Remove ads

Elysian Odyssey (EU4 Quest - Byzantium in the New World)

Reader mode
[X] Begin a general campaign into Potawatomi territory.
We outnumber them now our militia is gathered and are already near the border with a good reason for the war. I fear if we allow them to leave they will try and form an alliance for round two with the other tribes at our border.
 
Karugus said:
This feels really jarring. We had 500 heavy shock infantry in full maile with daneaxes that are going to ignore leather or light shields. Even the militia should have had the benefit of superior shields and iron helmets- the two most important pieces of defensive equipment for a soldier.

This fight was literally the first interactions the native had with massed heavy cavalry- cataphracts no less. Narratively this feels like such waste, and I'm still sort of baffled they weren't used more. All of them should still be bowmen IIRC and the natives had no easy means of guaranteeing a retreat in good order since the only prayer they have against cavalry is a dense hedge of spears. And have next to no experience with cavalry to evaluate their threat. This seems arbitrary and undeserved. I'm not against the natives being threatening but any argument that starts with 'the natives took advantage of being pressed into a close order melee' against Varangians amongst other things is head scratching. It's just poorly presented and articulated, if that's how the odds went- whatever, but you could have done a much better job justifying it. The Byzantines are the beneficiaries of a literal millennia of experience in tight formation fighting. The natives are the beneficiaries of millennia of loose order tribal skirmishing and extensive experience with the local lands and navigating it. We pitted strength to weakness and just bounced off for no explicable reason than numbers, which are a notoriously poor gauge of success with actual medieval and older combat because of the immense difficulty of command and control leveraging thousands of people in a chaotic environment.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I'm not sure why you assume the Varangians are 'full maile with daneaxes'. They've been separated from Scandanavia for almost half a millenium, during which they almost suffered total extinction from population collapse. Their religion has shifted towards a more native american animism form of Norse paganism, even. The Varangians are well-equipped, but their primary function is loyalty, not as some unstoppable juggernaut. They aren't just Danelaw vikings transposed through time by 600 years.

Secondly, these aren't native americans by OTL. By the time the first European colonies were interacting with the native tribes they were dealing with societies which had suffered monumental (up to 90%) population losses to disease. You are not dealing with that situation. These natives have also had plenty of time for knowledge to disseminate from Vinland in regards to metallurgy and even social customs.

Thirdly, the insanely heavily armored cataphract had kind of gone extinct by the Fall of Constantinople, having been replaced by western mercenary cavalry. But even allowing for 'just' armored cavalry, it's entirely understandable for a commander to not commit cavalry to a battle when breaking through the enemy line gives you only a couple seconds of riding before going straight into a river. Next to a large native army almost exclusively using spears. If there hadn't been such a major numerical disadvantage then Theophilos could have commited his cavalry much more readily because he could have been able to actually control the battlefield more effectively.

Theophilos was sent into a battle at less than full readiness against a skilled general. Nullifying your advantages to leverage theirs isn't you putting 'strength against weakness'. Quite the opposite. You are not the Komenian Byzantine Empire. You aren't even the Empire of Nikaea.
 
Last edited:
[X] Set a watch on the border and return to the capital.

We could focus on improving our military and making sure the Dynatoi are not planning to defenestrate us, before trying anything else. Maybe periodic raids against the Potawatomi, in order to acquire some real combat experience and develop appropriate tactics for our forces?
 
Sayle said:
I'm not sure why you assume the Varangians are 'full maile with daneaxes'. They've been separated from Scandanavia for almost half a millenium, during which they almost suffered total extinction from population collapse. Their religion has shifted towards a more native american animism form of Norse paganism, even. The Varangians are well-equipped, but their primary function is loyalty, not as some unstoppable juggernaut. They aren't just Danelaw vikings transposed through time by 600 years.

Secondly, these aren't native americans by OTL. By the time the first European colonies were interacting with the native tribes they were dealing with societies which had suffered monumental (up to 90%) population losses to disease. You are not dealing with that situation. These natives have also had plenty of time for knowledge to disseminate from Vinland in regards to metallurgy and even social customs.

Thirdly, the insanely heavily armored cataphract had kind of gone extinct by the Fall of Constantinople, having been replaced by western mercenary cavalry. But even allowing for 'just' armored cavalry, it's entirely understandable for a commander to not commit cavalry to a battle when breaking through the enemy line gives you only a couple seconds of riding before going straight into a river. Next to a large native army almost exclusively using spears. If there hadn't been such a major numerical disadvantage then Theophilos could have commited his cavalry much more readily because he could have been able to actually control the battlefield more effectively.

Theophilos was sent into a battle at less than full readiness against a skilled general. Nullifying your advantages to leverage theirs isn't you putting 'strength against weakness'. Quite the opposite. You are not the Komenian Byzantine Empire. You aren't even the Empire of Nikaea.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
honestly I dig all of this, the biggest weird thing for me was the simple fact the enemy chieftain was so sure he would lose in a normal battle where he outnumbered us 2-1 he decided he wanted to remove any retreat from his army to fight to the death.

THAT is what is weird to me. They have no exp with horses so can't know how terrifying they are on the field. If the Vikings are not using a lot of heavy armor then they should also not have much experience with proper metal armor either. Plus they definitely don't know what a proper formation can do given neither they nor the vikings really use them much.

Honestly the bunching up against the river is what feels contrived to me. No real general does that unless they know its do or die or they are caught completely off guard and have no choice but to bunch up.

Plus if they were really bunched up why didn't we use archers? ....wait do we even have archers or crossbowmen? so weird that we did not even attempt to use a ranged barrage to force them out if we do.

plus our heavy infantry should have been able to force them to bunch up even more if they were already bunched up and prevent them from using their weapons properly. Its what the roman Legions did to win their wars.
 
san said:
plus our heavy infantry should have been able to force them to bunch up even more if they were already bunched up and prevent them from using their weapons properly. Its what the roman Legions did to win their wars.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Heavy Infantry had been de-emphasized by successive generations and eras of Rome and its successors. As the expensive and slow formations of Heavy Infantry became a liability when it came to defending the vast Roman Lands and the Byzantine Empire and its de-centralized military levy system especially could not afford too many of them for a variety of reasons.
 
san said:
honestly I dig all of this, the biggest weird thing for me was the simple fact the enemy chieftain was so sure he would lose in a normal battle where he outnumbered us 2-1 he decided he wanted to remove any retreat from his army to fight to the death.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The Byzantines were called out as needing to corral the natives up against the river before fighting anything more serious than skirmishes. I suspect that the original plan from their perspective was a great big raiding/skirmishing campaign where the Byzantines would be forced to pack up sticks and leave in the face of massive numbers, thereby letting the Potawatomi use their traditional lands again.

The Romans going out to meet the massive 7k warrior doomstack at all probably spooked/tipped their leader off that pitched battle was not in his best interests, regardless of their relative numbers.
 
Stop: Let's Take a Step Back Here
  • Staff Post
    • Genji said:
    [ ] Unfortunate, but these things happen.

    Why should we hang those responsible? Don't screw the church unless its for a good reason. Dead barbarians are not a good reason.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Czes said:
    Maybe we should change our policy for the natives and go for slavery?
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    armentho said:
    barbaroi are savages ,almost non-human
    is not crime if they were souless animals to begin with

    at least that how many non-christian groups are seen like in the antiquity,the notion of christianism as compasive and peaceful is rather recent (1800's and above)
    jews were treated as a caste in europe for example

    so im not surprised if natives were to be killed and be treated as ''savages got what they deserved''
    still,christianism and pretty much any religion has its own ''violent and self-righteous'' phase

    still,because we want to change that,im gonna vote for punishing assholes
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    Czes said:
    Yeah I know, It´s not like I condone it or even find it in any shape way or form acceptable, but in the end this is a game and every choice must at least be taken into consideration.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...


    let's take a step back here So, I am afraid to say that we need to have a talk.

    Having read Quest from start to finish over the last couple of days, after we received some reports, I am alarmed by some of the discussion I have seen. This kind of cheer-leading for the dehumanisation, enslavement or murder of a group of people is simply not acceptable on SV. These posts are some of the highlights, and they have been infracted, but there is a general tone here which I am uncomfortable with.

    Now, I realise that all of you were only attempting speak "in character", and in reality, you are of course against slavery and genocide. Many of you made this explicit. However, there is something very important to realise. Even when you are just roleplaying the advocacy of murder and removing people's humanity, it is still being posted on the forum for people to read. The import and impact is lessened, but it is still there. This is not okay.

    Of course, you can play as a historical culture, and portray historical attitudes, and there can be a lot of value in this. But there are a few very important points:
    (1) You are always responsible for what you post on the forum.
    (2) When you touch on brutality in a fictional historical context, it should be with an appropriate, respectful tone for the subject matter. Do not advocate for pogroms, even if you're playing a character.
    (3) If crimes against humanity happen, they should be presented as part of the historical context, and the players should not be cheerleading them. Ideally, try to avoid crimes against humanity where you can.
    (4) Real historical cultures, a lot of the time, were often considerably more nuanced than a simplistic "dark ages" viewpoint. Consider doing some reading around the topic. I was particularly impressed by some of @Professor Vesca's posts in this thread.

    I'm certain that this was just the result of people getting a bit carried away. I know that @Sayle is a good GM, that he can handle this subject matter sensitively, and I'm confident that the game can have a bright future. But for that to happen, I need all of you, the players to help me out. I need you to make this game an excellent place to be, and to be vigilant for this sort of thing getting out of hand in future.

    I will be watching the thread. Thanks for your time.
     
  • Staff Post
    • me.me.here said:
    The Byzantines were called out as needing to corral the natives up against the river before fighting anything more serious than skirmishes. I suspect that the original plan from their perspective was a great big raiding/skirmishing campaign where the Byzantines would be forced to pack up sticks and leave in the face of massive numbers, thereby letting the Potawatomi use their traditional lands again.

    The Romans going out to meet the massive 7k warrior doomstack at all probably spooked/tipped their leader off that pitched battle was not in his best interests, regardless of their relative numbers.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    or it could have gotten him to think that he had them where he wanted them and they were forced to come out to defend their city that was otherwise defenseless.
     
    san said:
    or it could have gotten him to think that he had them where he wanted them and they were forced to come out to defend their city that was otherwise defenseless.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    It could have, but the Potawatomi thinking he had the Byzantines right where he wanted them requires additional explanation for why the Potawatomi forces were retreating rather than pouncing on the exposed defenders once they were away from the city walls - which is the concern of yours I was attempting to address.
     
    [X] Begin a general campaign into Potawatomi territory.
     
    [X] Set a watch on the border and return to the capital.
    [X] Conduct a retributive raid into Potawatomi territory.

    I'd rather not raid, but it's still way better than trying to conquer the Potawatomi.
     
    [X] Conduct a retributive raid into Potawatomi territory.

    We need to do a certain minimum dickwaving or our reputation gets marked as craven, but we can't actually DO a campaign into lands where we have no logistics and no numeric superiority.

    Cavalry raids should satisfy the domestic audience and give the natives an idea of how we'd respond - tit for tat counter raiding is a pain but not an existential threat, going pedal to the metal for any offenses traps you in a position where you have to win at all costs because your enemies don't expect to survive otherwise.
     
    we're bout to get krumped again arent we? is not like we know the area better than them so why ppl think this gonna be easy?
     
    Inserted tally
    Adhoc vote count started by Noroboro on Aug 10, 2020 at 11:47 PM, finished with 52 posts and 15 votes.
    Click to expand...
     
    tactical voting time


    [X] Set a watch on the border and return to the capital.
    [X] Conduct a retributive raid into Potawatomi territory.

    less dead better than be more dead
     
    Reader mode
    You must login or register to reply here.
    Remove ads
    Back
    Top