Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Elder-Basilisk" data-source="post: 3656657" data-attributes="member: 3146">How much time would it take to build bridges? Julius Ceasar and his legions managed to bridge the Rhine well enough to take several legions across into Germany in less than a week. (I believe it was a couple days if my memory of Conquest of Gaul is correct). And Ceasar did that without wall of stone spells. (Which might suffice to make a bridge very quickly depending upon the terrain).The real question as regards the bridge is how much space is there between the fortresses. If the marching time from the fortresses to the prospective bridge location is less time than it takes to build the bridge, then Pike's forces could be informed of the construction project and might potentially reach the other side of the river in time to prevent the crossing of the river or the completion of the bridge.A Pelopenesian War style strategy:Now, I'm presuming that there are already bridges or fords at the sites of the fortresses. So the question for the evil empire's troops is whether it is likely to be more costly to attack and conquer one of the fortresses or to build a new bridge in between them. One possibility that involves a bit more coordination but could be effective also would be to have the evil empire's troops invest two of the three fortresses with just enough soldiers to start a siege and to prevent the fortress garisons from moving to interrupt any bridge building. Meanwhile, their army builds a bridge in between the two fortresses and moves to fully encircle the fortresses (thus preventing any sorties that could harm their supply train) and marches forward, devastating the countryside in an effort to force a conventional engagement. If they are unsuccessful at forcing the large scale battle, they can just march home when the campaign season is over, making certain to capture one of the river fortresses and garrison it strongly. Then, the next year, right around harvest time, they march back in and devastate the countryside again. And the next year, they do it again.The naval invasion is probably a weaker idea than the land invasion because of the necessity to supply the army by sea. Supply lines would be much easier across the river.On the other hand, it is probably much better for the evil empire to simply threaten the seabourne invasion than actually to do it. A series of coastal raids by its navy would force Pike to either divert forces for coastal defense or suffer its coastline to be ravaged. In a feudal society, it would also most likely prevent Pike from bringing much of its peasant levy, etc from the coastal provinces since people would be reluctant to march off to war in the west when that meant abandoning their homes and families to the naval raiders.Another strategy: If Pike does not respond to the coastal raiding aggressively, the evil empire should strongly consider creating or capturing a coastal fortress (or harbor town) with a good harbor and strongly fortifying it. This could be supplied by the empire's navy and could serve as a base for raids across the coastline. If strongly fortified and garrisoned by a few thousand troops, it would take a sizable portion of Pike's army to dislodge them which would make things much easier on the troops invading overland from the east. Also, if the evil empire were able to maintain naval superiority, their naval force could simply sail away if Pike did actually send 6,000 or so troops and seriously attempt to take back the fortress.One other bit of strategy for the evil empire:As Middle Snu mentioned, offer the chance to surrender on generous terms at the beginning of the war and multiple times throughout the war. However, there is one caveat: at the start of each engagement, they should offer Pike's forces a chance to surrender and be treated generously. If they refuse, the empire's forces should behave barbarously towards their defeated foes--at a minimum, cut off all of their thumbs (thus preventing them from wielding weapons) or some such thing--perhaps crucify every tenth member of the defeated population. The point would be to make every future village or fortress in Pike seriously consider surrendering up front in order to avoid the brutality of defeat.</blockquote>

Verification