Burning bridges (one by one)

[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]

- A

[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.

[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...




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

[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.

[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.

[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.