PDA

View Full Version : Add a fordable area on Burnside Bridge map



Saris
05-14-2018, 02:10 AM
Add a fordable area on Burnside Bridge so the Federals have another way of crossing Antietam Creek. This will allow federals another way to cross instead of waiting behind the stonewall for a mass charge that will mostly fail. Even the River Crossing on Harper's Ferry has 2 ways of crossing. During the actual battle, the creek was shallow enough for people to cross, it should be so in the game also. To balance this out, confederates should be able to get close to the river bank without deserting but keep the area around the bridge and the new crossing as a desertion area. If possible, if a soldier wanted to cross by fording, the water should slow them down.

https://i.imgur.com/GixVGwh.png

Saris
05-22-2018, 02:28 AM
Bump with diagram

McMuffin
05-22-2018, 04:07 AM
Quality MS paint skills Saris.

Anyways, adding a fordable area on Burnside would definitely allow for more dynamic gameplay on the bridge, and force the Confederates to spread out their numbers some and worry about more, again, adding more to the gameplay and balancing the map a bit as you take a large number of defenders and then spread them out a bit thinner. By spreading out the Confederates, breaking a team up into groups to watch the banks is a necessary move. And what I have explained is only one way that it would enrich the gameplay instead of "Oh, look, they had more numbers than us" and tiresome charge after charge.

CptData
05-22-2018, 08:29 PM
Not sure if you aware of that issue, but in fact, the entire battle of that bridge is based on Gen. Burnside insisting on using that bridge - while most (if not all) of the river was shallow enough to allow infantry to wade through.

So adding some shallow areas would actually make the map closer to the real deal all those years ago. Too bad, lower ranking Union officers usually didn't question General's orders ... so NOT using that bridge may be against said orders. ;)

TrustyJam
05-22-2018, 09:02 PM
Not sure if you aware of that issue, but in fact, the entire battle of that bridge is based on Gen. Burnside insisting on using that bridge - while most (if not all) of the river was shallow enough to allow infantry to wade through.

So adding some shallow areas would actually make the map closer to the real deal all those years ago. Too bad, lower ranking Union officers usually didn't question General's orders ... so NOT using that bridge may be against said orders. ;)

Thank you for the suggestions. :)

This is exactly why I'm not overly keen on adding fordable points to that particular skirmish area. The "tiresome charge after charge" as described by McMuffin above is exactly what transpired there. In short, I fear adding fordable points will make charges on the actual bridge (which is by far the most historical correct thing to focus on in this particular skirmish area) a thing of the past or at least happen very rarely - I don't want the majority of players to be centered around or even under the bridge (which they will be if given the choice most of the time, even with debuffs to movement speed due to the simply fact that there is far superior cover there).

I would, however, be interested in experimenting with off-setting the team numbers (think 90 attackers against 60 defenders) on specific areas such as this one but in return even out the starting morale amounts a bit. This is not possible to test out at the moment however.

- Trusty

Saris
05-22-2018, 09:13 PM
Thank you for the suggestions. :)

This is exactly why I'm not overly keen on adding fordable points to that particular skirmish area. The "tiresome charge after charge" as described by McMuffin above is exactly what transpired there. In short, I fear adding fordable points will make charges on the actual bridge (which is by far the most historical correct thing to focus on in this particular skirmish area) a thing of the past or at least happen very rarely - I don't want the majority of players to be centered around or even under the bridge (which they will be if given the choice most of the time, even with debuffs to movement speed due to the simply fact that there is far superior cover there).

I would, however, be interested in experimenting with off-setting the team numbers (think 90 attackers against 60 defenders) on specific areas such as this one but in return even out the starting morale amounts a bit. This is not possible to test out at the moment however.

- Trusty

Even if the Federals cant cross the creek by fording, can the confederates at least be able to go to the river bank without deserting?

TrustyJam
05-22-2018, 09:15 PM
Even if the Federals cant cross the creek by fording, can the confederates at least be able to go to the river bank without deserting?

I'd be willing to try that out with the off-set teams as well, yeah. :)

- Trusty

Leifr
05-22-2018, 09:28 PM
Or maybe... rifle-pits?

McMuffin
05-22-2018, 09:30 PM
Allowing us to go farther up coupled with offset teams I think would make enough of a difference in gameplay to make it a bit more fun and not as boring while stile remaining historically accurate. I’m in favor of that.

Bleddyn
05-22-2018, 09:44 PM
The "tiresome charge after charge" as described by McMuffin above is exactly what transpired there.

Fording of the creek also transpired there, Captain John Griswold's 11th Connecticut is probably the best known example. (They were cut down before they made it across in case anyone doesn't know the story.) I am certainly not saying that if it happened in real life it should be in game, playability has to come before realism or nobody will play. However we should not dismiss it as something that didn't happen when it indeed did.

Griswold's ford point was believed to be a little south of the bridge, just outside the frame of Saris' example picture. A point where the Union soldiers can cross 1 or 2 wide but not turn left or right to walk down the creek itself, would fit nicely. The creek is said to have been deeper and faster flowing back then. That would account for having just one passable point, and the inability to hide against/under the bridge.

TrustyJam
05-22-2018, 09:58 PM
Fording of the creek also transpired there, Captain John Griswold's 11th Connecticut is probably the best known example. (They were cut down before they made it across in case anyone doesn't know the story.) I am certainly not saying that if it happened in real life it should be in game, playability has to come before realism or nobody will play. However we should not dismiss it as something that didn't happen when it indeed did.

Griswold's ford point was believed to be a little south of the bridge, just outside the frame of Saris' example picture. A point where the Union soldiers can cross 1 or 2 wide but not turn left or right to walk down the creek itself, would fit nicely. The creek is said to have been deeper and faster flowing back then. That would account for having just one passable point, and the inability to hide against/under the bridge.

I'm not saying it didn't happen. I'm saying the holdup at the point wouldn't have been so long had Burnside indeed embraced fording it instead of keep ordering charges across the bridge. The main reason Burnside's Bridge is so well known is because of this - charge after charge. :)

- Trusty

Poorlaggedman
05-23-2018, 01:36 AM
Wasn't there an officer mortally wounded trying to cross to the right side of the bridge? I don't like how players aren't physically allowed to enter the water with an invisible wall. They should come to the same conclusion that the bridge is the best route but not just be prevented entirely. It should be very slow going and require a new 1st and 3rd person fording animation... maybe even ruining your cartridges once you cross. BTW, I have seen multiple people somehow glitch across the water on the left side but I've never managed to duplicate it.



I would, however, be interested in experimenting with off-setting the team numbers (think 90 attackers against 60 defenders) on specific areas such as this one but in return even out the starting morale amounts a bit.
8432

Bleddyn
05-23-2018, 03:36 AM
Wasn't there an officer mortally wounded trying to cross to the right side of the bridge?

The officer I spoke of, Capt. John Griswold was mortally wounded but it was to the left side (from the Union perspective). This YouTube video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIniWLht_00) claims to show the approx. location that the 11th Connecticut tried to cross.

A. P. Hill
05-23-2018, 04:14 AM
I respectfully disagree.

According to this video. :) Pay attention around 8:35, and watch and listen to where the 11th CT goes.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=414&v=tqfMkRG-LEk

Bleddyn
05-23-2018, 04:39 AM
I respectfully disagree.

And you may do so Sir.

The fact remains that Captain John Griswold with at least a portion of the 11th., was killed attempting to ford the creek (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZHgAvPbOkc&feature=youtu.be&t=2421) even if the bulk of the regiment tried the bridge. I of course cannot say exactly where it happened. That is why my previous post uses the word "claims", because I have no possible way to verify it is correct based on that one video. I did make the assumption that someone who was on the spot making a video probably researched it more that I have however.

RhettVito
05-23-2018, 04:57 AM
Or maybe... rifle-pits?

Yes, please!

sal_tuskin
05-23-2018, 02:52 PM
wel the problem I see with the 60-90 thought is what do you do if you have more than 60 csa playing the preceding map do you just kick them from the server how do you choose who the 60 is cause If I was playing and I got kicked because of the 60 rule I would not be happy

the union can easlly win that map they just have to continue to push the bridge instead of sitting behind the stone wall and sniping all game and wonder why they lose even last nite the csa moved back to fenced and the union still hardly charged

I feel the the map is fine it is the union movements and strategy is why they have a problem with that map it can be won by the union

never a good idea to make people leave a server

TrustyJam
05-23-2018, 02:56 PM
wel the problem I see with the 60-90 thought is what do you do if you have more than 60 csa playing the preceding map do you just kick them from the server how do you choose who the 60 is cause If I was playing and I got kicked because of the 60 rule I would not be happy

the union can easlly win that map they just have to continue to push the bridge instead of sitting behind the stone wall and sniping all game and wonder why they lose even last nite the csa moved back to fenced and the union still hardly charged

I feel the the map is fine it is the union movements and strategy is why they have a problem with that map it can be won by the union

never a good idea to make people leave a server

No one will be kicked from the server - once a skirmish area has ended and a new one begins you're presented with the faction selection screen (this is part of the alpha currently). The only difference is that one team will be unselectable (because it is full) sooner than it is currently. :)

- Trusty

sal_tuskin
05-23-2018, 03:51 PM
so trusty you are saying if 150 are on the server on pervious map 75 union 75 csa what will happen that 15 csa will have to go union to be able to fight on that map
again how do you u choose what 15 have to move and what happens if the 15 don't want to move then they cant play the csa side they want to play I don't feel that is a good solution either that's like making 15 union on harpers ferry play csa on the bridge crossing I see how well that will go over making union play csa or csa playing union

just saying trusty a lot of people don't like the other side lol maybe you can come up with other ideas and maybe let the testers choose by a poll what they prefer cause I don't think a lot will like to play on the other side much I maybe wrong but I doubt it

again thanks for work trusty

TrustyJam
05-23-2018, 04:27 PM
so trusty you are saying if 150 are on the server on pervious map 75 union 75 csa what will happen that 15 csa will have to go union to be able to fight on that map
again how do you u choose what 15 have to move and what happens if the 15 don't want to move then they cant play the csa side they want to play I don't feel that is a good solution either that's like making 15 union on harpers ferry play csa on the bridge crossing I see how well that will go over making union play csa or csa playing union

just saying trusty a lot of people don't like the other side lol maybe you can come up with other ideas and maybe let the testers choose by a poll what they prefer cause I don't think a lot will like to play on the other side much I maybe wrong but I doubt it

again thanks for work trusty

There are no 75 of either CSA or USA when a skirmish area starts. There are 150 unassigned players (all presented with the faction selection screen).

Some might not like to play as the other side but that is the nature of a balanced multiplayer game - While you generally can play the side you prefer you can't expect to do so 100% of the time.

- Trusty

Poorlaggedman
05-23-2018, 04:32 PM
Do you not play currently? You have to pick a new team each time the scenario changes you aren't automatically granted a spot on your prior team. :p

Team stacking is not a radical concept. The scenarios should have team limits, regiments, and even sides if possible (replayability > pure history worship) attached to some script file that can be modified on the server-side for events such as generic unit vs public.



According to this video. :) Pay attention around 8:35, and watch and listen to where the 11th CT goes.
The more I learn about the Civil War the more I find just how hodge-podge it was with constant skirmishing action and small-unit initiative taken. It's often represented cleanly but it's usually not. In the most easily-known example nobody is currently claiming that the elaborate maneuver by Chamberlain happened the text-book way it was once thought on Little Round Top. Everyone's saying it happened more impromptu as was the Alabama assault tactics. I was there on the ranger program at the spot yesterday afternoon. It's what the park rangers and the guides all subscribe to anymore since as long as I've been going. Few resemblance of a functioning line on many parts of the battlefield (certainly not standing for a team morale bonus) in that type of terrain. But don't tell that to cinematic heroes in the servers.

sal_tuskin
05-23-2018, 04:47 PM
poor I do play quite abit like about every day or so but have fun making 15 union or 15 csa who are part of companies play against their own that does work as well as you think but both the bridge maps are disliked by the majority of the players anyhow its fun the first 2-3 time running across but a dying simulator get boring fast

but when private servers come we can just skip the map anyhow so this is really only for public servers also this is just a civil war shooter not a reconstruction of events the maps maybe but the actions of the players are now where near what happened and never will be so the realism goes out the window fast lets make the game fun to play and people will throw money at this game
I still like the fordable areas idea as long as they cant go under the bridge personally

Saris
05-24-2018, 03:07 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXiv97PoXJg

TrustyJam
05-24-2018, 04:33 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXiv97PoXJg

Thanks for sharring the vid. :) There will be steeper creek banks added in the next update to better portray the area.

- Trusty

LaBelle
05-24-2018, 05:14 AM
...But don't tell that to cinematic heroes in the servers.

:rolleyes:

CptData
05-26-2018, 12:41 PM
Thanks for sharring the vid. :) There will be steeper creek banks added in the next update to better portray the area.

- Trusty

Since we have a similar situation on another map (where you have to wade through a river that's nearly that deep) - we might need to slow down people there.
Did you ever run through a waist deep river? It won't work, you'll always slow down and waste a lot of stamina. In fact, you'll be faster if you'd switch to swimming mode, which isn't possible unless you want wet powder. Which also gives us several other isses:

Wading through a waist deep river may force your soldier down to "quick time". No "double quick", no "sprint".
If you think charging the bridge is bad, imagine yourself wading through said river. While being under fire by reb muskets. If you're lucky, you'll make it to the other side, but by then, 80% of your unit will be dead, put down by aimed shots. That's less survivors than charging the bridge!

Your prepared shots get wet if the pockets get under water.
No need to say it: if the powder is wet, you simply can't fire that shot. Missfires should be a thing in the game. So if your officer insists wading through the river, he also should order to fix bajonetts, otherwise you'll get charged and killed by Johnny Reb. You can't return fire after all.


Just saying. So yeah, while it'll be a nice addition to wade through water here, make sure it'll won't be a walk in the park. Even if the rebs can't see the full tour through the water, what they can see is enough to decimate that unit. If it reaches the other side, they can't fire a shot and either need to charge as quickly as possible into enemy positions or get dispatched easily by sharpshooters.

A. P. Hill
05-26-2018, 03:57 PM
Okay, I stand corrected! And I recant my previous differences of opinion. You'll forgive me.

I've gone back and done some research on the 11th CT, and I've found a couple accounts and stories for Antietam, and there is verification that this Captain, did for a fact perform what has been stated of fording the creek, while bearing an eventually mortal wound.

That said, most all accounts I read DID NOT mention a mass crossing of the creek by many numbers. One account stated that the Captain in question was leading a platoon sized group of his unit to ford the Antietam, and it read, "upon entering the creek, and the confederates firing into the platoon, with several casualties, all the men turned back except for the Captain." Or words to that effect.

The point here is Burnside/Cox/or whoever leading the IX Corps was told by McClellan to take the Bridge, and it seems commanders took the directive literally to get across the creek, take the bridge! :)

Burnside did however exercise a bit of individualism in that he sent a division down stream to the reported Snavely's Ford, so it's not to say Burnside was completely adverse to wading across the creek, but in a vain effort to follow orders, charged the bridge.

I in another search found this:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLKAxTjz3OE


Note the height of the west bank of the creek, as well as how slippery the banks on each side are. It's definitely an obstacle.

Respectfully,
Powell

Foghorne
06-14-2018, 03:00 AM
No one will be kicked from the server - once a skirmish area has ended and a new one begins you're presented with the faction selection screen (this is part of the alpha currently). The only difference is that one team will be unselectable (because it is full) sooner than it is currently. :)
Sir, you can't possibly mean I should to fight with the Yanks.
https://i.imgur.com/bQutZvC.jpg