AI Tactics

[Foreign Devil]

I just played a very interesting battle. I was Itailan, and attacked the Hungarians. The Battle took place on a map with a river. Here's the thing- the AI deployed a ways away from the bridge. I started to move my units torward the crossing, expecting to fight a bloody battle to get across. But to my surprise, I was not attacked until I had my first few units across This allowed me to set up a screen with my spearmen to block the attackers long enough to get my cavalry and Italian infantry (i love those guys&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif over. I then had little difficulty winning.

What I want to know is, have any of you had similar expierences??? I guess I should mention that this was on the "easy" setting.....

Oh, and I saved the replay if any are interesting in seeing it.

[AndersSchm]

Sometimes it seems to stay close to the bridge but after wiping out the majority of the AIs army a few times with arbalests across the river it seems to keep them further back. Not sure how much the AI "learns" or whether this is just based on its own unit disposition.

[deejayvee]

I've found that if you can get a good spear type unit across the river quickly enough the AI may give up trying to hold you at the bridge and try to find another good defensive position.

[Foreign Devil]

They didn't even move from thier starting location until i had a unit of spearmen formed up on thier side of the river

[desdichado]

I have a slightly different experience with a bridge crossing.

Had a very tough 5 (or 6, I forget) general leading a small force against HRE. I didn't have numbers to force the bridge crossing but had a go anyway. Moved 2 spearmen to the undefended bridge (I still don't understand why AI ignores 2nd bridge) and had them wait on other side. I then marched 3rd spearment unit across bridge and AI engaged with order foot (I had feudal sarges). They basically destoyed each other. Funny thing is when I marched my general and last spearment unit onto bridge AI hightailed it backwards. It was an orderly retreat with AI covering slower units with cav but still a retreat.

I stopped general halfway across bridge and AI camped near map edge. I got him moving again and AI quickly left battlefield leaving me with a strange victory. I know my general was tough (previous battle completely surrounded by 300 men, entire army routing he not only held the line but won the fight and chased enemy spaniards back up hill - marvellous to watch) but I was facing a fairly tough well balanced HRE army.

I was just surprised AI was so scared of my general.

Anyone else seen this?

Tried it again with another 5 star general - solo unit CMAA - HRE king abandoned province without a fight. He outnumbered me 4 to 1 http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

[LadyAnn]

The enemy AI general perhaps has the v&v of "hesitant", "good runner", "eager to retreat". Well, if not before the battle, then certainly after the battle.

It is a wellknown tactic to allow half of the enemy's force to cross the river, then attack them while shoot down the units in the rear. Any unit run back would make a mess out of the units trying to get to the front. The AI actually does that on "expert" mode, as I expect it to do. Send out the force to block the bridge early doesn't pay because it becomes a shooting target.

Annie

[Pellinor]

I got something similar last night. The AI has posted a unit each of steppe cavalry and milia sergeants next to the end of the one bridge. The rest of his 14 units were diagonally off, well out of bowshot of the bridge.

I shot these two units to pieces then routed the remnants with heavy cavalry. I then moved cavalry over the river, and the AI sent a couple of units in which died fairly quickly. As the spears and archers came over the bridge, however, the enemy advanced. My line was only half-formed when they arrived, as half the units were still on the bridge and got I couldn't get round to flank the AI. After quite a struggle, I routed.

If it had been me I wouldn't have left the sacrificial units by the bridge, and I would probably have charged sooner. Otherwise, the AI defended the river pretty much the way I would have done, given that he had no missile units to speak of. And his later charge only meant I had more troops routing at once

[jas]

I found in STW that if I was defending a bridge, and heavily outnumbered, it actually helped to set up away from the bridge on higher ground. I would also leave a couple of cavalry archer units, if available, near the bridge to pepper the enemy as they came over and then skirmish away. Having to cross over a bridge under fire and then walk up a hill to get me really seemed to make the AI nervous, and in experiments I could consistently win battles this way that I would lose when replayed setting up as close as I could to the bridge (but still out of archer range). Seems counter-intuitive but often worked. I've never seen the AI do anything similar though.

[HopAlongBunny]

AI does some strange things during bridge battles. (SP)

I once sent a unit of halberds and ponies to cover one bridge while I advanced on the other. AI didn't move til units were in place at far bridge so I crossed them over; AI marched entire army off to deal with this threat (1 halberd 1 pony) and I marched my main force across the abandoned bridge. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

I may not have been facing the "cream" of my opponents army but... DOH

[hoof]

A real-world example of letting the enemy cross the bridge can be found in WW2.

On D-Day, the germans opened fire and resisted landings on the beaches as the landing craft approached (this would be analogous to resisting a bridge assault as soon as the enemy starts to cross).

The Japanese observed and learned of what worked and what didn't during D-Day and applied that to the defense of Iwo Jima and Okinawa in the Pacific. Instead of resisting as soon as the US landing craft approached, they waited until the beaches were swarming with US personnel before opening up. This led to more "efficient" use of ammunition from a casualty rate standpoint. (analogous to waiting until some units are across before engaging).

I'm not sure which I'd prefer as an attacking soldier, being under fire from the get-go, or landing on a beach in unnerving quietness, only to have everything turn into a blood-bath at the worst possible moment.

[Ckrisz]

Actually, many historians criticize General Ushijima @ Okinawa for allowing the Americans to land unmolested. While this did allow him to set up the defenses that made Okinawa such a bloody, long battle (and ironically persuaded the American high command to advocate nuclear weapons versus an invasion of Japan), it allowed the Americans to seize airfields and begin the huge logistical buildup that allowed them to triumph. I think these historians believe that a determined defense of the beach, combined with the mass kamikazes that took place, would have caused huge American casualties.

[Earl of Freshly Mowed Grass]

Huh...

OK, my synopsis begins. Here we go. Are ya ready yet? Okay...

In the book "100 Unorthodox Strategies," and OLD (that is caps if you didn't notice) chinese strategy book, gives a very good explanation of fighting a river croosing battle.

"When you approach a river, you must deploy you lines some distance from the edge because then you will entice the enemy to cross and also show there is nothing to be suspicious about. If you definitely want to engage in battle, do not approach too close to the river because they might fear being unable to ford the river successfully. If you do not want to engage in battle, then resist their forces right at the river to impede them, making it impossible for them to ford the river. If an enemy is crossing a river to come up and engage you in battle, it will be advantageous to wait at the water's edge until half have crossed before striking them."

See, the whole point of letting that one or two units cross, then pouncing them, is that their entire army can split your army into little pieces. The AI is actually outstanding, just that it isn't intelligent and cannot predict what you are doing. 'Tis that downfall of computers: They react, not predict.

The Almighty God, Earl of Freshly Mowed Grass

[HopAlongBunny]

Very sound advice EFMG. That book sounds like one well worth reading http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Foreign Devil]

I'll have to take a look at that, thanks for the tip.

[A.Saturnus]

I think it doesn`t quiet apply here because it doesn`t matter if you want the fight. As you write it, the troops are held back to encourage the enemy to cross the river, but this is unnecessary in MTW, the enemy has to cross the river anyway. I think if the enemy has no long ranged units then it`s best to fight very close to the bridge cause he can`t use all his force and you can shoot at his troops on the bridge (I had once 3 nizari, 2 mamluk archers and 2 arbs shooting on murabitin on a bridge, THIS was bloody&#33http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif.

[hoof]

It makes a bit of sense. If you have him surrounded on a 180 degree half-circle, in general more of your men will be able to fight than his men. Basically, in a surrounded situation, less men can fit into the inner circle than the outer one. Therefore, the surrounding army has an advantage, it's simple geometry.

Thus, letting the enemy pour over, then surround 'n' pound *should* yield slightly better results than stopping him with a line at the bridge-head, especially if there's a good hill after the bridge.

In the stop-short approach, you and the enemy can put just as many men in the fight, unlike the surround-the-pocket approach described above. Then, you're relying on any slope advantage, and/or troop advantage to carry the fight.

The exception to this, IMO, is if the enemy consists primarily of cavalry. In this case, your strongest spearmen parked just short of the bridge will do wonders http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

And, of course, if you have numerous missile troops, stopping the enemy on the bridge makes great target practice http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Qilue]

Specific example of what hoof talks about.

During a battle with the new improved horde, 13k vs 2k billmen/longbows. I managed to hold one side of the bridge and exterminated a large portion of his army (about 7k) when they tried to cross with few casualties. Then my general (8 star) had a testosterone surge and got himself killed charging the main force. Since most of my men were green, they routed on the next push and I lost the battle. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/angry.gif

[Foreign Devil]

I should mention that neither side and any ranged units

Edit: the thing that astonished me was that the AI acted like it was unaware of my presence until it was too late.

PS. Is there a place where I could post the replay/see replays that others have posted???

[Earl of Freshly Mowed Grass]

Hoof explained by reasoning for that quote quite well. Did you notice that those two units of yours that crossed the bridge alone got annhilated, and would have no matter what you tried to do to save them. Or am I just delusional? (A very real possibility )

See, it is all about army cohesion: you MUST keep your army fighting as one. (not neccessarily together, but few can fight a multi-faceted battle and come out on top) So the AI trashing those two units was extremely smart of them. Just because you can out-think the computer DOES NOT MEAN THE AI SUCKS I have a background in programming. From this experience, I have found that computers are DUMB. They can only do what you tell them. Literal AI is impossible because no matter what, the central "brain" must follow inputed coded instructions. So just because you saw something it didn't isn't a reason to trash the AI.

Thank you and have a good night...