Voting is open
I support the siege, the Victorians will spin this as a Heroic Last Stand no matter what the Commonwealth does and as mentioned having more people killed then are necessary to test a landing doctrine is unnecessary and close to something what the Victorians would do.
 
Yeah, we need to spare people, not shells.
OTOH, Russians under Victorian symbols is, apparently, a threat, although minor. Do we have a good reason to assume they are not going to show up?After all, we asaulted Toledo force because of this fear, it didn't change.

So I am for assault because of this.
Plus I want to clean up Lake Erie for potentially trading with polities there without any possible issue from islands controlled by Vicks.
 
Yeah, we need to spare people, not shells.
OTOH, Russians under Victorian symbols is, apparently, a threat, although minor. Do we have a good reason to assume they are not going to show up?After all, we asaulted Toledo force because of this fear, it didn't change.

So I am for assault because of this.
Plus I want to clean up Lake Erie for potentially trading with polities there without any possible issue from islands controlled by Vicks.
The Toledo force was much larger, better supplies, had actual air forces and a good amount of territory, plus they were on land. The island force is one division trapped on a bunch of islands that can pretty much be covered entirely by our artillery. There is no equipment the Russians can send that will seriously change their situation, and anything they do send we should be able to destroy or seize. Additionally, if Russians decide to send planes under Vic flags, they risk getting shot down; if they send them with russian flags, that's a serious official show of allegiance and not something they are likely to do over one trapped division. There's basically no reasonable way for them to reinforce or relieve this force that won't cost them a lot more than they can gain.
 
The Toledo force was much larger, better supplies, had actual air forces and a good amount of territory, plus they were on land. The island force is one division trapped on a bunch of islands that can pretty much be covered entirely by our artillery. There is no equipment the Russians can send that will seriously change their situation, and anything they do send we should be able to destroy or seize. Additionally, if Russians decide to send planes under Vic flags, they risk getting shot down; if they send them with russian flags, that's a serious official show of allegiance and not something they are likely to do over one trapped division. There's basically no reasonable way for them to reinforce or relieve this force that won't cost them a lot more than they can gain.

Russian 'volunteers' still may or may not give them CB; it's flimsy at best, but I still would rather not risk it - we can spare international diplomatic capital even less than we can spare people.
Which is callous as hell, but quite accurate.
 
I just wanted to say, it's interesting seeing this also happen in Fitzpatrick's War, where the hardy survivalist reactionary post-American state of Yukon also fetishizes olde Britain. I wonder if there are any other examples in fiction? I have a theory for why, but it touches upon real-world politics so might not belong here.

OMG Fitzpatrick's War! I also own/have read that one.

High fivez!

Ive also thought anout the parallels and that the Yukons are pretty much what the Victorians want to be when they grow up.
 
Russian 'volunteers' still may or may not give them CB; it's flimsy at best, but I still would rather not risk it - we can spare international diplomatic capital even less than we can spare people.
Which is callous as hell, but quite accurate.

What international diplomatic capital would we be losing? Shooting down Russian planes under Victoria markings is not going to cost us international diplomatic capital, we are at war and have already shot down a lot Victoria planes. The supply situation is also very difference. The largest island (Peelee) is a mere 16 square miles. It's only airport can't handle big planes, and is within easy range of our guns. Any planes that try to get through and manage to not get AA'd, are going to be getting a terminal case of "artillery" the moment they set down, which again, they can only do if they are small general aviation planes, or hyper valuble high tech "I don't need an airport" planes that Russia isnt going to risk for a single division. The only realistic way to get supplies is to airdrop them, which limits their options. There are no supplies that are going to change the equation of what happens when facing artillery on level ground without entrenchment.

The difference between then and now, in addition to everything @tapkomet pointed out is that when discussing the previous siege, time estimations were in the months, now time estimations were in the weeks. That is a very difference situations. If we couldn't afford weeks, then we would have gone with the Full Assault.
 
What international diplomatic capital would we be losing? Shooting down Russian planes under Victoria markings is not going to cost us international diplomatic capital, we are at war and have already shot down a lot Victoria planes. The supply situation is also very difference. The largest island (Peelee) is a mere 16 square miles. It's only airport can't handle big planes, and is within easy range of our guns. Any planes that try to get through and manage to not get AA'd, are going to be getting a terminal case of "artillery" the moment they set down, which again, they can only do if they are small general aviation planes, or hyper valuble high tech "I don't need an airport" planes that Russia isnt going to risk for a single division. The only realistic way to get supplies is to airdrop them, which limits their options. There are no supplies that are going to change the equation of what happens when facing artillery on level ground without entrenchment.

The difference between then and now, in addition to everything @tapkomet pointed out is that when discussing the previous siege, time estimations were in the months, now time estimations were in the weeks. That is a very difference situations. If we couldn't afford weeks, then we would have gone with the Full Assault.

Not to mention that I don't think they'd be able to supply them from the air, in planes, I mean, do they have C-130s prepositioned? other than that or a c-130 analogue, you gonna use airdrops? how efficient? where are they based? and fueled?
Given the Vic Logistics, how long can the force last? food for how many days? water? purification tablets? how clean are the great lakes around those islands? how much fuel do they have? wood?
 
I will note, as I noted before the update, that the lakers meant to supply the Leamington force were next seen leaving the islands unloaded. It'd be a bit foolish for us to assume the Victorians are unsupplied if they do, in fact, have access to a Corps and change worth of supplies.

edit: also, the largest island has inland lakes and a shitload of trees. As does the second largest island. I think you guys are picturing them as much smaller than they are.
 
Last edited:
I will note, as I noted before the update, that the lakers meant to supply the Leamington force were next seen leaving the islands unloaded. It'd be a bit foolish for us to assume the Victorians are unsupplied if they do, in fact, have access to a Corps and change worth of supplies.

edit: also, the largest island has inland lakes and a shitload of trees. As does the second largest island. I think you guys are picturing them as much smaller than they are.
The Pelee island is the largest of them and it's about 5 km wide, and 2.5 km should be well within range for our naval artillery. Trees don't provide that much cover.

Victorians may have supplies,but they also deploy without armor, helmets, or shovels, so really what do supplies even get them? They can shoot back at our landing troops pretty well, I imagine, but there's nothing they brought that will actually help them avoid artillery.
 
I will note, as I noted before the update, that the lakers meant to supply the Leamington force were next seen leaving the islands unloaded. It'd be a bit foolish for us to assume the Victorians are unsupplied if they do, in fact, have access to a Corps and change worth of supplies.

edit: also, the largest island has inland lakes and a shitload of trees. As does the second largest island. I think you guys are picturing them as much smaller than they are.

World map, satellite view // Earth map online service

🗺️ All world countries satellite map with labels, ruler, places sharing, search, locating, route planning, states boundary tracking, city list menu for each state, weather forecast

I'm not seeing any inland lakes. Two very small bodies of water on the southwest side, but dignifying those with lake is questionable.
 
The Pelee island is the largest of them and it's about 5 km wide, and 2.5 km should be well within range for our naval artillery. Trees don't provide that much cover.

Victorians may have supplies,but they also deploy without armor, helmets, or shovels, so really what do supplies even get them? They can shoot back at our landing troops pretty well, I imagine, but there's nothing they brought that will actually help them avoid artillery.
It's not about range, but size. The Victorians will have had nothing to do for the past weeks/months except dig so they'll at least have some sort of trenches, and we don't have the ammunition to saturate the entire island. I doubt we'd even try, if we're putting the island under siege.

(fun fact, against the level of advanced fuses we probably have trees are actually negative cover, since a shell hitting a tree airbursts and murders everything)

World map, satellite view // Earth map online service

🗺️ All world countries satellite map with labels, ruler, places sharing, search, locating, route planning, states boundary tracking, city list menu for each state, weather forecast

I'm not seeing any inland lakes. Two very small bodies of water on the southwest side, but dignifying those with lake is questionable.
Yeah on second thought i blatantly lied about pelee, sorry. i haven't looked at any of my erie islands stuff in a while because I've been working on other things, and the presence of Lake Henry (which is actually a bay) plus a bit of conflation with the other big island made me think there was a lot more water around there. I still feel that the Victorians could probably drag out the siege long enough to be really annoying.

(edit: important words got deleted, oops)
 
It's not about range, but size. The Victorians will have had nothing to do for the past weeks/months except dig so they'll at least have some sort of trenches, and we don't have the ammunition. I doubt we'd even try, if we're putting the island under siege.
Are we sure we don't have the ammunition? There is no indication anywhere in the story that we might run out.
 
Are we sure we don't have the ammunition? There is no indication anywhere in the story that we might run out.
A couple words got deleted from that sentence and I tried to edit them back in as fast as I could. I specifically meant 'for saturating the whole island, levelling the (already pretty flat) ground and destroying the Victorians without landing a boot.' It's been mentioned throughout that we only have (i just woke up so this might not all be right) about a battery of 155mm per division + some 105s and our gunboats because we don't have the shell production to support anything else, and saturating an entire island would be a lot more expensive shellwise than what we did with them during the main campaign. At least in my opinion. We can certainly siege them out, but it would take a long time. Especially since they'll probably choose starving to death to a man over surrender.
 
A couple words got deleted from that sentence and I tried to edit them back in as fast as I could. I specifically meant 'for saturating the whole island, levelling the (already pretty flat) ground and destroying the Victorians without landing a boot.' It's been mentioned throughout that we only have (i just woke up so this might not all be right) about a battery of 155mm per division + some 105s and our gunboats because we don't have the shell production to support anything else, and saturating an entire island would be a lot more expensive shellwise than what we did with them during the main campaign. At least in my opinion. We can certainly siege them out, but it would take a long time. Especially since they'll probably choose starving to death to a man over surrender.
The option claims the siege would take "weeks" (presumably the estimation of our commanders, who should know their shit), and then "landing only once all activity has either ceased or been thoroughly suppressed". And Poptart is lawful, of course, so we can consequently expect our characters to behave like sensible people and not actually spend all our shells to saturation-bomb every square meter of Pelee island, but rather, as the text says, suppress them unti they can't mount an organized resistance, and then land and mop up, instead of landing asap as in the "assault" version.

Actually, the islands are small enough that trying to compel Victorian troops to surrender is probably viable, even by speakers mounted on ships. Victorians surrendering isn't unprecedented, at least, and they have to know they have literally no other way out. Is that a thing that's going to be attempted if we siege, @PoptartProdigy ?
 
OMG Fitzpatrick's War! I also own/have read that one.

High fivez!

Ive also thought anout the parallels and that the Yukons are pretty much what the Victorians want to be when they grow up.

I actually just briefly want to expand on this to make a recommendation for Fitzpatrick's War; if you want to read Victoria done right. (Right in this case meaning that the author is in on the joke of how fucking horrific and self-destructive these retroculture ideologies are)

The book takes the form of the memoirs of a decorated officer in the Victoria analogue's army who pretty much regrets his entire career for making him, in his own mind, a monster, and an accomplice to monstrous things.

It's also edited by a stuffy academic who has copious footnotes calling this primary source a liar for not agreeing with the after the fact heroic mythologizing... and censoring and condemning lines like "Then I danced with my wife" or, "Then I brushed my wife's hair".
 
Last edited:
The option claims the siege would take "weeks" (presumably the estimation of our commanders, who should know their shit), and then "landing only once all activity has either ceased or been thoroughly suppressed". And Poptart is lawful, of course, so we can consequently expect our characters to behave like sensible people and not actually spend all our shells to saturation-bomb every square meter of Pelee island, but rather, as the text says, suppress them unti they can't mount an organized resistance, and then land and mop up, instead of landing asap as in the "assault" version.
So here's what I'm trying to get across.

There's sort of a strand of 'our artillery can do anything' going on in the thread right now. There are people thinking that taking the islands is effortless (and it sort of is, since we won't play it out ourselves), because we can completely annihilate the Victorians using our artillery without even stepping foot on them. And we can certainly make life on the islands hellish with constant (lower-intensity) bombardment. But without high-intensity saturation fire, the kind of fire we can't sustain, that nobody except the WW2 Pacific US Navy could really sustain, completely neutralizing the Victorians and destroying their ability to fight just isn't possible through artillery alone.

Basically, here's what I'm trying to say: if we try to siege the Victorians until they starve or completely crumple under our artillery bombardment, we'll be here all day. The siege option can certainly kill quite a few Victorians and make it very hard for them to get any sleep, but it's not going to end organized resistance on the island before our troops land. It'll suppress said resistance, sure, maybe keep them from charging suicidally into gunboat fire trying to destroy the beachhead, but it'll still be a hell of a mopping up job. Both options will have organized, bloodthirsty Victorian resistance. Both will end in said resistance being slaughtered, but 'Siege' isn't going to be bloodless.

This isn't even really about the islands, honestly, I'm just trying to pump the brakes a little on our mindset about the artillery. Artillery is pretty fucking awesome, but we shouldn't ask too much of what we currently have.
 
Last edited:
Ive also thought anout the parallels and that the Yukons are pretty much what the Victorians want to be when they grow up.
I actually just briefly want to expand on this to make a recommendation for Fitzpatrick's War; if you want to read Victoria done right. (Right in this case meaning that the author is in on the joke of how fucking horrific and self-destructive these retroculture ideologies are)

The book takes the form of the memoirs of a decorated officer in the Victoria analogue's army who pretty much regrets his entire career for making him, in his own mind, a monster, and an accomplice to monstrous things.

It's also edited by a stuffy academic who has copious footnotes calling this primary source a liar for not agreeing with the after the fact heroic mythologizing... and censoring and condemning lines like "Then I danced with my wife" or, "Then I brushed my wife's hair".


How is Yukon superior to Victoria? Not relying on the author's grace to survive and win? These Storm Machines seem pretty convenient, although I guess that some unlikely things have to happen in order for there to be a story. Although even a quick summary does make the moral fibre of not the society but the protagonist multitudes greater than Rumford and Karl combined. Granted that bar is so low its almost touching the ground.
 
Last edited:
So here's what I'm trying to get across.

There's sort of a strand of 'our artillery can do anything' going on in the thread right now. There are people thinking that taking the islands is effortless (and it sort of is, since we won't play it out ourselves), because we can completely annihilate the Victorians using our artillery without even stepping foot on them. And we can certainly make life on the islands hellish with constant (lower-intensity) bombardment. But without high-intensity saturation fire, the kind of fire we can't sustain, that nobody except the WW2 Pacific US Navy could really sustain, completely neutralizing the Victorians and destroying their ability to fight just isn't possible through artillery alone.

Basically, here's what I'm trying to say: if we try to siege the Victorians until they starve or completely crumple under our artillery bombardment, we'll be here all day. The siege option can certainly kill quite a few Victorians and make it very hard for them to get any sleep, but it's not going to end organized resistance on the island before our troops land. It'll suppress said resistance, sure, maybe keep them from charging suicidally into gunboat fire trying to destroy the beachhead, but it'll still be a hell of a mopping up job. Both options will have organized, bloodthirsty Victorian resistance. Both will end in said resistance being slaughtered, but 'Siege' isn't going to be bloodless.

This isn't even really about the islands, honestly, I'm just trying to pump the brakes a little on our mindset about the artillery. Artillery is pretty fucking awesome, but we shouldn't ask too much of what we currently have.

My opinion is that the options presented are accurate, and not traps. I dont have much of a personal stake in the technical specs of artillery. Just that our admirals and generals know what they are doing. If they think it can be done in weeks, I'm willing to take them at there word. If you want a write in of "automatically assault after 8 weeks" be my guest.
 
Last edited:
So here's what I'm trying to get across.

There's sort of a strand of 'our artillery can do anything' going on in the thread right now. There are people thinking that taking the islands is effortless (and it sort of is, since we won't play it out ourselves), because we can completely annihilate the Victorians using our artillery without even stepping foot on them. And we can certainly make life on the islands hellish with constant (lower-intensity) bombardment. But without high-intensity saturation fire, the kind of fire we can't sustain, that nobody except the WW2 Pacific US Navy could really sustain, completely neutralizing the Victorians and destroying their ability to fight just isn't possible through artillery alone.

Basically, here's what I'm trying to say: if we try to siege the Victorians until they starve or completely crumple under our artillery bombardment, we'll be here all day. The siege option can certainly kill quite a few Victorians and make it very hard for them to get any sleep, but it's not going to end organized resistance on the island before our troops land. It'll suppress said resistance, sure, maybe keep them from charging suicidally into gunboat fire trying to destroy the beachhead, but it'll still be a hell of a mopping up job. Both options will have organized, bloodthirsty Victorian resistance. Both will end in said resistance being slaughtered, but 'Siege' isn't going to be bloodless.

This isn't even really about the islands, honestly, I'm just trying to pump the brakes a little on our mindset about the artillery. Artillery is pretty fucking awesome, but we shouldn't ask too much of what we currently have.
My opinion is that the options presented are accurate, and not traps. I dont have much of a personal stake in the technical specs of artillery. Just that our admirals and generals know what they are doing. If they think it can be done in weeks, I'm willing to take them at there word. If you want a write in of "automatically assault after 8 weeks" be my guest.

Besides, the Vicks are hardly suited for siege or frankly any kind of defensive warfare - their training apart from basic soldier competency focuses on movement warfare, and light infantry isn't going to be carrying many fortifications or heavy equipment around with them.
 
To the best of my knowledge, this is not physically possible within the weight constraints given. Not just in our techbase, but anyone's.
120s are BIG, with a yield equivalent to a 155mm artillery shell.
As Strypgia mentioned here, the US Army has lost a Bradley IFV in Iraq to a direct hit from a 120.

The kind of armor you'd need to protect a ship against what's essentially plunging fire from a six inch gun?
Is prohibitive.
One, that's with a small IFV that can spall, two if an AFV is dented it's going to have issues, three it's an aluminum chassis that is explicitly terrible at taking HE. The example does not work at all. In terms of actual naval shell performance, the rule of thumb is Okun Resource - World War II Naval Gun Armor Penetration Tables - NavWeaps or, for modern ductile armor, the penetration of a HE shell is .2x its width.
 
To clarify on availability of artillery: you do not have enough to cleanse every individual island of life from afar. We're talking about every island from Pelee to little sandbars that barely stay above the water all tide 'round. The smaller ones, you are flattening. That said, it is a cogent point that you simply don't have the ammunition to flatten the largest islands. The larger ones will have your batteries targeting ammo and food dumps, troop concentrations, and any (amateur) fortifications they construct. The goal will be to take advantage of the complete lack of overhead cover and their density of materiel and troops to burn through both at an accelerated rate. The plan will be to destroy or spoil most of their supplies and heavily attrit their forces and pin them down, then invade.

The option claims the siege would take "weeks" (presumably the estimation of our commanders, who should know their shit), and then "landing only once all activity has either ceased or been thoroughly suppressed". And Poptart is lawful, of course, so we can consequently expect our characters to behave like sensible people and not actually spend all our shells to saturation-bomb every square meter of Pelee island, but rather, as the text says, suppress them unti they can't mount an organized resistance, and then land and mop up, instead of landing asap as in the "assault" version.

Actually, the islands are small enough that trying to compel Victorian troops to surrender is probably viable, even by speakers mounted on ships. Victorians surrendering isn't unprecedented, at least, and they have to know they have literally no other way out. Is that a thing that's going to be attempted if we siege, @PoptartProdigy ?
Yeah, you'll try.
 
Voting is open
Back
Top