It's a GM who runs the Zuma, not a Dev as far as I am aware.
I didn't know that, my fault.
War protests, brought Aurvandil to its knees in a day. We had to take the entire time since the Provincia's founding to now just to stabilise, and even then we've just lost another two regions to revolt. And Aurvandil doesn't really do raids, it goes against the way we conduct war. We march with as fuller force as possible and look to fight the enemy in battle. We rarely march without the full panoply of our four armies arrayed and rarely with the intent for anything but victory against the enemy in battle. We seek the glory of battle more than we seek the path to victory. And when we do defeat our enemies, we never sack or raid, the only time we have done that was the destruction of Madina, otherwise as with regions like Rettleville we wiped out all fortifications, take the gold and leave.
Very honourable indeed. But well, maths sometimes help anyway. Looking to fight the enemy in battle in a proportion of 1200 to 250 like the recent battle in Paisland is quite a detail; a huge victory, but a lot of glory on that? Anyway, if you have a huge army and panoply, it would be silly not to use it. But I can understand why you take so long to bring back normality to your revolted lands if you don't like to set battle in a proportion inferior to 5 - 1.
"How to invade lands", page 34, paragraph 2: "If you want to set a Provincia di Fiorenza in enemy territory, don't burn raid it after blowing them away"
I'm just kidding.
