Re: AUH: Official Q&A and FAQ
Nope! Dai Viet in general avoid siege warfare. It have many reasonsSurely the (pre-Yuan) Chinese attempts to take Dai Viet involved siege warfare?
1. Chinese obviously more numerous (you need to be more numerous to take another country)
2. Chinese in general heavily armored and have rather better arms and equip (siege weapons)
3. Fortification in Dai Viet are not particular good at all!
These reasons prove it's not a good option for Dai Viet to defense fortification like Western's style!
That's why the Viet's army (as a smaller and lighter arms compared to China) thought still used fortresses but more often they (we) used terrain as their advance (and naval power too).
They (we) set ambush on the mountainous terrain or created a strong defensive line in the bank of large river. Actually Viet's army will face the enemy head on but often with terrain in their side.
In most cases the invaders will be stop or worse crushed when tried in vain to attack well entrenched Viet's army
Only when these tactic failed (rather rare). We withdrawn from cities, used scourge earth tactic, then attack enemy's supply line, harass with guerrilla force to harass (these guerrilla war was maintained mostly by local units, not regular and not a part of the army) and...wait. The invaders will lose their strength via attrition. When they become weak. The main army will attack (suddenly if possible) and strike a killing blow which will throw the invaders out of the border. The wars in general will end here. This counter attack phase often "tore the invaders to ribbon!" and consist merely of conversation, fast and large attack
Note: There're 2 "strange" strategy here
1.Unlike the other Viet in many cases preferred to use terrain as a strong point and not depend too much on stronghold or cities!
2.Guerrilla warfare didn't win the war. It's a large and decisive battles which win the war. However many people think guerrilla warfare win (even Vietnamese themselves) because
_"we are peaceful","we're not warlike","we're weak, and poor"...bla...bla...bla!!!???
_Guerrilla warfare actually lower invaders's moral which make them think they lose to it!
_The term "guerrilla warfare" can be seen as a "unfair" and "coward" (and bad weather too) which in many cases used to explain the failure of the invasion and to blame the Viets as a coward, evil and uncivilized
_The legendary Viet Cong guerrilla fighters who "shaken" the world made people think Vietnamese are particular in guerrilla warfare
Uhm actually you can take the fortresses with mere foot soldiers and ladders (if you have enough soldiers to throw away of course)! And there're many other ways to take the fortresses like send in spies, bribe, surround, dug tunnel...Also, I find it strange that medieval Japan had castles and no siege warfare. In Shogun Total War, castles merely provided a choke point, a doorway to defend. Didn't they think to close the door?
No offensive here but both Chinese and Vietnamese are "quite" expansionistThe Chinese in general were never particularly expansionist, so sieges of "foreign" enemies weren't that common.
According to history if there're a list of Asian's expansionists then...Mongolian first, then Chinese and the third is Viets!
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by nhinhonhinho
Hearing things like this really encourages me to work harder on the mod. 
