Bridges

[Greyfox]

Gents,

         I brought this up with Doug McNair almost 12 years ago, he told me I should write it up for daily content.  I didn't.
         
         As a military professional I don't understand why there aren't direct, AT, or BF fire column modifiers when targeting someone on a chokepoint like a bridge.   

Assaults - If attacking from a Bridge hex into an assault on units in an adjacent hex, there should be a negative. shift for the attacker.  Basically you are attacking across a narrow front along an avenue of approach that is both restrictive and is subject to being raked by direct fire.  This could be a special rule that only applies to scenarios where attackers are trying to secure bridges (like Bicycle Races in White Eagles).  Say a negative one or two column shift to the attacker, or first fire to the defender when you are assaulting out of a bridge hex.

Direct fire or AT Fire - I think at least a +1 column shift. First a bridge is a choke point (or fatal funnel), and anyone targeting forces crossing a bridge is at a distance advantage. 

Bombardment fire - A bridge is a known point, and would be much easier to target effectively.  The ability to mass fires at a choke point would also be deserving of a +1 column shift.

[leonard]

Gents,

         I brought this up with Doug McNair almost 12 years ago, he told me I should write it up for daily content.  I didn't.
         
         As a military professional I don't understand why there aren't direct, AT, or BF fire column modifiers when targeting someone on a chokepoint like a bridge.   

Assaults - If attacking from a Bridge hex into an assault on units in an adjacent hex, there should be a negative. shift for the attacker.  Basically you are attacking across a narrow front along an avenue of approach that is both restrictive and is subject to being raked by direct fire.  This could be a special rule that only applies to scenarios where attackers are trying to secure bridges (like Bicycle Races in White Eagles).  Say a negative one or two column shift to the attacker, or first fire to the defender when you are assaulting out of a bridge hex.

Direct fire or AT Fire - I think at least a +1 column shift. First a bridge is a choke point (or fatal funnel), and anyone targeting forces crossing a bridge is at a distance advantage. 

Bombardment fire - A bridge is a known point, and would be much easier to target effectively.  The ability to mass fires at a choke point would also be deserving of a +1 column shift.

Sorry to answer so late : I just saw your post...
Regarding your house rule for bridges : it seems to me that the situation can be more complex.
In PG, a hex represents 200m of terrain so that units in a bridge hex might be actually in the river hex and not ´on’ the bridge. On some mapboards, bridge hexes might be town hexes as well. That’s why the assault modifier FROM a bridge hex might be difficult to justify.
The opportunity modifier seems more appropriate.
Finally, there is the assault modifier IN a bridge hex. Wouldn’t it be easier to apply the assault modifier for attacking in a river hex ?

[Greyfox]

Leonard,

         Thanks for providing the feedback.  It is a little humbling receiving feedback from an actual game designer.  I will do my best to address your comments point for point.

1) Regarding your house rule for bridges : it seems to me that the situation can be more complex.  
      Agreed.  

2) In PG, a hex represents 200m of terrain so that units in a bridge hex might be actually in the river hex and not ´on’ the bridge.  

     Again, I agree with you. As an Infantry Officer I admit that planning an Assault or defense in any terrain, you will take advantage of micro terrain you can to give you an advantage over your adversary.   I have had the opportunity to work in a Battalion that defended a bridge over the Euphrates River for a period of three days back in 2003, and planning offensive movements over bridges in complex urban terrain.  Note.... I only apply that assault modifier when attacking from a Bridge to an adjacent hex, and not into a bridge hex  where I believe normal modifiers would take effect.  
       I assume at least a portion of the force will be assaulting across the bridge, and that those forces on the side of the bridge nearest the enemy are more densely packed, creating a more lucrative target.
       As for indirect fire, AT, and Direct Fire the nature of the terrain you are crossing, or if we assume that all forces in the hex occupy half the hex (the half closest to the enemy), I believe justifies the column modifiers. 

3) On some mapboards, bridge hexes might be town hexes as well. That’s why the assault modifier FROM a bridge hex might be difficult to justify.
      
      Absolutely agree.  If you are in a town you are already in complex and constricting terrain.  Crossing a bridge is about the same as attacking down a narrow street.  I should perhaps include a modification or exception to the rule - that modifiers are applied unless in a town or village hex.

The opportunity modifier seems more appropriate.

       I thought the Direct fire and AT fire modifiers would naturally be applied during opportunity fire.  How would an opportunity modifier be applied?

Finally, there is the assault modifier IN a bridge hex. Wouldn’t it be easier to apply the assault modifier for attacking in a river hex 

        I am not sure It would.  I couldn't find an assault modifier in the bridge hex on the terrain effects chart.  Also looked at the major and minor rivers.  It only applies a DF and AT fire modification if the activated side is crossing the river with assistance of an engineer ---> no bombardment modifier.  Assault modifier is applied in a hex, not crossing a river, and only if the unit assaulting doesn't have an engineer unit on their side.  Using the river hex modifier may not exactly apply, or apply well.

Thoughts? 

Mike
 

Gents,

         I brought this up with Doug McNair almost 12 years ago, he told me I should write it up for daily content.  I didn't.
         
         As a military professional I don't understand why there aren't direct, AT, or BF fire column modifiers when targeting someone on a chokepoint like a bridge.   

Assaults - If attacking from a Bridge hex into an assault on units in an adjacent hex, there should be a negative. shift for the attacker.  Basically you are attacking across a narrow front along an avenue of approach that is both restrictive and is subject to being raked by direct fire.  This could be a special rule that only applies to scenarios where attackers are trying to secure bridges (like Bicycle Races in White Eagles).  Say a negative one or two column shift to the attacker, or first fire to the defender when you are assaulting out of a bridge hex.

Direct fire or AT Fire - I think at least a +1 column shift. First a bridge is a choke point (or fatal funnel), and anyone targeting forces crossing a bridge is at a distance advantage. 

Bombardment fire - A bridge is a known point, and would be much easier to target effectively.  The ability to mass fires at a choke point would also be deserving of a +1 column shift.

Sorry to answer so late : I just saw your post...
Regarding your house rule for bridges : it seems to me that the situation can be more complex.
In PG, a hex represents 200m of terrain so that units in a bridge hex might be actually in the river hex and not ´on’ the bridge. On some mapboards, bridge hexes might be town hexes as well. That’s why the assault modifier FROM a bridge hex might be difficult to justify.
The opportunity modifier seems more appropriate.
Finally, there is the assault modifier IN a bridge hex. Wouldn’t it be easier to apply the assault modifier for attacking in a river hex 

[leonard]

            Let's consider the part of map 30 (Fall of France) in attachment:

In Direct fire,

- I would support a special +1 column modifier (for moving on a bridge) during opportunity fire, against a unit moving into the red bridge hex (cumulated with regular +1 opp fire, -2 for town, etc.). Because of the channelizing effect of the bridge and/or movement anticipation by the defenders.
- When a German unit is assaulting a French unit into the red bridge hex from the yellow hex, I would just apply the regular -2 column mod to the attacker assault because assaulting in a (major) river hex (5.75). Would it be only -1 in a Minor River hex ?
- When a French unit is assaulting a German unit into the yellow hex from the red bridge hex, I would keep the modifiers normal.

What do you think ?

[Greyfox]

Let's consider the part of map 30 (Fall of France) in attachment:

In Direct fire,

- I would support a special +1 column modifier (for moving on a bridge) during opportunity fire, against a unit moving into the red bridge hex (cumulated with regular +1 opp fire, -2 for town, etc.). Because of the channelizing effect of the bridge and/or movement anticipation by the defenders.
- When a German unit is assaulting a French unit into the red bridge hex from the yellow hex, I would just apply the regular -2 column mod to the attacker assault because assaulting in a (major) river hex (5.75). Would it be only -1 in a Minor River hex ?
- When a French unit is assaulting a German unit into the yellow hex from the red bridge hex, I would keep the modifiers normal.

What do you think ?

Leonard,

        Apologies for not replying sooner.  I have responded to few e-mails for postings since the start of this semester.  So far this year(+) spent instructing Cadets using ZOOM, with a above 80% staff turnover rate has not been fun.  I can't wait until summer. 

1)  First, thanks for the using the map for your example.
2)  Rule 5.75 as written is very limited.  The penalties are specific to riverside hexes (major or minor) and not to bridges specifically. On top of that, the penalties are only levied when -
     a)  Units are crossing river with assistance of an Engineer (+1 DF and +1 AT).  This makes sense as you are taking rafts across a river (clear fields of fire at a slower moving massed target).  This is in effect an addition to the +1 for opportunity fire.  I think this should also have a include a +1 for BF as well but that is an argument for another time.    
      b)  Only against the attacker during the first round of Assault, if and only if, neither side has an ENG (-2 Assault).  Makes sense -  Attacking near a river an attacker has to deal with thicker vegetation/foliage, mud, etc.  Attacker is also limited in avenues of approach especially if attacking along a river line (can't flank from one side).  The provision "that neither side has an ENG" has to be an error, it should be if only the attacker doesn't have Engineers.  Defenders Engineer shouldn't eliminate the attack penalty for the attacker. 
 
Addressing your points -

1) Special rule as written may be I would support a special +1 column modifier (for moving on a bridge) during opportunity fire, against a unit moving into the red bridge hex (cumulated with regular +1 opp fire, -2 for town, etc.). Because of the channelizing effect of the bridge and/or movement anticipation by the defenders.
    a) I looked at the house rule that I wrote.  As written it does apply a DF and BF +1 column modifier and a +2 Die role modifier for AT fire whether fire is conducted normally or via opportunity fire.   
    b) I think I do need to modify the rule to only apply opportunity fire.  A defender in a bridge hex would not be on the bridge and would dig in using the terrain around the bridge in its defense (hence no canalization).  
    c) I need to adjust the rule so that it only applies to those crossing the limiting terrain.  
    d) I agree with your assessment, though I would add that a unit conducting opportunity fire from the yellow hex would also get a +2 for firing against an adjacent unit.  Direct fire would be a net +2 column modifier (+1 opp fire, +1 moving across bridge, +2 Adjacent hex, -2 Town).

- When a German unit is assaulting a French unit into the red bridge hex from the yellow hex, I would just apply the regular -2 column mod to the attacker assault because assaulting in a (major) river hex (5.75). Would it be only -1 in a Minor River hex ?
     a) I disagree.  Rule as defined earlier doesn't apply as written.  Even if it did, an attacker could avoid the -2 column penalty by bringing an Engineer.  
     b) Weighed whether or not to attach an assault modifier for attacking the bridge hex or to those attacking out of the bridge hex.  I actually opted to use both techniques (-1 for attackers against assaults within the hex, and -2 for assaulting out of the hex), because both are unique problems that have different effects: 
          1)  Attacker going into an assault on bridge hex (yellow to red) may not actually cross the hex, or if he does,  there may be limitations on the ability of the defender to mass fires Think small unit movements and fires.  
          2) Most of fire will be designed to create fire superiority, few folks actually attempting to cross without gaining fire superiority.  Attacker is still at a disadvantage but might not be in as much physical danger.   
          3)  I think we keep the -1 for attackers against assaults within the hex.
     
- When a French unit is assaulting a German unit into the yellow hex from the red bridge hex, I would keep the modifiers normal.
    a) Attacker assaulting out of Bridge hex (Red to yellow).  Attacker is leaving a canalizing terrain.  There is a lot more physical danger to the attacker and a defender will be able to mass fires against the exit of the bridge.  I originally wrote it at a -2 for the attacking force (reducing its fire power).  Based on your feedback, I am convinced that this is incorrect.
     b)  I agree with your assessment that this probably warrants a +2 for the defender, at least for the first round of the assault.  
     c) Waiting for your response before I make the much needed modifications to the rules. 

Waiting for your thoughts.

[joe_oppenheimer]

The provision "that neither side has an ENG" has to be an error, it should be if only the attacker doesn't have Engineers.  Defenders Engineer shouldn't eliminate the attack penalty for the attacker. 

I think the rationalization is that the defending engineers are likely involved in bridging and not able to help defend.

It's always irked me that the modifier is only for assault against a Major River. So defending along a Minor River is no different than defending in clear terrain in PG. Ideally the map takes this into account and adds Woods or Rocky terrain in Minor River hexes when applicable, but in general Minor Rivers don't seem to provide any defensive benefit in this system.

I do note that the Assault chart states "Major Rivers" while the Terrain Effects Chart lists the -2 on first round of assault  without specifying Major or Minor. I've always applied it to Major only (figuring the assault chart takes priority), but perhaps I should be applying to Minor Rivers as well.