You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →


[–] One-Way_Bus 0 points 13 points (+13|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Better not to fight in an urban environment. It is better to lay siege to them. A siege is much cheaper than going in it with losses. I'd rather get the city intact in the end rather than it be reduced to rubble.


[–] akuta 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Precisely the point of my other reply (different person than you replied to): Sieges are real shit... all of those big cities will turn to dog-eat-dog when the food lines are severed.


[–] 7e62ce85 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

You assume a siege would play out like during the middle ages, it won't... it will be a 100 times worse:

  • Much denser population.
  • Much larger population.
  • Fewer food stores than people used to have, basically whatever is on the shelves of 7/11 so like 0.5 days supplies lol.
  • Non unified population. These welfare parasites would be at each other's throats so fast if things got even remotely difficult unlike a castle or medieval town where they all knew each other and fought together.
  • No equivalent of safe city walls so they could be charged at any moment or peppered with some artillery to strategic locations such as transit hubs, water facilities and hospitals.


[–] CapinBoredface 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I already live in the city.

You can’t exactly lay siege from within.


[–] 7e62ce85 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

You could have supplies to last in your apartment and go out to cut wires at night or poison water supplies.