Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Changes to Burnside Bridge

  1. #1
    RhettVito
    Guest

    Changes to Burnside Bridge

    From historical records, research, and looking at pictures of the original Burnside Bridge. I would suggest the following: clear out some of the trees leading up to the bridge on the Union side of attack so that the Confederate can see them better coming down the road as they historically did. As for on the Confederate side on the left and right side of the bridge have slightly fewer bushes and trees and stuff for the unions to hide behind. Doing stuff like this will slightly alter how some people approach the bridge.

    Historically speaking there were three ways of them assaulting the bridge. One of them was a further upstream assault which failed. The other one is going straight up the road and trying to push across the bridge which also failed for the Union. The 3rd assault which finally overran the Confederate positions was a head-on frontal assault made by the same numeric number regiments the 51st New York and 51st Pennsylvania. Just as a suggestion for the devs to put into play.


    Here is a few pics of the bridge showing how there is not a lot of bushes. They are all taken the same time of the battle.






    Personally, if anything was done I would say mainly to remove some of the brush on both sides of the bridge. This would make it where the Union can be seen coming up the road and the Union can also shoot at the Confederates better from their side of the river. Now as for all the bushes and stuff on the Hill the Confederates are on I would almost say to add more but it is good at the current point.


    Why would this make the battle better you ask? Well, for one it would make the battle harder for both sides. The Union would be able to have a slightly more clear view of the Confederates but the Confederates will have the best view of all since they are on a hill. Would this change the outcome of the battle sometimes yes?


    As for everyone else, what do you guys think from a historical standpoint?
    Last edited by RhettVito; 05-26-2017 at 06:09 PM.

  2. #2

    CSA Captain

    Lance Rawlings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    North Carolina, United States
    Posts
    836
    I don't think this is a bad idea, I fully support all efforts to restore the in-game battlefield to how it looked during the fight. Great effort on the research, Vito!
    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


  3. #3
    RhettVito
    Guest
    Anyone else has some thoughts on this?

  4. #4

    CSA Lieutenant General

    dmurray6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Eldersburg, MD
    Posts
    368
    The majority of this http://www.warofrightsforum.com/show...932-Union-woes thread discussed what's been happening during the Burnside Bridge skirmish map. I would suggest taking a look at it and seeing what has already been discussed. I like your ideas of getting to historical accuracy, but that's been described as one of the main selling factors the whole time, correct?

    The stones that were used to build the bridge were said to have been "mined" from the hill on the west (Confederate) side of the bridge, leaving "rifle pits" for the Confederates to take shelter. Legion has made mention to a small stone wall that was on the west side (there's been speculation whether this wall existed before the battle or whether it was a make-shift wall hastily thrown together from surrounding foraged stones), either way, it likely existed. I'm not the first, and will probably not be the last to note these facts. A number of discussion have also taken place concerning the various fords that existed and were or were not successfully used by the Union. All of these are great historical facts, some may even be the product of contradicting first-hand accounts.

    Regardless, Campfire appears committed to make balancing adjustments, again, this is alpha for a reason, and I'm sure these types of feedback sessions are likely what they're looking for.
    Civil War Ancestors:

  5. #5

    CSA Major

    Legion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Baldwin,Louisiana
    Posts
    1,723
    Quote Originally Posted by dmurray6 View Post
    The majority of this http://www.warofrightsforum.com/show...932-Union-woes thread discussed what's been happening during the Burnside Bridge skirmish map. I would suggest taking a look at it and seeing what has already been discussed. I like your ideas of getting to historical accuracy, but that's been described as one of the main selling factors the whole time, correct?

    The stones that were used to build the bridge were said to have been "mined" from the hill on the west (Confederate) side of the bridge, leaving "rifle pits" for the Confederates to take shelter. Legion has made mention to a small stone wall that was on the west side (there's been speculation whether this wall existed before the battle or whether it was a make-shift wall hastily thrown together from surrounding foraged stones), either way, it likely existed. I'm not the first, and will probably not be the last to note these facts. A number of discussion have also taken place concerning the various fords that existed and were or were not successfully used by the Union. All of these are great historical facts, some may even be the product of contradicting first-hand accounts.

    Regardless, Campfire appears committed to make balancing adjustments, again, this is alpha for a reason, and I'm sure these types of feedback sessions are likely what they're looking for.
    Agreed. I posted some more information on the other thread. Also, the rifle pits were dug by the confederates a day or two before the battle. The rock quarry was used as a makeshift bunker by the Confederates and the stone wall was already there before the confederates got there.

    The Confederates also built breastworks by cutting down tree limbs and brush.

    Also to the op, the left side of the bridge (confederate left, was more open and had less underbrush but was still covered in trees. The right side had more trees and bush but the confederates could still see the union moving down the road along the creek.

    Also, your second photo is very intersting as it shows that the creek was indeed very shallow the day of the battle and proves that the creek was frodable like the confederates said (which is exactly what I've been telling everyone.)

    I'll repost the description of the defenses etc here but I recommend using the other thread (link below) so we can keep everything in one place.
    http://www.warofrightsforum.com/show...ge-Suggestions

    EDIT. Here it is, took me a while to find because it wasn't in the thread I thought it was in.

    "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; 05-26-2017 at 10:34 PM.
    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

  6. #6

    CSA Captain

    Goad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    49
    I seen trenches / rifle pits when I went there on the hill. And according to their depth, they were not shallow ones either.

  7. #7
    RhettVito
    Guest
    Hope the devs might look into this on their free time

  8. #8

    USA Lieutenant General

    [WoR] Kiff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Jupiter, Florida
    Posts
    385
    Good research, I like the idea to implement as much historically accurate terrain in the game as virtually possible! +1

  9. #9

    USA Major


    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    240



    Battlefield sketch by Edwin Forbes and what I think to be the finalised newspaper Illustration. I think what you can clearly see is the amount of troops they had in place. Much more than in "our" skirmishes. I would suggest that if changes are made they probably should be for the historic gamemodes with a lot more players than we have right now, while the skirmishes version could stay as it is.
    In my oppinion there is absolutely no point in an uberly accurate mapdesign when there is not the amount of players to use strategies that would be necessary to break the defensive line up there.

Posting Permissions

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