Bridges

[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.