Colonial Campaigns Club (CCC)

Engineers in F&I is there some special function that i have missed when it comes to these units?

No special function. [:(]

Maybe some day, they will be able to repair/destroy bridges or maybe breastwork hexes. [:)] (I hope.)

Oh well they are jolly good chaps any way I am sure.

Hey, In NRC I thought they are able to repair bridges[?]

Yes, acording to the manual they can repair Bridges!

So, what is the hold up in FIW - 1776 -1812[?]

Must be one of the programmers got scalped before he could add it![:D]

In response to Paul, our turns are only 5 minutes long, so at best in most scenarios, bridge repair would take say 6 to 12 turns, and then perhaps only infantry could cross as to repair a bridge sound enough for cavalry, art. or wagons would take hours. Turn length is probably why we cannot build entrenchments in these games as well. Both of these could be accomplished in a long game as they have in F&I. It would be interesting if engineering were added and rules such as they have in the ACW games were in effect, such as building would stop if the the hex came under fire.

Correct you are, no doubt the 5 minute turns had some play on it. I do love building breastworks in ACW.

Would be nice if Pontoniers could lay pontoon bridges to create additional cross points over marsh, stream or river. But again, 5 minute turns makes that kind of unlikely too.

Yes, to have those abilities might be useful for editing interesting scenarios as well. Perhaps building a bridge would be the objective of the game, ( being able to destroy one?) Or building bateaus would be one "battle" in a campaign. Another engineering possibilty, advancing seige works, of course the siege scn would have to be very long. If the turn time was edited for longer periods of time, a seige scn would not be too overwhelming. These abilities would really increase the depth of the game, and would fit nicely with the most recent patches.

Larry,

Variable length of turn is an interesting idea, especially if troops could build breastworks or trenches. Then one scenario in a campaign could be for 'sapping' toward a fortress during the night, etc.

I would like to see breastworks and bridges have numeric values as in the ACW or Nap engines so that they could be destroyed in battle. With a few changes to the PDT file forts could then be built, not by the map maker, but by the scenario designer when creating a scenario and breaches could be made during battles.

A foot note about bridges. From my research, a few months ago, the bridging technology that existed in North America basically prohibited any bridges longer than 40 feet. It wasn't until 1818, if I remember correctly, that one of the major rivers in New England was bridged. Until that time all rivers more than 30-40 feet across were crossed by ferry.

Of course the above is regarding permanent bridges, so pontoon bridges would be an exception.

With this in mind, and coupled with our engine parameters perhaps creeks should be represented by a full water hex instead of a hex side. This arguement may carry wieght where evidence showed that a creek was used for water transportation a great deal.