Bridge Battles

[Warhammster]

Why do people still host bridge battles? How can anyone think they are fun? It's quite obvious that whoever decides to cross the bridge loses. This is possibly even n00bier than 1 million denarii battles...

[Dave Strider]

Not necessarily.

On the(I think) Moon River map, there is a ford in the river that you can cross and flank the enemy.

Plus, I've played many battles where I was crossing the bridge and I won.

[Warhammster]

Not necessarily.

On the(I think) Moon River map, there is a ford in the river that you can cross and flank the enemy.

Plus, I've played many battles where I was crossing the bridge and I won.

A few units to cover each crossing, doesn't take a Hannibal to figure that out. The reason you won the bridge battles is becuase no decent players play them.

[caesar_37th]

nooby to the extreme

no skill involved whatsoever

[Drakedeath]

nooby to the extreme

no skill involved whatsoever

Indeed. Anyone can stick a phalanx unit at the edge of a bridge and wait until the enemy crosses.

[Maiar93]

Especially when the battle has a timer, certainly the one who has more archers will win the battle.
I've played one. Never gonna try again.

[Warhammster]

nooby to the extreme

no skill involved whatsoever

Indeed. Anyone can stick a phalanx unit at the edge of a bridge and wait until the enemy crosses.

Especially when the battle has a timer, certainly the one who has more archers will win the battle.
I've played one. Never gonna try again.

Word!


Siege battles aren't my cup of tea either, but there at least tactics are involved. Unless the enemy camps in the town center with unbreakable morale

[Dave Strider]

Are you kidding? RTW seige battles, whether you attack or defend, are easy. Even on MP.

My personal tactic when attacking is to get a few units on the wall, move them all around the wall capturing towers, and from there flood troops in and surround the enemy.

To defend, THAT is n00by. stick a Phalanx unit with Archer support in the street and block it.

[Warhammster]

Are you kidding? RTW seige battles, whether you attack or defend, are easy. Even on MP.

My personal tactic when attacking is to get a few units on the wall, move them all around the wall capturing towers, and from there flood troops in and surround the enemy.

To defend, THAT is n00by. stick a Phalanx unit with Archer support in the street and block it.

I didn't say it was difficult, just not much fun. Defending the town square is the best tactic anyway makes even your worst soldiers into heroes.

[ELITEOFKINGWARMAN8]

In a siege, I just stick my archers on the walls and fighting inf in certain choke points and boom, I win.

[empr guy]

I've played one bridge battle on MP that was kind of fun but there werent any really tactics to speak of...

I dont see why people host siege battles at all though, no tactics for attacking a city, there just grinding battles...

[roam]

I liI play the occassional bridge or siege from time to time when i am bored. They can be mildly entertaining(better than sitting in the lobby doing nothing in any case)usually when theres n othing better to do.

Yes they are quite nooby, no skill involved, tactics are obvious. Game of patience-who gets bored and charges phalanx first

[king-nord]

Err definitely a noob map if you play with noobs 2 vs 1 3 vs 1 without stupid money or what ever is good for bridge battles beat clan 3 vs 1 and played with my own clan and been destroyed by 1 elite player . they are fun

[RTW Fan]

Why do people still host bridge battles? How can anyone think they are fun? It's quite obvious that whoever decides to cross the bridge loses. This is possibly even n00bier than 1 million denarii battles...

True but sometimes it can be fun to just spam cavalry on the cheaper games, put them in wedge formation and just rush the bridge before the entrance is properly defended.

I've played one bridge battle on MP that was kind of fun but there werent any really tactics to speak of...

I dont see why people host siege battles at all though, no tactics for attacking a city, there just grinding battles...

I do not mind siege battles that are based around a fort and allow limited artillery(maybe one heavy onager). Other than that, I simply refuse to play them because the defender always has a massive advantage and there is rarely enough impetus for rapid troop movement to make up for that. Forts are decent though, especially if you play unbalanced money.

[|Sith| Max]

I've played one bridge battle on MP that was kind of fun but there werent any really tactics to speak of...

I dont see why people host siege battles at all though, no tactics for attacking a city, there just grinding battles...

actually a fort battle can be pretty funny. i remember back in early 2006, late 2005 or so, i was doing battles where the enemy defended a fort. sadly they did not realize that my ranged troops could slaughter them at will. was fun for a week or so..

[ToxicJoker]

I have played a couple of bridge battles, they are fickle to say the least . I find they can be restricting to say the least . The bottle neck gives no room to move and why can you only but one unit on the bridge that thing is made of solid rock, I'd take a geuss that is could hold up a couple of units . I don't like them but they are a nice way to start off your on-line play, they genreally give you more time to think .

[empr guy]

actually a fort battle can be pretty funny. i remember back in early 2006, late 2005 or so, i was doing battles where the enemy defended a fort. sadly they did not realize that my ranged troops could slaughter them at will. was fun for a week or so..

i dont think i've ever played a siege battle online, but if i did i agree a fort battle would be best.

[caesar_37th]

at least there are ways to force your way in with a battering ram

[KittySN]

I beg to differ! Bridge and siege battles have plenty of potential to be epic. If the game sucks, it's because there's rules/circumstances (such as n00bishness) which degrade the battle. There is plenty of skill involved between 2 strong players; micromanagement on the pervasive scale is the opposite--it is very technical and small small instead of the macroscopic "generic" field tactics. Don't limit the game just because you can't see the beauty in something; you just don't have the capability to comprehend the excitement.

[|Sith| Max]

I beg to differ! Bridge and siege battles have plenty of potential to be epic. If the game sucks, it's because there's rules/circumstances (such as n00bishness) which degrade the battle. There is plenty of skill involved between 2 strong players; micromanagement on the pervasive scale is the opposite--it is very technical and small small instead of the macroscopic "generic" field tactics. Don't limit the game just because you can't see the beauty in something; you just don't have the capability to comprehend the excitement.

Post denounced.
Once you figure out that you can put a single phalanx unit behind a bridge and automatically kill any units that touch the spears in doing so. bridge battles are for noobs. I WOULD agree with you if you said Siege battles can be epic lulz if you just hadn't said that they can be as microintensive as field tactics. if you have ever played a skirmish VS rush or rush vs skirmish battle on normal unit size or lower you would know how ing irrate that is.

The facts are that normal field battles are the hardest to play, especially under large scale, when you have to command several allies over voice chat in a language you were not born to speak.
Siege games can be very fun but i would say that not many people are excited by them after having played a few good 3v3's or 2v2's