Control of bridge

[larry marak]

I'm composing my AAR for Airborne sc 16: the bridge at Zon.  Victory coditions require that the Axis player either retain control of the bridge or eliminate 4 enemy steps.  The paras win by controlling the bridge.  In most games the Axis easily blows the bridge on a simple die roll.  Historically the paras saw the bridge blown up in their faces, took the area anyway, and or stored foot traffic within 4 hours.  Based on history do the paras win if they control the bridge HEX? without taking 4 steps of casualties?

This interpretation turns the scenario into a tougher fight, with less chance of a draw.

[Coniglius]

Many game systems define control of a hex as 'undisputed'. In order to be 'undisputed' you would have to occupy both entrances tot he hex (either side of the bridge hex). If you occupy one side and the enemy occupies the other, then the hex is considered to be 'contested' which means control is disputed. For your scenario, I would interpret control as having uncontested (undisputed) control of both entrances to the bridge. You may even want to expand that to include having the adjacent hexes clear of enemy forces as well. This might increase the likelihood of friendly casualties, but such is war.

[Matt W]

In PG control is by hex. Since bridges are an "in hex" feature they are controlled by the player controlling the hex, regardless of which river bank they entered from and whether they are stuck on one side of the river. Note that if you cannot cross a river there are substantial penalties to your assault if you are trying to control the hex.

If you control the hex you also (unless stated otherwise in the scenario SSRs) control the bridge. The bridge would be contested if the opposing player still has units in the hex that are not demoralized. Otherwise, the scenario cannot easily be lost by the German player. Blowing the bridge and fading away guarantees at least a draw.

[zaarin7]

The main issue I see is historically the paratroopers built a foot bridge across the piers that remained and captured the other side. Does PG allow for that?

[larry marak]

Being an old timer I still look at our games as "paper time machines" (Redmond Simonson, 1972).  The para's objective was to seize the bridge, which as built could handle the weight of armored vehicles.  The center span survived the explosion intact, allowing a foot traffic to be easily restored.  If 30th corps had been on schedual this would have been an epic fail.  But of course the column was running 18 hours behind so the damage to the Zon bridge didn't effect the advance.

    In my game I continued to treat it as a battle for control of the crossing point.  The scenario also fails to designate which board the para reinforcements "land" on.  Previous players have used the initial allied board.  I chose to deliver them to the axis set up board.  Maintains the chaos of paratroopers showing up all over the place that morning.  Thus the Wehrmacht player has to jobs: defend the bridge hex, and fight off a potential double envelopement.

[Matt W]

Larry

Any idea which side the actual reinforcements came in on?

[larry marak]

The reinforcements in this scenario should be a group of A co. men who gathered south of the first group an seized a rowboat to reach the bridge site.  The objective was to seize the bridge and then move south towards Eindhoven, so it sounds like they should appear somewhere along the mapedge inside a canal hex.

[larry marak]

Considering the above, it seems we may need to use gunboat movement to get the reinforcements into the fight.