River/bridge maps?

Has anybody had a battle on bridge/river crossing? In my Shimazu campaign, I parked one of my armies on my side of the bridge at a river crossing on the strat map just after getting the Realm divide message---thinking I could do some serious damage to any army who tried to cross. However, when I was attacked and went to the battle map, it was a standard open field map. This happened at two different locations on the strategy map.

I was just wondering if they have eliminated river crossing battle maps in Shogun2.


P.S. speaking of bridges, on the bottom tier castle map that is by the ocean, there is a pretty little arched bridge spanning a water fall--just below the cliff side walls of the fort. In case you didn't know it, your troops can use that bridge if caught outside the castle to get from one side to the other.

I had left some cavalry outside the walls in a siege defense hoping I could take out some missile troops before they started pelting my defenders. However, when the battle started, my cav was facing nothing but spear troops on the side I had them. I thought they were done for until I tried using the bridge, and they thundered right across to the safety of the other side of the fort.

Same here. I placed an army behind a bridge but got not river map. Then I placed an army on the bridge...and no river map.

Wow, this makes me sad and simultaneously destroys my entire campaign map strategy :( If the AI had ever bothered to attack me in the field that is.

I have parked an army on a bridge and I have had a least 2 bridge battles out of 2, from memory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aimlesswanderer

I have parked an army on a bridge and I have had a least 2 bridge battles out of 2, from memory.

---

I was placing my army at the end of the bridge on the strat map, but not actually on it. I guess this game is a little more picky about placement than Napoleon was.

Cheers.

honestly i think its more random than picky. I've had plenty of bridge battles but on a few occasions its gone to a plain map.

the reset button is ctrl-L

Hmmm... first time i did a bridge defence i parked my stack on the bridge itself, and didnt get a bridge map. Next time my stack was just off of the bridge (on my side) and i got a bridge map so i assumed this was a quirk in how the game worked, every bridge defence since i've kept my stack off of the bridge and i've always got a bridge map in the battle.

However this seems completely at odds with the reports above.

Not really liking bridge battles in this game though, to be honest. They dont seem to actually cause the attacker much in the way of problems, since archers can just stand in the middle of the (presumably fast running) river and fire as usual with no accuracy or damage penalties that i've noticed. Havent noticed much in the way of penalties to charging cav or melee troops either.

So far I've had 100% bridge battles when standing ON the bridge on the campaign map, standing behind it gives a regular battle.

I agree with Davey though that the penalty for crossing the river seems too weak.

Bridges are destructible now by siege equipment, which is why I suppose there has to be a river crossing point in addition to the bridge. But that means that I have to divide my force in 2 halves, since I dont know which way the enemy will move. Sort of defeats the purpose (unless you have some siege engines that is).

I preferred the old MTW bridge battles, in which there was just the single bridge you could set your army up against. Good memories :)

I've gotten some nice victories out of bridge maps, but sometimes I think I'm standing on a bridge, but then a plains battlefield appears. If I'm feeling really lame/don't want to lose I just reload, adjust my position a bit and re-try.
edit: I've usually guarded river crossings with whatever cavalry I have with me aside from General and if no enemies come, I cross to the other side and charge.

in my experience you need to stand ON the bridge, not near it, to initiate a bridge battle. Beware that most maps have multiple crossings.

I thought the internets hated river crossing battles? What's all this wistful reminiscing?

Reinforcements are slightly screwy too. I've had them coming from the opposite side of the river to what was on the campaign map.

I'm going to repeat my call for a third, operational layer in between the strategic and tactical.

"Reinforcements are slightly screwy too. I've had them coming from the opposite side of the river to what was on the campaign map."

This is still a problem in napoleon - so good luck :)

Your unit has to be touching the bridge or on it. Just sit your guy on the bridge a little closer to your end than the other.

I must have been sloppy in my placement. Good to hear a river defense is possible. :2thumbsup:

Another observation here, not sure if it has any bearing on the actual mechanic for how/when a bridge map is generated.

I placed my army in the middle of the bridge on the map, got a regular field battle.

When I placed my army about 1/3 of the way over from my side of the bridge, I got a bridge/crossing battle.

I'm pretty happy with the bridge battles. I got a map with three potential crossings, guarded two of them that were close together, the AI ended up going for just one of them, bunched them up when they got over and arrowed them. I do in part miss the medieval I bridges where a single unit of sergeants ould hold that bridge for ages :p But not really.

I'm really happy the river isn't just a bunch of this shallow water you get around castles. That stuff is weak. I've seen the moat around Nijō castle in Kyoto, you're not going to ride cavalry through that... Ditch the towers and bring in moats, I say.

I've always had sort of a love/hate relationship with bridge battles. They have usually been kind of an exploit for the single player in most TW games---especially in Napoleon. In that game all one needed were 2 cannon units placed at each of the two crossings (usually a bridge and a shallows) flanked by infantry and the enemy would just march right in to--and be decimated by--loads of canister and small arms fire. One is always on the defense in Napoleon and Empire if they have superior artillery--which I always tended to have.

In Medieval 2, I got tons of kills at bridges with my ballistae.

The only TW game I can remember where the enemy AI units were able to contend with bridge battles in a halfway intelligent fashion was the first Shogun. (maybe Medieval 1 also, but it's been a long time since I played it)

If Shogie 1, if the enemy was on defense, (they always were in my games since I played very aggressively in the first Shogun) one was going to have to have have a numerically superior army with lots of Ashigaru to dash back and forth on the bridge as bait and loads of archers lining the bank to pelt any enemy that got in range. The goal was to run the enemy missile troops out of arrows while you still had fresh archers in reserve. Then one ended up with a big bunched up mêlée battle in the middle of the bridge while you were able to still rain arrow down on the enemy until their weakened units would break.

Those still tended to be a chore, but one had to contend with them since any province that contained a river automatically meant a bridge fight. Consequently, I'm really interested to see how a bridge battle in Shogun 2 plays out.

I know this is slightly off topic, but has anyone else had a castle fight where there are these unexplained holes on the ground pretty much just beyond arrows reach? Kinda like trenches, but they're pointless...

I've just seen them and don't know what to think of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Forward Observer

I'm really interested to see how a bridge battle in Shogun 2 plays out.

---

My first bridge battle went like this:

Strategically, my army was standing on the bridge in Bungo awaiting an attack that was sure to come from the latest peasant rebellion. (The first was Christian. This one was hungry. Umm, due to a slight oversight about the shiny new fortress taking 3 food when Bungo was producing 2...)

Setup.

The rebels had a big force, 18 units with a 3 star general. 1 lt cav, 2 bow ashigaru, 2 teppo ashigaru and the rest yari ashigaru.

I had a 1 star general, a lt cav, 2 katana samurai, 4 bow ashigaru and 5 yari ashigaru.

The battle loads and we have a rather flat open plain with a bridge and 2 fords, one on either side of the bridge itself and each a fair distance away from said bridge. It was also raining cats and dogs.

I think "Good. The teppo should be worthless." I covered the bridge with yari in spear wall and 3 of the archers. The ford to the right I covered with a yari and an archer. The cav, samurai and general were farther behind the bridge forces in reserve. The ford to my left was unguarded. I did this on purpose to see what the AI would do.

The fight.

My forces snuggled up to the bridge in the hopes the rebels would come over it directly. The rebel general promptly did just that. He charged across it into the spear wall and the fire of 460 archers. I can't say this was suicidal as he withdrew after losing half his hatamoto. I'd like to think that in fair weather he would not have survived.

After this dangerous "How to" lesson in making a Burnside frontal assault (bridges were a kind of specialty for Ambrose), the rest of the rebel army crowded unto the crossing like a massive herd of cattle. Well over a thousand men pressed into a tiny area on my side as the spear wall bent into a cresent that never broke. Arrows fell as hard as the rain, in torrents. One rebel yari ashigaru tried to cross the ford on my right, the one that was covered. It was easily sent packing by the archers there and was destroyed by my lt cav, for whom these fellows, as things would unfold, were just an appetizer.

Several minutes of grinding melee went on at the bridge until the rebel general returned, this time, I think, to do his duty in the only way left. When he fell, the rout commenced. In went my soaked but fresh katana samurai who did not fight at all but instead executed.

The lt cavalry slammed into the rear of this roiling butcher shop and wore themselves out ending this second and hopefully last revolt in Bungo.

I lost between 300 and 400 yari ashigaru. Somehow around 100 rebels got away, mostly lt cavalry and I suppose some teppo, who never did fire a shot and whom I never noticed at all. The rain confounded them as it should have. My archers had over 800 kills.

I think it's too early to pass judgement on the tactical AI yet. Despite out numbering me, the odds were not good for it here once it determined to attack in the first place.

I've noticed the AI very rarely makes use of fords and alternate paths in a bridge battle. It's also sluggish to defend them when, on the flip side, you use them against it. The general AI defense on a bridge seems to be to skirmish with ranged units while you push toward the bridge. Once you make your move, to either continue to lay down fire or withdraw to a main line - and then its business as usual.

When the AI defends it's a very 'passive' defender, giving up the crossings with little fuss in my experience and only really pushing you once you've redrawn your lines on the other side of the river.

When it attacks it's nearly suicidal, throwing everything at you at once. While the field AI isn't perfect it's usually much more reserved than it is in a bridge attack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monk

I've noticed the AI very rarely makes use of fords and alternate paths in a bridge battle...

---

I realize there are exceptions, but in the one and only bridge battle I've fought so far, the AI sent one unit of bow ashigaru to the bridge on my right and the rest stormed the ford in the center.

I think it does some sort of shortest path thing. I don't mind. The AI, if it has missile superiority will break your army with missiles because it'll run onto the bridge and attack your units that way.

I've seen some better-than-bad performances from AI in bridge battles. In my battles AI has occasionally sent a single unit to cross over a ford while most try to pass through the bridge. At one point AI sent ashigaru unit walking that way, I sent my No-Dachi samurai to counter them, they turned back and so did I, then they turned around again and so did I, this continued for a while...

AI really should consider where to cross. In all my bridge battles, I would have been completely caught off guard if AI had sent all units to a ford or even split troops equally.

I played a siege defence last night where the castle is surrounded by a river with two bridges crossing to the central island, where the castle is built. I thought this would be a cake walk but was concerned not to over-commit in deployment so had most forces in the castle but 3 Ashigaru archers behind a single Yari Ashigaru unit at my end of each bridge.

The gong struck, it turned out the enemy had set up opposite only one bridge so I pulled the force from other back behind the walls and waited as the enemy advanced.

I must have gone back to checking on who i had manning which section of wall for a second because the next minute I looked back, the attackers were wading through the river and I realised my 4 units of Ashigaru were caught out in the open!

I had to sacrifice my Yari unit but i managed to get the 3 Yumi units back inside safe enough.

Not exactly the AI doing me over there, but I hope that serves as a warning for others! This was a castle to the south west of Kyoto by the way.

Well, I finally fought my first bridge/river crossing battle last night. I had an army just at a bridge head prior to hitting the turn button, and was attacked as part of the turn move sequence. The battle screen popped up with the battle description of simply "Plains", so I thought I would reload and move my army until I got a bridge crossing fight. No matter where I placed my army, I kept getting a battle field description of "Plains".

After about 8 tries, I thought to hell with it, let's get on with the game. Lo and Behold, even though the description said the battle was on the "plains", it was in fact a river crossing. I now wonder if this had something to do with my previous troubles trying to get a bridge battle. In other words, since the battle screen indicated "plains", I was escaping out and reloading or skipping all together.

Anyway, it was not a very satisfying battle. There was a single bridge and one shallows a short distance away. The problem was that my starting blue box had my army so far away from the crossing, that I had to run my army to just get there just as the enemy poured over the bridge. I had sent to cav units to the shallows, and the attacker counter with one light cav. Of course my two heavy units made short work of them and crossed the river to wait for the right moment to hit the enemy in the rear or flank.

The enemy never took advantage of their missile troops, but simply rushed them along with their mêlée teams over the bridge. I was able to stop them with a wall of spears at the end of the bridge while my archers in the rear took their toll on the mishmash of enemy troops still on the bridge. When I sensed they were about to break, I hit their rear with my cav.

I won a heroic victory, but still took high casualties. However, the problem as I see it is this: I had been setting at the bridge crossing for at least a turn or two, and I was attacked. Logically--given these conditions, when the battle started, I should have had the advantage of being able to set up my troops whereever I wanted on my side the bridge, the embankment, and the shallows---just as any prepared defender would. If I was attacking them, I would expect them to have this same advantage that I would have to contend with.

It all goes back to my post about the random and artificial starting boxes that one must deal with at the start of each each battle. For me--as the single player, they simply seem contrived and make no real sense tactically---unless it's simply an attempt on the developers part to add an artificial difficulty level to the game.

Maybe they could add an option so the single player can either use these boxes or not--so those who want the challenge of running their armies like maniacs to get to the best position before fighting could opt for the boxes, and conversely, those who would like a more realistic tactical beginning--based on their logical actions from the strat map could opt to not use them. I guess I'm just gettin picky in my old age.

Cheers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Forward Observer

The problem was that my starting blue box had my army so far away from the crossing, that I had to run my army to just get there just as the enemy poured over the bridge.

---

In my battle the starting box wasn’t far from the foot of the bridge but I still had to run some distance up to it to beat the AI who moved on it quickly. I agree that racing about should not be necessary for any force that has established its position for a turn or more. A rested force on chosen terrain should be the result of the bargain having trading away initiative to get it.