Bridge Battles, Yea or Nea

[Budwise]

I personally like them, at least for the first half of the battle.

My kill ratio is alway about 66% and drops rapidly about half way. I dunno why, I withdraw tired troops and send in fresh against whatever they are strong against coming over the bridge.

I love Ranged Units when it comes to this type of fighting.

I vote Yea

[antisocialmunky]

Attacking across a bridge is a good challenge.

[Del Arroyo]

I usually find attacking across a bridge to be pretty easy. The AI always seems to leave at least one easy cop-out opening-- they NEVER, for instance, guard the second bridge, so usually it's enough to let the frontal assault play out a while and then charge them from behind.

If not that, they often leave one or two units in range of missle fire, allowing you to decimate those units. Once those units are dead, they often move other units into their place, allowing you to kill them, too, if you have ammo left over.

DA

[Graphic]

True, they usually have the bulk of their force at one bridge, but the A.I. always at least leaves a unit of spears at the other bridge.

[Vladimir]

I can usually coax the AI into going on assault mode when they are defending a bridge. If there are two I move my cavalry to the undefended one and cause a distraction which means my main army can cross the other if I need them to. I just love defending bridges with my archer heavy armies.

[Knight Templar]

Strongly yes when defending, not so strongly yes when attacking. Bridge puts defending army in much better position. My 100 Saracen inf repeled 400 enemy by killing 150 (others started to run away) and losing only 30 men when I was defending. From my experience, second bridge is almost always unguarded and good way to send cavs to kill their archers

[English assassin]

On defence, and sorry if its old news, try a defensive box rather than plugging the bridge with one unit. By that I mean make a square bottomed U deployment with three units, with the mouth of the U at the bridge. Eenmy units are allowed to come a small way off the bridge before being set upon.

The advantage is instead of a 1:1 meatgrinder you get a numerical advantage over the attacker, and a good chance to attack some units from behind. Low morale units coming over the bridge sometimes rout immediately as they are in effect surrounded.

Of course that's not all good since you want to kill them but making them pap their pants without even fighting can be amusing in its own right.

I've also tried positioning a few very powerful units either side of the bridge with the rest of the army further back, with the intention of allowing about 1/2 of the enemy over, pinching the bridge off , and slaughtering the now isolated enemy vanguard. That idea is presently filed under "good in principle, doesn't work in practice" but if anyone has managed to make it work...

Bridge assaults, the AI is too stupid to make these much of a challenge although I admit I made a mess of my first few.

[ToranagaSama]

I hate bridge battles!

Less skill more technique involved.

In MTW bridge battles are relatively few in comparison to Shogun. Also MTW often has two bridges, which is absent in Shogun.

For those who haven't experienced Shogun, bridge battles are not to be believed. Each one is the mother of all bridge battles.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I love bridge battles. The "cut the enemy army in half" concept does work but it has to be done in smaller doses.

[antisocialmunky]

I hate bridge battles!

Less skill more technique involved.

In MTW bridge battles are relatively few in comparison to Shogun. Also MTW often has two bridges, which is absent in Shogun.

For those who haven't experienced Shogun, bridge battles are not to be believed. Each one is the mother of all bridge battles.

I remember I fought one bridge battle in STW with 12 Kensai vs a massive Uesugi army. Man, those guys were so fun on bridges.

[phred]

The AI seems a bit challenged when it comes to bridge battles. I was defending against the Golden Horde and only had enough troops to defend one bridge but I was on a two bridge map.
I put all my men in front of one bridge and the silly AI never once tried to flank me by using the second bridge.
I still lost the battle because I didn't have enough men, but I killed hundreds of the GH and even routed them a couple of times, only to have their reinforcements drive me back across the bridge.

[Graphic]

For defense of a bridge I like to hold it with a unit of spears while I empty my archer's ammo, then when I'm out of that I hold the bridge with a good melee unit and continually rout them until it's done.

[Budwise]

I too, would like to hear from Puzz3D regarding this. My own experiences indicate that, on attack across a bridge, one should never send more than one unit at a time to avoid the "squeeze effect". I ususally resize the unit selected to no more than 7 or 8 files width, so that they'll fit on the bridge without disturbing the formation alignment.

SO THATS WHY MY KILL RATIO GOES DOWN around the middle of the battle. Thanks.

[dgfred]

SO THATS WHY MY KILL RATIO GOES DOWN around the middle of the battle. Thanks.

Using wedge formation seems to work well for me , if not re-sizing.

[mfberg]

If I know there will be a bridge battle I save before the battle to make sure it is only one bridge, because if there are two bridges I find myself using the unguarded bridge, and that feels a bit like cheating.

mfberg

[Gawain of Orkeny]

All I know is that in MP bridge battles suck and only noobs play them It never ceases to amaze me how many of you have never tried MP. It blows sp away and is the reason VI is the best war game in the world.

[bretwalda]

All I know is that in MP bridge battles suck and only noobs play them It never ceases to amaze me how many of you have never tried MP. It blows sp away and is the reason VI is the best war game in the world.

I played multiplayer, sometimes even now I do. I was surprised that I did not suck that bad as I expected... However I miss the empire building part of the game, squeezing out high quailty troops or hangin' on the edge in the beginning, defending your kingdom against hopeless odds... and so on. SP is nice as well!

[squidums]

I find bridge battles can get a bit repetative, and offen the graphics get a bit screwy. In one particularly large battle, there were so many dead on the bridge that the living were neck deep in bodies. At this point soldiers started to float over the water at the edges of the bridge.

[Puzz3D]

Originally Posted by Geezer57
"I too, would like to hear from Puzz3D regarding this. My own experiences indicate that, on attack across a bridge, one should never send more than one unit at a time to avoid the "squeeze effect". I ususally resize the unit selected to no more than 7 or 8 files width, so that they'll fit on the bridge without disturbing the formation alignment."

The best technique when defending a bridge is to put a well armored unit in hold formation at the end of the bridge and back them up with lots of ranged units. The AI units will bunch up on the bridge making them better targets, and the squeezed too tight effect will give your blocking unit a 5 point (250%) combat bonus.

[ToranagaSama]

All I know is that in MP bridge battles suck and only noobs play them It never ceases to amaze me how many of you have never tried MP. It blows sp away and is the reason VI is the best war game in the world.

I am of the opposite opinion.

MP imo is COMPLETELY unrealistic and unsatisfying.

Unless some *agreement* is had before hand, NOBODY comes with a ***Balanced*** army. This goes all the way back to STW, when people started overemphasizing Monks. Armies half full of MONKS!!! Then there was the all Cav armies. Then the search for and requisite TOTALLY **Flat** maps!! Oh, and Archers were virtually absent. It was just so ridiculous.

Completely negating ALL the *little* things that make up TW.

What was the point in that? I gave up on MP at this point.

Finally, from what I've read, Arquibesrs (sp?) rule.

I just don't get it. We know that no game is real, but Total war is about effecting realty as best can be done. CA did a marvelous job. Then you go play MP and all reality is suspened!

TRUE Generalship is not taking the field with *some* effected PERFECT army, as in MP, but rather mustering whatever is available, consequent to the results of previous battles; and the present battle having effect upon the results of future battles. All limited by the vagaries in the capability to war, economics, logistics, etc.

For me THIS is the essence of TW, and is wholly lacking in MP.

As one Dev alluded as the desire of many, Campaign MP is the Holly Grail. Perhaps one day....

JMO

TS

[ToranagaSama]

Originally Posted by Geezer57
"I too, would like to hear from Puzz3D regarding this. My own experiences indicate that, on attack across a bridge, one should never send more than one unit at a time to avoid the "squeeze effect". I ususally resize the unit selected to no more than 7 or 8 files width, so that they'll fit on the bridge without disturbing the formation alignment."

The best technique when defending a bridge is to put a well armored unit in hold formation at the end of the bridge and back them up with lots of ranged units. The AI units will bunch up on the bridge making them better targets, and the squeezed too tight effect will give your blocking unit a 5 point (250%) combat bonus.

Rightly and Succintly put. Also, Wedge formation is extremely useful.

I like to aim my archers at the rear of the pack, as well as at any oncoming/reinforcing units. Your *hard* units wearing down the front of the pack with your Archers wearing down the rear.

This is why protecting and preserving your Archers is a *key*, particularly in STW. 2 to 4 units of 3 level or better Archers can be devestating.

1 level arches aren't really woth much in this duty. 2 level are better but not devestating.

Always Preserve and Protect your Archers. Try NOT to use them in hand-to-hand. Once they can no longer be effective as Archers in battle, move them to the rear, out of harms way, or withdraw them. Out of all units, Archers are the ones you need to live to fight another day. They gain experience and become better and better with each battle.

I rarely use more than 2 archer units to each army. Sometimes there'll be a third, if I have a Horse Archer unit.

In bridge battles, a horse archer unit(s) make big targets for the AI's archers, but can be very effective when mobility can be utilized for advantage.

[EatYerGreens]

Rightly and Succintly put. Also, Wedge formation is extremely useful.

I thought wedge was supposed to reduce your unit's defence score quite significantly?

On the other hand, wierd things do happen when wedge meets something in square. The square unit comes to a halt and its front row fights just the man at the sharp end of your wedge. If he dies, others take his place but basically, much of the front row of the square unit comes to a halt and sits idle while the fight between unit leaders takes place, whereas it should be dozens of combats at a time. I can see how, even at the cost of weakened defence factors, it can prolong the meleé for quite some time, as your attrition rate is vastly slowed down. I shall have to try this for myself.

Presumably you have to be careful what unit you choose to do this. Some might panic if their captain gets killed and others aren't too fussed.

I like to aim my archers at the rear of the pack, as well as at any oncoming/reinforcing units. Your *hard* units wearing down the front of the pack with your Archers wearing down the rear.

Yes, I learned about friendly fire losses the hard way. Whilst some swear by making the most of the under-fire morale hit, I now find myself using the 'don't fire into meleé-in-progress' rule in all types of battles now and will switch targets to anything nearby but out in the clear.

My own variety of cheese in bridge battles is to have one or two cadres of under 20 men, as the first units to cross the bridge. They cause the enemy to send something down the slope to take it on, even though it's no real threat and this brings them into archer range for me. If they fire at my cadre, it is so small as to be quite hard to hit, given the vagiaries of arrow range and direction. They probably will get shot down to a man but the defenders use up a disproportionate amount of ammo to do so.

So, instead of a full 100-man peasant unit as arrow fodder, most of whom will die, an 8 man unit will do just as well and it takes almost as long. I wait for my reinforcements to start rolling in and I can send 'proper' units to attack across the bridge and they now take fewer casualties because the AI has spent most of its ammo.

Incidentally, once I have broken units, I will shuffle men from one to another such that the most disloyal generals are leading the cadre. I'd rather use this method of disposal than risk losing an assassin in a failed attempt to bump them off. Disbandment is even easier but this just goes to show tiny units have their uses...

Another upside to shooting enemy units only wile they are on approach to the bridge is that, if you're lucky, the combination of the under-fire morale penalty and bumping into their own routers coming the other way may have very useful results. They'll probably rally before exiting the map but will be so far away as to be ineffective in stopping you from crossing the bridge when you're ready to do so.

There's the paradox in attacking across a river. You begin by taking a defensive stance and try to sucker the AI into attacking you. When it begins to withdraw its damaged units back to a rearward defensive position, up the slope, that's the time to press forward with your attack proper. In most cases, my archers are never actually required to cross the bridge!

[Roark]

I absolutely love bridge battles, both attacking and defending.

Defending a bridge is always outright slaughter, but it's fun to try and break them in the shortest time possible.

I use Cats galore for defensive bridge battles. It's like bowling, except from a great height...

[Graphic]

I rarely use more than 2 archer units to each army. Sometimes there'll be a third, if I have a Horse Archer unit.

I try to have 4, in two rows behind my front line. If I'm using xbows or arbs then I only have two.

[antisocialmunky]

I thought wedge was supposed to reduce your unit's defence score quite significantly?

On the other hand, wierd things do happen when wedge meets something in square. The square unit comes to a halt and its front row fights just the man at the sharp end of your wedge. If he dies, others take his place but basically, much of the front row of the square unit comes to a halt and sits idle while the fight between unit leaders takes place, whereas it should be dozens of combats at a time. I can see how, even at the cost of weakened defence factors, it can prolong the meleé for quite some time, as your attrition rate is vastly slowed down. I shall have to try this for myself.

Presumably you have to be careful what unit you choose to do this. Some might panic if their captain gets killed and others aren't too fussed.

Wedge has it's uses, for quick redeployment into a compact formations(H Archers) so you can run away. Wedge is only good on the charge and shouldn't be left in prolonged melee due to the defense penalty and the surrounded on three sides penalty for the man in front.

That's about it. Though... a while ago, I wrote some conjecture on whether or not it's possible to use wedge to attack seems between two units to get flanking bonuses for the wedge unit. If anything comes of that, I'm sure it would be interesting.

[ToranagaSama]

I thought wedge was supposed to reduce your unit's defence score quite significantly?

On the other hand, wierd things do happen when wedge meets something in square. The square unit comes to a halt and its front row fights just the man at the sharp end of your wedge. If he dies, others take his place but basically, much of the front row of the square unit comes to a halt and sits idle while the fight between unit leaders takes place, whereas it should be dozens of combats at a time. I can see how, even at the cost of weakened defence factors, it can prolong the meleé for quite some time, as your attrition rate is vastly slowed down. I shall have to try this for myself.

Presumably you have to be careful what unit you choose to do this. Some might panic if their captain gets killed and others aren't too fussed.

Hey, from me to you, I would take all statistical (Unit Stat, etc.) analysis with a grain of salt. In my experience, there are the Stats, and then there is real world gameplay.

In my observation, there are basically two types of TW players. The first, what I term the Statisticians, and the second, what I like to self-grandizingly call the Players.

Statisticians, also are of two types, the most familiar are the ex-RTS players. In most RTS, the "Stats" are all there is to the game. Know the in and outs of the Stats, and, generally, you will be successful. Other than little game exploits, knowing the Stats is ALL important.

Statisticians will learn and quote EVERYTHING there is regarding *Unit Stats*, and tend to play the game 'to the Stats', if you get my drift. They look at a unit of Spears, they don't see a unit of spears, they see a unit of Stats.

The second Statitician are the ole *super* Grognards. I believe these players *grew-up* playing the old *boardgames* that were completely based upon Staticial modeling. Unlike RTS, I don't believe that there were any *game exploits* to askew the inherent Statisical view to gaming.

I believe that both types of Staticians, consequently, bring an over-emphaisis upon the Statistical, that is Unit Stats to their TW gaming. By doing so, imo, they limit themselves from discovering the more *Open* nature of TW gaming, brought about by the incorporation of MANY, what I'll term, "battle intangibles", by CA.

There are just too many battle intangibles, as well as, many ways to utilize such intangles, which mitigate the unit stats----TOO many!!

Players, on the other hand, forego the stats, I choose to ignore them virtually completely, and prefer the ole *Trial and Error* method. Rather than studying the Stat files---I play the game! I have played both STW, and particularly MTW too much. Experimenting, trying different Tactics and Strategies, discovering what works and what doesn't. Never using Custom Battles!!! Never examining the unit stats! I read the manual, to the degree I'd have much of it memorized, and I read the Org.

One of the aspects that GREATLY attracted me to TW were all the 'battle intangibles" that weren't existant in RTS games. I spent a great deal of time learning to utilize the intangibles in EVERY sort of battle situation. I was obssess with becoming a great Campaign MP player. Unfortunately, Campaign MP was never brought to fruition, despite the PROMISES of The Creative Assembly.

Lastly, yes, I ONLY use Wedge for Spear units in MTW. In STW, I would often use, I belive they are callled *No Dachi*. Not the specifilized red colored units, but the other specialized defensive unit. They were very slow and very hard. Anyway, if you know which I'm talking about, I sometimes use these in Wedge formation too. I seldomly put Swords in Wedge, and like I said NEVER Cavalry!!! Which I think is nonsensical. jmo.



---

That said, and with the above view, MY experience in using the Wedge formation does not support the contention in your question. My experience is the opposite! Wedge formation is best used defensively!! I've stated MANY times going WAY back that a SINGLE unit of Spears in Wedge Formation, Hold Formation, Hold Position, can defend, that is Stand and Hold against a Knight unit.

By way of an example, I prefer "in-battle" experiments, as opposed to Custom battles, but however you may, take a Peasant unit and defend against a Knight unit, Close Formation, plus whatever other formation/position choices you choose. I think you will be surprised. Then put the Peasant as I've instructed above. Note the difference. Try it again with simple non-peasant Spear units, the results s/b notedly better.

In the end, the Knight unit should when the skirmage, but at what cost? Being whittled away by 50% or worse? By a PEASANT unit on *Wedge*? Or a low-level Spear unit? The cost/benefit factor scores a win for the Peasant/Spear unit. In fact, I HAVE won with both against a Knight unit.

Though, most normally, an AI Knight unit will spring from nowhere (probably due to inattention) to attack your rear area or a weak spot in your Line, and all you may, momentarily, have is a Peasant or low-level Spear unit. Throw the unit into Wedge, Hold Position, Hold Formation, and pray to HOLD! It will hold, just long enough to find another unit to flank and destroy the attacking Knight unit.

This is how *I* utilize Wedge formation to great effect; different than most, but then so is my overall battle style. I've NEVER used Cav in Wedge as too many FAQs suggest. In fact, I disdain the notion, and simply don't comprehend why a player would take a unit of expensive Cav and smash them into a wall of units, wedge or no wedge; but then I play with a SP/Campaign approach, not a MP approach. Gotta be wary of FAQs and Statistician analysis, as most of it is toward MP, which is QUITE different than (non-cheesy) SP.

Just my view point.

BTW, do you have your STW manual handy? I don't. The MTW manual states:

...The wedge can be useful when charging into a melee to force a way into an enemey unit.

Could you or someone quote what it states in the STW manual regarding Wedge formation. I suspect it may be a bit different.

Oh, if you want to see some old screenshots of my battle formation, I've got them. Shortly, after I came back to MTW, I discovered a gigabyte sized cache of old screenshoots on one of my HDs. Great pictures of how I used to use Wedge, and how I learned and evolved my Formation. I intended to make a tutorial, but never completed it.

TS

[ToranagaSama]

Wedge has it's uses, for quick redeployment into a compact formations(H Archers) so you can run away.

This seems curious. Since in Wedge units move at their slowest pace. If you want to "run away", wouldn't you prefer to do so at their fastest?

[lugh]

This seems curious. Since in Wedge units move at their slowest pace. If you want to "run away", wouldn't you prefer to do so at their fastest?

I don't know about him but I know when I use it.
Mainly when you've horse archers in two ranks being approached from different angles. The line is too long, and if the troops on the flank get caught in a melee, it can pull the whole unit in if you're not quick enough, and besides that can give the other enemy unit time to close in
This is made worse when juggling 3-4 HA, all being charged! (I usually lose at least one in that case, I'm only just getting used to micromanaging HA)
I didn't know wedged troops move slower but putting them in wedge makes 'em more compact and maneuvrable and as long as it's not light cavalry approaching your HA, they can quickly get out of the way.
That's just me though.

edit: hah, forgot to post what I wanted to say about the bridges.

I picked up the tactic of forming a box about the bridge (when defending) and it's working out quite nicely, especially in the early campaign, as you can't really expect a single spear unit to survive the assault. In High, hell, just put a single fully teched Chiv Foot on the bridge and go eat dinner!

[Vladimir]

Going from a line of 2 or 3 deep to a wedge is a must when you must beat a hasty retreat using mounted archers. If you don't those bastards try to keep their formation when they should just get the hell out of harm's way. I'm a HA HAppy kinda guy and want to get those puppies valored up. Come to think of it the wedge formation may be good when assaulting a bridge depending on the defender's stance. I know I like to use a box or triangle formation to defend and the wedge of swords should be a perfect counter to that. Providing, of course, that your unit can reform after it crosses the bridge.

[ajaxfetish]

The wedge is also useful for other units besides horse archers if they need to squeeze through a gap in the battle line. Wedge can make them narrow enough to make it through without getting caught in the fighting on either side, then switch back to close and hit the enemy from behind.

Until someone suggested the maneouvering uses for wedge formation I was pretty disappointed with it. As I understand it it was used (primarily by cavalry) to dig into a unit from the front and then "explode laterally," effectively flanking it from within without having to get around the side. But in the game the wedge just stops when it hits and becomes pretty useless after that. Oh well.

Also, as far as stats go, one doesn't have to be completely stat-focused or completely play-focused. It's possible to balance the two outlooks on the game, and I think that's what most players do. Stats are meaningful for understanding the game's mechanics, but are not the final word (at least not in TW).