Add a fordable area on Burnside Bridge map

[Poorlaggedman]

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.

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]

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]

[TrustyJam]

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

- Trusty

[LaBelle]

...But don't tell that to cinematic heroes in the servers.

[CptData]

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]

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:




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]

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.