Burnside Bridge

[FakeMessiah27]

The numerical advantage in tickets doesn't matter at the moment, due to the time restraint. The Union team could spent the full time limit doing nothing but charges across the bridge and still not win on tickets.

[David Dire]

I would personally say just reduce the Confederate tickets even more.

[Poorlaggedman]

The map is a tough obstacle to crack. I have yet to see great leadership examples in this game. It's perfectly doable to take the point, though. It's just much easier to lead people in defense than offense.

[Crabesquash]

I don't think there is a need to make big changes...

The last time when I played this map we (confederates) lost, because the union players had a fantastic teamwork.

With a good team playing on union side, that map is not so impossible to win

(just my 2 cent)

[Morris8911]

I don't think there is a need to make big changes...

The last time when I played this map we (confederates) lost, because the union players had a fantastic teamwork.

With a good team playing on union side, that map is not so impossible to win

(just my 2 cent)

Was about to say the same thing. I've seen the union win numerous times with well timed charges and patience.

[McMuffin]

I wouldn't move the capture point there. However, I would strongly recommend that the Confederates are able to push up to the fences right before the banks and have access to the roads.

[dmurray6]

So no one agrees with the point of testing a skirmish scenario where Burnside's Bridge (sorry, the Rohrbach Bridge, or lower bridge) starts with a 36 vs 28 situation or even more lopsided (40 vs 24)? I understand that the ticket count (which we as players can no longer see, and that's not a negative comment) differs to try and represent the disparity in force strengths. However, even with ticket disparity, a 32 vs. 32 event at Rohrbach's Bridge will never give you the feeling of 12,500 Union versus the approximately 400 men that Toombs had defending the ridge. That's the only reason I think a test scenario of this particular skirmish would be cool if there was actually a force difference at spawn time. To better replicate the odds at the battle. Now granted, I do not believe that at any given time, that all 12,500 Union soldiers were directed to take the bridge simultaneously, but I do not think that a 40 vs. 24 ratio would even come close to meeting the ratio difference between 12,500 and 400, so that's a moot point.

Thoughts?

[Saris]

So no one agrees with the point of testing a skirmish scenario where Burnside's Bridge (sorry, the Rohrbach Bridge, or lower bridge) starts with a 36 vs 28 situation or even more lopsided (40 vs 24)? I understand that the ticket count (which we as players can no longer see, and that's not a negative comment) differs to try and represent the disparity in force strengths. However, even with ticket disparity, a 32 vs. 32 event at Rohrbach's Bridge will never give you the feeling of 12,500 Union versus the approximately 400 men that Toombs had defending the ridge. That's the only reason I think a test scenario of this particular skirmish would be cool if there was actually a force difference at spawn time. To better replicate the odds at the battle. Now granted, I do not believe that at any given time, that all 12,500 Union soldiers were directed to take the bridge simultaneously, but I do not think that a 40 vs. 24 ratio would even come close to meeting the ratio difference between 12,500 and 400, so that's a moot point.

Thoughts?

We are still using tickets, we just can't see the number each side has right now. Maybe the devs should lower the number of tickets for Confederates even lower to make it more realistic. Until they implement the whole morale system.

[dmurray6]

We are still using tickets, we just can't see the number each side has right now. Maybe the devs should lower the number of tickets for Confederates even lower to make it more realistic. Until they implement the whole morale system.

Yes, totally aware that we're still using tickets, but again, 32 vs. 32 doesn't give you a feel of a mismatched battle. That's an even battle with just an uneven ticket count. That's my sole point. Having the same 32 Union soldiers continue to respawn regardless of ticket count will never replicate the lopsided advantage of the Union. Lopsided ticket counts give nothing but an advantage if the battle comes down to attrition vs. time. It will always be 32 soldiers charging, dying, respawning, with maybe a few survivors seeking refuge on the creek banks. So the next wave (if 3 soldiers survive the charge) will be 29 soldiers spawning and charging, with hopefully a few living to join their pals on the creek banks. Rinse and repeat until you have enough of a force on the C.S.A. side of the bank to attempt a flanking movement up the hill. This isn't a terribly bad plan, and would make use of the current tickets and timers. However.....

I get that there have been successful attacks from the Union side for this particular skirmish map, and that a well organized strategy will likely still get you to that point. But 32 vs. 32 will always be an even battle relying more on the ticket count or the timer, that's simple math, it's not arguable. And don't forget, we're talking about alpha. A time to test the system, a time to make crazy changes for the sake of testing purposes.

I'd be totally up for lowering the event timer for this skirmish, experimenting with the spawn sizes as suggested above (36 vs. 28), and maybe even manipulating the ticket count to reflect something associated with a decreased timer. Right now, 32 Confederates sitting on a ridge have little to no anxiety about an equal number of Union soldiers charging over the bridge. There's nothing that strikes fear on a side that was supposed to have approximately 400 soldiers against 12,500, when its 32 vs. 32. That's all I'm saying. Now, when there is 28 Confederates sitting on that ridge with 36 Union soldiers charging the bridge, you're shitting your pants every time. Does that make more sense?

[Morris8911]

So no one agrees with the point of testing a skirmish scenario where Burnside's Bridge (sorry, the Rohrbach Bridge, or lower bridge) starts with a 36 vs 28 situation or even more lopsided (40 vs 24)? I understand that the ticket count (which we as players can no longer see, and that's not a negative comment) differs to try and represent the disparity in force strengths. However, even with ticket disparity, a 32 vs. 32 event at Rohrbach's Bridge will never give you the feeling of 12,500 Union versus the approximately 400 men that Toombs had defending the ridge. That's the only reason I think a test scenario of this particular skirmish would be cool if there was actually a force difference at spawn time. To better replicate the odds at the battle. Now granted, I do not believe that at any given time, that all 12,500 Union soldiers were directed to take the bridge simultaneously, but I do not think that a 40 vs. 24 ratio would even come close to meeting the ratio difference between 12,500 and 400, so that's a moot point.

Thoughts?

I would be down for a this test. That is the point of Alpha. It would be interesting to see the results.