Burnsides bridge dry river bed ?

[Hancock the Superb]

It looks good to me! Is that actually water or is it a splat?

[Davinci]

It looks good to me! Is that actually water or is it a splat?

These are two-splats used together to create this creek.

I deleted the water properties from the map to help with the FPS, as of now the water seems to bring down the FPS, but maybe that has something to do with the way that I'm doing it!

davinci

[achilles]

Antietam Creek couldn't be 'hopped' over (apparently Douglas's memoirs written 20 years after the war were rife with this kind of hyperbole, and there is good evidence he was never near the creek that particular day). When people think creek they think of something a lot different than the Antietam that day I think. The banks are sharp and high. Thats why there is a bridge to begin with. Its one thing to wade 50 feet across under fire trying to keep your powder dry, quite another to do all that and then somehow try to climb up a bank while somebody is shooting or stabbing down at you, and the banks quickly becoming sodden with mud and blood and bodies as hundreds and then thousands attempted to clamber up.

Here's a great write up with some first hand investigation of the creek:
http://www.historynet.com/battle-of-ant ... bridge.htm

Beyond that, it just wasn't Civil War protocol to send infantry where it couldn't be supplied or supported by wagons and guns. It wasn't a Burnside imperative- the concept of a 'military ford' was standard practice, it required a solid bottom and low banks that allowed wagons to cross (recall that after taking the bridge Burnside required an additional 2 hours to bring up and resupply the lead divisions after the morning fight). Running out of ammunition with a stream at your back is a good way to lose a brigade.

Now thats as maybe, but maybe the creek should have been crossed near the bridge to facilitate its seizure, then you dont have to worry about resupply right? Well thats exactly what Burnside did and Toombs Georgians had a bit of a field day shooting down yankees as they tried to wade across and eventually gave up. If you visit Burnside's Bridge look to the right and there is a marked trail that takes to the shooting gallery a bit farther downstream.

Regardless, the best evidence is that Lee wouldn't have anchored his line on a creek that anyone could cross at will, it would have made the entire position pointless, and Lee hand picked that position even before he ordered his divisions to meet at Sharpsburg.

[IronBMike]

I don't care about looks too much (although the blue looks very good!), I care about units not being able to march over it.

[Little Powell]

I don't care about looks too much (although the blue looks very good!), I care about units not being able to march over it.

They can march over it, it's just the movement rate is sloooooooow as it should be. Plus, don't forget about the fords, if you can find them.

[Davinci]

I don't care about looks too much (although the blue looks very good!), I care about units not being able to march over it.

They can march over it, it's just the movement rate is sloooooooow as it should be.

I wouldn't say that this would be a good idea for a large section of creeks, or streams, but for a vital area, say near a bridge, or near an objective, boulders could be placed in the creeks.

Then, a radius could be applied to the boulders that would prevent any movement through that part of the water, basically the same effect that a house would have by not letting units walk through them.

There is also another way of doing it, but that requires using the GrayScale Color 25 , this has it's advantages, and dis-advantages. Probably more dis-advantages.....

davinci

[IronBMike]

I don't care about looks too much (although the blue looks very good!), I care about units not being able to march over it.

They can march over it, it's just the movement rate is sloooooooow as it should be.

I wouldn't say that this would be a good idea for a large section of creeks, or streams, but for a vital area, say near a bridge, or near an objective, boulders could be placed in the creeks.

Then, a radius could be applied to the boulders that would prevent any movement through that part of the water, basically the same effect that a house would have by not letting units walk through them.

There is also another way of doing it, but that requires using the GrayScale Color 25 , this has it's advantages, and dis-advantages. Probably more dis-advantages.....

davinci

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.

Have there been any developments that would allow the creek to be changed to non-crossable? I have no clue as to modding in this game, but someone suggested boulders. Boulders/houses/other impassable objects?

[Davinci]

Have there been any developments that would allow the creek to be changed to non-crossable? I have no clue as to modding in this game, but someone suggested boulders. Boulders/houses/other impassable objects?

As far as I know the water in the game has been fixed in one of the later patches.

With that said, this does not apply to the maps that were developed before the water was fixed, there just isn’t that much man-power to go back and repair all of the previous maps.

Yes, boulders could probably be placed down in the center of the water to form a slight radius to prevent units from crossing at that point. This probably isn’t a good idea for a large section of the creek.

The game is also programmed to my understanding to have a grey-scale-color-25, that could be placed around the creeks. This is one of the ways that it was done in the previous game.

But, this say…..grey-scale-color-25…..well it doesn’t always work as planned, and it has been known to cause a few problems, such as path errors. So, most of the modders stayed away from using it.

I didn’t really answer your question here, did I!

davinci

[RebBugler]

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.

[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.