defending venice, bridge or seige?

[buncheesy]

Hi all,

venice is on an island. I had a few crossbow units and I dont want to lose production if I dont have to so I defended the bridge. I won against superior numbers but at more of a cost than I bargained for. Crossbows might get of a few shots but their army just plowed into my circle of spearment and kept bashing.

Now I have been beseiged in venice by a slighlty superior force. I realy hate losing the cash so I am thinking I will sally out.

I am playing ss for the first time H/H with ReallyBadAI

Questions:
On high difficulty setting do you generally let seiges happen and destroy them at the gate?
would you defend a bridge in preference to suffering a seige?
whats more important, preserving units and losing 1-2 turn production or avoiding a seige if you can?
would you rather defend venice at the bridge or at the walls?

cheers

[Caesar Clivus]

Bridge defenses are best IMO.

[MedievalDragoon]

On high difficulty setting do you generally let seiges happen and destroy them at the gate?

I prefer to destroy them with a Calvary army in the field or let them bash their heads against my walls if I don't have good Calvary.

would you defend a bridge in preference to suffering a siege?

Every Time.

whats more important, preserving units and losing 1-2 turn production or avoiding a siege if you can?

Avoiding a siege.

would you rather defend Venice at the bridge or at the walls?

Bridge, less path-finding errors and crossbow's actually work.

[buncheesy]

Thanks very much for the advice!

I sallied out and routed the besiging army at minimal loss (luckily - I had a 5 star general against a captian). Now setting up bridge defence.

[Basileus Antiochus]

plus in a bridge battle, you can use mangonels to their fullest

[Caesar Clivus]

Plus if you lose the bridge defense, you still have Venice to fall back to. Even if you lose the bridge, you'll still give the enemy a mauling

[buncheesy]

Just built my first mangonel.........nooooo fatigue has overcome me. will have to see what it does tomorrow. I am serioulsy becoming addicted to this game. Thanks modders.

[Homeros]

Defending a bridge is basically the same thing as defending a city. Only without the missile issues and the option to use your cavalry properly. Obviously, you want to defend the bridge in the Venice example.

Mangonels are game-breakingly OP with siege and bridge battles. With a handful of spear militia (to hold the line) and a couple of magonels you're able to defeat almost everything the AI can throw at you. Even if the AI breaks through, they only scored a Phyrrus Victory (loosing most of their army in the process).

[diez]

imo bridge is better...ur crossbows can shoot all the time,while in siege they can only shoot while the enemy is breaking the gates...just place some spear when the bridge ends(in ur part)(i also tend to place a schilthrom spear in front of these at the end)and choose the right angles for ur xbows.keep the cav behind,and when a part of spear is broken charge ur cav in there,retreat ur cav,repeat...the best thing to do,is to have a small army of 4-5 spears,some xbows,and a general if possible so they want they want flee to soon

[Homeros]

I'd advice against defending near the bridge itself. It's much more effective to let the enemy cross the bridge and hit (and surround) them while they're organizing some sort of formation (just after they've crossed the bridge). This way you can bring more men to the frontline, you can effectively flank the enemy and it's also possible (and highly recommendable) to use your cavalry to hit the enemy in the rear (which is not possible while defending the bridge itself).

This is also true when defending a siege. I always position my units like this \ _ / when defending gates, roads, or bridges. Enemy units that move in are attacked from multiple sides (which is bad for their morale) and you always have more men engaged than the enemy (= big advantage).

[Andytheplatypus]

I'd advice against defending near the bridge itself. It's much more effective to let the enemy cross the bridge and hit (and surround) them while they're organizing some sort of formation (just after they've crossed the bridge). This way you can bring more men to the frontline, you can effectively flank the enemy and it's also possible (and highly recommendable) to use your cavalry to hit the enemy in the rear (which is not possible while defending the bridge itself).

This is also true when defending a siege. I always position my units like this \ _ / when defending gates, roads, or bridges. Enemy units that move in are attacked from multiple sides (which is bad for their morale) and you always have more men engaged than the enemy (= big advantage).

That is terrible advice. The whole point of a bridge battle is to let you use superior numbers against the enemy as they rush across the bridge all bunched up and not in formation. What your suggesting is to just let a bridge battle be just like any other field battle.

Again, terrible advice.

[Homeros]

That is terrible advice. The whole point of a bridge battle is to let you use superior numbers against the enemy as they rush across the bridge all bunched up and not in formation. What your suggesting is to just let a bridge battle be just like any other field battle.

Again, terrible advice.

I think you have to learn a thing or two about tactics coz this is text book stuff, known for millennia.

This is what Sun Tzu said about the matter: "After crossing a river, you must move some distance away form it. When an advancing enemy crosses the water, do not meet him in midstream. It's advantageous to allow half his force to cross and then strike. If you wish to give battle, do not confront your enemy near the water. Take a position on high ground facing the sun. Do not take a position at the lower reaches of the enemy."

Let me just say that I can beat an army multiple times the size the one you can defeat using the above tactics. Please explain why it is advantageous to have one unit of the enemy attack one of yours? When you play on Very Hard your unit will always lose (even vastly superior ones) - allowing the enemy to cross allows you to completely surround him and attack from all sides. You can easily route a full stack in less than a minute (with a cavalry charge from the rear). Your approach would take what, an hour? You're troops will also be out of siege engine range (which the enemy will use from the other bank if available).

Attacking the enemy at the bridge is the dumbest thing one can do

[nico333]

If you have high level walls and towers plus alot of archers siege is a better choice in my opinion

[Andytheplatypus]

Oh god. This is going to take a while. Don't even get me started on sun tzu. I'll try and draw you a pretty picture with some crayons to illustrate my point later today when I get some time.

[Homeros]

Haha, I'm looking forward to your reply!

What I don't understand about your previous post is why you would want to sacrifice your advantage to maneuver. That's the only real advantage you have during a bridge battle (imo, what you're doing is basically gimping yourself to fight the enemy on equal terms - which is quite chivalrous, but not that effective). Engaging the enemy on or near the bridge means both you and the enemy can only bring very few swords to the fighting line (which is very bad considering the massive AI bonuses). Allowing the enemy to cross the bridge will give you maximum maneuverability whilst the enemy has nowhere to move (except back across the bridge). It allows you to attack the enemy from all sides instead of only one. It allows you to deploy cavalry (charges), something the enemy cannot. It allows you to use all you troops simultaneous. Plus you still have the option to pepper the enemy with missiles when they're crossing the bridge in close formation.

[Sergeant Matt]

If you have 1-2 units of mangonels, some heavy infantry and a bunch of crossbows, you could hold off anybody trying to cross that bridge. I don't care if Odin himself rides down from Valhalla and assaults that bridge, he won't make it past.

[Ichon]

Haha, I'm looking forward to your reply!

What I don't understand about your previous post is why you would want to sacrifice your advantage to maneuver. That's the only real advantage you have during a bridge battle (imo, what you're doing is basically gimping yourself to fight the enemy on equal terms - which is quite chivalrous, but not that effective). Engaging the enemy on or near the bridge means both you and the enemy can only bring very few swords to the fighting line (which is very bad considering the massive AI bonuses). Allowing the enemy to cross the bridge will give you maximum maneuverability whilst the enemy has nowhere to move (except back across the bridge). It allows you to attack the enemy from all sides instead of only one. It allows you to deploy cavalry (charges), something the enemy cannot. It allows you to use all you troops simultaneous. Plus you still have the option to pepper the enemy with missiles when they're crossing the bridge in close formation.

I might agree with you in a real battle but for the game meeting at the bridge is better. The enemy often has cavalry and can charge easily enough if you don't bottle them up in the bridge. Also spears and crossbow is a much cheaper army- the whole point of a bridge battle is to use a cheaper army and save your maneuvering cavalry units for another battle where you don't have the advantage of a bridge. Bridge also allows enfilade fire from missile units that don't have to run away or redeploy as they would in a field battle and can keep up sustained fire on weaker sides of the enemy.

The only time what you suggest is a better plan is if you have mostly cavalry and few infantry or missiles. However that seems a poor way to plan for a bridge battle since when you end your turn there you have control over what units you include in your army.

Of course when fighting in foreign lands sometimes a bridge battle is even better than building a fort if you know you only have to defend on one side and in that case your method might make sense. However that is an offensive campaign but in a defensive one where you can control the units involved it just makes sense to use the cheaper army and preserve your offensive cavalry for an offensive campaign or to follow and completely defeat any who escaped from the defeated army on the following turn.

[Homeros]

I might agree with you in a real battle but for the game meeting at the bridge is better. The enemy often has cavalry and can charge easily enough if you don't bottle them up in the bridge. Also spears and crossbow is a much cheaper army- the whole point of a bridge battle is to use a cheaper army and save your maneuvering cavalry units for another battle where you don't have the advantage of a bridge. Bridge also allows enfilade fire from missile units that don't have to run away or redeploy as they would in a field battle and can keep up sustained fire on weaker sides of the enemy.

First of all, the enemy does not attack a strong army and least of all one that is guarding a bridge. The AI only attacks with massive numbers or when it can hit you from both sides. The only way to invite them to attack you is to use a very small force. Your archers and siege equipment will run out of ammo quite fast when you're up against multiple stacks. They are not sufficient to break the enemy (commanded by a good general).

Second, whenever I've used two or three spear units to block the bridge, they were simply overrun by the enemy (especially heavy cavalry, they just march through killing half my unit without significant casualties).

Third, you lose the advantage of flanking completely. Which is arguably the most effective and fastest way to break the enemy. What I'm doing is basically the same thing Hanibal did fighting the Romans at Cannae - compress the enemy into a small area and attack them from all sides. It doesn't even matter what units you have, almost all enemy armies break the moment they are charged.

The only time what you suggest is a better plan is if you have mostly cavalry and few infantry or missiles. However that seems a poor way to plan for a bridge battle since when you end your turn there you have control over what units you include in your army.

A general and one or two other cavalry units (HA are sufficient, it's the enemy morale I'm attacking, I'm not looking for a prolonged melee) are critical to any army. You'll need some cavalry to chase routers and/or take out siege equipment anyway.

Of course when fighting in foreign lands sometimes a bridge battle is even better than building a fort if you know you only have to defend on one side and in that case your method might make sense. However that is an offensive campaign but in a defensive one where you can control the units involved it just makes sense to use the cheaper army and preserve your offensive cavalry for an offensive campaign or to follow and completely defeat any who escaped from the defeated army on the following turn.

I prefer to attack the enemy in the field - that's more fun than defending a bridge or sieges imho. But when I use a bridge, it's defensively. The army guarding the bridge is designed to deal with the enemy in the most cost effective way possible.

There are two major advantages when defending a bridge. The enemy has to cross the bridge making them vulnerable to missile fire, and the enemy has no room to maneuver. Those are two different things. What I'm doing is making the most out of the maneuvering part without sacrificing the other part (you make it sound like I'm not using missiles and/or cheap units, but fight with a fully fledged field army - which I'm not).

We're talking about Venice. Say I have to defend the bridge, I would use something like 2 spears, 4 archers/c-bows, one or two cavalry militia, and a general (perhaps a mangonel or two if available, but that requires a WC member to recruit - all other units are cheap militia which can be trained everywhere). That's half a stack of cheap and disposable units that can handle almost everything fast and easy. Not so bad me thinks. If I have to remove two units, the spears are out. Archers are usually enough to charge the enemy (form 3 sides for max morale penalties), hold for a brief moment to allow your general to circle around and hit them from behind).

[Ichon]

First of all, the enemy does not attack a strong army and least of all one that is guarding a bridge. The AI only attacks with massive numbers or when it can hit you from both sides. The only way to invite them to attack you is to use a very small force. Your archers and siege equipment will run out of ammo quite fast when you're up against multiple stacks. They are not sufficient to break the enemy (commanded by a good general).

Second, whenever I've used two or three spear units to block the bridge, they were simply overrun by the enemy (especially heavy cavalry, they just march through killing half my unit without significant casualties).

Third, you lose the advantage of flanking completely. Which is arguably the most effective and fastest way to break the enemy. What I'm doing is basically the same thing Hanibal did fighting the Romans at Cannae - compress the enemy into a small area and attack them from all sides. It doesn't even matter what units you have, almost all enemy armies break the moment they are charged.

A general and one or two other cavalry units (HA are sufficient, it's the enemy morale I'm attacking, I'm not looking for a prolonged melee) are critical to any army. You'll need some cavalry to chase routers and/or take out siege equipment anyway.

I prefer to attack the enemy in the field - that's more fun than defending a bridge or sieges imho. But when I use a bridge, it's defensively. The army guarding the bridge is designed to deal with the enemy in the most cost effective way possible.

There are two major advantages when defending a bridge. The enemy has to cross the bridge making them vulnerable to missile fire, and the enemy has no room to maneuver. Those are two different things. What I'm doing is making the most out of the maneuvering part without sacrificing the other part (you make it sound like I'm not using missiles and/or cheap units, but fight with a fully fledged field army - which I'm not).

We're talking about Venice. Say I have to defend the bridge, I would use something like 2 spears, 4 archers/c-bows, one or two cavalry militia, and a general (perhaps a mangonel or two if available, but that requires a WC member to recruit - all other units are cheap militia which can be trained everywhere). That's half a stack of cheap and disposable units that can handle almost everything fast and easy. Not so bad me thinks. If I have to remove two units, the spears are out. Archers are usually enough to charge the enemy (form 3 sides for max morale penalties), hold for a brief moment to allow your general to circle around and hit them from behind).

If the enemy does not have massive numbers there is no reason to use a bridge as you can crush them completely in the field without wasting a turn waiting for an attack.

Breaking enemy morale is always the quickest way to win a battle but on VH even killing the general doesn't guarantee an instant route. In that case having deployed missile units without protect of spears and chokepoint on the enemy cavalry all your missiles are extremely vulnerable as AI doesn't always charge straight across the bridge and at your own general with all its cavalry. Often it breaks off and charges your missiles which are vulnerable once enemy cavalry has crossed the bridge. Losing the missiles doesn't end the battle but it does make it more difficult to win.

Usually the spears should be put \ / around the end of the bridge so not to absorb the full charge of the crossing enemy units, then if you make one side slightly weaker it will be pushed back further which opens enemy to a cavalry charge. Combined with fire arrows and siege even on VH the closest units will be flanked on 3 sides and usually break fast unless the enemy general is very strong and near the front of the bridge.

The point of a bridge battles is that you can use 12 units 5 spears, 5 missiles, 2 cavalry to defeat several stacks. You might takes high losses in your cheap units but it win completely.

Your example is taking 10 units and only 3-4 cavalry and letting enemy partially cross bridge and then charge? You are going to get a massive melee on VH as the enemy aren't going to break fast enough enable your few cavalry to break away, and charge back before the enemy has entered melee with your other forces. Letting any enemy free reign on your side of the river when they outnumber you massively is a mistake since the enemy can take 5% of its strength and distract 20% of your strength.

If the AI sent its army across the bridge in defined groups with gaps your strategy might work but usually the AI sends its army across in a milling mass which if you charge from the flanks you won't be able to kill enough fast enough to make rout.

Obviously field battles are more fun and I actually think bridge battles are nearly an exploit since even a very stupid general is unlikely to attack into a river crossing massively defended but the AI will do it nearly every time. Playing on no battle time limit and if the AI does not massively outnumber you sometimes it will wait on its side of the bridge but in almost all cases it would be poor choice in a situation where the enemy did not have the forces to try and cross to wait for an attack since you give the initiative to the AI. While it can rarely take advantage of that opportunity its still a waste.

The point of archers isn't to kill the enemy but to use fire arrows and lower morale. Crossbow men work by killing enough numbers the enemy loses morale but that takes quite awhile. Crossbows can help kill enemy cavalry early in a campaign though making it easier to break these more elite units as they usually cross the bridge first. Siege is to lower numbers and break morale. If any of your missiles or siege run out of arrows before defeating at least 2 full enemy stacks I would be very surprised as fire arrows have a slower animation. If they are getting low you can conserve ammo until the next stack. Eventually you will run out of missiles but I can't see how having a couple extra cavalry and letting enemy further across bridge would lead to less casualties in a massive battle than bottling the enemy up.

How far back from bridge are you meaning and how do you position your infantry?

[Homeros]

Your example is taking 10 units and only 3-4 cavalry and letting enemy partially cross bridge and then charge? You are going to get a massive melee on VH as the enemy aren't going to break fast enough enable your few cavalry to break away, and charge back before the enemy has entered melee with your other forces. Letting any enemy free reign on your side of the river when they outnumber you massively is a mistake since the enemy can take 5% of its strength and distract 20% of your strength.

One general, two Turkish gulham cavalry, six units of Ottoman archers and a mangonel (that's ~2000 upkeep) crushed 3 Mongol full stacks. One (the first to cross) was commanded by one of their dreadlords, but he died on the bridge by a mangonel shot

I deployed my archers in the \ / formation with the end of the bridge within arrow range. The mangonel in the middle (with the general) and the cav on the flanks (well behind the archers). The Mongols send their HA first. They got hammered by my Ottomans (6 or 7 units). The infantry was next, but to preserve arrows, I allowed all (also 6 or 7 units) to cross without firing a shot. They got hit by my cavalry (repeatedly) followed by the Ottomans. They broke in a minute or so. By that time the general and his heavy cavalry marched over the bridge, but they got delayed by their routing companions which bought time to re-deploy into archer formation and take out most cavalry long before they reached my lines.

Rinse and repeat. My 200 cavalry, 900 archers and mangonel crew killed over 5000 mongols losing less than 400 in the process.

What you're describing is how I fight siege battles. It's great to defend the gate or an entrance to the city square. But you cannot use shock troops really effectively in those fights. There isn't enough space to use cavalry charges in the central square, but there is room to use shock infantry. When I have one or two of those massive weapon wielding units at my disposal, I also allow the enemy to move into the city square to create space to smash into their flanks with huge axes

I'm not saying that pinning down the enemy on a bridge or gate is a bad thing, but using the terrain to get the most out of all your units can be at least equally effective. Turning a bridge battle into a field battle with the enemy clustered and in complete disarray, with your forces surrounding them on all sides and having the (sole) advantage of using charges, repeatedly if necessary - it ain't getting much better than that imho.

One of the problems I ran into when pinning down the enemy and shower them with missiles is when you run out of projectiles (which you will if the enemy attacks in numbers). If the enemy still has a reasonable force left, it's a stalemate. You have little chance of crushing the enemy, and the enemy has little chance to break through and save the day. When you allow the enemy to cross, you can still hit them from all sides which is a very effective tactic even when you're only using peasants and militia.

Try and see for yourself. You'll be amazed what only one unit of bodyguards can do by repeatedly charging the enemy who's trying to form up at the end of the bridge. We're talking hundreds of casualties here (with very few on your side). You cannot have such an advantage when you pin them down. You're basically sacrificing your maneuverability - that's not the best approach, it's better to keep that advantage without giving the enemy enough space to do the same.