Defence of bridges

[Bernard Stuart]

So, how do people treat bridges in the game? Obviously, they provide a road over an otherwise delaying or impassable river, but what if the bridge is being defended? If you treat movement over the bridge as along a road and being in march column, which is how the models appear, then a defender occupying the opposite end of the bridge is effectively invulnerable, since the march column can only fight with one dice and is shot at doubled for enfilade and -2 save.

Somehow this feels wrong as it makes it virtually impossible to take a bridge, and this is not really in the spirit of the game.

So our suggestion is that the entire bridge is treated like a building. You can occupy it with one unit and a gun, putting the figures in and around the bridge. The defenders can shoot out with 2 dice and fight in hand to hand with 2 dice, and get +1 to their morale save for the cover provided by the bridge. Unlike a building they do not get any Combat Resolution Bonus,, but they obey Break test results normally, so they can be force to retire. Victorious attackers could then occupy the bridge.

This produces more drawn fights, and gives the attackers more of a chance, and looks more aesthetic with a mass of struggling figures on the bridge.

[Mike Target]

We usually treat it as an Obstacle: this allows a unit to cross it in Line or assault column albeit with a movement penalty and thus have a chance to smash aside the defenders.

Make them too much of an impediment (like forcing people into march columns or designating them as buildings) and you'll end up cursing every time you see a river on the battlefield.

[Bernard Stuart]

Yes, that seems a practical way of doing it. Do you give the defenders the +1 save for being behind cover?

[Greystreak]

Rather than look at 'house-rule' changes to BP, you might reflect on what tactics Horse & Musket era armies actually employed when faced by an opposed bridge-crossing scenario, and repeat them in the game?

E.g., typically a cloud of skirmishers or light infantry to establish local fire superiority, whilst bringing up two or more batteries to 'sweep' the defender's position, and force a withdrawal, prior to despatching any 'charging' units across the bridge in question, when the moment seems 'ripe'.

Just sayin' . . .

[jazbo]

A bridge is a difficult thing to deal with if defended. How many times can you find instances of unsupported units in column charging over a defended crossing and winning?

Stop, bring up artillery, that's what they did, in every period.

[Cubster]

... or float a guy underneath the defender to poke at him with a spear!

[Big Al]

Skirmishers would help as well. They are more difficult to hit and while on the bridge they can't be charged because of the same restrictions as the attackers would have. Yes, they can only fire a single shot, but one can be enough to cause disorder and eventually shaken, which might give any units following a chance to move up. A unit in skirmish order could do it and may be able to form up once over, in order to form a bridge head.

[Mike Target]

Do you give the defenders the +1 save for being behind cover?

Depends on the bridge...

Generally though its rare anyone would contest posession of a bridge from the bridge itself: Counting the bridge as an obstacle means any unit trying to cross it in any formation is slowed down untill across it, therefore it makes more sense to stand back a little way from it and keep it covered with musketry and cannon: the longer it takes to cross the more shots you get, as the bridge effectivly forms a bottle neck. It allows much more flexibilty than occupying the bottle neck yourself which would restrict your own attempts to move off if the defenders presence was required elsewhere.

Think laterally : If your a defender of a position along the back of a river line stay back off it to allow units to move freely, laterally, along your defensive line to meet the attackers at the point of contact, let the bridges (and fords, same rules) bottle neck and slow down the enemy advance whilst your troops fire into the dense mass of slow moving unmissable targets. Sitting on the ford or bridge yourself bottlenecks you and gives the attacker the advantage.

But dont forget that an obstacle is not an obstacle unless its covered with fire!

Rather than look at 'house-rule' changes to BP

Its not a house rule, its in the book, Ill look up the page but it suggests that you count fords and bridges as "obstacles" : I.e no formation change is required to cross them, but you inccur a move penalty.

Skirmishers would help as well. They are more difficult to hit and while on the bridge they can't be charged because of the same restrictions as the attackers would have. Yes, they can only fire a single shot...

Erm...why cant they be charged? Are you talking about their ability to evade from infantry? And why do they only get one shot?

...but one can be enough to cause disorder and eventually shaken...

the game'll be over by then, how long do you think enemy cavalry are going to stand in front of you and let you take pot shots at them? They'll charge, the skirmishers cant form square, the skirmishers die, the bridge is taken...

[Big Al]

Skirmishers would help as well. They are more difficult to hit and while on the bridge they can't be charged because of the same restrictions as the attackers would have. Yes, they can only fire a single shot...

Erm...why cant they be charged? Are you talking about their ability to evade from infantry? And why do they only get one shot?

Well, a unit in skirmish order can only roll one dice to shoot, not three. Can't be charged? Well, that should be that they can't be charged unless the charging unit can change to skirmish formation to get onto the bridge. If they can't then they can't charge because the only other formation would be march column, and then they can't charge. The skirmishers can't charge a formed unit, so are better off on the bridge taking pot shots and wearing down the defenders.

[Colonel JRS]

To truly get into the right mind set everyone should watch the ACW bridge battle in “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly”, that is not the way to do it! Both Big Al and Mike Target have great points. I think it also comes down to the size and type of bridge. At Ebelsburg in 1809, the French stormed across a 1000ft bridge under heavy Austrian Artillery fire, and then entered into fierce street-fighting at the other end (simultaneously the Austrian were trying to torch the bridge). Clearly this sort of bridge was not stormed by “March Column” or by “Skirmishers”. These assault columns were specially organized with elite troops at the head and usually lead by senior officers (follow me!). So, there would need to be some scenario specific rules to cope with this (special formation rules? Maybe the attacker counts as enfiladed when on the bridge?). Otherwise, for a smaller bridge across a less formidable water feature, I think Mike Target’s obstacle approach works well, with a +1 or +2 (depending on size river, type bridge) moral save to any one defending the other side.