Slitherine

Sieges of port cities could last up to eight turns during this time period:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Drepana

This one could have actually gone longer, but for Rome eventually getting naval superiority.

jimwinsor wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2019 4:42 pm Sieges of port cities could last up to eight turns during this time period:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Drepana

This one could have actually gone longer, but for Rome eventually getting naval superiority.

This is why I am comfortable with yearly turns.

The Roman siege of Veii held by The Etruscans lasted from 405 to 396BC, that of Carthage from 149 to 146BC and Masada from 73 to 74AD.
These were all involving Romans besieging defenders of greater or lesser martial prowess and Rome had advanced methods compared to many other civilisations.

Those asking for two or four turns per year have to ask themselves if they would think it satisfying on a gameplay basis to have a believing army say in place for up to 40 turns (in the case of Veii at 4 turns a year)......

The game is an involved one with lots to do each turn and already it lasts 500 turns.

I am happy with that.

jimwinsor wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2019 4:42 pm Sieges of port cities could last up to eight turns during this time period:

They could, but of course 99.9% of them did not. Very few inland cities would last as long as a year.

devoncop wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2019 5:42 pm Those asking for two or four turns per year have to ask themselves if they would think it satisfying on a gameplay basis to have a believing army say in place for up to 40 turns (in the case of Veii at 4 turns a year)......

But you're citing a rather extreme example, and if it happened in the game as rarely as that example, a forty-turn siege would be rather epic and something to remember. On the other hand, I doubt I'll find one-turn sieges very satisfying either.

That said, I have'n't watched any of the videos yet, so I'll withhold judgement for now, but it is definitely a concern for me. On the other side of the coin, it would make sense if certain nations/factions can't besiege towns at all (no siege equipment, logistics, etc).

76mm wrote: ↑Fri May 10, 2019 12:55 am

devoncop wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2019 5:42 pm Those asking for two or four turns per year have to ask themselves if they would think it satisfying on a gameplay basis to have a believing army say in place for up to 40 turns (in the case of Veii at 4 turns a year)......

But you're citing a rather extreme example, and if it happened in the game as rarely as that example, a forty-turn siege would be rather epic and something to remember. On the other hand, I doubt I'll find one-turn sieges very satisfying either.

That said, I have'n't watched any of the videos yet, so I'll withhold judgement for now, but it is definitely a concern for me. On the other side of the coin, it would make sense if certain nations/factions can't besiege towns at all (no siege equipment, logistics, etc).

Most sieges I have seen that were not resolved by assault last two or three turns from what I have seen on you tube.

If some factions were unable to siege they would be unplayable and there is no historic precedent for any military being unable to starve out an inferior force in a city or castle.....logic indicates if you control the region around you can successfully conduct a siege.

devoncop wrote: ↑Fri May 10, 2019 5:59 am ...there is no historic precedent for any military being unable to starve out an inferior force in a city or castle.....

hmmm, actually I think there is, and IIRC it wasn't especially uncommon...armies with no siege technology/weapons and no logistical capability often could neither take the place by storm nor wait out the defenders. Let me know and I can dig up some references.

76mm wrote: ↑Fri May 10, 2019 1:35 pm

devoncop wrote: ↑Fri May 10, 2019 5:59 am ...there is no historic precedent for any military being unable to starve out an inferior force in a city or castle.....

hmmm, actually I think there is, and IIRC it wasn't especially uncommon...armies with no siege technology/weapons and no logistical capability often could neither take the place by storm nor wait out the defenders. Let me know and I can dig up some references.

I stand corrected then. I was not aware of that. I still think that in the context of this game it is impractical as it would make factions with this handicap both unplayable and a zero challenge to face.

devoncop wrote: ↑Fri May 10, 2019 3:11 pm I stand corrected then. I was not aware of that. I still think that in the context of this game it is impractical as it would make factions with this handicap both unplayable and a zero challenge to face.

Yeah, this was generally in the context of semi-nomadic/barbarian tribes; my understanding is that their MO would be to sweep through a region plundering everything for a few weeks/months, bypassing the fortified cities, then leave. Then come back the next year, maybe in an adjacent unspoiled region, and do the same thing, and so on... Couldn't take the cities but still wreaked havoc on the hinterlands.

If the turns in this game are one year long, I agree that the mechanic would not work, because if these guys did end up sticking around for a full year of course the cities would fall eventually.

If the turns could be reduced to quarterly, this mechanic could still work, but probably only for AI-only "raider factions" that would sweep through insufficiently-protected regions. I think that would be cool but would probably be more easily represented via some more abstract mechanism (regions with "unrest" would have their economies fall by x%, or whatever).

76mm wrote: ↑Fri May 10, 2019 1:35 pm

devoncop wrote: ↑Fri May 10, 2019 5:59 am ...there is no historic precedent for any military being unable to starve out an inferior force in a city or castle.....

hmmm, actually I think there is, and IIRC it wasn't especially uncommon...armies with no siege technology/weapons and no logistical capability often could neither take the place by storm nor wait out the defenders. Let me know and I can dig up some references.

You could argue this was the constraint on Parthian, and later Persian, expansion into Syria etc. In effect, they lacked the siege train needed to take the larger Roman fortresses. Of course when they came to besiege places like Antioch, they also lacked a fleet so couldn't really interdict resupply?

In reverse, if Rome won a field battle, it could push deep into their territory, the issue then was that they couldn't hold it, so most of the wars from 50 BCE to the fall of the Sassanid Empire tended to end in stalemate?

I realise there are exceptions such as the Sassanid invasion around 550 CE that took Jerusalem et al (& held it for 20 years?).

Again over-generalising but in the West by the first century CE most internal cities let their fortifications fall apart, I've just been reading something about Roman Gaul in the early 4th Centrury CE and that seems to imply a number of cities imposed emergency levies in order to fund repairs/upgrades? So in effect, a raid that got over the Rhine or Danube, could plunder to some depth till another field army arrived?

76mm wrote: ↑Sat May 11, 2019 3:38 pm

devoncop wrote: ↑Fri May 10, 2019 3:11 pm I stand corrected then. I was not aware of that. I still think that in the context of this game it is impractical as it would make factions with this handicap both unplayable and a zero challenge to face.

Yeah, this was generally in the context of semi-nomadic/barbarian tribes; my understanding is that their MO would be to sweep through a region plundering everything for a few weeks/months, bypassing the fortified cities, then leave. Then come back the next year, maybe in an adjacent unspoiled region, and do the same thing, and so on... Couldn't take the cities but still wreaked havoc on the hinterlands.

If the turns in this game are one year long, I agree that the mechanic would not work, because if these guys did end up sticking around for a full year of course the cities would fall eventually.

If the turns could be reduced to quarterly, this mechanic could still work, but probably only for AI-only "raider factions" that would sweep through insufficiently-protected regions. I think that would be cool but would probably be more easily represented via some more abstract mechanism (regions with "unrest" would have their economies fall by x%, or whatever).

Interestingly there is a raiding mechanic such as you describe for such AI factions as if diplomatic relations are low enough (below +25 I believe) raids can occur damaging buildings/growth and killing pops though this is abstracted rather than represented on the map as stacks.

In the Das Tactic playthrough as Carthage the Western Carthaginian territory in what is now Morocco was repeatedly raided to some effect by the Mauritanians. Das never put a garrison in there so I am unclear as to whether this would have protected the Province concerned.

not just for the AI. Raiding is related to the state so available to the player ... an excellent way to pay for your army if you are a small poor tribe

loki100 wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 7:26 am not just for the AI. Raiding is related to the state so available to the player ... an excellent way to pay for your army if you are a small poor tribe

Thanks.

Can you confirm if either a stack of troops or a fortress prevents raiding ?

prevent - no. But the stronger the defense, the more likely the raid will fail, so fortifications + some regulars will defeat all but the largest raid (Most of the time)

loki100 wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 9:54 am prevent - no. But the stronger the defense, the more likely the raid will fail, so fortifications + some regulars will defeat all but the largest raid (Most of the time)

Thanks !

devoncop wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 6:47 am Interestingly there is a raiding mechanic such as you describe for such AI factions as if diplomatic relations are low enough (below +25 I believe) raids can occur damaging buildings/growth and killing pops though this is abstracted rather than represented on the map as stacks.

Sounds good, one of these days I might need to watch the videos

I'm fine with the year long turns but it just seems that movement takes a bit too long for that scale. Wouldn't one be able to at least traverse the Mediterranean in a year? I suppose it could be justified as logistical preparation for moving to/invading an area, though perhaps movement should be increased for good infrastructure and movement within your borders.

It also seems that one army can't "pick up" another on the way to a place, which is a bit odd for the scale. I don't see why one army couldn't join up with another on the way to somewhere.

Speaking of sieges, I don't think I've seen any options to build siege engines though I've seen Syracuse have them as their city defense. Will they be recruited like normal army units or will there be some other way to get siege equipment?