The Bridge is a death trap!

[ares007]

In the map with the plains surrounding a river, most Rhodok players try to hold the stone bridge...

The bridge is a deathtrap!

Honestly, it's pretty simple military common sense. Bridge=everyone grouped together and restricted in movement = perfect target for axes, arrows, cavalry and etc. If you've ever played any Total War game or something similar (like "Imperial Glory"), then you'll know that positioning yourself in the middle of a bridge is very close to suicide.

This tactic started a few weeks ago before people started getting coordinated. It worked quite well in the beginning because it kept everyone together against an uncoordinated army. Now, however, armies are coordinated and the bridge is simply a death trap.

Does this mean that the bridge cannot be used strategically? No! Remember, the bridge is a death trap, so the idea is for it to be a death trap for the other team. This means positioning the foot soldiers on one side of the bridge and not actually on it. The idea is essentially to use it as a choke hold.

As far as cavalry is concerned, they are first of all scouts. They should determine whether the enemy foot soldiers are mainly infantry or a good mix. After that, they should mainly be ready to support their foot soldiers. There should be at least one cavalry to report whether the ally foot soldiers are about to get flanked so they can set up appropriately. If possible, the cavalry should eventually try to get to the other side of the river and flank the enemy foot soldiers when they're crossing the bridge.

One tricky little tactic I will credit to Gabeed (at least for now since he's the only one who's done it with me around) is to have a few infantry hide down in the river close to the bridge. Once the enemy assault has begun, they can try to run up the opposite side to flank the enemy foot soldiers. This can especially help deal with enemy missile troops.

But the main point of this post is this: Don't stand in the middle of the Bridge! Also... Cavalry should help foot soldiers!

 

[Kevlar]

People just jump off the bridge if the see enough enemies around, they really need to fix fall damage so it works correctly. Once fall damage is calculated correctly it will be a lot easier to assault it. I played rhodok vs swadians and my team managed to beat the enemy every time they went there though so it just depends who is playing.

 

[jlgx50]

yer I noticed that before when I was playing that if one team is holding the bridge and the other team starts to lose men people just seem to jump off the bridge, I find it quite funny when it happens myself.

I actually had a problem on the bridge today when I was rideing the horse over the bridge my horse keeped stoping and starting as it went over, not sure if that had to do with the lag or anything but was kind of annoying.

 

[Heimir]

I love how sometimes rhodoks or nords camp the bridge Vs Khergits, its fun to use them for target practice

 

[Archonsod]

There's a few elementary tactical mistakes people make. Like those who think it's a good idea to form a shield or spear wall in the open, or my personal favourite those who try to form a line under the rear arch on ruins. Because protecting the flanks is much more important than protecting the rear

 

[jlgx50]

wait, in your games Arch people use real tactics ?

everytiime I play it's each man for himself, i'm still waiting for people to form spear walls

 

[Archonsod]

Yeah, usually.

 

[Arch3r]

wait, in your games Arch people use real tactics ?

everytiime I play it's each man for himself, i'm still waiting for people to form spear walls

I always suggest tactics when no-one else does usually many people are up for some tactics, you should try it if you haven't done so.

There's a few elementary tactical mistakes people make. Like those who think it's a good idea to form a shield or spear wall in the open, or my personal favourite those who try to form a line under the rear arch on ruins. Because protecting the flanks is much more important than protecting the rear

I've done that tactic (don't know if I was the first to suggest it) as Rhodok and we didn't have to watch our flanks and a bit less than half were watching the back and the rest the front. Worked pretty well, and we won those rounds.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

I don't see any major problems with grouped infantry...

 

[noil]

But the main point of this post is this: Don't stand in the middle of the Bridge! Also... Cavalry should help foot soldiers!

standing in the middle limits incoming cavalry to 2 directions, it is a viable strategy when enemy is cavalry heavy and/or your own cavalry is dispersed

 

[Kingkaneda]

But the main point of this post is this: Don't stand in the middle of the Bridge! Also... Cavalry should help foot soldiers!

standing in the middle limits incoming cavalry to 2 directions, it is a viable strategy when enemy is cavalry heavy and/or your own cavalry is dispersed

Yeah its important that the people on the bridge are a mixed group of infantry and archers, and perphaps a few cav running around harrasing enemy archers

Can't wait to play with a decent group of people who actually want to use tactics

 

[Arch3r]

Standing on the bridge isn't bad, since the enemy would have to get on the bridge too to get you, think of that (Not archers maybe, but just forget those)

 

[Tercero]

yeah... i don't see standing on the bridge such a bad idea... cavalry and infantry have to go through you to reach the other side... and if they camp as you... just kill their cav with archers...

 

[Archonsod]

I don't see any major problems with grouped infantry...

They're prone to being shot/stabbed/trampled from behind. You give them something to gawp at in front, slip your own guys round the back (and here's where the arch really screws them over, because they can't see you walking around the flank) then commence butchery. If they turn to face off the new attack the guys at the front shoot them in the arse, if they stand still the guys behind shoot them in the arse, and most usually they panic and start running around like headless chickens anyway.
Contrast with say lining up with one of the many handy walls at your back, and having the guys on each end of the line turn slightly to the side so they can cover the flank, or even simply forming a double line with the guys at the back facing the opposite direction to the guys in the front.

 

[Temujin]

Tactics have to change with the new flags tough, was funny with rhodoks yesterday we held the bridge against swadia and did verry well, then the flag apeared, in ruins, from then on the swads couldn't be defeated, their infantry rushed ruins especially their xbows, and their cavalry ran down our infantry, and our cavalry couldn't take their cavalry on

The team that can capture and hold the place where the flag will apear will win battles from now, meaning you have no choise to run into the open, wich makes you a target for cavalry charges

 

[Skot the Sanguine]

I love how it is talked of that holding a bridge is a bad tactic (for any game or situation)....that is a foolish comment.  It is probably the most logical place to hold if on defense in real circumstances.  However...in this game the bridges are too short for defense reasons since someone can throw weapons or shoot into your flanks from the edge of the river....and when I say river I mean stream that you can walk across at your leisure.

For the record, some of my most overwhelming victories in the Total War series were when I held a bridge against the enemy.

 

[Anton]

Its not a death trap. Put spears on the entrances of it. Time it right and you will kill the horses. Behind them keep a few swordsmen if you have some. And in the middle keep ****load of crossbowmen. You cannot fail if you are coordinated. Its a chokepoint.

 

[Darkness]

Tactics have to change with the new flags tough, was funny with rhodoks yesterday we held the bridge against swadia and did verry well, then the flag apeared, in ruins, from then on the swads couldn't be defeated, their infantry rushed ruins especially their xbows, and their cavalry ran down our infantry, and our cavalry couldn't take their cavalry on

The team that can capture and hold the place where the flag will apear will win battles from now, meaning you have no choise to run into the open, wich makes you a target for cavalry charges

And it shouldnt be that way IMO. This isn't capture the flag or conquest. Its battle, you kill everyone else. Not defend a to-be flag.

 

[Archonsod]

Its not a death trap. Put spears on the entrances of it. Time it right and you will kill the horses. Behind them keep a few swordsmen if you have some. And in the middle keep ****load of crossbowmen. You cannot fail if you are coordinated. Its a chokepoint.

Why would your cavalry be stupid enough to charge a line of spears? Particularly when you can just sit on the wooded hill and play the shooting fish in a barrel game?

 

[dejawolf]

Its not a death trap. Put spears on the entrances of it. Time it right and you will kill the horses. Behind them keep a few swordsmen if you have some. And in the middle keep ****load of crossbowmen. You cannot fail if you are coordinated. Its a chokepoint.

Why would your cavalry be stupid enough to charge a line of spears? Particularly when you can just sit on the wooded hill and play the shooting fish in a barrel game?

with a decent spearwall, you can just put up the shields, and it becomes a "waste all your ammunition" game.