chnages to the existing rule(s). Change for change sake doesn't cut it.

Glenn

[Steel God]

Yes, I know. In fact I was sitting here at work thinking about the thread while doing something else, and I circled myself back around to the starting point of my post and decided it was a silly idea. I mean, could it be done, well yes probably anything can be done, but why? I got to thinking that given that someone has to maintain the bridge, what I was suggesting is really already in the game in the form of a split off company (as was suggested elsewhere).

Sometimes I need to say things out loud to realize the juice ain't worth the squeeze.

[The SNAFU]

I guess the basic issue here is we are content with the current implementation of the Bridge Rules. We feel the time it takes to build them is OK.

Paul, I'm afraid Glenn wasnt on the west bank of the Dnepr while my bridge engineers qualified for pensions trying to build bridges.

[Steel God]

I guess the basic issue here is we are content with the current implementation of the Bridge Rules. We feel the time it takes to build them is OK.

Paul, I'm afraid Glenn wasnt on the west bank of the Dnepr while my bridge engineers qualified for pensions trying to build bridges.

LOL, it only feels like a long time when you're under fire. In reality, getting them up in under 12 hours is pretty fast work. ;)

[Dog Soldier]

sg,
I think the idea of a D morale engineer handing its equipment to an A morale engineer is not valid. My understanding of such low morale engineers are they are not well equipped at all. Maybe just a bunch of guys with axes and saws who could build a rude temporary bridge of a limited span. No heavy equipment like cranes or pre-fabricated bridge modules to tie together.

They might be able to maintain the bridge abandoned by the A morale engineers, but certainly not transfer a bridging capability. I think morale does play a part in the bridge attempt die roll, so such a transfer would allow one to build two bridges quickly, (the inherent A morale bridge, then the borrowed D morale bridge.) This would exceed the capability currently allowed to player in the game. Add to that thought the the consideration of bridges being built under fire by an A morale engineer unit versus a D morale engineer since the ability can be transferred as you suggest and you create an unrealistic game situation as to the overall bridging capability for a side in the campaign.

Law of unintended consequences.

Dog Soldier