Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21

Thread: Tickets?

  1. #11

    USA General of the Army

    A. P. Hill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    In Maryland State Near to both Antietam and Gettysburg, Harper's Ferry et al.
    Posts
    3,390
    NPS must have taken it down, there is no such feature in the park. Or none I've seen.

  2. #12

    CSA Lieutenant General

    dmurray6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Eldersburg, MD
    Posts
    368
    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    This wall (stone redoubt on the map)
    Attachment 6150
    With all due respect, the validity of the map would have to fall in question, as the stone wall on the Union side of the bridge is missing.

    Since there are pictures of the stone wall on the Union side, we know it existed, yet its left off of this map. That would mean, to create an all-inclusive map of the detailed surroundings for the purpose of our in-game map, we'd have to consolidate every piece of every map known to exist, hoping that the cartographer in each instance, was accurate. So the map you've provided does have a stone redoubt (also spelled redout)", be it very small, on the CSA side of the map, however, would you recommend the removal of the Union-side stone wall based on the logistics of this map?

    I for one would probably agree with the desire to create an all-inclusive map, however, judging the validity of the contributing map(s) features would be the chore.
    Last edited by dmurray6; 05-23-2017 at 07:36 PM.
    Civil War Ancestors:

  3. #13

    CSA Lieutenant General

    dmurray6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Eldersburg, MD
    Posts
    368
    Quote Originally Posted by A. P. Hill View Post
    NPS must have taken it down, there is no such feature in the park. Or none I've seen.
    Hey A.P., not that we weren't just out there, but here are two fairly decent google map pics of the area, for those that haven't been, or wish to see (with all photographic credit given, not to google, but to Raymond Czaplewski):

    https://www.google.com/maps/@39.4508...!7i7662!8i3264

    https://www.google.com/maps/@39.4508...!7i7574!8i2048
    Civil War Ancestors:

  4. #14

    CSA Major

    Legion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Baldwin,Louisiana
    Posts
    1,723
    Quote Originally Posted by dmurray6 View Post
    With all due respect, the validity of the map would have to fall in question, as the stone wall on the Union side of the bridge is missing.

    Since there are pictures of the stone wall on the Union side, we know it existed, yet its left off of this map. That would mean, to create an all-inclusive map of the detailed surroundings for the purpose of our in-game map, we'd have to consolidate every piece of every map known to exist, hoping that the cartographer in each instance, was accurate. So the map you've provided does have a stone redoubt (also spelled redout)", be it very small, on the CSA side of the map, however, would you recommend the removal of the Union-side stone wall based on the logistics of this map?

    I for one would probably agree with the desire to create an all-inclusive map, however, judging the validity of the contributing map(s) features would be the chore.
    Well considering that this map is one made by a historian who researched and read first hand accounts it's pretty valid. Also, he also mentions the union wall on the opposite side of the creek, he just doesn't show it on the map as this was mostly about the csa defenses and positions not the unions.

    There was a stone wall there during the battle, I'm not sure why it's not there today but there are first hand accounts of it being there during the battle.
    Jesse S. Crosby, 20th Georgia Infantry, July 15, 1861 - May 6, 1864

    Samuel T. McKenzie, 20th Georgia Infantry, July 15, 1861 - September 2, 1862

    Joseph C. McKenzie, 20th Georgia Infantry, July 15, 1861 - October 1, 1863

    Henry C. McKenzie, 3rd Georgia Infantry, June 1, 1861 - January 28, 1863

    Charles R. Beddingfield, 38th Alabama Infantry

    Samuel L. Cowart, Cobb's Legion

  5. #15

    CSA Lieutenant General

    dmurray6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Eldersburg, MD
    Posts
    368
    Quote Originally Posted by Legion View Post
    Well considering that this map is one made by a historian who researched and read first hand accounts it's pretty valid. Also, he also mentions the union wall on the opposite side of the creek, he just doesn't show it on the map as this was mostly about the csa defenses and positions not the unions.

    There was a stone wall there during the battle, I'm not sure why it's not there today but there are first hand accounts of it being there during the battle.
    Like I said, I would agree and support the idea of consolidating an all-inclusive map made up of findings from a series of contributing maps, its just the consistency of the cartographers that we have to consider. First hand accounts are great, as long as they don't start contradicting each other. Oh, and the author mentioning the Union wall doesn't do me any good, if it doesn't come through on his map, as I've yet to read his book.

    Take this for what its worth, decent description of the battle around the bridge and a map with more fords than I've seen mentioned. Take the battle description with a grain of salt, as there are not sited sources, but the author does discuss an urban legend about the talks of a shallow creek the day of the battle. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with it, but it does suggest further research in terms of how and when the creek was forded.

    http://www.hyperbear.com/acw/essays/...ntietam-3.html
    Last edited by dmurray6; 05-23-2017 at 09:26 PM.
    Civil War Ancestors:

  6. #16

    CSA Captain

    Lance Rawlings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    North Carolina, United States
    Posts
    836
    I am under the impression that due to the multitude of US complaints, Skirmishes in general has been over balanced onto the US side now. We all know about Burnside's Bridge's restrictions and disadvantages to the CS, but the the other maps are even harder to defend when we have to kill 100 more men than the US does. I think if the ticket numbers were relevant to specific maps it would make the gameplay more enjoyable for both sides.

    I would suggest eliminating the geographical boundaries against the CS at Burnside's Bridge, and rather open up US advantages such as fordable portions. This would make the CS have to spread their forces to cover the multiple passes and not just easily hold the bridge. You can still keep tickets at a large ratio since it's still a hard map, but putting those rifle pits and other previous suggestions would be nice as well. It may be "hard to see" the CS on the ridge, but its just as hard to see the US as well, so I don't think that's much of an excuse.

    For the Sunken Road, I think I would lessen the ticket ratio some, because on almost every US win I've seen on that map its been because 120 US took the last CS ticket.

    I think Dunker Church is the most even, but still forces the CS to be too conservative with tickets.

    Even though I'm a Confederate, I've also played on both sides and made observations from both.

    In conclusion, I'd rather see opportunities to take advantage of than being given disadvantages.
    To the Colors!

    Captain Lance Rawlings
    Company K, 38th North Carolina, Pender's Brigade, A.P. Hill's Division, Jackson's Corps, Army of Northern Virginia
    http://www.warofrightsforum.com/show...lina-Boys-quot


  7. #17
    WoR-Dev TrustyJam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    5,133
    Quote Originally Posted by KernelPopcorn View Post
    I second this, especially with the notion of making Burnside Bridge fordable.
    We're back to the same issue as before though. Do we want the majority of the Union forces across burnside and not fording somewhere else? Yes, just as we want the CSA to defend the heights and not base of the bridge.

    As previously stated, expect the balance to take a long while to get right.

    - Trusty

  8. #18

    USA General of the Army

    A. P. Hill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    In Maryland State Near to both Antietam and Gettysburg, Harper's Ferry et al.
    Posts
    3,390
    My opinion on the "stone wall" on the confederate side.

    Given that the map only shows a short unconnected wall of maybe 20 feet, and knowing there was a stone quarry nearby, I'm going with the Georgians may have taken advantage of some of those stone to fill in a hollow or a low point on the side of the hill. Not that it was a construction that was built by the locals for any purpose, and was in existence prior to the battle, just on the fact that it's not connected to anything gives the appearance of an immediate construction. After all, what's the point of a local constructing something like this?

    Also after having examined the map a bit, (a map I have never seen in 50 years of study,) I would say that the stone barricade, (not a wall,) was constructed right about where the park service has run the access road up to the top of the hill, thus taking out the position.

    But due to the fact that the hill in game is not positioned precisely where the existing hill is, and that the hill in game does not rise 150 foot above the creek bed at the western debauch of the bridge ... it may be hard to go back and massage the topographical to place the defenses on the Confederate hill side.

    If the map can be updated then cool, otherwise, I don't think the existing topography is suitable for defensive works.

  9. #19

    CSA Captain

    Lance Rawlings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    North Carolina, United States
    Posts
    836
    Quote Originally Posted by TrustyJam View Post
    We're back to the same issue as before though. Do we want the majority of the Union forces across burnside and not fording somewhere else? Yes, just as we want the CSA to defend the heights and not base of the bridge.

    As previously stated, expect the balance to take a long while to get right.

    - Trusty
    I don't expect the balance to come for a long while til everything get's figured out, but I think the majority of US forces probably still would focus on the bridge. But when the CS is forced to watch over multiple fords (their flanks really) it thins out the guys at the bridge, giving the US a chance to break through. I look forward to seeing how everything gets worked out.
    To the Colors!

    Captain Lance Rawlings
    Company K, 38th North Carolina, Pender's Brigade, A.P. Hill's Division, Jackson's Corps, Army of Northern Virginia
    http://www.warofrightsforum.com/show...lina-Boys-quot


  10. #20

    CSA Major

    Legion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Baldwin,Louisiana
    Posts
    1,723
    Quote Originally Posted by dmurray6 View Post
    Take the battle description with a grain of salt, as there are not sited sources, but the author does discuss an urban legend about the talks of a shallow creek the day of the battle. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with it, but it does suggest further research in terms of how and when the creek was forded.
    The creek was fordable that day, it's not an urban legend. The book I mentioned has over 40 pages of valid sources many from the nps.
    Quote Originally Posted by A. P. Hill View Post
    My opinion on the "stone wall" on the confederate side.

    Given that the map only shows a short unconnected wall of maybe 20 feet, and knowing there was a stone quarry nearby, I'm going with the Georgians may have taken advantage of some of those stone to fill in a hollow or a low point on the side of the hill. Not that it was a construction that was built by the locals for any purpose, and was in existence prior to the battle, just on the fact that it's not connected to anything gives the appearance of an immediate construction. After all, what's the point of a local constructing something like this?

    Also after having examined the map a bit, (a map I have never seen in 50 years of study,) I would say that the stone barricade, (not a wall,) was constructed right about where the park service has run the access road up to the top of the hill, thus taking out the position.

    But due to the fact that the hill in game is not positioned precisely where the existing hill is, and that the hill in game does not rise 150 foot above the creek bed at the western debauch of the bridge ... it may be hard to go back and massage the topographical to place the defenses on the Confederate hill side.

    If the map can be updated then cool, otherwise, I don't think the existing topography is suitable for defensive works.
    I'll try to find the description of the wall and post it here. I can't remember if it was built by the Confederates but I'll find out and get back to you.

    Either way, we should have defensive works on the hill.



    EDIT:

    Description of some of the defenses and positions of the two CSA regiments on the heights.

    "Filing into a defensive line overlooking the Rohrbach Bridge, the 2nd Georgia took position on the right, or south, of the bridge. Along the crest of the bluff, Colonel William Holmes deployed his men in a line for about 300 yards southward and roughly parallel to the creek. Here, the 2nd Georgia's line was shielded by patches of tall timber atop the high ground and along the wooded slope. This naturally strong defensive position was made even stronger by the soldiers' use of fence rails, logs, rocks, and 'Everything that could give protection.'

    ...Along the steep slope of the nearly 110-foot high bluff rising from the creek's edge, another 2nd Georgia company was positioned above a small rock quarry on the narrow point of land that made a natural defensive salient, looming eastward and about two-thirds of the way up the bluff immediately to the bridge's right.

    ...Meanwhile Toombs and Benning continued to deploy the 20th Georgia, under Col. Jonathan B. Cumming, about two-thirds of the way up the commanding bluff on the left. ...The heaviest concentration of 20th Georgia Rebels took defensive positions north of the stone bridge along the bluff's crest overlooking the bridge and parallel to the road running along the west bank. Here, they anchored their right on the 2nd Georgia's left. In addition, along the creek bank leading north from the bridge, Colonel Cumming spread a line of skirmishers northward to cover the west bank of the Antietam and guard against a Federal crossing that might outflank Toombs's left. Roughly ten to fifteen yards west of the Antietam, a split-rail fence ran northward and parallel to the creek, offering some protection for skirmishers north of the bridge.

    A belt of forest lined portions of the Antietam's bank north of the bridge and along sections of the slope, allowing concealment for the men of the 20th Georgia. These defenders took position behind a stone wall, running atop the bluff, and other defensive positions parallel to the creek. North of the bridge, the countryside on both sides of the Lower Bridge Road leading to Sharpsburg was cultivated and devoid of heavy brush and timber.
    Last edited by Legion; 05-24-2017 at 03:03 AM.
    Jesse S. Crosby, 20th Georgia Infantry, July 15, 1861 - May 6, 1864

    Samuel T. McKenzie, 20th Georgia Infantry, July 15, 1861 - September 2, 1862

    Joseph C. McKenzie, 20th Georgia Infantry, July 15, 1861 - October 1, 1863

    Henry C. McKenzie, 3rd Georgia Infantry, June 1, 1861 - January 28, 1863

    Charles R. Beddingfield, 38th Alabama Infantry

    Samuel L. Cowart, Cobb's Legion

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •