Bridge Battles, Yea or Nea

[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!

[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

[crpcarrot]

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 tried several times to get on gamespy but for some reason it never accepted my serial number or somehting this was back when i had only dial up i was so pissed off i never tried again. maybe its time for me give it another go

Edit: i usually have a2-4 cats when defending a gridge and set them up straight in line with the bridge. the ai will at most times atart forming up its troops so they can start crossing the bridge unit at a time. so i usually just aet my cats off fire at will and target the first unit. its fun watching those bolders bouncing away though the lined up units and very staifying to know they for once made maximum kills instead of sailing right over the target and bouncing away harmlesly.