Looking at the original post, the idea was a crossing 'near' Cologne, not 'in' Cologne. Bonn was offered as a possibility. The suggestion is not for a historical game, but a plausible 'what if'.
Bonn itself seems to offer possibilities for an assault crossing with semi built up areas near the main bridge and high ground on both sides overlooking the river. The Nijmegen Bridge type action seems quite plausible.
There's a You-Tube clip taken from a train as it passes a section of the Rhine in Bonn (suburbs I'm guessing) and it shows plenty of crossing sites for infantry assault (but looks way too soft for armour). With adequate support (more that 504th got) it could be an alternative, especially if there is a push for the bridge at the same time. Anyway, these are just suggestions. All intended to be playable and fun without strict adherence to history. I think that if there is no bridge and no suitable assault crossing point, then the game is not plausible.
http://www.travelpod.com/travel-photo/d ... /tpod.html
Fictional yet possible WWII Scenarios
Moderators: dnichols, GHQ, Mk 1
-
Mk 1
- E5
- Posts: 2383
- Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2004 3:21 am
- Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Further to some of my earlier scenario suggestions ...
I agree with previous posters that the seizing of a bridge can make a poor wargaming experience. The whole game might wind up turning on one throw of the dice, and that's just not interesting enough for all the effort of setting up the game.
But ... there are mechanisms that can be built-in to the scenario to make the seizure of an existing bridge into a more interesting game.
The approach I described in my prior post is to set-up the scenario such that blowing the bridge is not one of the defender's options.
But I expect that interesting games can also be constructed where the defender does have the option to blow the bridge, but has a good reason NOT to blow the bridge. This was often the case in war -- the local commander of a bridge often had reasons not to drop the bridge until/unless it was absolutely necessary. (If such reasons were not present the bridge would have been dropped before our game even began...)
If judging "when" to drop the bridge becomes a key issue for the defending player, the game will turn on the decisions of the players rather than just one role of the dice. But the scenario has to be set up so that the defender will clearly loose if he destroys the bridge as soon as he perceives the risk.
Here are some examples I have considered (though not gamed):
- Give the defender victory conditions related to holding the bridge for as long as possible. One example might be an important convoy of vehicles (an HQ? a strong formation of mobile troops?) that are coming down one road, while the attacker is rushing the bridge along another road. The defender only gets points for the convoy units that get across the bridge and off the board. Drop the bridge too soon? Use them to help defend? No points for those that don't cross.
- Give the attacker a surprise force on the defender's side of the bridge. For US these might be paras. For Soviets one might use cavalry -- horses swim pretty well if the river is not too fast nor too wide. Or one can easily construct some other justification for a force having crossed to the defender's side somewhere off-board. In this case you still need to give the defender a reason not to drop the bridge right away, but it might be simpler ... like requiring him to deploy the bulk of his forces as a bridgehead, so that his defenses on his own side are minimal, and blowing the bridge would put the bulk of his force "in the bag".
I agree with previous posters that the seizing of a bridge can make a poor wargaming experience. The whole game might wind up turning on one throw of the dice, and that's just not interesting enough for all the effort of setting up the game.
But ... there are mechanisms that can be built-in to the scenario to make the seizure of an existing bridge into a more interesting game.
The approach I described in my prior post is to set-up the scenario such that blowing the bridge is not one of the defender's options.
But I expect that interesting games can also be constructed where the defender does have the option to blow the bridge, but has a good reason NOT to blow the bridge. This was often the case in war -- the local commander of a bridge often had reasons not to drop the bridge until/unless it was absolutely necessary. (If such reasons were not present the bridge would have been dropped before our game even began...)
If judging "when" to drop the bridge becomes a key issue for the defending player, the game will turn on the decisions of the players rather than just one role of the dice. But the scenario has to be set up so that the defender will clearly loose if he destroys the bridge as soon as he perceives the risk.
Here are some examples I have considered (though not gamed):
- Give the defender victory conditions related to holding the bridge for as long as possible. One example might be an important convoy of vehicles (an HQ? a strong formation of mobile troops?) that are coming down one road, while the attacker is rushing the bridge along another road. The defender only gets points for the convoy units that get across the bridge and off the board. Drop the bridge too soon? Use them to help defend? No points for those that don't cross.
- Give the attacker a surprise force on the defender's side of the bridge. For US these might be paras. For Soviets one might use cavalry -- horses swim pretty well if the river is not too fast nor too wide. Or one can easily construct some other justification for a force having crossed to the defender's side somewhere off-board. In this case you still need to give the defender a reason not to drop the bridge right away, but it might be simpler ... like requiring him to deploy the bulk of his forces as a bridgehead, so that his defenses on his own side are minimal, and blowing the bridge would put the bulk of his force "in the bag".
-Mark 1
Difficile est, saturam non scribere.
"It is hard NOT to write satire." - Decimus Iunius Juvenalis, 1st Century AD
Difficile est, saturam non scribere.
"It is hard NOT to write satire." - Decimus Iunius Juvenalis, 1st Century AD
-
TAMMY
- E5
- Posts: 865
- Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 12:09 am
- Location: MILANO, ITALY
I was wrong on Nijmegen. I re-read carefully the description in "A briodge too far". and I was wrong on the timing.
The assault crossing was decided in the evening of 19 and the attack was fixed for 1 p.m. of the 20. This time was not for boat arrival (the 3 trycks with them were foreseen during the night) but to allow for the preparation of the supporting positions by tanks and to organise the air support. Moreover the crossing point was moved further west (2 km downriver of the raylway bridge) to avoid as much as possible the fire from the bridge.
The attack was postponed to 3 p.m. because the boats were not yet in at 1 p.m. They arrived 10 minutes before the new timing but the attack was launched immediately because the fire support had already started accofrding to the fixed timetable and copuld not be suspended or delayed.
So said I agree with Mk 1 that there are various reasons not to demolish a bridge. For example at Nijmegen the (unsuccesfull) order to blow the bridge was given only when the British tanks were already crossing it.
In short the reasons to keep a bridge standing are to allow for the withdrawal of own forces from the opposite bank or to keep it available for a possible counterattack/reinforcements.
Curiously these are also the same reasons for which an attacker may decide to bomb and destroy it.
One good scenario is a run for the bridge between attacker and defender on the approach to the bridge. The defender has to block the attacker as long as possible to allow for the withdrawal of as much of his forces as possible.
The assault crossing was decided in the evening of 19 and the attack was fixed for 1 p.m. of the 20. This time was not for boat arrival (the 3 trycks with them were foreseen during the night) but to allow for the preparation of the supporting positions by tanks and to organise the air support. Moreover the crossing point was moved further west (2 km downriver of the raylway bridge) to avoid as much as possible the fire from the bridge.
The attack was postponed to 3 p.m. because the boats were not yet in at 1 p.m. They arrived 10 minutes before the new timing but the attack was launched immediately because the fire support had already started accofrding to the fixed timetable and copuld not be suspended or delayed.
So said I agree with Mk 1 that there are various reasons not to demolish a bridge. For example at Nijmegen the (unsuccesfull) order to blow the bridge was given only when the British tanks were already crossing it.
In short the reasons to keep a bridge standing are to allow for the withdrawal of own forces from the opposite bank or to keep it available for a possible counterattack/reinforcements.
Curiously these are also the same reasons for which an attacker may decide to bomb and destroy it.
One good scenario is a run for the bridge between attacker and defender on the approach to the bridge. The defender has to block the attacker as long as possible to allow for the withdrawal of as much of his forces as possible.
Ubicumque et semper
-
Panzer Commander
- Posts: 54
- Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 7:22 am
- Location: Kansas
Thanks for all of you great ideas! I gave them to the 'official' and we had a great game, with the Germans defeating the U.S./U.K. forces. I was one of the German commanders (we had a very big board, it had taken about 6 skirmish boards worth of tiles) and My task was to hold off any spearheads with amphibious assaults. There were two, held off before they arrived. The American forces began across the bridge, but were soon stopped with the same problem the Soviets had above. They began a mortar barrage, and under the artillery cleared the wreckage and moved across the bridge while under heavy fire, and pushed several blocks into the German side of the Rhine. These forces were promptly cut off and destroyed. If it seems strange, my reasoning behind such a quick German victory is that the Allied commanders were new to wargaming, and were rookies. One, though, was very smart. I am almost tempted to say that he was a military tactician beyond (miniature wargaming wise) compare in my area. He obliterated a German tank division, swept around and caught me on my flank before I could react. But luckily I still had my AT guns set up in that area, all I had to do was turn them and begin an attack on his tanks to disorganize and suppress while I made my escape.
All that's necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing.
-Edmund Burke
-Edmund Burke