Bridge crossing / destruction could be dealt with using combat events. I think the actual decision to destroy specific bridges happens a little bit below the grand strategist's radar.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
So far as I know, the order to destroy the Rhine bridges came from Berlin..
But especially in game play, I would like to have the choice, because maybe I am ignoring, that enemy crosses a brigde because I am struggled somewhere else, but I know I will fight him back over the river really soon, so I do not want to destroy the bridge...
But if I know, that I am fighting on lost ground, e.g. USSR is rushing to Berlin, I would destroy any kind of bridge (even it is just a small plank over the river
) I can find on my way back ...
Last edited:
It is kind of a small thing to have a big bridge available in an attack, especially if the enemy is resisting actively on the other side. Tactically yes it is a wonderful fortunate thing to have...but in HoI scale it means little. When you do cross a river in an attack, your forces are paddling across, your tanks are driving through the water or atop an engineered temporary bridge, your units are getting across the same way they did for Remagen. Across a front perhaps miles wide. The only difference is that the bridge could sustain more units at a time, but in reality this did not necessarily make a difference in the attack, as there was no real ground force to actually attack the US forces crossing over. The best reason to have a bridge like that is for the supply tail following the units. In which case bridges are simulated by slow repair of the province's infrastructure after taking control.
Even if the Remagen bridge did have a huge impact, it was only because someone forgot to blow it up/avoided to do it. Should there be a random chance that your orders are not followed? Or that you DOW the wrong country because the phone-numbers to different ambassador's got mixed up?
There is no way that any commander or leader would avoid to demolish a bridge when faced with an attack... Why bother including it?
There is no way that any commander or leader would avoid to demolish a bridge when faced with an attack... Why bother including it?
The only reasons I can think of is paratroopers or blitzkrieg attacks like Stukas knocking out commanders or leaders giving those orders. I read about both of these examples happening during Germanys extremly well planned invasion of Belgium.