After careful consideration I decided my 409 Army in Ueda had no numbers to face the Oda 125 Army in Okazaki because of the strong auxilliaries there and my main 617 Army couldn't face the 422 Oda Army in Antoku either for the same reason. It seemed logical to wait and see and only then, push on the offensive. Oda switched and I faced the 422 + auxilliaries in Okazaki for a difficult battle in an agricultural area, which means rivers.... the main river in the CENTER of the map, cutting the battlefield in 2 and wherever one side had to cross would face the other.
I was outnumbered but mounted my defense line just behind the river. My previous considerations on the AI not using missiles and rushing too fast wouldn't have applied here since the Oda were inferior with missiles... Oda rushed to the river, which is what it should have done being inferior in missile power but this brings me to another consideration about the campaign system:
Behind attack and defense there's a map, there's a strategic situation... there are other armies and there's winter with its pause approaching. Regardless of who's the attacker and who's the defender, this is Oda's province so he MUST be the defender. There are no victory points here and the side that routs the other wins the battle. I have never tied (Once I did survive a fortified defense map because nightfall saved me but it was in my previous campaign) but I suppose if neither side wins, both sides bag their losses and the defender stands in its province.
Since this is the situation, the logical conclusion is that Oda shouldn't have attacked, despite its superior melee numbers (more numbers but of scarce quality vs river defenders with strong missile) and should have waited for me to cross the river (as Sun Tzu teaches with half of my forces before attacking) since I was the one who was trying to capture the province. Essentially the way the AI played tactically was right (rush melee to the river) but it was not the right situation in which to do it because Oda was not on the offensive but on the defensive here.
It was inconsiderate but it almost worked: I lost my entire left flank: 3 ashigaru units couldn't stop a seriously bombed yari samurai unit. It routed all three units and I slowly lost the center but I won on the right and swooped back hitting the 60% rout requirement having lost 52% myself. These numbers are enough to show despite the AI bad planning (and bad execution: Teppo again), it was a very close battle that could have ended either way: 1 rallied unit or 1 turn left instead of right by one of my cavalry pursuers and the battle would have been lost.
Do not forget the side who crosses over fights another side whose honjin's commanding presence is felt. Seriously, I did my very best and I think I pulled a miracle but I had had to be the one to cross the river I surely would have lost and this is what I'd like the AI to have done considering the strategic situation.
The AI Teppo AGAIN left to play their own game and reappeared almost on my Honjin when it was too late. The contribution of those teppo would have come right on the side I was winning and it would have really made a difference. Instead... they just didn't play at all. This is the situation now.
... and I keep getting in the back of my head the same question: if I didn't know that by attacking that particular unit I would break it instantly or almost instantly, would I attack it and take the risk?
If I didn't know I would lose the first round but I'd still have time to give my unit a support would I risk the attack?
