Will you have to siege enemy provinces or just occupy them like in HoI?
What is most realistic?
What is most realistic?
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Sieges could be modeled in the game. There were major fortresses in the time period, especially in Western Europe. There were major sieges during the time period at Sevastopol, Vicksburg, Metz, and Paris. Of course I wouldn't mind if fortress building was severely limited in this game.
shouldn't the importance of sieges diminish over time?
IIRC, it was the time when city walls were dismanteled for the most part leading to a situation around 1914 that cities had to rely on bunkers for their defence or not have a defence at all (other than natural defences or house-to-house fighting)
(all this is iirc)
IIRC, it was the time when city walls were dismanteled for the most part leading to a situation around 1914 that cities had to rely on bunkers for their defence or not have a defence at all (other than natural defences or house-to-house fighting)
(all this is iirc)
Don't forget the siege of Petersburg in '64 that one was very WWI like in it's tactics and ferocity.
City walls were of little real value due to artilery developments, they tended to be replaced by field fortifications. From the ACW onwards really, major cities were defended by forts outside them (eg. Washington DC) but also there was an increasing use of breastworks and trenches as the power and range of rifled guns (both artillery and infantry weapons) and eventually the machine gun placed the defender in a significantly stronger position. I guess what I'm trying to say is that without the troops to man it, a fort's not much use so it would be reasonable to model the developments purely through the combat model and hence no more seiges...
Though I totally agree that there were a number of specific examples where there were very important siege actions. I suppose it'll all depend on how the combat's handled
Though I totally agree that there were a number of specific examples where there were very important siege actions. I suppose it'll all depend on how the combat's handled
I think that the effectiveness of artillery againts fortresses should improve significantly over time. That will have the effect of reducing seiges over time.
Belgum had huge fortresses on the border with Germany. The German infantry got massacred trying to take them on the openning days of the war, but then the Germans brought in the big guns and blew them to pieces.
Verdun and other major French forts did not fair well against German artillery either. In the initial attack at Verdun, Germany took the position without too much difficulty.
Earlier on there should definitely be seiges though since there were so many famous seiges in the American Cival War.
Belgum had huge fortresses on the border with Germany. The German infantry got massacred trying to take them on the openning days of the war, but then the Germans brought in the big guns and blew them to pieces.
Verdun and other major French forts did not fair well against German artillery either. In the initial attack at Verdun, Germany took the position without too much difficulty.
Earlier on there should definitely be seiges though since there were so many famous seiges in the American Cival War.
This is true, but largely because the French (seeing the example of the Belgian frontier fortresses) had moved the guns and garrisons out. Fort Douamont was held by about 50 Territorials IIRC. Later in the battle of Verdun it was realized that the forts were actually quite useful; it was mainly the inexperience of the Belgians that led to the surrender of their forts. Artillery alone could not actually destroy a properly modernized fortification; as is still the case, determined defending troops had to be dug out by even more determined attacking infantry, preferably with superior numbers.
Well if you have seiges, you should only have to seige fortresses, and fortress should be expensive to build and be few and far between.
Having fortresses in key strategic positions would definitely add to the game though.
Having fortresses in key strategic positions would definitely add to the game though.
Yep - sieges would be cool
Maybe there will be doctrines to research, with field fortifications, fortresses, costal fortresses etc.?
It will be quite a challenge making a combat system that can both depict the highly manouverable combat in the West during the ACW and the stalemate of WWI
Maybe there will be doctrines to research, with field fortifications, fortresses, costal fortresses etc.?
It will be quite a challenge making a combat system that can both depict the highly manouverable combat in the West during the ACW and the stalemate of WWI
Originally posted by Killerjes
Yep - sieges would be cool
Maybe there will be doctrines to research, with field fortifications, fortresses, costal fortresses etc.?
It will be quite a challenge making a combat system that can both depict the highly manouverable combat in the West during the ACW and the stalemate of WWI
a modified HoI battle system could do just that in my opinion.
back when I played HoI the Maginot(sp?) was a pretty stable front and the east was very mobile.
it basicly all comes down to how big a fort* you build in the front...
*not to be taken literally, more like defensive lines, bunkers, trenches etc...
The problem with the maps is that provinces are huge, compared to the fact that "victories" in WWI was measured in a few hundred yards gained.
In EU/HoI/Victoria(?) your forces march for days, reach the enemy, fight, conquer the province or looses and retreats.
There were many sieges in most wars. including WWI which basically turned ou into some kind of giant siege. Fortresses should be manned however. as garrisons were often whole armies.
150,000 men in Metz 300,000 in Paris. There were also lots of over minor sieges that are less famous. Chatanooga, Kut in WWI,
Belfort, Strasbourg...... in 1870, Vladivosok, Kars in the Crimea, Vadivostok in 1905.
A lot of war ended up shortly after the main besieged citadel surrendered. 1870,Crimea, ACW at least. There were in fact many more important sieges than in the Napoleonic wars.
150,000 men in Metz 300,000 in Paris. There were also lots of over minor sieges that are less famous. Chatanooga, Kut in WWI,
Belfort, Strasbourg...... in 1870, Vladivosok, Kars in the Crimea, Vadivostok in 1905.
A lot of war ended up shortly after the main besieged citadel surrendered. 1870,Crimea, ACW at least. There were in fact many more important sieges than in the Napoleonic wars.
Erzurum?
there was the siege of Kars in 1855 by the Russians under Muraviev who captured the city from the Turks commanded by Williams.
As to Erzerum, I don't know.
I was alluding to the masterly storming of that city by the Russians in (?)1916. Swept in off the mountains to knack one of Turkey's foremost strongpoints. I raise this against people who doubt Russia's prowess.