FarowNES02

[Birdjaguar]

I, with 4 spending points of fortifications, had a 1-to-1 casualty ratio. So don't complain.

Actually, now that I think about it: Farow, why did I have a 1-to-1 casualty ratio, given my fortifications? It's not like we were going out on the battlefield to meet them, but rather peppering them with arrows.

Now aren't you glad I raised the question?

 

[The Farow]

Everyone please stop arguing about this. I will take into consideration what you said because I did say I was going to make minor changes to the update when I finished stats.

If you have a problem please PM me with what you want changed. I already heared Birdjaguar's case and jalapeno dude's case so no need for you two to PM me.

 

[jalapeno_dude]

Everyone please stop arguing about this. I will take into consideration what you said because I did say I was going to make minor changes to the update when I finished stats.

If you have a problem please PM me with what you want changed. I already heared Birdjaguar's case and jalapeno dude's case so no need for you two to PM me.

It's not "arguing" so much as "discussing with gusto".

 

[North King]

China had a wall. And we all know that was more to prevent raiding parties from escaping then to keep the Mongols out.

Terra Trifluentia, on the other hand, has fortifications. They're very different. Traps, nasty firing angles, multiple layers, etc.

All of which is only so effective as the men guarding it, and the men who attack it. I should have some of the best recon ability in the world. Frankly, I'm appalled that fortifications built in under a turn with no harassment from my raiders is somehow sapping away massive amounts of my troops, given that mine generally cost a good deal more than yours.

 

[jalapeno_dude]

All of which is only so effective as the men guarding it, and the men who attack it. I should have some of the best recon ability in the world. Frankly, I'm appalled that fortifications built in under a turn with no harassment from my raiders is somehow sapping away massive amounts of my troops, given that mine generally cost a good deal more than yours.

Given my experience with fortifications, I should have the some of the best fortifications and engineers in the world.

And your troops should be more expensive. Until artillery/cannons/seige/whatever you want to call it, attacking was much harder than defending.

 

[North King]

And your troops should be more expensive. Until artillery/cannons/seige/whatever you want to call it, attacking was much harder than defending.

Not particularly. Attacking fortresses simply required good tactics. Or bypassing them which should be possible unless fortresses are extremely dense. And if your fortresses are that dense, then you can't really man that many, given the probable amount you'd need to cover that large an area, rendering them useless.

Fortifications in non-localized places doesn't really work for the ancient age.

EDIT: And note that I said, "with no harassment from my raiders." It seems unlikely that you could get all that work done while horsemen darted in and out attacking you; and they could, because your army can't stretch that thin.

 

[LittleBoots]

[grudge] Don't listen to JD, Farow! Give him hell! [/grudge]

 

[jalapeno_dude]

Not particularly. Attacking fortresses simply required good tactics. Or bypassing them which should be possible unless fortresses are extremely dense. And if your fortresses are that dense, then you can't really man that many, given the probable amount you'd need to cover that large an area, rendering them useless.

Fortifications in non-localized places doesn't really work for the ancient age.

EDIT: And note that I said, "with no harassment from my raiders." It seems unlikely that you could get all that work done while horsemen darted in and out attacking you; and they could, because your army can't stretch that thin.

It doesn't need to stretch...simply to be present at the location of an attack when it comes. You don't have the density to attack every part at once either.

@LB: What did I ever do to you?

 

[North King]

It doesn't need to stretch...simply to be present at the location of an attack when it comes. You don't have the density to attack every part at once either.

Horsemen have better mobility, better reconnasaince, better ability to neutralize enemy recon, and I have the advantage that I can attack where I want to, whereas you would have to defend where I attacked.

 

[jalapeno_dude]

Horsemen have better mobility, better reconnasaince, better ability to neutralize enemy recon, and I have the advantage that I can attack where I want to, whereas you would have to defend where I attacked.

Yes, but small amounts of troops can hold fortifications while reinforcements are coming. And I have the advantage of terrain, so I can see raids coming sooner.

 

[North King]

Yes, but small amounts of troops can hold fortifications while reinforcements are coming. And I have the advantage of terrain, so I can see raids coming sooner.

You have too much terrain to cover! It was literally impossible for anyone to maintain that kind of fortification string in the Ancient Ages, otherwise someone would have done it--and you never really see it happen! Barbarians always get in, and the steppe nomads ALWAYS inflict superior casualties. Population densities simply did not allow for that kind of fortification line to be manned until the Agricultural Revolution.

 

[jalapeno_dude]

You have too much terrain to cover! It was literally impossible for anyone to maintain that kind of fortification string in the Ancient Ages, otherwise someone would have done it--and you never really see it happen! Barbarians always get in, and the steppe nomads ALWAYS inflict superior casualties. Population densities simply did not allow for that kind of fortification line to be manned until the Agricultural Revolution.

Well, the fortifications are built along the river, which makes it harder for you to raid into my core territory...

 

[North King]

Well, the fortifications are built along the river, which makes it harder for you to raid into my core territory...

If they're built on the outside side of the river, then they can be isolated against the river and their forces pinned down and destroyed, creating a breach. If they're on the other side, then all they need is one surprise attack, overcoming the defenders, and then they're loose upon the countryside, ready to roll up the other fortifications.

Forts simply do not act as a solid and complete defense in and of themselves.

 

[jalapeno_dude]

If they're built on the outside side of the river, then they can be isolated against the river and their forces pinned down and destroyed, creating a breach. If they're on the other side, then all they need is one surprise attack, overcoming the defenders, and then they're loose upon the countryside, ready to roll up the other fortifications.

Forts simply do not act as a solid and complete defense in and of themselves.

Not if there are multiple layers of fortifications...

 

[North King]

Not if there are multiple layers of fortifications...

Which would spread out your forces even more absurdly.

The fact is that fortifications, as history has proved time and again, simply are not sufficient in and of themselves to stop a determined enemy, and simply are not sufficient to inflict the kind of casualties that you are. Not until the Agricultural Revolution was a fortification chain that could be well maintained even possible let alone achievable in a single turn.

It would be a shock for any historical leader to be achieving the casualty ratios that you had against nomads; so I think there's no real basis here for a complaint, except on my side.

In any case, I've made my side and butting my head against a brick wall isn't my favorite form of entertainment.

 

[jalapeno_dude]

Which would spread out your forces even more absurdly.

The fact is that fortifications, as history has proved time and again, simply are not sufficient in and of themselves to stop a determined enemy, and simply are not sufficient to inflict the kind of casualties that you are. Not until the Agricultural Revolution was a fortification chain that could be well maintained even possible let alone achievable in a single turn.

It would be a shock for any historical leader to be achieving the casualty ratios that you had against nomads; so I think there's no real basis here for a complaint, except on my side.

In any case, I've made my side and butting my head against a brick wall isn't my favorite form of entertainment.

No, it wouldn't spread them out more. The great thing about fortifications is that they don't need to be manned by more than a skeletal crew most of the time. Only in the case of a full-scale assault are reinforcements needed.

But I agree with your last sentence.

 

[carmen510]

Before Farow says it. (At least I think he'll say it. )

Orders due Friday.

 

[jalapeno_dude]

Before Farow says it. (At least I think he'll say it. )

Orders due Friday.

Not if we don't get stats first...

 

[Luckymoose]

So JD how many more of my men will you be needing?

 

[jalapeno_dude]

So JD how many more of my men will you be needing?

As many as you can spare.

How many do you have in total?