Scourge of War Boards

IronBMike

Is this possible?

One of the main themes of Antietam is, well, Antietam Creek. It factored greatly into the battle. At the time it was determined that they couldn't cross it, so I don't see why historical revisionism is needed to say "well they could have crossed it, they just would have been very tired." It makes all scenarios involving the creek completely non-historical.

Yep, I agree, but lost that battle. Best I could do on the scenarios was to make them challenging and try to force the Union troops to use the bridge.

The prevailing thought here was that the creek could be crossed, but Burnside insisted that only assaulting and capturing the bridge would insure his mission of gaining the heights beyond the creek. Still, it made designing historical scenarios very difficult as the AI would always try to ford the creek...going as the crow flies so to speak.

Boy I don't see how you lost that one. Totally changes the game and the realism factor.

Marching Thru Georgia
I don't think the creek was the issue, but the very steep bank on the opposite side. The road was the only practical way to move troops up onto the flat ground south and east of Sharpsburg.

IronBMike
Boy I don't see how you lost that one. Totally changes the game and the realism factor.

Along with MTG's quote, this is why the creek crossing was ruled out historically. I have toured that creek, and it is fordable in many parts, but the banks are the main obstacle, very steep coming right out of the water, 4 to 6 feet, with thick and heavy brush making it even more treacherous to get up and around. And under fire...HELL for most mortals to undertake.

My bottom line was that the creek should be made impassable so that the scenarios would be historical in nature. I was out voted by at least 4 to 1. So, you all now get ahistorical scenarios. :whistle: ...but as I said, I made them a challenge none the less.

I have toured that creek, and it is fordable in many parts, but the banks are the main obstacle, very steep coming right out of the water, 4 to 6 feet, with thick and heavy brush making it even more treacherous to get up and around.

Well, that part won't work out too well, it would be almost impossible to have cliffs in the game, the units would simply fall-off and drop down the embankments.

It probably would be kind of cool to to watch it the first few times that it happened!

davinci

Rebugler Wrote:

I was out voted by at least 4 to 1. So, you all now get ahistorical scenarios. :whistle: ...

This is why you were outvoted:

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

You actually get historical scenarios.. The creek is passable, even by the bridge. But it's still incredibly difficult to do so, which is why the movement rate is incredibly slow.

We wanted to leave it up to the player (and AI) to decide if they want to try and pass.. Burnside chose not to.. You can try and pass, but again, you'll get major movement and fatigue penalties for doing so.

Yep, I've seen the video, I've seen the creek, but that doesn't change my vote. Because the bottom line here, as I stated, should be to create historical scenarios...the creek was fordable, just not passable. So, since the steep banks made it impractical to pass, the creek needs to be programmed as impassable, otherwise the troops get mired down in the creek, like they do now, making the scenarios ahistorical.

Well, I'm just being redundant here, but at least IronBMike understands WHY things are as they are now. :whistle:

If the far bank is impassable for large numbers of troops to scale, why wasn't it made so? The same question can be asked about the east bank near the middle bridge. RebBugler is correct, the AI ignores any obstacle that is not completely impassable and become sitting ducks.

AI ignores any obstacle that is not completely impassable and become sitting ducks.

Which is exactly why we made it passable. The AI may "decide" to pass, but they will be penalized majorly for it. We can't make it impassable if there was any possibility at all that it could be passed, no matter what the consequences.

I know this is something that can be debated forever and I do see the points on both sides of the argument, but I'm just explaining the reasons why we decided to do what we did.

AI ignores any obstacle that is not completely impassable and become sitting ducks.

Which is exactly why we made it passable. The AI may "decide" to pass, but they will be penalized majorly for it. We can't make it impassable if there was any possibility at all that it could be passed, no matter what the consequences.

I know this is something that can be debated forever and I do see the points on both sides of the argument, but I'm just explaining the reasons why we decided to do what we did.

I may be wrong, but won't the AI always 'decide' to pass? It's presumably not factoring in all the things troops did. The AI wading across the creek spoils this part of the map for me, I'm afraid.

The AI may "decide" to pass

If so, then:

Set up several union brigades on the east side of the bridge. Give them movement orders to form up on the west side of the bridge. Even prompt them, give them Roadmarch so they are instructed to use the bridge. Of course, they will be under fire by the Reb units placed historically.

Let it play out, eventually they will all be on the west side at their order's destination, having driven back the two lone Reb regiments.

Count the number of regiments that DECIDED to use the bridge. This should end the debate.

I forget who did it but the Antietam Creek battlefield for TC2M is an example of how the community has tried to make the creek impassable. The upshot was that units that got close were automatically routed down to Richmond and back (exaggerated for effect) on a path along the creek bank which of course is extremely "ahistorical" (is that like Aarrive?).

All scenarios that allow any AI control will become "ahistorial" at some point. I'm an ahole for posting this.