Burning bridges (one by one)

[Gilrandir]

This line from Garth Brooks' song is to introduce the question I wonder about. During bridge battles you sometimes see two bridges across the river, other times - just one. Is there any game rule that governs the number of bridges? It seems to me that while attacking I more often saw two bridges and while defending - one, but I can't wager my head that this is the correct observation. Yet, perhaps it makes sense as while attacking you the AI never:no: uses the second bridge even if there are two of them. Well, what do you think about it?

[caravel]

The AI is not advanced enough to use the second bridge. It always forms up and heads for the enemy general, so it will generally try to take the shortest route to him - it has never been able to divide it's forces and perform "pincer movements".

River crossing maps are selected based on the information stored for the provinces or border crossing points in the early/high/late startpos files. Some of the maps have one bridge, some have two, that's just how they were designed. If you want to remove the second bridges from all the maps or the maps themselves, I believe this is possible, but have never tried it myself.

[Prince Cobra]

I have seen the AI attacking the both bridges. It is true it concetrated most of the soldiers on the one, but there was a bit of a fighting on the other one too.

[RRMike]

I have seen the AI attacking the both bridges. It is true it concetrated most of the soldiers on the one, but there was a bit of a fighting on the other one too.

Ditto. Despite reading that the ai rarely or never attacks both bridges I've had to fight at both before. It was in my recent Russia high campaign. The horde sent one of the 8-10 waves attacking Kiev to the second bridge after having no success at the first bridge they attacked.

[Gilrandir]

The horde sent one of the 8-10 waves attacking Kiev to the second bridge after having no success at the first bridge they attacked.
Did they attack both bridges simultaneously, or did they just switch the direction of their offensive from one bridge to the other? And did you survive the heart... oops! the horde attack in this case?

[Axalon]

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/images/redux/images/RX_TwinBridges.jpg

- A

[caravel]

I have seen the AI attacking the both bridges. It is true it concetrated most of the soldiers on the one, but there was a bit of a fighting on the other one too.
That's pretty much how it works, i.e. there is no coordinated attack or defence on twin bridges from the AI, it just happens sometimes, often by accident.

If you divide your forces from the start and send them across both bridges, which is usually the case in some form or other, then depending on their size, placement and composition, the AI is likely to chase those units, or target them with missiles, but it will be deployed from the start to defend either one bridge or the other, not both.

If instead you deploy against the first bridge and then send e.g. cavalry around to the second bridge after deployment, the AI is likely to ignore them, until they've crossed and come into range.

What the AI cannot do is deploy intelligently in twin bridge situations, either in attack or defence, but the AI is actually quite good with single bridge maps however and uses good tactics and every advantage. When I say that it cannot "deploy intelligently", I mean that it is unable to divide it's forces and attack/defend bridges in a coordinated manner from the deployment stage. When attacking the AI usually just crosses one bridge, unless the force is sufficiently large that some of the units positioned on the wings are closer to the second bridge. Again the positioning of your units, particularly the general, is a big factor also.

[Gilrandir]

Axalon, as far as I can assume your screenshot is from a modded game, so probably the AI's bridge battle management is different from that of vanilla MTW/VI. I may guess that you modded the game to enable the AI to use both bridges, am I right?

[Prince Cobra]

Axalon, as far as I can assume your screenshot is from a modded game, so probably the AI's bridge battle management is different from that of vanilla MTW/VI. I may guess that you modded the game to enable the AI to use both bridges, am I right?

Vanilla MTW/VI is just fine to see that. Have in mind I always leave people on the both bridges (that would be more realistic), though I still can guess most of the time which bridge would be attacked and have most of my troops there.

[RRMike]

Did they attack both bridges simultaneously, or did they just switch the direction of their offensive from one bridge to the other? And did you survive the heart... oops! the horde attack in this case?

The battle at the first bridge was still happening and they sent some of the reinforcement troops to the second bridge. They didn't "attack" both bridges at the same time, but attacked a second bridge while there was still a battle going at the first.

It was long enough into the battle that the reinforcements aren't really coming in waves anymore, but more like a steady stream of guys.

[Axalon]

Axalon, as far as I can assume your screenshot is from a modded game,

Yup.... Redux....



...so probably the AI's bridge battle management is different from that of vanilla MTW/VI.

Nope, it is not...



I may guess that you modded the game to enable the AI to use both bridges, am I right?

Nope... That stuff is regrettably enough hardcoded by CA and as a result that stuff is also possible in raw MTW, just as Cobra points out in his post (which I can further confirm btw). Anyhow, in my previous post, the AI is shown as the attacker of two bridges and the player as defender. Here is another pic, now illustrating the player as attacker and the AI-defending two bridges - at start up...



https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/images/redux/images/RX_BridgeDefense.jpg
This pic shows that the AI can defend two bridges, and in this case it obviously does just that.... The frequency of such
occurrences is wide-open for debate - the AI-capacity to do it, is not...


- A

[Gilrandir]

The battle at the first bridge was still happening and they sent some of the reinforcement troops to the second bridge. They didn't "attack" both bridges at the same time, but attacked a second bridge while there was still a battle going at the first.

It was long enough into the battle that the reinforcements aren't really coming in waves anymore, but more like a steady stream of guys.
And? Any luck in repelling them?

[RRMike]

Oh yeah, they never got Kiev. In fact, I was struggling to replace losses at Kiev so I just moved in against kazhar with my armies from Volga, prev, rhyzan, Chernigov and Kiev and beat them soundly against 3-1 odds. The horde simply has no answer for halberds and pavise arbs.

You should try Russia high. I think it's way easier than byz high.

[Gilrandir]

An interesting (and illogical) thing that I noticed in my last campaign: the river borders between two provinces are not river borders either way. For example if you move from Serbia into Hungary you will cross the river, but if the opposite way - no river in the offing. I didn't actually fight those two battles. The province info parchments show there is and there is no river respectively on the army's way. Perhaps there are some more strange borders with a disappearing river. I spotted one more - between Denmark and Saxony. Did anyone make a similar observation? It beats all comprehension. :wall:

[drone]

The border battlefield types are defined in the startpos file, and you have to define them each way between provinces. Several do not have identical types for both ways, there are many cases where it's mountains one way but hills the other. It makes sense if you take into account that the battle does not necessarily take place right on the border, the defender may cede ground into the province for a more defensible position. If the border between the provinces is a river, then both ways should be (I imagine). With the Denmark/Saxony border, I'll have to compare the borders to a modern map, maybe the defenders pull behind the Elbe?

[Gilrandir]

If the border between the provinces is a river, then both ways should be (I imagine).
At least in some cases I mentioned it is not.


With the Denmark/Saxony border, I'll have to compare the borders to a modern map, maybe the defenders pull behind the Elbe?
Real world geography does not always rule in the game. Mostly the game river borders can be equalled to real world rivers, but the latter do not always feature in the game.