Siege

[kevindusi]

I'm going to agree with Jumbie here.

After 3 months of sitting there, your bazillion troops are going to be bored senseless and, unless they are assaulting every single person travelling, could easily miss catching Duke Fancypants. It's not like the modern era where you could make sure all your sentries had pictures of who to look for. Sure, they have to get through 18 kajillion troops... but so do the farmers, merchants, etc. Since the goal of the siege was to take the town without harm to its inhabitants (other than some mild starvation), and thus the troops would not be able/willing to search and seize every family as they return to their homes in the surrounding countryside, I'd say that the chance of escape would be pretty darn good. You want to catch a noble? Raze the PC to the ground and kill everyone in it. Want to have the PC in mint condition? Well, you give up some of the odds of catching the emissary.

[Kalrex]

Sieges involve surrounding the target and blocking the reinforcement or escape of troops or provision of supplies (a tactic known as "investment"-

I understand what you guys are talking about and if my military background didn't get in the way of my gaming background I'd possibly agree with you. I'll let the matter drop.

[kevindusi]

I feel that I'm probably just as capable of discussing tactics with you as I've read a lot of Tom Clancy novels.

[DuPont]

The thousands of troops are playing games of chance in their tents and banging the camp prostitutes during the siege.

[Jumbie]

As a protege of John Clark, I too feel like I can lend expert comment to this thread.

But seriously, Kevin, what do you mean modern troops can stop escape? You mean like Tora Bora when Osama eluded the special forces? Or Iraq where Saddam and his sons played hide and seek successfully for a long time?

See, no siege is perfect. Every line has weaknesses and 3 months of observation lets a defender know all the bad habits/routines the attackers have developed and where the weak points are, where the blind spots are, etc. and it's no different for Modern troops. Look at the way the Israelis are unable to seal their border even though they live in a siege mentality themselves.

The difference with the basic attack netting 50% of emissaries is speed: No time to respond. No time to find a weak point in the attack, no time to pack a bindle of supplies and cash.

[kevindusi]

As a protege of John Clark, I too feel like I can lend expert comment to this thread.

But seriously, Kevin, what do you mean modern troops can stop escape? You mean like Tora Bora when Osama eluded the special forces? Or Iraq where Saddam and his sons played hide and seek successfully for a long time?

See, no siege is perfect. Every line has weaknesses and 3 months of observation lets a defender know all the bad habits/routines the attackers have developed and where the weak points are, where the blind spots are, etc. and it's no different for Modern troops. Look at the way the Israelis are unable to seal their border even though they live in a siege mentality themselves.

The difference with the basic attack netting 50% of emissaries is speed: No time to respond. No time to find a weak point in the attack, no time to pack a bindle of supplies and cash.

Points for the word bindle.

[Kalrex]

"You mean like Tora Bora when Osama eluded the special forces? Or Iraq where Saddam and his sons played hide and seek successfully for a long time?"

They're all killed if I'm not mistaken. Furthermore, they remained in hiding and didn't pop back into active duty at the conclusion of events which put them into hiding. - I'm all for a possibility of this occurring, in game, as well if it suits you.

Count so and so went into hiding during the fall of "Lorethane" never to be seen again but he's still alive and requires you pay 4K gp per turn "In hiding" money to sustain his existence. I like your idea Dupont!!

[Jumbie]

Bin Laden was quite active as an emissary after Tora Bora. He continued to be the active spiritual force behind jihadists world wide. Though he never actively plotted any more attacks, he sponsored the creation and development of more groups such as al-Qaeda in Iraq and constantly released public messages that sent the US threat code color up a notch.

Mullah Mohammed Omar remains at large and his level of involvement in the current Taliban is unknown. He's still referred to as supreme leader but seems to not be in total control. If he is not that active any more that's only because he's an old man who's stepped back from frontline leadership of the Taliban. (Also because younger competitors in different factions have chipped away at his power). But not because of Tora Bora or pressure from US soldiers.

[Ry Vor]

Let's stay on topic. Feel free to post other subjects on a new thread in General Discussion.

[Jumbie]

I think it is on topic, since we're looking at how realistic it is for emissaries to escape sieges compared to full attacks. The Bin Laden example goes to showing the greater ease of escape when the attack is withheld or prolonged.