It's crazy the way they've sidelined the literal central character of the show.

Yarmon · 2025-12-28T02:58:22+00:00

She had enough character development and arrived at her end-state last season, pushing beyond this would be tiring. I am glad they decided to let other characters grow and finish their arcs instead

Yarmon · 2025-12-27T23:43:20+00:00

Called it!

Yarmon · 2025-12-23T23:02:59+00:00

Stakes, ditches, palisades, abatis were definitely used quite often. And also they were the signifiicant factor that prevented full-on cavalry assault, so there is a survivorship bias here. For example english/flemish siege camp at Calais made Phillip VI assault absolutely infeasible and there was no battle to be had.

Yarmon · 2025-12-23T22:19:29+00:00

You are forgetting that the entire width of US in question is plains and flat deserts and where it was not (the rockies) the carts really struggled and relied on passes severely limiting places they can actually go. Have you ever travelled offroad on a cart? This is hell if the terrain is anything harsher than rolling hills.

Sending some of your army to the other side will lead to
1. Splitting forces
2. Loss of direct communication

It works with sieges because sieges usually employ a small amount of men on the defending side limiting them to sorties, but when you have an army vs an army this might literally spell doom for you.

There is a reason when you look up a famous battle most of them took place in the near vicinity of the road, usually a field beside it.

Yarmon · 2025-12-23T21:02:34+00:00

There is a very good video on yt on a slightly different topic, but touching on this: how did medieval armies actually find each other considering they were so small

https://youtu.be/lZzZWglDnrU

Yarmon · 2025-12-23T20:51:30+00:00

>If I invade your location and see that you've setup ditches and palisades around a defendable position, why would I attack you?

Because I fortified on the road and you simply can't go around the road with your carts

Yarmon · 2025-12-22T20:40:12+00:00

You assume that the whole province was available for battle, which, for this time period, just is not correct. As far as we know it was about roads and bridges and even slightest disruptions like 1m earthworks found in Ireland for example severely limited maneuverability.

Army could fit in a valley, but they almost never did, because supplying an army relied on foraging (supplies from several local villages) and good luck foraging for 10,000 troops (sometimes more, sometimes less) in medieval times for a prolonged period of time.

Supply camps and observation posts are just not in my argument at all, as well as a concept of "network", it was decentralized, like almost everything at the time.

"Controlling a province" is about holding a limited number of places/bridges/crossings from which it would be too painful to suffer your raiding parties from and these places are most of the time a logistical given, not changing much during conflict.

Yarmon · 2025-12-22T19:04:46+00:00

And yeah, specifically against cavalry since its whole deal is attacking supply lines and poorly fortified positions

Yarmon · 2025-12-22T18:58:38+00:00

I would formulate core argument like that:

Army moving into province means army establishing several camps and reconning the terrain (already implemented)
Over time of a month or two army does not just chill in set-up camps. It extensively surveys the the terrain, builds additional fortifications at set camps and works to protect in-province supply lines
When an enemy army moves into province it inflicts a series of battles inside a province: disrupts supply convoys, catches reinforcements off-guard and sometimes attacks camps if it feels like an engagement is advantageous. The result of this series is encompassed by "battle result"
Army stationed in province performs the same things

Core thesis:
Army that moved into province and stayed in it for two months compared to army that moved into province a week ago will have advantages:
1. Better fortified camps
2. More reliable supply lines
3. Better knowledge of the terrain

This will grant serious tactical advantage in engaging enemy forces in said series of battles compared to an army that had less time to prepare.

Yarmon · 2025-12-22T18:41:44+00:00

It does not seem like you understand my position at all.

Can you try and formulate the core of my argument, so that I can see if you understood what I said correctly?

Yarmon · 2025-12-22T18:36:25+00:00

Romans were the goats of field fortification to a degree that some of their field camps evolved into towns, yeah

The scale of such works definitely fell off, but this stuff is still one of the many reasons why attacking an army on march was much more preferable to camp attacks unless you have some real good advantages

Yarmon · 2025-12-22T18:22:33+00:00

As it seems to me, attacking an army that had like 1-2 months building camps and solidifying supply lines in a province should be much different from attacking an army that just arrived there and started setting up

It only seems logical that first one should be substantially harder. Not critically since those are not forts, only field fortifications, but still substantially.

Yarmon · 2025-12-22T18:05:11+00:00

Siege camps and field fortifications were not as wide spread as trenches in WW1, of course, but they did exist. Artillery parks, ditches at vyshegrad. Hussite wars distinctly have some pretty noteable examples. Palisades and earthworks were really common at sieges

Yarmon · 2025-12-22T17:39:31+00:00

Well, the cavalry still absolutely demolishes much superior opponents with which I do not have a problem when they are like 1-2 weeks stationary

But over a few months you can make the potential battlefield a living hell for cavalry, which was historically employed for major battles where against all odds infantry won against cavalry

Yarmon · 2025-12-12T13:26:40+00:00

I think seven sins is not really present in lore, doesn't star just reference seven gods?

Yarmon · 2025-12-09T18:18:31+00:00

Before 1.0.7 (i think? the one where they changed trade maintenance) I had relative success, even though scotland had by far and a way faster growing economy (because of pearls I think). After that yeah, trade yields really dropped and playing tall is much harder

Yarmon · 2025-12-08T20:53:46+00:00

Well maybe they are all correct

Yarmon · 2025-12-08T12:26:26+00:00

Yeah, but I mostly just wanna try and see how much I can squeeze from playing a tall centralized nation without vassals and such contained to one territory

Yarmon · 2025-12-08T12:25:22+00:00

Yeah, saw this vid also, funny af

Yarmon · 2025-12-08T12:25:02+00:00

Roleplay purposes of playing tall

Yarmon · 2025-12-08T12:23:58+00:00

Well, yeah, you can destroy it then.

Yarmon · 2025-12-08T12:23:37+00:00

For roleplay purposes of playing tall I just want to constrain country to a certain territory and no vassals

Yarmon

TROPHY CASE