Deep Blue Deep Blue

Forum

Suche
Forum » Memoir '44 - English » Blowing up bridges question
Anzeigen: Heutige Nachrichten 
  
VerfasserThema
MoonWa
Junior Member
Cadet

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 20
Registriert:
December 2004
Blowing up bridges question Sun, 16 October 2005 01:43
I may be dense Sad I have been acused of more at times. But could someone explain the rules clearly to me how to blow up a bridge using the expansion rules.


Thanks In Advance
MoonWa
      
tank commander
Senior Member
I Love Pineapples

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 2730
Registriert:
October 2004
Re:Blowing up bridges question Sun, 16 October 2005 02:59
A player has two options if he wishes to destroy a bridge.

Both options require that the player plays a section card that corresponds to the flank the bridge is located in. Also, opting to do either will be the only action a player does in his turn.

Ex: If the bridge is on a player's right flank, then the section card he plays must be a right flank card. If the bridge spans say the right and center, then either a right or center section card will suffice.

Option #1

The card is played and the bridge is automatically destroyed. In this case, the player will not draw another card at the end of his turn and his hand size is reduced by one for the remainder of the game.

Option #2

The card is played. Then the player rolls 2 dice and if a "Star" is rolled then the bridge is destroyed. Using this option will enable the player to draw a card at the end of his turn AND his hand size is not reduced.

Option #1 is certain but the player suffers the card reduction.

Option #2 hinges on rolling at least 1 star but there is no reduction involved.

[Aktualisiert am: Sun, 16 October 2005 03:38]

      
MoonWa
Junior Member
Cadet

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 20
Registriert:
December 2004
Re:Blowing up bridges question Sun, 16 October 2005 03:08
Thanks the wording in the rules was a little unclear.
      
tank commander
Senior Member
I Love Pineapples

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 2730
Registriert:
October 2004
Re:Blowing up bridges question Sun, 16 October 2005 03:40
Glad to help sir!
      
darkson
Junior Member

Nachrichten: 2
Registriert:
April 2005
Re:Blowing up bridges question Tue, 18 October 2005 04:03
Can a bridge be blown if a unit is on it? What happens to the unit if this is allowed?

Thanks in advance! --kMs
      
Randwulf
DoW Content Provider
Major

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 1367
Registriert:
March 2005
Re:Blowing up bridges question Tue, 18 October 2005 06:07
yes you can blow up a bridge with a unit on it....

the unit go boom...

you just blowed it up....
      
Fixpix
Member
Second Lieutenant

Nachrichten: 76
Registriert:
April 2005
Re:Blowing up bridges question Tue, 18 October 2005 07:43
...and you get the medal, right?
      
Randwulf
DoW Content Provider
Major

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 1367
Registriert:
March 2005
Re:Blowing up bridges question Tue, 18 October 2005 15:56
yep... you get a metal.. unless you blowed up your own guys... then the other guy gets a medal.... and you get a courtmarshal.
      
Arkan
Junior Member

Nachrichten: 14
Registriert:
October 2003
Re:Blowing up bridges question Thu, 20 October 2005 12:23
do you have to be adjacent to the bridge or can you just blow it up from anywhere?
      
RBorg
Game Designer
Cadet

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 258
Registriert:
December 2003
Re:Blowing up bridges question Fri, 21 October 2005 05:50
Hi All
Before we start blowing up to many bridges...

Please remember that the rules Battle Star tokens introduce (like blowing up a bridge) are not definitive, permanent rules, but rather scenario-specific additions, outlined in the Special Rules section of each scenario.

Q. Do you have to be adjacent to the bridge or can you just blow it up from anywhere?

A. Blowing up a bridge is a card play that does not require a unit to be adjacent to the bridge.

Richard Borg
      
kweniston
Member

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 48
Registriert:
September 2005
Re:Blowing up bridges question Fri, 21 October 2005 11:39
RBorg wrote on Fri, 21 October 2005 05:50

Hi All
A. Blowing up a bridge is a card play that does not require a unit to be adjacent to the bridge.

Richard Borg


Mind me saying that I don't find this terribly realistic, blowing up a bridge without ever having been close to it? Or do we have to treat it like an called in airstrike?
      
**player38092
Senior Member

Nachrichten: 766
Registriert:
November 2004
Re:Blowing up bridges question Fri, 21 October 2005 13:49
kweniston écrit le Fri, 21 October 2005 11:39

Mind me saying that I don't find this terribly realistic, blowing up a bridge without ever having been close to it? Or do we have to treat it like an called in airstrike?
A destruction team can be much smaller than an Infantry unit as depicted in M44.
It can be guys assigned to the bridge, that won't have any effect on the battle otherwise.
In more sophisticated wargames, as Breakout : Normandy (an out of print Avalon Hill game), you have similar game mechanics. No need to use one of the physically depicted units to blow bridges.
It is not a question of realism (though the above explanation could show that the rule is more realistic than one could think), but a designer's choice.
BTW, realism arguments tend to lead to... nowhere, as everyone has different ideas how reality should be simulated.
M44 clearly is not the type of game that seeks very precise historical accuracy (but even very detailed designs like Advanced Squad Leader cannot be anything else but games...).

[Aktualisiert am: Fri, 21 October 2005 13:49]

      
darkson
Junior Member

Nachrichten: 2
Registriert:
April 2005
Re:Blowing up bridges question Fri, 21 October 2005 16:49
How unbalancing would it be to allow bridges to be destroyed in the scenarios where it is not specifically mentioned as a rule? I see a lot of potential for the new rules as optional variants. Obviously, it would break scenarios like Pegasus Bridge and others where units could be trapped behind a bridge, but there seems to be room in other scenarios for these rules. (Don't have my copy in front of me for specific examples.) Particularly if there is a card handicap for the person who destroyed the bridge, it seems like it would balance, or come cloe to balancing, out.

--kMs

P.S. Richard, thanks so much for creating a great series of games in Battle Cry and Memoir '44. It's created hours and DAYS of entertainment for myself and my gaming groups. It is the most played game for me this past year, and I really appreciate the support you have given this series with additional expansions and scenarios. Kudos!
      
kweniston
Member

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 48
Registriert:
September 2005
Re:Blowing up bridges question Sat, 22 October 2005 03:28
Robin wrote on Fri, 21 October 2005 13:49

kweniston écrit le Fri, 21 October 2005 11:39

Mind me saying that I don't find this terribly realistic, blowing up a bridge without ever having been close to it? Or do we have to treat it like an called in airstrike?
A destruction team can be much smaller than an Infantry unit as depicted in M44.
It can be guys assigned to the bridge, that won't have any effect on the battle otherwise.
In more sophisticated wargames, as Breakout : Normandy (an out of print Avalon Hill game), you have similar game mechanics. No need to use one of the physically depicted units to blow bridges.
It is not a question of realism (though the above explanation could show that the rule is more realistic than one could think), but a designer's choice.
BTW, realism arguments tend to lead to... nowhere, as everyone has different ideas how reality should be simulated.
M44 clearly is not the type of game that seeks very precise historical accuracy (but even very detailed designs like Advanced Squad Leader cannot be anything else but games...).



Well, let's just state here: how would you like "your" bridge to be destroyed, while it's being totally surrounded and protected and engulfed by your troops? What else can you do?

Say, an enemy unit has to travel at least 2 (!) spaces through your defences before it can reach the bridge, just the facts. You still think it's that easy to destroy the bridge?

Even a special force unit usually has to deal with some resistance while on a mission to destroy a bridge, or else it's a bridge with no value whatsoever, or you're dealing with a completely oblivious field commander. Card -> destroy bridge: too simple imho.
      
**player38092
Senior Member

Nachrichten: 766
Registriert:
November 2004
Re:Blowing up bridges question Sat, 22 October 2005 08:14
kweniston écrit le Sat, 22 October 2005 03:28

Well, let's just state here: how would you like "your" bridge to be destroyed, while it's being totally surrounded and protected and engulfed by your troops? What else can you do?

Say, an enemy unit has to travel at least 2 (!) spaces through your defences before it can reach the bridge, just the facts. You still think it's that easy to destroy the bridge?

Even a special force unit usually has to deal with some resistance while on a mission to destroy a bridge, or else it's a bridge with no value whatsoever, or you're dealing with a completely oblivious field commander. Card -> destroy bridge: too simple imho.
If I understand your point, you are speaking of attacking forces trying to destroy a bridge.
However I don't think the rule tries to portray that tactical situation.
It rather depicts defensive forces that have set demo charges or are at least ordered to destroy bridges before the enemy can cross them.
In that case, no need to "send" a destruction team : you have two guys near the bridge with a plunger and preset charges or a small team that is ordered to prepare the demolition and proceed as soon as ordered (cf. the Pegasus Bridge situation, where the British Airborne rushed the bridge to neutralize the preset charges, or the Remagen Bridge situation, where the Germans set off the explosives, but the latter didn't destroy the bridge enough to prohibit crossing of the Rhine - all other bridges over the Rhine were blown to parts just before the Allies could cross them).
So that explains the quick delay to blow up a bridge.
Look at the scenarios so far, and you'll see that it is the defender that has to blow up bridges or dams - and one can suppose preset charges or, at least, a prepared demolition protocol.
Note, also, that it is quite rare that an attacker seeks to destroy bridges, as they usually are usefull to invade the enemy zone ( unless it is a "behind the lines" type of mission, and the aim is to cut logistic lines - more a special forces and partisan type of mission, or even an aerial bombardment one).
      
kweniston
Member

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 48
Registriert:
September 2005
Re:Blowing up bridges question Sat, 22 October 2005 12:19
Robin wrote on Sat, 22 October 2005 08:14

If I understand your point, you are speaking of attacking forces trying to destroy a bridge.
However I don't think the rule tries to portray that tactical situation.
.


Ok, that's clear, I thought it could also be the attacking force blowing valuable bridges. Haven't seen all the scenarios yet, but a future scenario could feature such an event.

      
**player38092
Senior Member

Nachrichten: 766
Registriert:
November 2004
Re:Blowing up bridges question Sat, 22 October 2005 17:52
kweniston écrit le Sat, 22 October 2005 12:19

Ok, that's clear, I thought it could also be the attacking force blowing valuable bridges. Haven't seen all the scenarios yet, but a future scenario could feature such an event.
In such a case, it would be better use a rule that asks for an attacking unit to get to the bridge and blow it up.
      
GreatDane
Senior Member

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 754
Registriert:
June 2004
Re:Blowing up bridges question Sat, 22 October 2005 19:28
kweniston wrote on Fri, 21 October 2005 11:39

Mind me saying that I don't find this terribly realistic, blowing up a bridge without ever having been close to it? Or do we have to treat it like an called in airstrike?


Exactly!
Or like Sand bags - how come they suddenly appear? Filled and nicely stacked...!

[Aktualisiert am: Sat, 22 October 2005 19:32]

      
Cantatta
Senior Member
Arnhem Victory

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 432
Registriert:
May 2005
Re:Blowing up bridges question Mon, 24 October 2005 21:04
Sandbags are just representing an infantry units ability to dig-in no matter where they are. I am assuming you are refering to the "Dig-in" command card here? Very Happy

I think accepting a certain amount of abstraction like that is required to understand and enjoy this game. From one mission to the next you might be dealing with a battle representing battalion sized actions or smaller, and the next may be regimental or divisional in scope. The level of realism is not going to be particularly high in light of these facts and the game system that is being used to represent history. However, having plodded through many games that are both more realistic and detailed, I prefer M44's simplicity and abstraction.


      
JFKoski
Senior Member
Advanced Historian

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 603
Registriert:
October 2005
Re:Blowing up bridges question Fri, 28 October 2005 04:08
We just played Ardennes (Relief of 'Peiper') and I had said that you had to be next to the bridge to destroy it. This meant that once the Germans took out the unit across the bridge they could win the game by moving 5 more units off the board across the bridge.

Now that I heard RBorg's response, we'll be playing that they can do it any time in that scenario (with the proper card play), which means that German units that end their turn on the bridge are in jeopardy.

The question that he didn't answer was: After blowing up a bridge in that scenario, is the card lost permanently or just one turn? We played it was gone permanently.

I also assumed that if a unit was on a bridge, it would be lost if the bridge blew. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Aktualisiert am: Fri, 28 October 2005 04:11]

      
Drax Kramer
Member
Hauptmann

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 55
Registriert:
August 2005
Re:Blowing up bridges question Fri, 28 October 2005 11:40
jfkoski wrote on Fri, 28 October 2005 04:08



The question that he didn't answer was: After blowing up a bridge in that scenario, is the card lost permanently or just one turn? We played it was gone permanently.


You played correctly. The last sentence in the Special Rules say:


The allied player does not draw a new command card the turn he blows a bridge (his hand of command card is reduced by one card).
      
player26456
Junior Member

Nachrichten: 1
Registriert:
August 2004
Re:Blowing up bridges question Tue, 26 September 2006 06:33
One other aspect of blowing bridges in this scenario that I have a question about. If a German unit crosses the bridge, does the Allied player lose the ability to subsequntly blow the bridge?

I also saw another e-mail about making an ARW game. I am ready to pre-order, too. I have been hooked since I bought Battle Cry and now own Ancients as well.

Thanks.
      
ColtsFan77
Senior Member

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 3313
Registriert:
February 2006
Re:Blowing up bridges question Tue, 26 September 2006 13:04
player26456 wrote on Mon, 25 September 2006 23:33

One other aspect of blowing bridges in this scenario that I have a question about. If a German unit crosses the bridge, does the Allied player lose the ability to subsequntly blow the bridge?

I also saw another e-mail about making an ARW game. I am ready to pre-order, too. I have been hooked since I bought Battle Cry and now own Ancients as well.

Thanks.

Germans crossing the bridge has no effect on the Allies ability to blow up the bridges. If Germans get to the opposite side of the board and exit off of it, they gain a vicotry medal.

I wouldn't hold your breather for a ARW game now that BattleLore is coming out. If DOW gets the rights to do it, it will porbably be a couple years before we see it.
      
    
Vorheriges Thema:PC Game
Nächstes Thema:The board is 9 hexes deep...
Gehen Sie zum Forum: