Which city would lose at siege? Ul'dah, because of their bloated population and lack of water and food, you only need to keep them inside for a couple of days, tops, which negates a lot of the "how do we get large quantities of food to us during a long campaign?". Limsa and Gridania also have healers on their side, so they could also go with a smaller force than Ul'dah would require to get at them.
Which city would lose at besieging? Ul'dah. They cannot besiege Limsa Lominsa. They cannot cross a desert and then be able to besiege Gridania without getting a face-full of white and elemental magic (remember, when elementals get grumpy, everything, including animals and plants, become grumpy as well). Ul'dah also doesn't have the healing guilds needed to pull off a besieging against those who do.
Which city would lose in open conflict on random, neutral plains? Ul'dah. No large number of healers. Only thaumaturges to pick off at a range (against the shield-producing conjurers? Against the quicker archers? If Limsa gets musketeers and rogues counted, those would also be an issue). Their melee units don't absorb as much damage as marauders and lancers. They don't have the real resources (food and water) to keep a large enough force supplied compared to what Limsa and Gridania could muster.
Gridania and Limsa Lominsa are about on par; impossible to besiege. Capable of holding out a long siege. Gridania has the most powerful magic known, while Limsa Lominsa can just have their arcanists do a summon rotation with aetherflow instead of sending out real soldiers for quite some time (when the enemy is tired).
Is Limsa have a go at Gridania (inland) they'll lose the battle, but Gridania also loses because of the aftermath of having been a battlefield.
Limsa should probably be the winner, because I can't figure out any way for Gridania to get at them without losing before they reach Vylbrand.
I'm not commenting on the aerial front since I haven't seen any war-ready fleets in the city-states.
Which city would lose at besieging? Ul'dah. They cannot besiege Limsa Lominsa. They cannot cross a desert and then be able to besiege Gridania without getting a face-full of white and elemental magic (remember, when elementals get grumpy, everything, including animals and plants, become grumpy as well). Ul'dah also doesn't have the healing guilds needed to pull off a besieging against those who do.
Which city would lose in open conflict on random, neutral plains? Ul'dah. No large number of healers. Only thaumaturges to pick off at a range (against the shield-producing conjurers? Against the quicker archers? If Limsa gets musketeers and rogues counted, those would also be an issue). Their melee units don't absorb as much damage as marauders and lancers. They don't have the real resources (food and water) to keep a large enough force supplied compared to what Limsa and Gridania could muster.
Gridania and Limsa Lominsa are about on par; impossible to besiege. Capable of holding out a long siege. Gridania has the most powerful magic known, while Limsa Lominsa can just have their arcanists do a summon rotation with aetherflow instead of sending out real soldiers for quite some time (when the enemy is tired).
Is Limsa have a go at Gridania (inland) they'll lose the battle, but Gridania also loses because of the aftermath of having been a battlefield.
Limsa should probably be the winner, because I can't figure out any way for Gridania to get at them without losing before they reach Vylbrand.
I'm not commenting on the aerial front since I haven't seen any war-ready fleets in the city-states.