War

## Core Concepts

* The lead up to the battle is more important than the battle itself
	+ Whoever jockeys for the better position
	+ Whoever has the better supplied men (Food/equipment)
* Attacking and defending are different and not at parity
	+ A Defender transitioning to an offensive campaign will face all the difficulties that an offensive war has

## Supplies

Supplies are on of the most important factors in a campaign, they determine the size of your army, where your army can go and the effectiveness of your troops when you decide to stay and fight.

### Types of Supply Lines

#### Foraging

* Advantages

	+ it is cost effective
* Disadvantages

	+ Foraging can not be controlled by the army (the environs are set and will never increase)
* Disruption tools

	+ enemies can strip the nearby land bare
	+ enemies can harass the foragers preventing your access to food.

##### How it works

When troops occupy a tile and don't have the resources to feed themselves they begin foraging. This involves removing nourishment from the tiles.

#####

##### Baggage Wagon

* + Advantages

		- Hard to disrupt
		- Can choose how many supplies are to be brought
	+ Disadvantages

		- Need to purchase all of the supplies (outright)
		- Slows down the movement of the army
		- Finite
	+ Disruption Tools

		- Baggage wagons have a physical presence and can be captured/sacked
		- Baggage wagons may not be able to travel through the same terrain soldiers can

##### Supply Train

* + Advantages

		- Can choose how many supplies are to be bought
		- Can be refilled
	+ Disadvantages

		- Vulnerable
		- Need to purchase the supplies
		- Difficulty reaching the actual army
	+ Disruption Tools

		- Physical presence and can be captured/sacked
		- You can form a barrier to proactively prevent the supplies from reaching the destination.

## Jockeying

* A good commander should know at the beginning of the battle whether they will win or not
	+ (This excludes outliers like Alexander the great when he charged the opposing king causing a rout)
* A battle only takes place under these conditions
	+ Both parties agree to it
	+ One player is forced into action (trapped on a hill, to relieve a siege)
	+ An ambush occurs

## Disparity between offensive and defensive campaigns

* Offensive armies
	+ Have weaker supply lines
	+ If routed, have no real way to regroup
		- Most of the troops will merely return home
		- All equipment will be left behind by the average soldier
		- The army may splinter into component parts
* Defensive Armies
	+ Must organise the army under duress (this could lead to armies being stranded or regions not being recruited from)
	+ Can be supplied via multiple routes
		- Gives the army greater maneuverability
	+ All of the collateral damage hit the defending army's kingdom

## Army

Every army has a single commander. Multiple armies can band together and fight as one, but each one is still an individual unit.

## Miscellanous Notes

Carrying out a war will always have a significant negative impact on your kingdom. Sometimes the benefits of what you gain through conquest can outweigh the negative impact. But impact will always be felt and will impact your system.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1cfr833

Our ability to fight a war is not only determined by the success you are having in the war,

But is also determined by the inability for your army to be in two places at once. Over committing to a war (eg launching a naval invasion of far off lands, or waiting out a siege) means that your homeland could remain open to invasion. An army uncontested in your land could do untold damage, even just being able to get a few months head start on a siege could be the difference between it falling and surviving.

Invasion forces

* All your troops that go to a foreign land, lose contact with the state
* cassus belli affects soldier moral

manoeuvring/jockeying not hard to form a battlefield/retreat

Armies split into smaller forces when hungry

harass with cavalry, season

not grass, hay barns,

burn villages along forager radius,

rely upon territory resources

expose to serious risk,

leave camps for food,

stripping of baggage effective,

Have a zone of control around every army. All armies within the zone of control of another hostile army will be unable to forage effectively. This does not affect supply trains. The zone of control for an army with good cavalry is 30kms (The main army should intend to be within 25kms of the other army otherwise the other army may have a cycle without pressure.). If your cavalry is exhausted or nonexistant then your zone of control is dependant on your ability to siege.

keeping an army occupied restricts communications

eg a surrounded army can't call for help

Choosing between administration and leading an army.

When you choose to lead an army you will not be at home to deal with any conspiracies that may happen. If you assign someone to be a general however, they will get the glory of victory which can include the loyalty of the soldiers.

Punic wars

10% of romans male population of millitary age is killed

20,000 dead from the first battle

proffessional armies, siege trains, new tactics/millitary units.

Hannibal never attacked first that’s how he decided the battlefields

6-8,000 carthigians dead

50,000-70,000 romans dead out of 90,000 men
10,000 captured

Millitary technology is discovered through fighting others

Stealing enemy weapons foraging weaponry

Defenders can afford to lose. If a defender loses they can regroup. Attackers can't regroup in enemy territory effectively.

Sieges buy time for the ruler to regain the forces and charge back into the war.

One or two blows can be enough to cripple an empire into defeat.

The millitirisation of the populace is what allowed nations like rome and the mongols to field huge armies that are able to lose armies and recover. A nation that millitirises the populace runs in to trouble when it loses the population. Now you have an army standing against you, not a rabble and that could be a bigger issue than the larger manpower pool provides benefits.

A more modern concept- trade prevents war. Wealthy trading nations lose out more by going to war than they do from stopping trade. Other people who trade with that nation may be forced to help defend the traders just to make sure their supplies aren't interrupted.

Continent wide wars cause mass destruction to the infrastructure, not just of countries but of international ideals. With trade being displaced powers being brought down to size until middling powers could pose a threat to the mightiest of former empires.

The human factor has always been a pivotal part of war. Ambuscades, misdirections, tactical mismatches should all be options available to the player.

The role of the battle is to force your enemy to run away. This is when the vast majority of casualties happen. When they are disorganised and harried by cavalry.

The army was forced to split into two to make a pincer movement.

Fresh soldiers aren't just less fatigued and starved but also have better equipment.

No financial state has ever stopped a war in progress. A prolonged war crushes a countries manpower and economy into the ground. The only reason the romans could survive the punic wars econmically was due to lack of competition and the huge war reparations Carthage were made to pay. Also due to Hannibal only targeting the Romans allowing their subjects to remain economically in tact. But Rome herself was thoroughly devastated and if two nations were to go into total war they would grind each other into dust allowing for the bystanders to outpace them simply by doing nothing.

### Fight to the death/Total war

If a side in a war is willing enough, as through religious zeal, nationalism or ideological belief, defeat or surrender to the enemy can be seen as worse than death and thus being rejected. Humiliation and war honor are a common reason, but also fear of torture, pillaging, enslaving or other crimes might convince that fighting to the end is a better result than surrendering. This can be especially true when the opposing side is seen as ultimately untrustworthy or despisable, and bloodshed in a merciless battle can feed this opinion. Suffering such a defeat might rise up morale and determination in the defeated side, which, instead of surrendering, might spend all its manpower and resources into war seeking revenge and ultimate victory. If surrounded and without means of recover, the defeated side might force the enemy to lay siege to an important fort or city before claiming victory, leading to unwanted casualties, attrition and delay. This can turn the aftermath of a victorious battle of annihilation into a slow strategic and political defeat.The Punic wars are a common example of war fury and obstinacy especially after a ruining defeat. During the Second Punic War, the Carthaginian commander Hannibal was able to defeat the Romans in four major battles, the latter of which was the Battle of Cannaewhere an army of 80,000 Roman legionaries was annihilated with a huge number of deaths from soldiers to important officers and senators. However, Hannibal proposals of peace were rejected and the Romans started to raise levies among the youngs and fortified the city for the supposed final assault. Hannibal's forces never laid siege to Rome and instead moved to Capua. Many historians agree that this decision was due to the hannibalian army not having enough manpower and machines to lay siege, while promised reinforcements from Carthage never came. The Romans later recovered and defeated Hannibal in Zama, winning the war in the end.