Burnside Bridge

[SergenTLaZooZ]

I've seen in the Antietam Tour and in the Kickstarter video the Burnside Bridge (he's wonderful btw) and i was trying to imagine how can a regiment cross that bridge without getting anihilate by another line. It's so small and it looks freaking easy to shoot soldiers while they charging on the bridge. Do you guys think it better be an night assault on the bridge or via the river ? You can make your own assault plan in the commentary section !! Love u all ! Keep it up !! :) :rolleyes:

[SergenTLaZooZ]

For me, a night assaut should be better

[Legion]

People are gonna get slaughtered while trying to cross that bridge, it's probably gonna be the hardest spots to attack on the map, it's gonna be sweet:D

[crazychester1247]

or you can find a way to get across the bridge unopossed. Either by killing everyone defending it on the other side or sending a force to threaten their flanks via snavelys ford or the north.

[A. P. Hill]

If I were Burnside, looking at that "mountain" on the west bank of the bridge and seeing it bristling with the guns of 500 - 600 entrenched Georgia troops, and covered by a battery of artillery a bit further back of the Georgians .... I think I might be prone to tell McClellan if he wants the bridge to come cross it himself. (http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-antietam-controversial-crossing-on-burnsides-bridge.htm)

Night attacks didn't much happen during the civil war, though they spoke of trying them many times, the armies just did not have the technical means, nor the organization to operate and function effectively in the dark of night.

[R21]

or you can find a way to get across the bridge unopossed. Either by killing everyone defending it on the other side or sending a force to threaten their flanks via snavelys ford or the north.

This brings up an interesting issue of whether characters being submerged in water will have any detrimental effect (like Ammo getting Wet/Misfires) i'd personally like to see this as it'd completely take me out of any sense of immersion if I saw Half my line suddenly jump in the River to try and Flank the enemy.

I'm not saying remove swimming or anything but make it so there are risks associated with crossing Water (Slowing of movement and the potential for Misfires).

[JaegerCoyote]

I happen to be a member of a virtual company that tried to seize the bridge.

[SemajRednaxela]

it'll be a blood bath as will all the small maps. if you had 200 men in that small area you'd have more or less constant fire from small arms and covering artillery on both sides. Timing will be key.

As to attack and defence I belive the small version will only have the bridge as a crossing as the ford is too far downstream to fit in the small map which is oblong in shape. Though the Ford may be usable in bigger games.

So a rush over the bridge as the union then forming from colum to line.... all under fire whilst the defenders have to bide their time too unless they be picked and thinned out too much by skirms and arty before the main attack.

[A. P. Hill]

This brings up an interesting issue of whether characters being submerged in water will have any detrimental effect ...

You obviously haven't been reading my posts. :p

[crazychester1247]

You should definatly drown if you jump in the creek. Your powder should also get wet if you wade into water to deep. That's why I would use the ford to flank. As the ford isn't that deep.

[A. P. Hill]

You should definatly drown if you jump in the creek. Your powder should also get wet if you wade into water to deep. That's why I would use the ford to flank. As the ford isn't that deep.

Partial quote from my link above.

On Sunday, June 5, 1994, I took Major Douglas up on his dare to examine Antietam Creek. I ate breakfast that morning in a Hagerstown diner. There, I met an old man who had lived his whole life in the area, and he assured me that the depth of the creek had not increased noticeably since he was a boy, despite the paving of permeable ground that accompanies widespread development.

My visit came in the middle of a weeks-long drought, and the water under Burnside’s Bridge flowed at about the same level as it had in the photographs taken four days after the battle. I followed the creek bank on the nature trail to Snavely’s Ford and crossed, which soaked me to the top of my inseam. The banks there sloped easily, and the bottom felt stable even though the current ran quite strong. At a height of 5 feet 10 inches, I am about 2 inches taller than the average Civil War soldier, but an infantryman of even minimum height might have surged across there with relative ease.

Then I moved upstream to the first bend above Snavely’s Ford. The banks there, vertical and slick with mud, stood 4 feet or more out of the water. I let myself down into chest-deep water and started across, but less than one-third of the way across my feet became tangled in the branches of a submerged tree, and I turned back.

[crazychester1247]

and that is why one uses fords to cross creeks.:)

[A. P. Hill]

There are several reports of "different fords" that were supposed to have been suggested to be used. Read the article, its a bit lengthy but you'll get a better overview.

[Henronicus]

I have heard that Burniside caught a lot of flak after the battle since the water directly below the bridge was very easy to wade across, so he could have used that too.

[A. P. Hill]

Check my link out.

[TrustyJam]

It's not possible to cross the creek at the bridge in the game (even though we know it very much is so in real life) due to the simple fact that we want the crossing of the bridge to act like a bottleneck just like it did in '62.

- Trusty

[Legion]

It's not possible to cross the creek at the bridge in the game (even though we know it very much is so in real life) due to the simple fact that we want the crossing of the bridge to act like a bottleneck just like it did in '62.

- Trusty

I don't think players would go through the water very much anyway because it would slow them down and make them an easier target.

[MadWolf]

It's not possible to cross the creek at the bridge in the game (even though we know it very much is so in real life) due to the simple fact that we want the crossing of the bridge to act like a bottleneck just like it did in '62.

- Trusty

I can already see all the really awesome moments in the future :D

[R21]

It's not possible to cross the creek at the bridge in the game (even though we know it very much is so in real life) due to the simple fact that we want the crossing of the bridge to act like a bottleneck just like it did in '62.

- Trusty

Is the River just clipped off then? (like an invisible Wall blocking Players from Crossing it) imo, this is just as bad in Some ways as Armies swimming across it with no de-buffs to counter doing so.

[crazychester1247]

no you can drown in the creek, just not next to the bridge.

[TrustyJam]

Is the River just clipped off then? (like an invisible Wall blocking Players from Crossing it) imo, this is just as bad in Some ways as Armies swimming across it with no de-buffs to counter doing so.

No, it is by far better. It forces the players to use the bridge just like they were forced to by their senior commanders during the battle.

- Trusty

[A. P. Hill]

Then I moved upstream to the first bend above Snavely’s Ford. The banks there, vertical and slick with mud, stood 4 feet or more out of the water. I let myself down into chest-deep water and started across, but less than one-third of the way across my feet became tangled in the branches of a submerged tree, and I turned back.

From there to the next big bend upstream, the bluffs on the far shore — the side the Confederates held — reached a height of 60 feet or more at an angle of 50 or 60 degrees, and the banks yawned head-high out of the water, still vertical or even concave. It would have been impossible to cross there, so I made no further attempt until I reached the outside curve of the large bend, a few hundred yards below the bridge. There, I found most of the creek bed only 3 feet deep, but in the main channel I suddenly dropped in, to my chin.

I made one last crossing just below the bridge itself, upstream from the postwar dam. The bed of the stream has filled in behind the dam, so the water came only to my waist, but stones made the bottom precarious footing. Twice I stumbled enough to fall into the water, which bothered me not at all because the temperature was already near 90 degrees — and no one was shooting at me. Passage here during the battle would have proved far more difficult, though, because this was the location that the Confederates kept under the most murderous fire during the battle.

If Antietam Creek were so insignificant a watercourse, one might wonder why local farmers had established any fords in the vicinity in the first place. After all, cattle hardly need as shallow a crossing as infantry. Major Douglas’ sarcastic comments notwithstanding, except for the bridge and Snavely’s Ford, the creek would have provided a perfectly effective military obstacle on June 5, 1994, and a great deal of evidence confirms that it served just as effectively on September 17, 1862.

All you need to know by someone who has tried to ford the stream at various places.

[crazychester1247]

Is the entire creek blocked off then or just near the bridge? Pleas tell me it's just the bridge. Also what if our senior commanders want us to not use the bridge? I still hope you can drown if you go to deep though, or get swept downstream.

[A. P. Hill]

From what I understood Trusty to say, the creek IS NOT BLOCKED off. You can certainly get into the creek if you want, but the main channel is going to be over your head.
And for all intents, it is like that except at the fords that were known and used at the time in 1862. Snavely's and the Pry's ford upstream of Burnside's Bridge and below the middle bridge.

[A. P. Hill]

In Burnside’s sector Antietam Creek could be conveniently crossed in two places: on the Rohrbach Bridge, (later to earn the name Burnside's Bridge,) or at Snavely’s Ford, almost a mile downstream. General McClellan had been monitoring Burnside’s performance somewhat critically for the previous couple of days, and on the eve of the battle McClellan sent his own chief engineer, Captain James Duane, to personally position Burnside’s divisions before the bridge and the ford. Duane performed that duty vicariously, through junior officers, and they mistakenly placed Isaac P. Rodman’s division in front of a reputed cattle ford, about midway between the bridge and Snavely’s Ford.

Once Burnside received the order to attack, he sent a brigade against the bridge, which turned out to be such a strong position that the Confederates held it for nearly three hours with a portion of one brigade. Rodman, meanwhile, moved forward to cross at the designated ford, only to find it too deep for infantry.

Your leaders can tell you anything they want, facts are it would not have worked for Burnside as was proven in 1862, and it won't work in game either. :)

[Henronicus]

Now I sort of wish the devs didn't answer and surprised us, so those who tried to wade underneath the bridge got a nasty surprise! :D

[Locke1740]

Now I sort of wish the devs didn't answer and surprised us, so those who tried to wade underneath the bridge got a nasty surprise! :D

I'm sure that might happen to somebody not on the forum

[R21]

I have heard that Burniside caught a lot of flak after the battle since the water directly below the bridge was very easy to wade across, so he could have used that too.


Interesing you should say that, you have this kind of effect in the RO2 Map Bridges of Druhzina with people using the Bridge itself and the supports underneath for Cover.

http://www.raidersmerciless.com/images/screens/bridges.jpg

I'm hoping Burnside Bridge doesn't end up being like that in WOR as it's probably one of the worst Maps in RO2 but from the Videos i've seen of WOR you've got lots of cover and terrain variation either side of the Bridge and the Bridge itself is kind of sloped:

https://youtu.be/fUluC6QHS7I?t=71

Still, I can see that part of the Map being an absolute Meat-Grinder.