River crossing?

[Mr Grumpy]

Another aspect of ferrying that often gets overlooked is isolation, when PzC's came out you were isolated if you had a river at your back and no other supply line clear of units/ZOC back to a supply source, the rules were changed later so that if an engineer unit was on the friendly side of the river and you stayed in an adjacent hex (opposite river bank if you like) you were still in supply, but of course if you moved one hex away you were isolated again.

Ferrying units over can be a great way of giving cover to bridging engineers working on the friendly side of the river and of course once the bridge is up the supply situation is resolved, by if your ferried units are attacked and disrupted they are toast as disrupted units cannot ferry back.

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

The bit about moving away one hex and becoming isolated is a bit off also, IMO. If you have a continuous line of units from the river with the engineer unit or formed a bridgehead clear of enemy units, you should not be isolated. Resupply would be a bit more difficult than just driving over a bridge, but should not be isolated as long as that engineer unit is there and the bridgehead is formed.

Another 2 cents.

[BigDuke66]

Would supply units resolve the isolation if ferried over?

[Ricky B]

No, isolation is based on a path to a map supply source. Having a supply unit will allow the unit to regain an in supply status, but it won't impact isolation.

Rick

[Mr Grumpy]

Not sure you can ferry supply units as they are motorised and you can only ferry foot units or motorised units that have gone "on foot" and I don't think supply units can go on foot?

[Dog Soldier]

There is an issue with ferried units and supply. The reasoning is that how many engineer units would it take to supply and entire brigade, or regiment of units ferried across a river but with no bridge yet to connect them to the main base of supply for their side?

Since the supply rules are simple, it was thought to be gamey to allow players to move away for the river bank and advance a good distance, say to a nearby bridge with no risk because their units would be in full supply on the wrong side of the river.
Such a maneuver is desirable. To ferry across, move a km or two and take a bridge from both sides simultaneously is a historical capability. This is a risky endeavor under the current rules set as it should be.

To address the travel mode issue, the units are not technically in a column when landed on the other shore. Being in travel mode simulates that the unit, having just completed the ferry process to cross the river needs to reform and is vulnerable to a sharp and quick attack. Resulting disruption or lack of disruption form such an attack simulates the strength of the response by the defender of the river line. The IGoYouGo game system required at least one turn of this type of vulnerability to give a defender a chance to make a response. Otherwise ferrying becomes a risk free endeavor to an attacker. That does not seem right or historical.

On the ferrying players next turn, the travel mode can be changed to deployed status so the unit is now formed up and better able to defend itself.

Bottom line is the rules are what they are to simulate the risks involved in sending units across the river where they are on their own and difficult to support. The player has to weigh the risk/gain of the ferry operation. Whether the ferrying move is to send a attack force across the river or to evacuate, the risks are still present and the same. I think it is always good to allow players to make historical moves. Including a simulation of the risks, makes it more real IMHO.

Dog Soldier

[Liquid_Sky]

You could always try to ferry across at night (risking night time disruption) so the enemy doesn't have LoS.