The Bridge is a death trap!

[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

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.

You don't get it do you, factions that rely on spearwall crossbow combination in defendable places no longer have that option, as they will get ran down trying to reach the ruins by the cavalry, after fighting off cavalry, if they someohw mannage that is, they have to get to the ruins under a hail of missile fire, those that survive will have to face armoured infantry and skirmishers.

And if you decide to stay at a defendable place, the ennemy will rush the flags and wait there untill it apears

 

[ares007]

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.

I've done this under the arch with some people; it works pretty well. Yeah, the key would be to not form what a lot of people call a "spear wall" but the double line you talk about. It's still vulnerable to archers, so you need support from cavalry and your own missile troops.


You people who think standing in the middle of the bridge is a good idea have never faced a coordinated Nord attack there. One on one, I don't have any problem at all facing a 2-handed axe (it's slow enough to block fairly easily); however, when there's about 5 axes swinging into about 4 or 5 shields with 5 more axes already starting a second series of strikes plus 4 or 5 throwing axes and javelins and some arrows coming in, that's the last place I want to be.

One of the main ways to win in warfare is to get the most weapons on the fewest targets. If you stay on one side of the bridge like I advocate, you can essentially attack the front 3 or 4 enemies with everyone on your team. This gives you a huge chance of winning. (this is basically envelopment)

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

Some of my most overwhelming victories in Total War were when the enemy was foolish enough to either cross or take a position on the bridge. Against a skilled commander with a balanced army, being huddled together on a bridge is one of the most vulnerable places you can be. Tell me this, what do you do about archer fire? You can't tell me that you can fit more archers on the bridge (and the infantry needed to protect them from cavalry) than you can fit on the large space on the side of the bridge. More archers on the shore next to the bridge beats the few archers you can put on the bridge. You might be able to fit one unit of archers on the bridge, but you can fit about 5 or 6 or 10 units of archers on the shore (and just close enough to hit the enemy on the bridge).

And then once you start moving your infantry across your bridge, I can easily encircle them as they come toward me (because if they don't, they will be killed by archers).

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?

exactly

it becomes a "waste all your ammunition" game

not with good enough archers/crossbowmen. You also forget that the wooded hill is to the side of the bridge. This means that you must turn your shields to the side making you a perfect target for a cavalry charge  . I'm not too sure who just marches up right in front of a spear wall and starts shooting the shields anyway 

 

[The Shadow]

I like in-city mobbed fighting.  

 

[Archonsod]

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

Except they'll run out of shields before I run out of arrows, and it only takes one or two headshots to kill the now defenceless troops.

Assuming of course you don't simply shoot around the shield.

 

[Tercero]

umm... well... but if your archers are just shooting at the spear wall, the defenders would be taking down those and forcing you to charge

 

[Skot the Sanguine]

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

Some of my most overwhelming victories in Total War were when the enemy was foolish enough to either cross or take a position on the bridge. Against a skilled commander with a balanced army, being huddled together on a bridge is one of the most vulnerable places you can be. Tell me this, what do you do about archer fire? You can't tell me that you can fit more archers on the bridge (and the infantry needed to protect them from cavalry) than you can fit on the large space on the side of the bridge. More archers on the shore next to the bridge beats the few archers you can put on the bridge. You might be able to fit one unit of archers on the bridge, but you can fit about 5 or 6 or 10 units of archers on the shore (and just close enough to hit the enemy on the bridge).

And then once you start moving your infantry across your bridge, I can easily encircle them as they come toward me (because if they don't, they will be killed by archers).

Usually I have archers on the shores to the left and right of the bridge (on my side of course) and various siege weapons as well.  The archers I have usually engage the enemy skirmishers on the far shore or the infantry and horseman that are crossing the bridge (shooting into their flanks).  My infantry on the bridge is most commonly a dense cluster of spearmen with melee infantry behind...all sporting a good shield.  Their density absorbs most of the enemy missles for acceptable loss before being engaged in close quarters.

Another method is having them withdrawn slightly from the bridge and running to it once the enemy begins crossing.  That is more similar to what the Scots did at Stirling Bridge.

 

[Cormac BAMC]

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.

it should be hard as hell to cross that stream. That would totally change the dynamics of the field by the river map.

 

[FrisianDude]

I was hoping for pictures here.

 

[Nosfe]

The bridge is a tactical point because it hinders movement. So an army holding the bridge must wait just outside it to force the opponent to cross the bottleneck. Waiting on the bridge makes you a pincushion for enemy if your archers don't outnumber them.

 

[Archonsod]

umm... well... but if your archers are just shooting at the spear wall, the defenders would be taking down those and forcing you to charge

With what precisely, if they're all stood on the bridge? Mind bullets? I can hit the bridge from the wooded hill nearby, the banks near the castle or the hamlet on the other side, all of which offer cover against their crossbows. They have a knee high wall.

 

[Temujin]

Rhodoks can do well on the bridge, if they get a ****load of xbows, and a few pikemen to guard the enty to the bridge (both sides) skilled xbow men can kill a lot of ennemies, and the bridge offers some protection from missile fire.


However it's pointless to go for the bridge with the latest patch

 

[Archonsod]

If they're packed in tight enough you can just sit behind the hill and randomly arc arrows onto the bridge where their crossbows are useless

 

[Frostynuggetry]

I simply do not see the point in this topic, if you don`t like to fight at bridge, fight somewhere else instead of making a thread about it

Fighting at bridge actually works kinda fine, it depends on many things, your teammates, enemies, communication, planning etc... sometimes you just happen to get that lance in your back

 

[scythe111]

I simply do not see the point in this topic, if you don`t like to fight at bridge, fight somewhere else instead of making a thread about it

Fighting at bridge actually works kinda fine, it depends on many things, your teammates, enemies, communication, planning etc... sometimes you just happen to get that lance in your back

seconded

 

[Cormac BAMC]

what prompted this thread is probably getting schooled about fifty times at the bridge because people ran across it

 

[ares007]

I simply do not see the point in this topic, if you don`t like to fight at bridge, fight somewhere else instead of making a thread about it

Fighting at bridge actually works kinda fine, it depends on many things, your teammates, enemies, communication, planning etc... sometimes you just happen to get that lance in your back

you guys just don't understand. Perhaps you never get the opportunity to play with people who use coordination and tactics. Trust me, if you just go "fight somewhere else" you'll get flanked by cavalry or overwhelmed or something because you're all by yourself.

The reason why I made a thread about it is because people (on my team) do this all the time and get slaughtered because of it, but I don't have enough time to explain it thoroughly while playing the game.

Usually I have archers on the shores to the left and right of the bridge (on my side of course) and various siege weapons as well.  The archers I have usually engage the enemy skirmishers on the far shore or the infantry and horseman that are crossing the bridge (shooting into their flanks).  My infantry on the bridge is most commonly a dense cluster of spearmen with melee infantry behind...all sporting a good shield.  Their density absorbs most of the enemy missles for acceptable loss before being engaged in close quarters.

Another method is having them withdrawn slightly from the bridge and running to it once the enemy begins crossing.  That is more similar to what the Scots did at Stirling Bridge.

This is pretty much what I'm saying everyone should do (except the part about putting infantry on the bridge). You obviously didn't read my OP well enough. I said that instead of everyone standing on the bridge, everyone should take a position to the side of the bridge. I didn't say the bridge couldn't be used to advantage, the important thing is how it is used.

Though about the Total War thing... if you actually had infantry on the bridge, I could easily position archers within range to shoot them but out of range of your missile troops on the other side of the river. They would also be shooting fire arrows that would do extra damage and demoralize your infantry. You're losing men and their ability to fight for absolutely nothing.

 

[Archonsod]

I simply do not see the point in this topic, if you don`t like to fight at bridge, fight somewhere else instead of making a thread about it

Sorry, who the **** are you and when did you get made a moderator?

 

[The Shadow]

uh-oh...  Advice to skyforger.  stfu and run.  like a chill autumn breeze!

 

[Skot the Sanguine]

Usually I have archers on the shores to the left and right of the bridge (on my side of course) and various siege weapons as well.  The archers I have usually engage the enemy skirmishers on the far shore or the infantry and horseman that are crossing the bridge (shooting into their flanks).  My infantry on the bridge is most commonly a dense cluster of spearmen with melee infantry behind...all sporting a good shield.  Their density absorbs most of the enemy missles for acceptable loss before being engaged in close quarters.

Another method is having them withdrawn slightly from the bridge and running to it once the enemy begins crossing.  That is more similar to what the Scots did at Stirling Bridge.

This is pretty much what I'm saying everyone should do (except the part about putting infantry on the bridge). You obviously didn't read my OP well enough. I said that instead of everyone standing on the bridge, everyone should take a position to the side of the bridge. I didn't say the bridge couldn't be used to advantage, the important thing is how it is used.

Though about the Total War thing... if you actually had infantry on the bridge, I could easily position archers within range to shoot them but out of range of your missile troops on the other side of the river. They would also be shooting fire arrows that would do extra damage and demoralize your infantry. You're losing men and their ability to fight for absolutely nothing.

I apologize, I got the notion that you were saying bridges are not good defensive positions.  As you said, obviously I misread what you were saying.

 

[Swadius 2.0]

Since xbows now can penetrate shields, it would be trivial to kill any mob that thinks huddling together into one big target on a bridge is a good idea.