Calling All Amateur Generals II: Sieges

[Felixaar]

So, some of you might remember my last CAAG thread. Well, the comments put forth were devilishly useful in the end, and I thought I might run it again.

So the basic thing is this: I'm writing, and I know a little about medieval warfare and tactics, but Im no expert and the combination of fantasy elements obviously changes things. So, I put forth a scenario and I want you guys to pick a side - or both sides - and tell me exactly what you would do in the situation.

So, heah it iz!

Side A
Side A is the side under sieged. Their troops consist of...
4,800 men armed primarily with simple melee weapons - swords, spears, axes, maces etc, as well as shields. Swords are common due to extensive mining. All wear light bronze armour (breastplates, greaves, bracers, helmets).
800 men armed with ranged weapons, primarily bows, no armour.
Siege Engines - Primarily Trebuchets - and 800 men to run them.
800 Cavalry, armed as the 4,800 above.
800 men armed with pikes and wearing heavy armour.

Side B
Side B are those siegeing. Their troops consist of...
4,000 Pegasus Riders (able to fly, armed with simple weapons and light bronze armour.)
5,000 men armed with simple melee weapons and wearing heavy bronze armour.
3,000 men armed with simple melee weapons and wearing light bronze armour.
800 men armed with ranged weapons, primarily crossbows, light bronze armour.
Siege Engines - Primarily Catapults and Onagers, and 800 men to run them.
400 men, double-handed weapons, no armour. They know no fear.

The setting.
Side B resides in city B and Side A in city A. Side B has gathered all their forces, or will along the way, and is travelling south to lay siege to city A. City A and B are of the same nation and thus city A does not expect the attack, in fact, it expects rewards for capturing fugitives. Assume that all cities lying between City A and City B surrender to Side B, and that a direct route from City A to City B takes approx. three weeks travel.

City A was designed with sieges in mind, though this is it's first, and it's walls are high, thick, and well maintained. It forms a roughly rectangular shape. A castle also lies in the centre of City A, which is also surrounded by walls.

If you require clarification, merely ask.

----

So, the big things I'm wondering are...

1. How does Side B conceal their warlike intent? The element of surprise is a healthy factor here, and they want to maintain it.

2. How do flying troops affect a siege?

Thanks all in advance for the great help I know you'll give. Someday, you'll see the fruits of your labor :smallbiggrin:

(Oh, and make sure discussion doesn't get too heated. Imaginary war is enough.)

[curtis]

1) By moving quick enough that no messenger can reach City A before them, and killing any who might try it.

2) Without ranged weapons, probably scouting, sabotage, theft and brief strikes followed by a quick retreat. With ranged weapons, probably flying over and shooting downwards in addition to the aforementioned tactics.

[Yarram]

Well I think Side A is pretty much screwed. If side B sets up their siege engines and just shells away, while they do an air strike with their 4000 Pegasuses to take out the enemy siege equipment... GG.

The Pegasus could just float out of arrow range and drop spikey rocks on the archers anyway. A volley of 4000 Rocks falling out of the sky in a wave from an impossible to hit height?
The smartest move for team B would be to play it safe, by doing both this, and setting up siege engines to shell away at the walls. GG
They wouldn't even have to use their ground units, except to blockade their enemies in.

Team A is screwed, and they know it, but how they fight back depends on how smart their commander is. Ideally, team A would retreat, but because the enemies have flying mounts, they will just get chased down. Unless they have some way to bunker down underground and quail from the siege weapons/ air units... But the Pegasus can just land within their walls anyway.
Unless team A has everyone pull out bows to deal with the aerial threat, they can't match team B's ranged units.
Even if they shoot down the Pegasus' which they can't because if the enemy is directly above them, their arrows will fall back down on them, then suddenly they have a 100 kilo missile dropping on them to crush them. 1 Horse falling into a squad of archers may take out 2-3 of them.

IMHO if I was in charge of team A, I would try and cut a deal.

EDIT: Surprise vs Messangers... Right I forgot:
B has flying units. Flying units are fast.
Runners are less fast.

B's only risk is having their flying units spotted from afar.

Actually, B is almost better off, to send all of their Pegasus' in on the first cloudy day. They could just drop out of the sky and start the slaughter. That way, the siege begins early so team A has no time to rig traps around the city, and they pretty much can't sleep at all because the Pegasus' could come at any time.

[SDF]

B sends a Trojan envoy to city A pretending to celebrate A's capturing of fugitives. A small force can cause a considerable amount of damage this way. B will use about 1/8th of its force to assault A directly. A will repel B's force and they will retreat to the nearest city they occupy. A will think they successfully pushed back B's attack force, amass an army consisting of a sizable amount of their fighting force and send it to finish the retreating B force. Once they are three days out the actual B force assaults the city using the fliers to get over the defenses and take out their siege weapons. With A's force split the city will fall, and with no backup or supplies the rest of their army will surrender.

[Mercenary Pen]

You've told us that city B, sending out the besiegers is designed to withstand siege, but you've told us next to nothing about the fortifications of city A, which actually has to withstand the siege.

With the pegasus cavalry, you've not told us whether the pegasi are also armoured (or whether the extra weight of armour would prevent them taking flight).


If side B were clever about using the pegasus cavalry, they'd be sent above the effective attack range of the trebuchets and soften things up by dropping burning torches, fairly light (say 1lb to 2lb) stones, or bags of gravel from on high...

The pegasus cavalry would put significant additional pressure upon the siege engines in particular, as the only units that could potentially extend their range to hit the pegasi in flight.


Meanwhile, to try and counter the pegasi, the trebuchets would be throwing rocks below the maximum weight they could throw, probably multiple rocks totalling that same weight to give them maximum chance of hitting any of the pegasi. Because of this requirement, their own troops on the wall would be forced to take shelter or be pelted by shrapnel from their own siege engines, giving the enemy ground troops a straight shot at climbing the walls in an escalade.

(May I recommend reading through erfworld in general and the battle of Azure city from oots for more siege related inspiration)

[Vmag]

Side A needs to give up the city. Get every unit out of there and break them up into independent cells that don't entirely follow conventional battle formations. What they're up against are vastly superior forces with superior firepower, so conventional warfare isn't going to cut it - especially playing defensively against a greater force in a siege; supplies, thirst, and starvation can be just as deadly killers as winged horses and siege weapons.

Side B may have the element of surprise, but I'm assuming that watching a large number of combat troops of various types headed straight your way, either from a distance or close enough that the first long-range volleys already started, might clue you in to their intent.

So, ditch the city, break up into a buttload of smaller cells, and start shaving away at Side B at any opportunity and convenience.

[Mercenary Pen]

Alternative tactic for you from side B (who are almost guaranteed a win as currently set):

1 On route, you will be using airborne surveillance from your pegasus units to prevent any messengers getting through to warn city A. This should not be hard, because with the speed advantage of flight, and placing just a couple of companies of pegasi well ahead of your march, you should have the numerical advantage to stop any small group without major losses.

2 Move up main army to a point just outside the vision range of city A and encircle with a mix of units, leaving their own siege units well back for the moment.

3 Use pegasus cavalry for 2 purposes:
a- small regular (but unpredictably timed) bombing runs designed to draw the enemy out to try and hunt down the pegasi...

b- airborne surveillance, so that the moment your enemy scout parties/hunting parties come out, they can be led away into carefully planned ambushes by the side B ground forces.

Of course, the airborne spotters are essential (in this brand of siege) for keeping city A cut off from the rest of the world, spotting messengers going out, spotting anyone else (merchants for example) going in.

4 Rinse and repeat, luring out the enemy force (to negate the value of their fortifications and siege engines) and destroying them piecemeal. This way, you kill off as many side A men at arms as possible without allowing them defensive fortifications, while minimising the damage done to city A (so that you can occupy it without having to do massive repair jobs because of breaches in the walls etc.


(well, you already had incredible superiority with side B, so you might as well try doing this without damaging the real estate)...

[Exeson]

Hmm.

If I was working for Side A I would admit that there was no way that we were going to Win.

Therefore this would be my tactic, Shelter the main body of my troops, inside the castle or other places where they would be defended from arrows, rocks and other ranged attacks from the defenders. I would maintain a skeleton force on the walls and manning the siege weapons.

Attempt to deal with the flying knights, hopefully deter then with arrows and other ranged attacks. The aim is not to kill then, but merely to make their job of destroying the siege weapons slightly more troublesome, but still let them destroy the siege weapons.

If the knights get too full of themselves and try to continue their assault I would bring the archers from hiding and turn them into pin cushions.

when the main body of the enemy army gets near the walls then I would rush out my soldiers into the courtyard, with archers manning the castle walls (not the fortification walls) I would position my pikemen as extensions of the gate entrance, with soldiers up against the inside of the gate. The I would allow the gate to be broken open, easily so the enemy soldiers surge in. I would them have my soldiers fall back along the 'corridor' made by the pikemen, allowing the enemy to fill the 'corridor', and then I would have the pikemen advance, basically crushing the enemy soldiers between two walls of pikes.

After this any soldiers remaining who are not dead/ or were used to plug any holes in the 'corridor' that appear, will attempt to fight their way out of the fortifications. Archers will open up on any body masses of the enemies, but are mainly there to stop the flying knights from interfering with the 'corridor tactic'

Horsemen will provide the last ditch charge into the enemy, trumpets blazing and tears in their eyes as the mournful tune wails across the cold morning as they gladly lay down their lives for the honour of the city. :smalltongue:


I can give some illustrations of the 'corridor' tactic if you want, because I don't think i explained it very well, but I'm fairly confident it was a tactic used in the olden days, not in a siege setting but still.

Bottom line, the city will be lost no matter what, you might as well just try to cripple the enemy army if you can.

[skywalker]

Horsemen will provide the last ditch charge into the enemy, trumpets blazing and tears in their eyes as the mournful tune wails across the cold morning as they gladly lay down their lives for the honour of the city. :smalltongue:

Look for the coming of the White Rider at dawn of the third day, hmm?

Felix, how about magic? How does magic play in? ALSO we really need to know how each of these groups is provisioned. For instance, the Spartan strategy at Thermopylae was to hold until the Persians were forced to retreat by lack of supplies (which apparently wouldn't have taken too long if you believe Herodotus). Depending on the relative supply levels and the amount of forage within reasonable distance of City A, they might have a chance.

I notice that Side B haven't brought any sappers. Either they haven't thought this through, it's part of the attempt at stealth, or they're unavailable?

[Telonius]

Yeah, unless you're going to uncroak the volcano, Side A's pretty much had it. Even without the Pegasus riders, unless Side B does something incredibly stupid, they'll take the town given enough time. If their supply lines are strong, they can just camp out and wait for Side A to starve.

[Felixaar]

Sorry, I meant that City A is designed with sieges in mind. City B, less so, though that doesnt factor in.

Magic? Only one character on the field has any violent magic, and it's far from being unlimited. This description however is missing a lot of details about motives, characters, a different situations which will ultimately change the outcome of the battle. I'm merely looking for what should happen.

And with those "how smart is the commander?". You're the commander. Be as smart as you can.

Sappers? I'm afriad I don't know the meaning of this term.

[Dracomorph]

Sappers are engineers and/or workers who can break through stone walls, often by digging a tunnel underneath them and then collapsing it.

If city A had enough foreknowledge of the coming siege to destroy side B's siege engines and kill the siege engineers, as well as take out as many pegasus riders as possible, they would at least have a ghost of a chance. Still probably wouldn't have much hope of any real victory, but the delay could be helpful.

Like most asymmetric warfare, guerrilla tactics would be ideal, if unlikely, as per Vmag.

[Coidzor]

So why exactly do you feel the need to qualify all of the melee weapons as simple?

Also, your post is garbled because you said side B is sieging and yet that city B is being sieged and was built to withstand sieges when it was constructed. And also that city B goes with side B and so too city A with side A, but presented city B - side B before presenting city A = side A.

1. As for how to conceal the warlike intent of side B, well, it seems that it has the cooperation of the cities along its path, and that it would be detaining travelers and shooting down any messenger birds, especially since there'd be an aerial guard component probably watching for such things and also scouting along the road to detain/slay any found upon it lest they spread word.

2. As for how flying units effect the outcome of the siege. Well. The walls are pretty much useless. (well, not quite, but very easily circumvented now) The trebuchets inside the city are not designed to take on fliers at all. The archers don't have the numbers to really deal with them either, so the aerial cavalry could easily just take out the artillery and archers in advance of the main force and allow the siegers to breach the walls with relative impunity, as their siege weapons would not be capable of being harmed.

The pegasus riders are mounted and highly mobile in three axes. They can do quick strikes and could even be used to drop insertion teams into key areas...

If they had the training to use bows while so mounted they would basically be able to make it so no man could really stick his head out from cover from the sky for longer than a few moments.

With the numbers they have, the pegasus riders alone are almost enough to give a good fight in a straight up horizontal engagement with the entirety of the enemy force. The 2400-3200 numerical advantage probably more than offsets the advantage of the airborne cavalry if that's all they face, but that is a very powerful advantage they have...

The airborne cavalry can definitely do a lot to shatter troop positions and formations while more conventional troop formations press against them. Shattering an enemy formation by making them look up or have to deal with an enemy who can easily enough take off and attack from whatever direction you aren't already being harried from, well, yeah, it becomes a lot easier.

The airborne cavalry could actually proceed ahead of the army and prevent anyone from reaching city A before the army got there, and possibly even keep it from really being able to draw in supplies of grain for a siege. They certainly could lay siege to it by themselves easily enough.

Breaking up into a small enough camp that they keep the defenders in the city and anyone from reaching the city with supplies could actually be possible, with messengers on standby and lookouts posted about so that the pegasus-siegers wouldn't experience the same sort of concentrated filth and dysentery that siegers typically got as well as the siegees as they could cycle out and travel further afield and still be able to get there relatively quickly for amassing into military readiness.

[Don Julio Anejo]

Pegasi are IMO an autowin. A mobile, virtually invulnerable while airborne force gives you so many options it's not even funny.

The easiest way to take the town? Take all the side B's army, force march it straight to town A. What he^ said to try your best to prevent any news from reaching town A.

At a certain distance (probably a few days' march away) side A is going to know side B's intent anyway. A messenger might get through, refugees, someone on side B setting a few towns on fire, etc... So you won't get complete surprise.

If there's no killzone around the town, you could use forests, hills, cliffs or whatever else is available to screen the movement of your soldiers. If the killzone is there and sufficiently big or a city is build a plain, my plan (detailed below) probably wouldn't work without heavy losses on pegasi riders. But... if there's some place you could use to hide your soldiers...

Now. Wait till late night just before dawn (so the sentries are all sleepy and can't see very well)... Put as much of your army as you can near the city (taking care to make it look like it's still in camp by burning campfires throughout the night). Get a contingent of the best melee fighters (I'm not specifically saying the greatsword dudes, for all I know you could have a royal guard or something among the army) as close to the gate as possible without letting the sentries see or hear them. At that time of the day you could get them pretty close, to within a few hundred meters of the gate given proper sound proofing (wrap swords/shields in cloth so they don't clank, step slowly, tighten any loose armor straps and oil any potential hinges, etc).

Then use your pegasi riders to storm the gate. Try to pick off however is going to sound the alarm (I would assume a guy standing/sleeping next to a bell) with a crossbow (at least a couple riders should know how to use it..), then create enough of a local superiority to open the gate. That's their first and only priority. Just for long enough to get your swordsmen inside. Now you're all set - they should be badass enough to hold for at least a little against rushing enemy reinforcements while waiting for your forces to arrive and pour in through the open gate.

If you're feeling bold and it's possible given the training/element of surprise/equipment of your people, you can kill two birds with one stone. Quietly take over the city gates, run in with everything you've got and make a beeline for the keep gate. Open it again with pegasi (only possible if it's close enough to the city gate so you get there before the defenders arrive, otherwise elite melee units will slaughter poor possibly unarmored and much worse trained flyers) and pour in.

The advantage? You could potentially take over the city in a few hours, avoiding a prolonged siege. If you build your plan around this, you can potentially reduce your supply train to a minimum, increasing the speed at which you can get to your destination, and hence, the element of surprise.

The disadvantages? Lots. Timing and execution have to be perfect, for one. Flyers have to be at least okay fighters for another. If they're just peasants riding magical horses, they will be useless for this since even a dozen or so gate guards (possibly many more) will be able to hold their own in a tight area indefinitely while reinforcements arrive (and guardhouses were quite often located near city gates). Crossbows and tactical superiority (after all, you can quite easily have a few thousand troops in one area) could help - swarm the gate defenders, shoot them, pass crossbows to the back, receive loaded ones, shoot again, until you either kill the enemy or reinforcements arrive... Heavily depends on how well armored are the defenders and how powerful are the crossbows.

The point? Well, to avoid a prolonged siege. Also, potentially reduces your casualties if the enemy is caught by surprise (I don't mean strategic surprise, you should always assume the enemy will be ready regardless of whether they actually are, I mean tactical surprise - everyone is sound asleep and is expecting a major assault using siege weapons, not a commando strike). And finally, reduces the possibility of side A fighting their way out of the city to make your life a living hell through guerrilla warfare (wasn't the norm back in bronze age, but still..)

If a siege does develop, pegasi are still an autowin. Horse's eye view of the battlefield is the dream of many a commander before the age of hot air balloons and intel satellites. It also lets you get 4800 people to any area of the battlefield almost instantly. And makes city walls a non-factor. Also, trebuchets aren't as big of a problem as they would seem - have you tried to you know, turn one on its axis? Thought so, you can't. They can only really shoot at precalibrated (don't know the actual military term for it but I'm fairly certain there is one) areas on the ground with big rocks. Using lots of little rocks hurts the accuracy even more and greatly increases the risk of hitting your own people. They also can't fire very high even in principle.

[Coidzor]

Anyone who knows a smidgen about trebuchets knows it's like trying to swat a fly with a howitzer that can only move along a vertical axis while the fly has a full range of motion.

They also don't fire up, if I'm recalling how they work correctly, just an arc for distance really. You could make their arc more vertical but I think that's part of how you set them up, their specific angle of firing.

...Does side A have its trebuchets currently in a state of readiness for some reason? Or are these permanent, emplaced trebuchets?

[Yoren]

If I was the commander for City B I would probably just fly my air unit down as fast as possible to take the city a unaware. Once we're there I'd just "air drop" into the castle A and try and hold it for a week or two while my main army catches up.

Also are the units armaments set in stone? Can I equip my pegasus riders with crossbows so they'll be more effective once i get them up their defending the castle walls? Further more what are the carrying capacities of the Pegusus? Can they carry an extra rider without grounding the beast?

[Killer Angel]

The main problem is that side B can send their pegasi to make a prehemptive strike on the unsuspecting city A, wiping away all the siege engines and some men, then retire. At that point, it's game over.

If side B is too much relying on his superior strenght, marching along his way and taking the cities one by one, limiting the use of the pegasi, than side A can prepare a sort of defense.
I assume that 4000 pegasi are a very precious force... it's not strange to take (for a basic comparison) what is said in the MM of 3.5: training a pegasus requires weeks of work, difficult handle checks and each pegasus is worth A LOT, in the order of thousands gold pieces, not counting the man who rides it, that need also training in his use. So, it's not a resource to waste lightly.

The warning for side A, at that point is not a big problem: there will be many fugitives (civilians, etc), escaping through roads and even open fields: side B cannot stop them all, and Side A will be informed of the attack, maybe only few days before, but still...
You must eliminate the pegasi's menace: probably the enemy will strike with a co-ordinated scheme, with aerial strike taking out the siege engines, preceeding (or during) the land attack.
When they are arriving, you starts setting fires on pre-made hay wagons with oil: make courtains of smoke, dense and heavy: horses (and the pegasi are horses) don't like it, they'll became nervous, especially coming nearer and sensing the fires.
4000 flying pegasi covers a huge area... if they are nervous and you try to force them to fly into the smoke columns and to a relative small area, sooner they will crash togheter, augmenting the risk of panic in the flock.
Some pegasi will retire, some of them will land, but (at this point) in a non-coordinate way (and your archers, protected by cover from attacks from above, will shoot them).
You should obtain some good results: you should be able to inflict some real damage to the pegasi's force, which is a very valuable one, forcing retire.
Even if they retire with no losses to avoid entering the smoke, the result should be the same: side B (having seen the risk of losing a considerable number of pegasi) won't risk his precious aerial force, and will try a more conventional land attack, sending expandable infantry, which you can handle in a better way.

Meh, this plan is supposing too much things, but given the starting scenario, you must "cheat" in some way and hoping the enemy will make mistakes.
In a film, you should have good chances of success.

In reality, side B have too much options. Even if they don't want to strike with the pegasi, they can use them from great heighs to bombing the city (from simple stones to greek oil), without risking losses at all. Guarantee win.
Side B must act really stupidly, to give Side A any chance.

[golentan]

I'd like to point out that siege equipment (especially trebuchets) are worthless on defense.

There is no way Side A wins. The pegasi could land on the gatehouse, (they have almost sufficient forces to seize the castle on their own, but there's no kill like overkill), dragoon (dismounted cavalry serving as infantry) let in the rest of their forces, and outnumber A by 3 to one inside their fortification with every advantage in the book. 2 weeks or so of opening siege fire would also help, assuming they wouldn't mind having a swiss cheesed up castle. Which would make little difference unless B was the only one with air forces.

You say the element of surprise is a big one here, but I only see that as being true if Side A has potential vast reinforcements. Side B benefits from the psychological advantage of massed numbers and taking time to perform typical siege operations. If this is still a concern, a forced march having the pegasi take out look outs and scouts before mounting the same offensive would be the goal but probably not work.

[Thatguyoverther]

Side A seems pretty much screwed.

Generally Cavalry is worth many times as many foot soldiers because of their maneuverability and the extra effectiveness of their charges. I'd imagine flying cavalry even more so. The 4,000 pegasus riders would probably be an overwhelming attack force in and of itself.

They would be pretty much hosed if side B only had say 500 flying cavalry. They could land behind the wall and force open the gate, letting in the entirety of the enemy army.


I can't see any way of A winning. If I where A I'd capitulate or retreat. Given some time you might be able to load the Trebuchet's up so that they throw a large number of fist sized rocks at a near vertical angle, so they could function like primitive anti-air. But other than that, I'm pretty much drawing a blank on anyway they could win. Maybe bribing the pegaus comander to switch sides? Poisoning the enemy armies food supply? Getting a deity to put in an appearance? Discover a cache of WW2 submachine guns?

[The_JJ]

That guy was on the right track for side A.

Bribery and underhandedness might just win the day.

Fr' instance:
Conventional
1. Stockpile food before B arrrives.
2. Have the cav. burn the land for miles around.
3. Laugh as the enemies costly mounts starve to death.

This forces B to commit to a all or nothing attack. It's still not pretty, to be sure, but get some roofs up, assume our pegasi are about as manuverable as a flying horse should be in city streets, and have yourself a grand old urban melee as the horseys/dismounted horsemen try to force the gate.

Remember, seige warfare depended not just on the attrition for the poor basterds inside, it could be real brutal for the armies waiting around.

[Moff Chumley]

First, I'm assuming Pegasi aren't out of the ordinary in this setting. Therefor, if the city is designed to withstand siege, it should take Pegasi into account, probably via roofs on the walls. I'm going to assume, in this strategy, that pegasi cannot drop things on the archers, and since you said they're armed with simple weapons, there's not much they can do to the archers without the archers shooting at them.

With a three day warning before B's army arrives:
Day 1) Begin collecting provisions into the city, and send ten to fifteen small groups (units of perhaps 200) into the countryside, along with several horsemen. These units should march for about a day or two, in every vaguely northerly direction, until they find a easily defensible, relatively hidden location.
Day 2) Assuming the most obvious route to City A is directly from the north, position half the remaining light infantry, and about 100 archers, about an hour's march to the south of the city.
Day 3) Have the cavalry burn as much to the north of the city as possible, and then join the infantry behind the city.
Day 4) Army B arrives from the north, and attempts to encircle city. The archers shoot anything that gets in range, and likewise with the artillery. The pikemen and all remaining infantry are stationed by the main gait, ready for any engagement. If and when scouting parties are sent to the south of the city, archers shoot down any unsuspecting pegasi, and large cavalry units chase down anyone else. Should a larger force get into a good position, this group will attempt to lead them into an ambush. If a day or two goes by without this group being compromised, they'll attempt to break the siege from the outside by taking out the artillery.


That's the best I could do, I suppose... the small units try to disrupt supply lines, and play the part of guerilla soldiers should the city be taken.

[Don Julio Anejo]

@Moff: you're failing to take pegasi into account. They could quite easily make it impossible for side A to do anything before the main force arrives. Unless they send out half their army outside the walls to burn the land around the city. In which case, they'll probably end up locked out and trying to take back their own city if pegasi decide to attack. They don't need to, you know, charge from the skies straight down. Dismounting a distance away from a detachment out in the open and you can overwhelm it unless it's big enough to pose a threat to 4,000 soldiers or the 4,000 pegasi riders are absolute crap as fighters. If the detachment is big enough to pose a threat to 4,000 soldiers and is outside the city walls, that means that, well, it's outside the city walls. Also, they will be able to report on any enemy maneuvers, especially if the land surrounding the city was torched to resemble a wasteland.

Also, you can't exactly shoot unsuspecting pegasi or anything. Think - just how far can you fire straight up? Probably not higher than 50 or so meters and even then without very much accuracy. You also can't exactly shoot them in the direction of your city, only out. So you don't accidentally nail some hapless chap minding his own business five blocks down.

Another point to everyone. Stop thinking of catapults the same way you do of modern artillery. It's only purpose is to throw big rocks at walls, or in the best case scenario, lots of small rocks coated in burning oil into an enemy formation that's standing right outside the walls. You can't aim it, you can't shoot faster than once every (long period of time) and the projectiles aren't all that effective even if they do hit something.

PS: 4,000 pegasi riders are only valuable as far as horses go. Riders are for all intents and purposes expendable unless there's an in-setting reason for them not to be, such that each pegasus has to attune himself to the riders aura and dies with him or somesuch. Which means that it's not all that difficult to use them as dragoons (as someone has pointed out). Dismount most of them wherever you're planning to fight and have a few riders remain up in the sky to lead the horses away from the fight - easily done with real horses (horsemen in cavalry-heavy armies usually had several horses each to increase their mobility and endurance... but they only fought on one horse, not all of them).

[Felixaar]

1. Pegasi Riders are decent fighters.

2. If left to their own device, Pegasi will probably just fly back to City B. Of course, you can tie them down.

[Don Julio Anejo]

2. If left to their own device, Pegasi will probably just fly back to City B. Of course, you can tie them down.
Can you, for example, herd them as with horses? Say two-three riders forcing them to fly somewhere... Maybe not neatly and orderly but hold them together for long enough for the fight to be over. Or do they have to be mounted pretty much any time they're not tied down?

[Mando Knight]

So, the big things I'm wondering are...

1. How does Side B conceal their warlike intent? The element of surprise is a healthy factor here, and they want to maintain it.

2. How do flying troops affect a siege?

1.) This depends on the capability of inter-city communication and surrounding terrain. If there's forests nearby, then the army can advance through those. If there's a chance of another side attacking, side B can pass themselves off as refugees. If they surprise the defenders and surround them, their superior numbers and armor allow them to take down any counterattacks while waiting for surrender.

2.) The first strike should be on a cloudy day or in the middle of the night to conceal the Pegasi. If there are any Pegasus Riders trained in using ranged weapons, they should do so. Parthian tactics are all the more useful when you have the advantage of numbers, altitude, and mobility. Striking at the counter-siege catapults and ranged units first will almost guarantee a relatively easy victory.

However, if City A has truly been built for siege in this world, it'll have aerial defenses to counter the Pegasi: Barbed-wire and roofed battlements, pikers stationed with the ranged units, and a heavier focus on bow/crossbow training. Heavy ballista tech with shielding could also be used for AA.

[Felixaar]

Can you, for example, herd them as with horses? Say two-three riders forcing them to fly somewhere... Maybe not neatly and orderly but hold them together for long enough for the fight to be over. Or do they have to be mounted pretty much any time they're not tied down?

It might be possible, but I wouldn't want to count on it. What did you have in mind?

[Don Julio Anejo]

It might be possible, but I wouldn't want to count on it. What did you have in mind?
Basically, from what I know, horses that aren't mounted at the moment tend to "follow the leader." In the wild it's usually a lead mare, but for trained horses it can just as well be a human. So I meant something along the lines of, say, a batallion of pegasi riders dismounting and leaving behind one or two "horsemasters" to lead the horses away from combat.

EDIT: fixed my post, it was a bit ambiguous.

[Felixaar]

No, I get that. I'm just wondering what the purpose would be.

[golentan]

@Moff:
Another point to everyone. Stop thinking of catapults the same way you do of modern artillery. It's only purpose is to throw big rocks at walls, or in the best case scenario, lots of small rocks coated in burning oil into an enemy formation that's standing right outside the walls. You can't aim it, you can't shoot faster than once every (long period of time) and the projectiles aren't all that effective even if they do hit something.

Thank you. I briefly touched on the "siege weapons not good on defense," but this is a good summary.*

*note: You can also use them for biological and psychological warfare. One of the most effective campaigns I know of involved using the catapults as a sewage disposal system. Not only does it spare some of the problems with long term latrines, it is biological (Sing: Oh, how many diseases are in a pint of poo?), and psychological warfare (how long do you think your moral would stay high when you were being pummeled by daily blasts of excrement?).

And it is almost impossible to fortify something against air assault with medieval technology. It is both difficult to build sturdy roofs that allow no external access and can withstand the weight of an assault force, and to build AA active defenses. So while a wooden sheeting would protect you from bombardment, you can't keep the buggers outside the fortifications. Which was the whole point of building those walls and towers to begin with.

And Felixaar, I think the Don was suggesting something similar to what I said: dragoons. Then use the flight leader to retrieve the more valuable mounts after inserting the dismounted forces but before the counter attack.

[Don Julio Anejo]

No, I get that. I'm just wondering what the purpose would be.
Well, two reasons. The first one is obviously to save the mount. It may not be all that hard to come by in the setting (I don't know, maybe every peasant in the land has one to visit relatives on weekends), but I'm guessing they're probably quite expensive - a warhorse in the Middle Ages cost a crapload and then some, if only because it was hard to train one.

But the thing is, even if you can buy them a dime a dozen, they're still extremely valuable tactically. If a rider dies all that happens is you have one less soldier. If a pegasus dies, suddenly your airborne regiment goes down by one person. Enough pegasi die and your airborne loses its punch. While it's probably true that random soldiers won't be as good as dedicated flyers, I'm guessing they should at least be able to get on a horse and fly in loose formation to where they need to go and then get off to fight.

Another thing - being mounted on a pegasus doesn't offer you that much advantage when actually fighting someone on the ground. Sure, you can slash downwards and the enemy has to attack up, but there's more to it. Not only do wings take up a lot of space so the riders have to be pretty far apart, but also side A's soldiers would be quite likely to target pegasi themselves. Because as I've said it, one less pegasus = one less enemy soldier inside city walls to worry about.

At the same time, being able to attack from the sky isn't as helpful as it seems. Unless every single soldier is a good archer, they won't be able to actually hit the enemy unless they're physically on the ground. A sword just doesn't have all that much reach.

And finally, there's simply no point keeping all the horses hovering and crapping all over you when you're fighting in the city streets. Unless it's some sort of a psychological attack :smallsmile:

PS: if side B loses most of their aiborne corps, side A can force a conventional siege which they have all the potential of winning depending on preparedness levels (such as enough food) and plot. A small force can hold their own against an overwhelming assault if the fortifications are good enough. Hell, in 1453 at Constantinople, 7000 Greeks held the city for almost two months against 150,000 Turks. And the Turks had siege cannons..

[golentan]

At the same time, being able to attack from the sky isn't as helpful as it seems. Unless every single soldier is a good archer, they won't be able to actually hit the enemy unless they're physically on the ground. A sword just doesn't have all that much reach.

That's simply untrue. The ability to launch rapid responses makes the aerial troops far more versatile than any other force even if it doesn't significantly affect their power to damage the enemy in close engagements. In addition, the potential to do incendiary raids is just amazing. Imagine each soldier carrying a pitch soaked rag instead of a sword, and every third soldier or so holding a torch. The carnage would be incredible. A similar strategy involving pots of turpentine would be similarly devastating, and more likely to sicken the foe through toxic fumes.

I do think that side B should make every attempt to keep the pegasi from harm. If their bellies could be armored it would be a large help. I know early parachutes where designed and employed in the late 1400s. Though they'd certainly be costly, perhaps having the pegasi troopers airdropped would be a feasible way to keep the mounts out of harms way from archers and pikemen?

And the riders should definitely carry a crossbow or shortbow as standard armament, and be trained in it's employment. While they would not be individually accurate, in the numbers listed a flight of arrows without fear of retaliation would be a most efficacious means of aggressive diplomatic engagement.

[Bob_the_Mighty]

Well, there's always the fact that landing the pegasi in the city to drop off troops can possibly bring them within bowshot of the archers. Also, I'd say that if you're flying towards a city on 4000+ winged horses there's not much chance you can avoid notice. If the city is designed for a siege then it's more than likely clear for a significant distance all around to give the city line of sight to the area around it. Now, if there isn't, that still means that the pegasus will have to move on foot, but getting the rest of the troops near the city would be easier to avoid detection. However, this would also give the City A the option of sending out bands of guerillas to do things such as strike at enemy camps at night, hopefully killing pegasi on the ground, and hitting supply lines feeding troops from City B.

For strategy, I'd say the smoke idea is pretty good. If you can keep the skies full of enough smoke to limit vision you're also going to limit the usefulness of anything airborne. With the trebuchets, I'd say fire a volley of smaller-sized projectiles as the pegasi as they fly in, assuming it's from a direction you can fire at. Spray enough rocks in the air and you're bound to take out at least a few of them.

Drawbacks for side B might be that the pegasi and riders aren't an expendable force. Is there only 1 rider to 1 pegasus? If so then dragooning the riders is a much less appealing option. Also, assuming that "simple" weapons are crude melee weapons, they're ability to attack from a safe distance is nonexistant. Their only real option is an aerial charge. It could still be deadly, but it'd be costly.

So, clearly Side B has the advantage, but it's not a sure-fire victory, and even victory could be costly. If they suffer enough casualties, and assuming they've brought everything they could muster for an army, they'd be forced to give up and turn back. What good would a "victory" do them if they exhausted most of their army, leaving the extremely susceptable to attack from any other force that heard about their campaign?

[golentan]

For strategy, I'd say the smoke idea is pretty good. If you can keep the skies full of enough smoke to limit vision you're also going to limit the usefulness of anything airborne. With the trebuchets, I'd say fire a volley of smaller-sized projectiles as the pegasi as they fly in, assuming it's from a direction you can fire at. Spray enough rocks in the air and you're bound to take out at least a few of them.

While the smoke idea is a good one, it also inhibits your archers ability to deal with conventional forces and siege towers.

And the trebuchet option is simply impossible. A trebuchet is incapable of firing small objects in a grapeshot like manner due to the counterweight arm design, and the fastest rate of fire I've ever seen tops out at about a single shot every 30 seconds. The trebuchets must also be treated as essentially fixed arc weapons, making them no significant threat, and are large, high profile, and flammable targets prone to exploding under heavy fire conditions (the strength of wood and rope is insufficient to hold the forces being leveraged long without regular maintenance, and battlefield conditions do not allow this) occasionally damaging surrounding structures or causing splintering leading to the death of the crew. In short, as a commander of A I wouldn't let anyone so much as think of firing the bleeping trebuchets within the fortress, much less from a vantage that would allow them access to fire upon the pegasi.

The archers are insufficient in number to pose a serious threat. When employed against an aerial enemy 5 times their strength, they will fail to do more than force an alternate landing site even when massed. I believe this is the optimal strategy for their deployment. If the archers can be deployed along the accesses to the gatehouse, they can force any dragoons to land elsewhere within the structure and advance on foot to seize the gatehouse. This may leave A's high command exposed, however, and if B is aware of this they might instead send a strike force after them. Most soldiers of the era would not fight in the absence of their leadership.

Note that the pegasi have almost as troops as the combined forces arrayed against them and are similarly armed overall, but make up less than a third of their own main force. They truly should be able to land at least a few hundred dragoons to seize and hold the gatehouse long enough to admit the rest of their forces. Even if this is not the case, the distraction caused by their assault should allow towers to advance and unload heavier infantry upon the walls of the defenders.

The disrupting of supply lines and camps is a good idea, which suffers from the fact that war camps are built specifically against that and this requires the splitting of the defending forces. Assuming that sufficient forces can be marshalled to destroy the field stabling of the pegasi, it would cause the situation to revert to a more conventional siege, where A has a chance. 3:1 is not an impossible figure when besieged, though it would be a protracted and bloody battle, and an unsure one.

Overall, I do believe A's optimal strategy is to avoid war altogether, or to disperse their forces among the populace and engage in a classical rural insurgency if the issue is one that the soldiers are willing to personally fight for. If this is a dynastic dispute, I believe that for the most part A can kiss their sovereignty goodbye, and they should swear fealty to B and possibly wait for a moment to seize power.

[Don Julio Anejo]

That's simply untrue. The ability to launch rapid responses makes the aerial troops far more versatile than any other force even if it doesn't significantly affect their power to damage the enemy in close engagements. In addition, the potential to do incendiary raids is just amazing. Imagine each soldier carrying a pitch soaked rag instead of a sword, and every third soldier or so holding a torch. The carnage would be incredible. A similar strategy involving pots of turpentine would be similarly devastating, and more likely to sicken the foe through toxic fumes.
That's not what I meant - I never denied battlefield utility and the idea of incendiaries is a really good one too. Pots full of Greek fire might work even better.. What I meant was that in more-or-less haphazard more-or-less individual combat out in the field being able to take off a few meters up won't give them a big advantage over conventional cavalry - they would still need to land to be able to reach the enemy with swords, they can't attack while hovering.

PS: archers can't shoot what they can't see. Therefore, they can't shoot at pegasi if you attack strategic points at, say, 4 AM. You can still land safely - drop a few torches on the ground but archers still won't be able to shoot what's in the sky. Especially since they'll most likely be asleep at the time, unlikely that all of them will be sleeping in the same place and if they're firing in an arc inside city limits at targets they can't see, there's a very high chance they'll hit something they shouldn't.

[ZeroNumerous]

Honestly: I have to know why Side B wants Side A.

Were I in charge of Side B: I wouldn't hide my intent. I would announce what I was doing, draft peasants to send messages to every village and city in the area so that my enemy knows I am coming. I would then recruit any able-bodied peasant with promises of the spoils of war after the city is taken. These forces would then become my gathering militia. The militia would march along the left and right sides of my army gathering food, weapons, wine and whatever else a protracted siege would need. They would also spin tales of the might of my army, increase it's size two or three fold in their stories and inflate their own self-worth. Through that, my enemies would learn that I'm marching on their city with an army of a possible 24,000 or more soldiers.

Once we reached the city I would simply spread my soldiers around the city in a three-layer circle of small unit camps, about fifty soldiers per camp and 50 camps per ring. The soldiers would not engage, would remain outside of arrow range and would do nothing but stop any attempt to enter or exit the city. Anyone attempting to enter or leave is killed with no questions asked and no answers given. Every dead man, woman or child in this manner would then be beheaded and their heads placed on sticks just outside of each camp facing toward the city. Meanwhile, the remaining men who aren't part of the killing camps will set up campfires around the city but outside of direct view. I would have them wander around between the fires keeping them going and keeping up the appearance that I have far more soldiers than they see.

I would use the militia to wander the countryside plundering supplies, taking the crops and rounding up the local populace that lives outside the wall. Every day that passed I would select a single man from the local populace, remove his clothing and then gather up about 30 of my own archers. I'd give that man a message then send that man forward until he's within shouting distance of the city. Once he's shouted his message he'd be shot to death by the archers I gathered. We would then leave his corpse where it fell to rot and shoot anyone attempting to gather it for proper burial. The same would happen to the man's family.

If Side A attempts to use their siege engines against me, then I would bring my pegasi forward to strafe the engines with bags made from rags and full of fat, oil and feces. The strafe would then be followed by a second wave which carried nothing but two lit torches. The second wave would throw their torches into the enemy siege engines. Sure, I lose some soldiers but the psychological effect of a run away fire that smelled of burning feces will affect the enemy far more than my meager losses.

Every two to three days, at a random time during the day I'll scramble the pegasi and have them use the rag-bag + torches tactic on any wooden structures they see in the city. A week into the siege I would send forward a fearless man without weapons as a messenger. I would give the enemy commander a chance to surrender. I'd inform him: If he refuses, I would begin setting fire to the city in earnest. I would slaughter the people living near the city, burn their homes, salt their fields and leave nothing standing. If he accedes to my request, then I will take down the rotting corpses, help rebuild his city, spare his life and the lives of all his soldiers. If he refuses: I continue. If he accedes: I'll demand his men march outside the city and put them to the sword once everyone is no longer protected by their walls.

A simple enough strategy, I think.

[golentan]

That's not what I meant - I never denied battlefield utility and the idea of incendiaries is a really good one too. Pots full of Greek fire might work even better.. What I meant was that in more-or-less haphazard more-or-less individual combat out in the field being able to take off a few meters up won't give them a big advantage over conventional cavalry - they would still need to land to be able to reach the enemy with swords, they can't attack while hovering.

PS: archers can't shoot what they can't see. Therefore, they can't shoot at pegasi if you attack strategic points at, say, 4 AM. You can still land safely - drop a few torches on the ground but archers still won't be able to shoot what's in the sky. Especially since they'll most likely be asleep at the time, unlikely that all of them will be sleeping in the same place and if they're firing in an arc inside city limits at targets they can't see, there's a very high chance they'll hit something they shouldn't.

Okay. I see we're on the same page then.

I'm not sure that a 4 AM raid is a good idea. Even with a torch drop, the chances of smashing into a wall or coming in too hard in poor light seems of limited use. If it can be done safely, though, it should be added to the joint battle strategy.

Zero, I pray you're being sarcastic. I will treat it as such, but still face it as if you're suggesting it as a serious strategy.

While a militia is a good way to boost forces, that isn't a militia but a rabble. I don't think any of the reasonable posters were suggesting unlimited recruitment, much less in that style. And that sort of conquest would basically boil down to an unending regional war, or genocide. You don't get over grudges like that. You'd run down your own greatest assets, demoralize troops to the point you can't control them (not "we're too unhappy to fight," more just "looting is fun, though some of those orders cross that line too) in bloated, obscene, and wasteful parodies of meaningful strategy.

Anyone who joined you (probably smaller numbers than that, with such a battle plan) would have incentives to turn on you because you'd be recruiting from the very neighbors of the people you come to conquer. This works if it's a revolt, not so much with outside invasions. Plus the horrors you unleash are so personal, and you are explicitly targeting civilian inhabitants rather than merely the fortifications making it harder to hold the city.

Your fire bombing strategy again reads as an oblivious parody of several valid strategies. It isn't necessary to expose a flight to fire to make such a run, and "burning poo?" Really? Excrement and bodies have historically played a role in warfare, because they can be effective in tainting the water supply and weakening a foe's soldiers through disease. Deal with it. We're talking optimal use of resources here. Yes, some of the soldiers on both sides will die, this is a given in warfare. And terrible things will happen. The suggestions being made for B are to minimize casualties to B by causing A's forces to break rank quickly through the application of clearly superior forces, horrid living conditions, and the ability to break the siege through means not available in the actual middle ages.

The suggestions for A involve cold blooded assassination in the night, strangling animals, splitting your forces against an already numerically superior foe, and using the peasantry as human shields. Should you choose to frame it that way, of course. Would you care to take a similar crack at them as well?

In short, take a chill pill, my friend. Read up on military history, learn what crosses the line and where, and please don't mock that which does not. And unless A has been a thorn in your side for centuries, there's no need to go Roman on their Carthaginian asses.

[ZeroNumerous]

Zero, I pray you're being sarcastic. I will treat it as such, but still face it as if you're suggesting it as a serious strategy.

Exactly why I prefaced it with: "Honestly: I have to know why Side B wants Side A."

I'm assuming Side A is my hated foe. Which means I'm out to destroy them entirely. If that is why I wage war, then I fight accordingly.


While a militia is a good way to boost forces, that isn't a militia but a rabble.

I never intended to use them as troops. Merely as armed rabble to do what rabble like doing: Causing chaos, being loud and stealing everything not nailed down. This works two-fold.

One: It makes them obvious as invaders, and makes people who think of revolt or armed resistance attack them as opposed to my siege camps. This lets countrymen kill one another and saves a few of my own soldiers.

Two: They exist to gather everything together and will live no longer than that. Once they've stopped becoming useful, then killing them is no trouble since I never said I'd arm them with anything but whatever they take from home.


And that sort of conquest would basically boil down to an unending regional war, or genocide. You don't get over grudges like that.

See: You're assuming I want to conquer the city and use it for anything useful. I'm not. I'm razing the city to the ground, killing anyone who resists, stealing what can be stolen and setting fire to what can't. I'm not fighting a battle for conquest. I'm fighting a battle to slaughter my foes. There is no line in a war like that, and I'm most certainly not going to limit myself if it means victory.

Granted: If the city is connected to a larger country then it would indeed spark a significant war that would outlast my life. But from the scenario given then our battle is between city-states as opposed to nations. That makes future battles irrelevant as I'll probably be facing enemies whom are from another city-state entirely.

Finally: I wouldn't put it down just because you don't like it. Granted, it's morally unacceptable for many. But that's because I'm assuming I don't want to conquer the city and would rather destroy it along with everyone inside. Either way you'd have brutality involved. Whether a mass execution of the cities' rulers, generals and obvious leadership or through my scorched earth policy.


Anyone who joined you (probably smaller numbers than that, with such a battle plan) would have incentives to turn on you because you'd be recruiting from the very neighbors of the people you come to conquer.

It's a poor assumption that I would share my battle plan with anyone not from my country. The militia exists solely to steal from their neighbors, create chaos and generally be an unruly mob. It's part of my overall strategy to disconnect the sieged city from outside news. I also further stated that anyone not authorized to be in the siege camps would be killed: That includes any militia members.


This works if it's a revolt, not so much with outside invasions. Plus the horrors you unleash are so personal, and you are explicitly targeting civilian inhabitants rather than merely the fortifications making it harder to hold the city.

I fully agree. The area would be utterly impossible to hold with anything less than total, brutal iron-fisted rule. But then again, I never wanted to hold the city to begin with.


Really? Excrement and bodies have historically played a role in warfare, because they can be effective in tainting the water supply and weakening a foe's soldiers through disease. Deal with it. We're talking optimal use of resources here.

It is optimal use of resources. It's waste and I could attempt to utilize disease, but I want a more immediate effect as opposed to the gradual weakening. I want to demoralize the enemy with the smell and halt restful sleep for both the citizenry and the soldiers. As long as the entire city is under constant random threat of destruction, coupled with the inability to sleep peacefully and added to the threat of complete destruction from the outside it would be psychologically scarring for anyone living in the city. I want to break their will to live or resist, and the firebombing works two-fold for that.


The suggestions for A involve cold blooded assassination in the night, strangling animals, splitting your forces against an already numerically superior foe, and using the peasantry as human shields. Should you choose to frame it that way, of course. Would you care to take a similar crack at them as well?

Depends largely on why A doesn't want to submit to B. If it's solely a change of hats(IE: ruleship) then abandon the city/revolt/surrender. Honestly, who cares about who your immediate superior is when the other choice is dying? If it's an issue of hated foes... Well, that's an entirely different post.


In short, take a chill pill, my friend. Read up on military history, learn what crosses the line and where, and please don't mock that which does not. And unless A has been a thorn in your side for centuries, there's no need to go Roman on their Carthaginian asses.

Funny thing is: What I'm applying works in medieval strategy. Sure, it's unacceptable to current moral compasses but it was a fact of life until about 300-400 years ago. Ask the Brits following the invasion of the Danes, the Romans in Carthage, the Crusaders in Jerusalem, the Byzantines as they tried to conquer Romania, etc and so forth. Battle to minimize loses is a modern concept. Battle to completely destroy a hated foe is what I'm suggesting.

[golentan]

Funny thing is: What I'm applying works in medieval strategy. Sure, it's unacceptable to current moral compasses but it was a fact of life until about 300-400 years ago. Ask the Brits following the invasion of the Danes, the Romans in Carthage, the Crusaders in Jerusalem, the Byzantines as they tried to conquer Romania, etc and so forth. Battle to minimize loses is a modern concept. Battle to completely destroy a hated foe is what I'm suggesting.

Those were rare exceptions though. Battling with force preservation in mind is a very old concept. The scale of what to protect is a sliding one, but having a functioning army at the end is universally considered "a good idea." and most wars are for power political rather than "KILL THE XENOS!" in any era. It's your blatant disregard for your own forces that I meant crossed the line. And your lack of suggestions for politicking the rabble before involving them (even peripherally) in your camps.

If you are treating it as a campaign of extermination, I still feel a conventional campaign is far superior until it comes time to sack the city, at which point mass executions come into play. Torch the fields a few times over the next few years, sell survivors into slavery far, FAR away, then send some people over there and resettle the land. Rather than this reckless charge, where because of the nature of your assault A will not likely surrender its army until the last man or child is unable to hold a weapon. Desperate people in their home city are at a serious advantage and can pull stuff you wouldn't believe humanly possible, and it's not worth the risk.

[Moff Chumley]

Well Zero, let's say I was general A and I had about a week of warning to both your intentions and your general actions.

Since cavalry are fairly useless if I'm under siege, and holding a single gate isn't significantly different if I have 5000 men or 1000, I'd have my troops and diplomats begin seeking help from any neighboring states, recruiting a militia force of our own, and generally warning the neighboring villages of the coming genocide. When your rabble shows up, my villagers should be ready. Even for those villagers who don't trust me immediately would be convinced then. Assuming that I don't lose too many people to your mobs, your siege force is now surrounded by tens of thousands of very angry, desperate villagers, organized and augmented by my cavalry. Meanwhile, nearly a thousand archers on my walls should be enough to hold off the first few waves of pegasi, and since I'm assuming that my trebuchet are permanent installations, I have about 80 of those guys launching turpentine/feces/big rocks at your camps. Within a week of the siege beginning, our guerilla infantry and cavalry have begun to take out individual camps on your outer ring. (800 cavalry versus 50 infantry? Should take no more than five minutes to kill and burn the entire camp. Assuming I lose five to ten soldiers every time, that's still heavy loses from your side.)

Within about two weeks, your troops are getting demoralized and hungry, and while my city is probably not faring all that well, you aren't doing terrific either. In this amount of time, my diplomats, backed up by your barbarism, should've convinced a couple of neighboring states to lend a hand.

[Coidzor]

What sort of flight angles/maneuverability do the pegasi have anyway? Because "as maneuverable as a horse with wings should be" is, well, not very maneuverable at all because the damned things wouldn't be able to glide very well in a more or less straight line after leaping into the air from a full gallop much less achieve true flight.

[ZeroNumerous]

I had a response typed up to you, Moff, but my optical skipped over a bump and closed out Chrome. Suffice to say: 50 Pegasi courier/scouts > Guerrillas. Communications at the speed of flying horse > Shouting. Crossbows riding pegasi > armor. Heavy armor + spears > light armor + spears. Camps are designed and spaced so that any specific group can collapse together into a larger coherent unit with orders relayed via pegasus. So your guerillas would be looking at a quick response after the first smoke signals from burned camps.

Combined with the fact that every city between mine and yours is assumed to surrender to me... Well. I don't expect more than 1,000 or so militia to come to your side, and even then they won't be well armed, armored and certainly not trained.

Granted: Diplomacy will result in the defeat of my forces, but it'll also tip your hand that you're weak. With almost all your guerilla forces cut down, parts of your defenses burned, homes burned and your enemies now fully aware of this... Well. You'd have to be a fool not to pounce on that sort of chance. Either way: Side A would be destroyed at the cost of my army. Side B would probably be conquered shortly thereafter, but your defeat is almost assured.

[Coidzor]

Well, since they're both of the same nation (unsure if feudal or what, but probably feudal) it's either an illegal action or has been at least covertly sanctioned by an upper-up.

So genocide would be unlikely to be the objective of the invaders. Exterminating the ruling family's bloodline might be if the rulers were being punished for something that they had thought swept under the rug.

What is the motivation here, anyway?

[Trog]

If I were the general for City B at the mid-way point to City A I'd send my Pegasus Riders ahead (travelling by night if need to be conceal their approach) since they can travel much faster than the bulk of the army. This strike force will hit the gates of City A and destroy them from the inside before they even have heard that there is an army on the march. With only a small window of time to repair the gates they will be considerably weakened.

Once the army arrives at the city I would try to broker a surrender. If that failed I would set the seige engines on the other seige engines (pinpointed from above by the Pegasus riders who would signal the enemy's every major move within the city with flag signals), harry the men on the walls with the archers (on the way train some archers to ride the Pegasi or train the riders to fire bows as an airborne army with ranged weapons would be a lot more effective). Landing a force of men on a section of wall while being covered by archers to allow a seige ladder to be erected. At the same time assault the damaged door.

By harrying the small amount of defenders inside from all sides, above and making two simultaneous assaults the defenders don't stand much of a chance. Landing forces atop the castle after that effectively bypasses the problem of how to get in through the gate. Honestly your typical medieval castle is ill equipped to defend against an aerial attack. If this city were truly "prepared" for a siege in a fantasy world the defenses of a city would likely have developed much differently than it would have in the real world.

If I were the general of city A I would likely surrender to save the many lives of my men. They cannot win so fighting this fight is just delaying the inevitable. City A -might- have a chance depending on the personalities involved in this conflict. If the majority of side B's army is people who surrendered to him but oppose his leadership and can be turned against him side A might have a chance. Or if the only thing holding Side B together is the leader's charisma and personal power then getting a group of high-level heroes to get to him and kill him might dissolve the army. Basically some way of cutting of the head of Army B (assuming that that would even be a viable option for dissolving Army B) is General A's only option.

[Moff Chumley]

I had a response typed up to you, Moff, but my optical skipped over a bump and closed out Chrome. Suffice to say: 50 Pegasi courier/scouts > Guerrillas. Communications at the speed of flying horse > Shouting. Crossbows riding pegasi > armor. Heavy armor + spears > light armor + spears. Camps are designed and spaced so that any specific group can collapse together into a larger coherent unit with orders relayed via pegasus. So your guerillas would be looking at a quick response after the first smoke signals from burned camps.

Combined with the fact that every city between mine and yours is assumed to surrender to me... Well. I don't expect more than 1,000 or so militia to come to your side, and even then they won't be well armed, armored and certainly not trained.

Granted: Diplomacy will result in the defeat of my forces, but it'll also tip your hand that you're weak. With almost all your guerilla forces cut down, parts of your defenses burned, homes burned and your enemies now fully aware of this... Well. You'd have to be a fool not to pounce on that sort of chance. Either way: Side A would be destroyed at the cost of my army. Side B would probably be conquered shortly thereafter, but your defeat is almost assured.

1) The thing is, I'm assuming I have a full week to go from village to village, warning about the coming mobs. Once I'm proven right, EVERYONE will come to my side. When you're being attacked, you'll stick to the people who protect you. That's what the infantry stationed throughout the countryside are for.

2) Communication at the speed of flying horse is barely better than communication at the speed of a regular horse.

3) The thing about guerillas is that they tend to hide in things.

4) The pegasi have simple melee weapons. Last I checked, that doesn't include crossbows.

5) The other camps wouldn't have time to react to sudden strikes. They would see my cavalry perhaps three minutes before they hit, and assuming it takes one minute to light a small camp on fire and another to mop up any survivors, that leaves five minutes for pegasi to a) find my cavalry, b) fly to the nearest camps and warn them, and c) for those "heavy armor plus spears" guys to make their way to the right camp. Factor in feints, simultaneous strikes, and the sort, and it'll be very difficult to defend against.

[Lupy]

Cavalry hit and runs are really the way to go for A if help is coming.

If not, then A should wait for night when the Pegasi are sleeping and then attack with as many men as they can and try to exterminate the Pegasi, then run back to the city.

[Mr. Mud]

Depending on the plot before (this is some sort of prose, right... :smalltongue:?), I'd maybe have my Pegasus Warriors (Pegasi?) dress up as another force, so the army leaves to attack/threaten the new force C. Then they swoop in--literally and figuratively--for the attack when barely any troops are in the city.

Or maybe the Pegasi migrate to the city, months before and claim to be some sort of Astral clan that needs refuge/a place to protect? Then they backstab them?

Dunno, just a bit of outside thinking along with my two cents :smallbiggrin:.

[Felixaar]

ZN, though your strategy would probably work, it doesn't really suit for the character commanding the army.

[Miklus]

1. How does Side B conceal their warlike intent? The element of surprise is a healthy factor here, and they want to maintain it.

2. How do flying troops affect a siege?

1) I think it is near impossible to move an army that size for three weeks without someone alerting team A. People loyal to team A would send messengers to warn them. An army that size does not drop by just to say "Hello".

2) The pegasi is the trumph card here. Team A has nothing that can reach them. Team B can bombard the city at will, even setting it on fire. Team B has air superiority, as well as more troops on the ground. Team B wins.

Team A has a few options:
a) Negotiate a deal (pay them off).
b) Flee!
c) Surrender.
d) Move out and meet team B head on in the field and hope to achive surprise or maybe even an ambush! Team B might not expect this and be caught with their pants down...and their armour off. Maybe a night raid?

If I was commander of team A I would go for option "d", assuming that I had warning. Otherwise the other options in a-b-c order.

[Miklus]

Moff, I like your idea of an peasant army! If the ruler of city A is popular among the peasents, it just might work. Abandon the city, spread the troops and start to do some propaganda: "Side B have come to plunder your farms, rape your women and eat your babies! They are satanists ect." It does not have to be true...:smallamused:

How many peasants could ruler A raise? 10.000? 100.000? The besiegers could become the besieged! It could get really ugly.

Or side A could surrender and give the soldiers from side B all their gold, wine and whores. Then when the soldiers are nicely hammered and tired from the whores, at midnight...it's MAD CRAZY STABBIN' TIME! :smallfurious:

[Moff Chumley]

Erm, as to that last bit, if the enemy army has any discipline at all, they're gonna not let that happen. :smallwink: