Defensive bridge battles against 2x Roman Legions.

[AlphaDelta]

The strategic plan in my current Boii campaign (does anyone else play as Boii?) was to batter the Romans out of the Po valley and expand into Germania. I didn't want to conquer Rome itself so I decided to restrain them south of Arrinium and North of Arretium by holding the bridges. I've been using Segestica as a retraining ground and I'd amassed a couple of Silver/gold chevron stacks of heavy inf, chariots and archers that could easily deal with 2x Roman legions in regular battles. However, to my dismay bridges are a Legionaries best friend. Every time I've tried to defend one they've ground their way through my ranks and decimated some of my finest soldiers. I shamefully managed to lose an 8 star general in one of these sorry affairs.

I've tried the usual methods of lining the banks with missile infantry, used fire arrows, slingers etc. I even tried a couple of more unusual methods such as dividing my forces so that while one group fought, the other rested. No luck with that one. The Roman love for siege engines makes bridges even less fun.

I've since come to the conclusion that if you hold the tile north of a bridge they can only attack you with a single stack. But I'd still be curious to know how to turn a death trap for me into a death trap for them.

Cheers

[ur-Lord Tedric]

If you can win in open field battles, then just turn a bridge battle into one.

Us the bridge to maximise early missile casualties, and then let them spread out subsequently - and fight as normal.

Are you using Guard mode for your pinning heavy infantry, however?

All said and done, though, close quarters combat was indeed where the Romans excelled.

[Primo]

Here is how I fight bridge battles against the Romans:

Get a good general, who raises the moral of your troops (!Important!). Now place a levy unit or some other unit that is cheap, has 240 men and you don't care about on your side of the bridge.

Place all your missile units on the left and right side of the unit. Place all other units in your standard formation behind your "bridge troops".

Let the battle begin. The missile units will cause much havoc and casualities, and your levy unit can hold it's own for quite a while. Here it is important that you have a good general, for if you don't, the unit will rout almost upon contact.

If everything goes well, you should have killed at least 40% of the enemys, when your missile troops run out of ammo. Withdraw them, but let your levy unit fight till it routs. That way the enemy will be exhausted, and run into your fresh elite soldiers, which encircle them now.

[Thracian Princess]

Ah, the Boii... I gave up on them after a CTD during a field battle to relieve a sieged city - the one north of Arretium and Ariminum - with a, to be honest, bad force under my command. I would have won, too. After that I tried it one more time, and was maybe a minute from winning - via the help of reinforcements arriving just as all my infantry got routed, leaving me with 2 Missile Cav and a General - when I lost due to time running out because I forgot to turn the battle timer off (and I only had two very depleted infantry forces left to route). I generally have it off, but forgot to turn it off when I started my campaign. After that I gave up, but I'd love to give the Boii another try, and any tips to help deal with the Romans would be more than welcome .

/endrandomrant

But yeah, these tips are interesting, and definitely worth a try.

[Anthropoid]

Did you decide not to go on the offensive for role play reasons? If so, it sounds like the strategic puzzle you are interested in is: how could the Boii defend against the Romans? Else how could they defend? Assuming that is the case, then I'd say: why defend at the bridge? I'm not much of a defensive wargamer myself, but if you frame it that way to yourself, maybe then you'll have the answer to your query?

I find that defensive battles in somewhat wooded, somewhat hilly terrain against the AI in this mod are almost always epic wins. The "hide" function really does seem to lead the AI into doing even more silly things. I often if I'm being attacked and have opportunity to hide will set up my infantry in a central formation but with a slight L-bend on the left third. Skirmishers hide 30 or 40 paces in front at angles that are likely to optimally enfilade or even better left-flank enfilade. Archers ideally all on left and cav as hidden as possible on right. General stands somewhere in the middle to lure them in. Let them get close, either let your skirmishers come out of hide mode by fire at will, (I sometimes keep the archers hidden until I choose to fire on them). Use the cavalry to distract on the right as the skirmishers empty their bags of javelins, and the archers come in to play on the left (enemies right and shieldless) flank. Generally all of this results in a lot of bewildering running around in circles by the first few AI units, pehaps it will try to counteract the skirmishers or cav with its own cav (important not to put your skirmishers out TOO far from the main line of spears/swords). As long as you have sufficient cav to mob any would be AI cav rescuers of the situation (I find four is a nice number in this game) you can at some loss to your own cav neutralize theirs (requires some careful micromanaging usually as cav unattended have a nasty habit of charging into well setup enemy spearmen units, I suppose that is a testament to the AI that it tries to lure your cav back to this form of death).

Generally by this time, the AI has tried a desperate gambit to save the situation by charging (hopefully up hill) its main infantry units into your main line. Pin them down, envelop their flanks, use cav for a few strategic rear charges = their toast.

It is a shame that the siege aspect of the game is kinda tedious and twitchy, really makes me wish there was a SLOW down (1/2; 1/4; 1/8 speeds would be awesome) function in the game. The siege battles feel too much like your typical quick-twitch RTS game but I guess with the pause button you can make them what you want . . . even so, I find I my archers are woefully ineffective defending walls, except in the most asymmetrical (in my favor) circumstances, which I dont' think ever actually happens.

Defending the central plaza with a force that is the right size and composition however can it seems often lead to definitive victories even when seriously outnumbered, although often at great cost. I had one siege battle where my ~400 defending Romans defeated about 1800 attacking Macedonians and there were like 40 guys left at the end

So, all in all, unless you are talking about a city with REALLY big walls, and nice size and shape of plaza, I think open battles are where it is at, even for defensive play.

[Thracian Princess]

I love defending. If I have a chance to set up an ambush on the battle map, I most definitely will. (I especially love when an ai unit walks within 2 paces of your hidden unit but doesn't spot it .) One thing I learned quickly is don't underestimate the surprise factor of your unit suddenly appearing near the enemy. I think the next time I give the Boii a go ambush tactics against the Romans - battle map ambushes and campaign map ambushes if I can - are definitely in order.

And Alpha, I'd say trying to defend a bridge against Roman infantry will be costly every time. Maybe try fighting them in open fields where you can out maneuver them - after tiring them out fighting a levy unit or something on the bridge, as Luke suggested - or using terrain with trees to set up surprises on the battle map or something similar. Having skirmishers, archers, cavalry and even a few melee infantry hidden, ready to swing round behind the enemy infantry once they've engaged your main line can be extremely effective, especially the projectiles and cavalry. I'm not sure if this has too much of an effect, but I've gotten in to the habit of firing flaming arrows in to the back of an engaged enemy unit for that extra morale hit.

Also, can the Boii recruit chariots? If they can, I will definitely have to give them another try. Chariots are probably my favourite unit

[AlphaDelta]

Some nice ideas posted here. Thanks for the responses

The levy + missile troops idea is interesting and I think it'd work with some of the phalanx factions, but Boii missile troops aren't great and the high defense stats of Roman cohorts make it difficult to chip away at their troops as you would against other factions. Once they get to the end of the bridge they're in such a tight mass that they are practically un-routable.

I agree with Thracian Princess; No matter how you defend a bridge, the Romans will give you a bloody nose and in the long term make a defensive strategy difficult as you'll constantly need to retrain troops. What makes things worse is that by sitting on the bridge you're vulnerable to attack from up to 3 legions, whereas if you move off the bridge you can only be attacked by the legion that moves onto the bridge. The AI thinks twice about attacking 1:1 and generally it attacks every few turns instead of every turn. That makes for a more secure long term strategy.

Anthropoid,

Yes, I guess I chose to defend for role playing reasons. I've played a couple of campaigns where I blitzed the Romans (Carthage/Macedon) and it was all over with a bit quickly. My plan with Boii was to mainly defend and sack when I saw an open door.

Boii can recruit chariots from quite a few regions but unfortunately not from their capital. They're really useful against low and medium cavalry.

[Primo]

Some nice ideas posted here. Thanks for the responses

The levy + missile troops idea is interesting and I think it'd work with some of the phalanx factions, but Boii missile troops aren't great and the high defense stats of Roman cohorts make it difficult to chip away at their troops as you would against other factions. Once they get to the end of the bridge they're in such a tight mass that they are practically un-routable.

I agree with Thracian Princess; No matter how you defend a bridge, the Romans will give you a bloody nose and in the long term make a defensive strategy difficult as you'll constantly need to retrain troops. What makes things worse is that by sitting on the bridge you're vulnerable to attack from up to 3 legions, whereas if you move off the bridge you can only be attacked by the legion that moves onto the bridge. The AI thinks twice about attacking 1:1 and generally it attacks every few turns instead of every turn. That makes for a more secure long term strategy.

I have played bridge battles against the romans on VH with this tactic. It works, believe me. The missile troops, if only some mercenary slingers, will cause heavy casualities, because they attack from the side.

And once the romans crossed the bridge, they are exhausted. You should win easily.

In fact, with 8 levy clubman, a good general and 4 mercenary slingers you can hold off a full legion (Polybian) on VH.

[AlphaDelta]

I have played bridge battles against the romans on VH with this tactic. It works, believe me. The missile troops, if only some mercenary slingers, will cause heavy casualities, because they attack from the side.

And once the romans crossed the bridge, they are exhausted. You should win easily.

In fact, with 8 levy clubman, a good general and 4 mercenary slingers you can hold off a full legion (Polybian) on VH.

I'm not saying it's possible or impossible, but here's what happened when I tried that. The slingers did ok, killing about 400 Romans (25% of it's force) and they still had about 1/4 of their ammo left. So I guess 40% is possible. Those levy clubmen, however, are as utterly useless as I thought. It was taking 15-20 seconds for the Roman column to kill 90% of the blocking unit. I was reinforcing each blocking unit just before it routed but as soon as the column pushed it's way beyond the front line the slingers turned and ran. My general wasn't particularly skilled but I don't think the outcome would have been much better with a 7 or 8 star general.

4 pike units and double the quantity of slingers with archers added in and it might work.

Cheers

[Primo]

I'm not saying it's possible or impossible, but here's what happened when I tried that. The slingers did ok, killing about 400 Romans (25% of it's force) and they still had about 1/4 of their ammo left. So I guess 40% is possible. Those levy clubmen, however, are as utterly useless as I thought. It was taking 15-20 seconds for the Roman column to kill 90% of the blocking unit. I was reinforcing each blocking unit just before it routed but as soon as the column pushed it's way beyond the front line the slingers turned and ran. Lost my general in the strat map retreat.

4 pike units and double the quantity of slingers with archers added in and it might work.

Cheers

You need a good general, I told you that.

A good general raises moral. You need the additional moral, or your units will rout.

You also need to place the troops that aren't fighting at the bridge in a sort of "box" a bit more away from the bridge - meaning that when the romans have crossed the bridge you attack them from three sides. Mercenary cavalry is helpful here, to deliver a shock-charge that can cause a chain-rout - but it is not neccessary, you have your generals bodyguards, after all.

[AlphaDelta]

A sky full of stars still won't make those levy clubmen kill Roman soldiers. It's a nice strategy for holding the column while the slingers do some killing, but it won't win bridge battles as the column will eventually eat it's way through the meat wall and once it does the slingers will either run or die. And this is without even considering my question, which was how to defeat two Roman legions in a bridge battle. Which I originally asked because my 8 star general with a full stack of silver/gold upgrades/exp boii heavy inf and morale raising champions combined with high level slingers and archers couldn't do. The battle I posted screenshots of would have been easily won with a decent field stack. It's only when you get attacked by 2 legions backed up with heavy artillery that my question begins.

Cheers

[ur-Lord Tedric]

...... It's only when you get attacked by 2 legions backed up with heavy artillery that my question begins...

So, you have your, rather nicely trained mind you, single army - and are attacked by 2 Roman armies with artillery.

From my pov you should lose - badly. Therefore, what's wrong with this scenario?

If you are implying that you would normally win with that ratio of forces in an open field battle, then I go back to my original point(s). A bridge battle is completely analogous to a siege battle - restricted entrance/breach. These the close-order Roman infantry with their organic artillery excelled at.

Don't play them at their own game. I would expect to beat you with those forces - every time. Losses would be pretty bad, but I'd be very surprised indeed to lose.

[AlphaDelta]

So, you have your, rather nicely trained mind you, single army - and are attacked by 2 Roman armies with artillery.

From my pov you should lose - badly. Therefore, what's wrong with this scenario?

If you are implying that you would normally win with that ratio of forces in an open field battle, then I go back to my original point(s). A bridge battle is completely analogous to a siege battle - restricted entrance/breach. These the close-order Roman infantry with their organic artillery excelled at.

Don't play them at their own game. I would expect to beat you with those forces - every time. Losses would be pretty bad, but I'd be very surprised indeed to lose.

You're right of course. Fighting to your strengths is always the right thing to do The reason I was taken off guard is that TW logic has always stated that defending a bridge is easier than fighting in the open field. I can't remember losing a bridge battle in any TW game or mod. However, RS2.5 seems to have overcome that logic and as you say the RS Romans excel in such tight battles. The general rule I apply to fighting the Romans is that the longer a battle goes, the greater the chance of losing, and with the protacted nature of bridge battles it's inevitable.

The key to using bridges against the Romans is to use it as a strategic (map) funnel rather than a battle (map) funnel as moving 1 square off prevents the AI bringing in reinforcements.

Cheers

[ur-Lord Tedric]

Y......... I can't remember losing a bridge battle in any TW game or mod. However, RS2.5 seems to have overcome that logic ........

The key to using bridges against the Romans is to use it as a strategic (map) funnel rather than a battle (map) funnel as moving 1 square off prevents the AI bringing in reinforcements.

Cheers

Gotcha - yes indeed. It is one of the greatest things I love about RSII - how the battles seem so much better. The effect on bridges is one of them, for hardy, close-quarter infantry, will last long enough to push back and not die in droves as they try to leave the bridge. I play (well, all my tests so far have been) as the Romans - as that's the name of the game. I have had some pretty desperate bridge battles, especially when the AI either brings reinforcements, or attacks again immediately afterwards - Total battle length approaches 90mins! And you are entirely correct, they are not the foregone conclusion they once were.

Whilst occasionally I do use bridges, I'm using forts much more as classic defensive trip-wires; which I find most useful given the longer movement distances available. One of my legions can cover a wide area and move to then attack when an enemy force moves up and besieges a fort - even 3 of them at a time!

[Thracian Princess]

So, I just started a Boii 1 turn campaign with the 4 turns/year submod - I of course sacrificed Bononia as holding it in 1 turn is very difficult - and so far my Kingdom is very small, but that isn't what interests me right now. What interests - and terrifies - me is this:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Dealing with Rome will be oh so much fun. But right now I'm thinking I'll instead wage war against the Dacians and hope the free people city between my border and the Roman border stays between us.

Just thought I'd share that, as I checked military ranking when I saw 3 full Roman stacks around the Bononia and Patavium areas.

But back on topic, I think playing to the Roman strengths by trying to fight them on a bridge is a bad idea. And yes, RS2.5 is just that amazing that it broke TW logic when it comes to bridge battles.

[AlphaDelta]

The Dacians have been extremely loyal in my campaign. So loyal that I gave them some of the Cimbri baltic holdings to create an Iron curtain blocking my right flank. I haven't seen a single Macedonian stack, Arveni have been fair weather friends, Cimbri have been easily defeated but numerable and the Romans have been a constant grind stone. There's quite a lot of free people around Boii lands to deal with and I'd suggest taking Segestica ASAP as it's in the perfect position to retrain troops and mount invasions.

Cheers

[Ferdiad]

The Dacians have been extremely loyal in my campaign. So loyal that I gave them some of the Cimbri baltic holdings to create an Iron curtain blocking my right flank. I haven't seen a single Macedonian stack, Arveni have been fair weather friends, Cimbri have been easily defeated but numerable and the Romans have been a constant grind stone. There's quite a lot of free people around Boii lands to deal with and I'd suggest taking Segestica ASAP as it's in the perfect position to retrain troops and mount invasions.

Cheers

They will stab you in the back, the AI knows of no other way.

[Thracian Princess]

The Dacians in mine had already taken Aquincum (SP), and when I decided to attack them we were neutral. Whether that had to do with the Romans allying with me then betraying me or my alliance with the Macedonians, I'm not sure. Just now, I took Aquincum from them, and after retraining my units I'll set out to push onward in to their land. And I find it interesting just how aggressive the free people are on VH campaign difficulty.

I do hope to gain a foothold in northern Italy and sweep south against the Romans eventually, but right now their military power is frightful, and mine isn't that great.

edit: I'm thinking Slingers against Rome instead of Archers may be a good choice when I finally meet them, due to the whole "more damage versus armoured" thing they have.

edit 2: So, I thought I should just share this little screenshot. Everything was going so well. Then, the Romans decided to show up with their Praetorian legion in the year 243 AUC. I have no idea how they got such an army, but... they did. ~Shrugs~

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[AlphaDelta]

The Dacians in mine had already taken Aquincum (SP), and when I decided to attack them we were neutral. Whether that had to do with the Romans allying with me then betraying me or my alliance with the Macedonians, I'm not sure. Just now, I took Aquincum from them, and after retraining my units I'll set out to push onward in to their land. And I find it interesting just how aggressive the free people are on VH campaign difficulty.

I do hope to gain a foothold in northern Italy and sweep south against the Romans eventually, but right now their military power is frightful, and mine isn't that great.

edit: I'm thinking Slingers against Rome instead of Archers may be a good choice when I finally meet them, due to the whole "more damage versus armoured" thing they have.

edit 2: So, I thought I should just share this little screenshot. Everything was going so well. Then, the Romans decided to show up with their Praetorian legion in the year 243 AUC. I have no idea how they got such an army, but... they did. ~Shrugs~

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I also saw those early praetorian stacks over and over and it puzzled me a bit too. I figured it was just a part of the RS 2.5 script. What was even stranger was that twice in my campaign I had a half Roman stack spawn inside one of my settlements. I was tempted to use those units but decided to disband them instead.

I had some really experienced archers but they didn't do much good against cohorts. I used my slingers to target the enemy general early on and then move them back through my line and out onto the flanks to hit the Cohorts in the rear. Peltasts I used sometimes but they didn't offer much.

The key to winning for me was to never send more than one unit of inexperienced heavy infantry into battle against the Romans. I would train them up against rebel and cimbri forces and only then send them into the Po valley. As soon as the battle was over I'd merge one unit into the rest of the units until it only had a handful of men and then send it back to Segestica for R&R. The 2 or 3 disastrous bridge battles I had destroyed my Cisalpine forces and it took a long time to recover.

Ferdiad,

In the long term I think you're right, but I went 180 turns without any conflict with the Dacians. The AI is (often) smart enough to know that when one of it's faction has 4 or 5 enemies it doesn't really need to create another.

Cheers

[Thracian Princess]

I also saw those early praetorian stacks over and over and it puzzled me a bit too. I figured it was just a part of the RS 2.5 script. What was even stranger was that twice in my campaign I had a half Roman stack spawn inside one of my settlements. I was tempted to use those units but decided to disband them instead.

I had some really experienced archers but they didn't do much good against cohorts. I used my slingers to target the enemy general early on and then move them back through my line and out onto the flanks to hit the Cohorts in the rear. Peltasts I used sometimes but they didn't offer much.

The key to winning for me was to never send more than one unit of inexperienced heavy infantry into battle against the Romans. I would train them up against rebel and cimbri forces and only then send them into the Po valley. As soon as the battle was over I'd merge one unit into the rest of the units until it only had a handful of men and then send it back to Segestica for R&R. The 2 or 3 disastrous bridge battles I had destroyed my Cisalpine forces and it took a long time to recover.

Ferdiad,

In the long term I think you're right, but I went 180 turns without any conflict with the Dacians. The AI is (often) smart enough to know that when one of it's faction has 4 or 5 enemies it doesn't really need to create another.

Cheers

I gave up on the campagin in that screenshot. I had maybe one stack, while the Romans had that stack, plus a half stack in Dacian territory - whom they were allied with and I was also at war with - as well as another one on the border of Illyria and my own lands. And that isn't even mentioning the 3-4 stacks around Genoa and the other ones spread throughout their land.

This time round, instead of VH campaign difficult I went for H. First thing I did was take Segestica and Patavium, thinking I could maybe hold on to Bononia and Patavium, but I had to give them up, so at the moment Bononia is besieged and the Romans will get it and I gave the Greeks Patavium in the hopes that the Romans won't travel through it to get to me.

I'm thinking I'll expand westward towards the Cimbri this time, and wait as long as possible before trying to fight the Romans.