Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9727331" data-attributes="member: 6790260">It's the age-old problem of sieges.If you have the resources inside--or can get them through unblocked routes, such as a siege only by land when the defenders have ports--then the attackers have to actually breach the defenses, which is often a Herculean and unenviable task. The attackers then must slowly burn through their supplies, something that is a pain point for every army forever (hence why Sun Tzu repeatedly warned against sieges if any alternative was available)--making it a war of attrition when attackers are always already dealing with attrition anyway.If you don't have the resources inside, you'll die. It's that simple. You're already going to lose the war of attrition, and the losses will be compounded by the starvation and such.The only ambiguity is the cases where you have finite but substantial supplies. A protracted siege is worse for attackers, generally speaking, but a brief siege (due to inadequate resources) is worse for defenders. It's the &quot;backed into a corner&quot; effect. A corner is defensible if you're strong enough to hold out. It's a death sentence if you aren't. Again, protracted vs. brief. D&amp;D doesn't handle &quot;protracted&quot; anything very well. It's not really designed for such things, never has been. So any siege is much more likely to be brief than protracted...and that favors the attacker.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9727331, member: 6790260"] It's the age-old problem of sieges. If you have the resources inside--or can get them through unblocked routes, such as a siege only by land when the defenders have ports--then the attackers have to actually [I]breach[/I] the defenses, which is often a Herculean and unenviable task. The attackers then must slowly burn through their supplies, something that is a pain point for every army forever (hence why Sun Tzu repeatedly warned against sieges if any alternative was available)--making it a war of attrition when attackers are always [I]already[/I] dealing with attrition anyway. If you [I]don't[/I] have the resources inside, you'll die. It's that simple. You're already going to lose the war of attrition, and the losses will be compounded by the starvation and such. The only ambiguity is the cases where you have finite but substantial supplies. A protracted siege is worse for attackers, generally speaking, but a brief siege (due to inadequate resources) is worse for defenders. It's the "backed into a corner" effect. A corner is defensible if you're strong enough to hold out. It's a death sentence if you aren't. Again, protracted vs. brief. D&D doesn't handle "protracted" [I]anything[/I] very well. It's not really designed for such things, never has been. So any siege is much more likely to be brief than protracted...and that favors the attacker. [/QUOTE]

Verification