WeberFan wrote:he defenders than mortars might have been.
And as the Germans and French proved at the outset of the Second World War, there are always around fixed fortifications. We've seen Charis pin fortifications and shell them into submission. We've seen Green Valley's previously employed strategy of pinning a strongly-fortified position and moving on to other objectives (although the facility was later captured by the "explosives in the tunnel" trick). We've seen the Church forces assault them time and time again - trusting in sheer numbers to overwhelm the defenses. I just can't see the ICA or the Siddarmarkians engaging in a frontal assault. The phrase "Hit em where they ain't" comes to mind. Even with a 3-million-man field force, you can't be everywhere at the same time in strength. I foresee a period of stagnation on the front, with a new ICA field force pulling an Inchon-like assault... Just like Caleb's work to bypass the Corisandan plug in the Dark Hills Mountains pass between Dairos and Manchyr.
The general idea of fixed fortifications is not to hold the enemy indefinitedly: the general idea is to hold the enemy long enough, so reserves could be maneuvered on the position to stop the assault.
And the effectivness of fixed defenses is generally linked to the effectivness of firearms. Even mid-XIX century firearms basically tended to make assaults on the fortifications VERY costly - of course, assuming that one side didn't make any obvious mistakes.
And on some level... well, basically you have World War I in all her pointless bloodshed glory, and you couldn't do anything about this until tanks appeared.