Printable View
I just want to say that this thread was my favorite of all time.
I used to post big campaigns and endless screenshots of my blitzes, which were rather popular, but I never enjoyed a thread as much as this particular one. The debate was quite engaging, and re-reading the whole thing has really put me in the mood to do some more expansion campaigns.
I think... the Danes this time...
:2thumbsup:
And what if the turtler destroys his buildings before the city falls?The looting would be far less profitable, while the hare still has to replenish his losses. Granted that the turtler has enough provinces to repeat this a few times the hare may end up like he Germans in 1943.
Now that Kingdom's Hotseat PBM's are finally getting off the ground, I have to agree with ATPG's statement that the relations between the human controlled factions will decide how the game goes if there are more than 2 human players. In the two that I am currently in, in-character diplomacy is by far the most important aspect of the game. If you can convince other players to let you blitz, or even help you, you will whomp. If you can convince other players that your are worth keeping around, they will pool their resources to help defend you. If you can not establish good enough diplomatic relations with enough players, you will find that the rest of the players have divvied up the map (including your territories) and then it is just a matter of time.
If we're talking about 1 v 1 MP campaign games, I believe the hare would win because they have the math of the game on their side. They are basically pushing the in-game economics to their highest limits and will win through sheer weight of numbers. It's the way the game is designed and they are to be applauded for finding it and pushing it to it's limits.
Now for me, that way is simply not fun. In my SP games I am a total turtle. I decide on the first turn what my "homelands" will be, then I get them as fast as possible, and then I turtle for the rest of the game. I build up my homelands and finance them through acquiring colonies like islands, the New World, and Outremer. In a MP 1v1 campaign I would get owned though using this strategy. :yes:
The main target of sacking is rebel and AI controlled settlements.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Debroedere
Once I go after the Human player, I don't need any money at all. I have 5 or more stacks concentrated in one province. I could be in debt the rest of the game and still annihilate someone.
First, I agree that the blitzer is likely to win, but I dont see it as one sided as most of you seem to think.
Askthepizzaguy, you are talking about going against a pure turtler while modifying your blitz strategy to consider the human turtler. To that point, the turtler who modifies his strategy to compansate for a human blitzer against a pure blitzer would win as well. If your modifying your strategies to compansate for having a human player it's only a fair comparison if said turtler is also modifying his. At that point it's agresive expansionist against defensive expansionist, remember to be a fair comparison the two players would have to be equaly skilled, you've mastered attacking in sieges, your opponant has mastered defending them, you've mastered crossing bridges, your opponant has mastered defending them.
In short, true blitzer against true turtler, the blitzer would probably win 9 out of 10 times. True blitzer needs to keep expanding to keep his economy, one too many losses and he's done, thus the turtler wins one game.
Moderate blitzer against true turtler the blitzer wins every time.
Moderate turtler against true blitzer would likely be turtler 9 out of 10, the one time being you just couldnt stop him long enough.
However, in a human vs human it would be moderate blitzer against moderate turtler and it's anyone's game, though I'd say the blitzer has an edge.
This is a complex question indeed. I have played strategy games for quite some time and I find its not always a case of who has more troops or who has a better economy. In most cases its about who puts the resources they have to better use, in most strategy games I find the "rush" tactic is a double edge sword. If it fails or burns out before doing severe damage to the enemy then that player will lose.
Many other factors would need to be considered such as faction but until it has been tried in real time its difficult to speculate what would happen. It always surprises me some of the strategies people do come up with, after all if the TW series is going online at some point it would be a pretty bad strategy game if all you had to do was bum rush.
In MTW2 however there is no reward for building an economy or "booming" as its called in most games. Pizzaguys strategies seem like they all rely on the stupidity of the AI, no discredit to him though his HRE campaign is most impressive. So with all said and done there really isn't that much of a reason to have armies sitting still I'm not a blitzer but armies standing about just cost money, so although I build up my cities my armies are always advancing too. I suppose I fall somewhere in between.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
To respond to your points:
1. I've been waiting for someone to detail exactly how they would defend. I make it a point of showing how the attack would go. Simply saying one is a true turtle does not show any sort of compensatory strategem. Details, my friend, details.
2. Equal skill has always been the assumption. Given the blitzer's obvious territorial and time advantages, and near-endless economic resources, the turtle must abandon a purely defensive, economic game.
3. To be a "defending expansionist" one must field an attacking force, build the proper military buildings, and trade off some defending garrison in the process, distracting from the pure defensive game. One is then a moderate turtle, not a true turtle.
4. Defensive mastery does not apply to seige situations. It is a forced loss with overwhelming force. You might sally and destroy one stack, but not three. Should you defend your province with multiple stacks, I would advance elsewhere and take you where you are weakest.
It doesn't matter how skilled a person is, eventually force wins.
5. I've layed out a detailed explanation as to exactly why a turtle cannot defeat a good blitzer, unless there are 3 or more humans in play. Thus far, no one has layed out a detailed explanation showing how this is wrong, or that there is a good counter strategy for a turtle. The best defense so far is the moderate who slips behind the blitzer's defenses with a small raiding party, burns the blitzer's cities to the ground, and defends at choke points against his invasion force. However, in order to field that many troops, one must abandon an economic game, and move quickly to destroy the blitzer. In other words, one must be half defender, half blitzer. Not exactly turtle-ish.
6. Assuming even skill, and assuming each player sticks to his or her chosen strategy, assuming there aren't any other human players, and assuming neither faction is on the border of the other, the blitzer beats the turtle, every time. The AI is too incompetent to defeat the blitzer, and serves as his source of territory and income. Taking advantage of expansionism all over the map, while the turtle at best fields two offensive stacks, it's a simple math problem to figure out who wins long term.
Long term, the blitzer is utterly unstoppable. The ONLY way you can defeat the blitzer is to prevent the unlimited troops, florins, and territories from falling into the hands of your opponent. Which means you must defeat the blitzer quickly. No turtle is prepared for an all-out assault in the opening game, because that is contrary to his operating methods.
Blitzers are vulnerable at the opening. But the AI is too stupid to take advantage, and turtles are unprepared and unwilling to divert the neccessary resources to finish him off immediately. Then the battle swings in the blitzer's favor, ever more so as time progresses.
If you can illustrate why you think this is not so, I'd be very interested to hear your views.
:thumbsup:
I'm surprised no one has gone into detail with the use of "intelligence services". What if the turtle kept his armies at home, but spammed the blitzer with assassins and spies. A large group of them could sabotage all of the happiness buildings while the spies sit in the cities and cause them to revolt.Quote:
Originally Posted by askthepizzaguy
There would be an initial cost but it is slight compared to that of getting an professional army. You would just need a tavern in every city and you would have each of your cities pumping out 1 spy and 1 assassin per turn for the rest of the game. Subsequent tavern lines do not increase the effectiveness of the spies and assassins so you can stop once you spend 2400 per city (800 for brothel and 1600 per tavern.) This would take 5 turns total but hopefully some cities will start with brothels.
Also, the Guilds will start to come calling once you produce and use spies and assassins a lot. These will make your operatives even more effective.
Also when I defend, I do not defend my cities. I defend "frontlines". Bridges, mountain passes, forest roads, ect... Also, I believe I can defend against a multiple stack artillery laden army at a bridge crossing as long as I had reinforcements behind me. Lay a massive stake fort at the bridgehead and then move my archers back a little in the beginning of the battle. I always let the enemy take the bridgehead and then I turn it into a little cauldron of death as I pour shot on his head.
Your tactic of bringing fire support to hit my defenses will be minimized by the fact that I will move back a little. You will be forced to come forward or duke it out in an artillery duel that will either go to me or become a draw. You will need plenty of assault forces in your stacks but I can go heavy on archers and arty. I only need 5 or 6 actual melee units and the rest can be throwing things. I'd have a catapult fling a dead cow onto your side of the bridge to hurt your unit's moral. Your horses would charge into a massive tangle of stakes (I use at least 8 stake laying archers in each army and I would probably go more here) or they would have to walk where I would turn them into porcupines.
The only good counter against this kind of bridge defense is elephants but I will gamble that you won't have access to them yet. Elephants can charge and knock over the stakes and Panzerphaunts could just engage in a long-range artillery duel which would break all of my cannons. (The tactic I am discussing obviously does not work well against the Timurids but works wonders on Mongols).
In the end, I think the blitzer would win the campaign due to sheer weight of numbers but I believe that the strategy I have layed out shows that a more pure turtle does have the chance at putting up a good fight. Of course a lot depends on the terrain that the turtler starts out with.
Thank you, my friend; you've given me something I can actually sink some teeth into.Quote:
Originally Posted by Privateerkev
Although, assassins will do you no good. I typically have no happiness buildings. What's the point? I conquer half the map before any city comes close to revolt. (Within 30 turns, to be specific).
You may have some luck with spy spamming. However, by the time you get that up and running, I've assembled my forces. Granted, you could begin sending spies within 10 turns or so, and that would be a good tactic with good results. This would slow me down until I got some counterspies in my cities. This may buy you some time, it would indeed slow me down while I built a spy network, and was forced to recruit extra garrison forces. However, given the time and resources spent massing endless uber spies, it would slow you down just as well. I give you an edge on this strategy the first time I see it, but the effectiveness wears off after the first revolt, by then I see what you're doing and I will stop you. It may even trip me up on the first game enough to warrant a very prolonged, near-stalemate. I would be prepared next game with one dedicated anti-spy city. Which foils such a plan easily.
In response to your other points, I've always advocated a NON seige type of defense. Anything that puts your troops in a tactically superior defensive position. True, walls are helpful if attacked this turn... but are utterly useless if I have the time to wait you out. In fact, I can pin you at the choke point of the gate and surround n' pound you to death. Seige defense is suicide.
I think you overestimate the bridge advantage. Not because I am afraid of a challenge to my opinion, but because of a plan I've laid out previously. The bridge keeps both armies away from one another with a choke point in the middle, but does not prevent archer and artillery fire from pushing back your army. True, you can bring archers and artillery yourself, but then we've simply got an even archer shootout. There is no inherent advantage to defending a bridge unless I have few ranged units.
When assaulting such a fortified position, I'd be sure to bring plenty. Yet, your reinforcements make winning the battle a costly thing. I'd have to plow 3 stacks of troops through in order to defeat you, and your troops are in a fine position to rout and regroup. I'd think about going around a different way (by sea, perhaps... or reroute by land in multiple vectors).
It is DEFINITLEY a good idea to choke the blitzer with spies and fortified stacks in strategic areas. This buys you time, for certain.
However, in my humble analysis, the Turtle's position is mighty, but like the Titanic, it is a hopeless position. You will sink as time passes, until you are swamped by endless hordes of troops attacking from many fronts. The "pumps" buy you time, but decades only.
The ship is still sinking. Without some kind of massive assault, FAST, the blitzer will slowly build his advantage while the turtle attempts to do too much with too little.
So far he MUST:
1. Defend his cities with UBER garrison forces, or at least field massive armies in the borderlands for defensive purposes. A small empire is nearly bankrupt in such an undertaking.
2. Assault neighboring territories. No one is silly enough to think the turtle needn't expand. This requires at least one, preferably two, good assault stacks. So we're looking at a tiny empire fielding several full stacks of troops.
3. Build his economy. Obviously, the turtle's whole IDEA is to have "better quality" cities instead of more of them. So every spare florin is spent on developing roads, ports, markets, etc.
4. Build a spy network (optional, but required if under seige by spies from the blitzer's camp). Time consuming, and costly to maintain. Think an additional stack of troops worth of florins per turn.
5. Build the best garrisons available. Obviously, the Turtle needs BETTER troops, because the Blitzer has MORE of them. More $$$ and time invested.
6. Build a navy (if near the ocean). The blitzer can afford a navy, because he's only concerned with more troops and better mobility for them. Can you muster the florins to defend against a proper naval assault?
7. React rather than act. Because he is playing at least somewhat defensively, the turtle must plan to counter the other player's movements. This requires time. It's harder to defend against blows than it is to throw a punch. Because this is not a real time strategy game, this means careful planning, not quick reflexes, is required. Simply waiting for the inevitable and attempting to muster a defense is a poor plan.
8. Eventually, the Turtle MUST counterstrike the larger beast, AND DEFEAT HIM! No matter what, I have at least twice the territory and I've been sending soldiers to their deaths for a while now. I have the florins and the garrisons to replenish my numbers in one or two turns. You must not only turn back the tide of my assault, but engage and defeat the greatest empire in the history of mankind, after being brutalized by endless waves of troops.
And good luck on that last one. So far, every resource (and by my calculation, more than you even HAVE) has been spent merely fending off my assault. What of your goal to win? Stalemate is not an option. I have many, many cities, each growing slowly, each growing more powerful (perhaps not as fast as yours, but in due time...), each allowing more and more troops to be recruited, and as time goes by, I make the preparations for securing my holdings. Walls, armorers, spies, fortresses. Dare you invade my territory?
The door is open. But it's not a warm and friendly place inside...
:skull: :skull: :skull: :skull: :skull: :skull: :skull:
While I will (and have from the beginning) concede that the Blitzer will win the campaign because they fully exploit the math of the game, I do think you underestimate my bridge defense advantage.Quote:
Originally Posted by askthepizzaguy
You keep thinking that the river cuts both ways. It doesn't. You have to come to me. While we can both deploy anywhere on our own side of the river, I have the advantage in knowing exactly where your forces are eventually going to be. And that is the bridge and the bridgehead. If we're playing with a timer on, you have only one hour to cross that bridge and beat me. And unless you have elephants, I am arguing that I can hold you for one hour if I have the proper stack plus some reinforcements.
I've already laid out how I would do it but I'll go over some points. I would pick a bridge or river crossing that had some heights overlooking the bridgehead. I would lay 8 rows of stakes at the bridgehead and then move the archers back as soon as the battle starts. I would put the archers on the heights. And I would have 6 Trebuchet/Cannon batteries for counter battery fire.
I would launch a couple of dead cows to your side of the bridge to force your army to take the penalty of walking through them if you wanted to assault. I would nail each piece of your arty. If you break mine, I would have more in reserve. You could win the arty duel only if you have more and better arty than me but then your using up precious time bringing the assault troops as reinforcements.
Once you cross, you'll have to walk your horses through the stakes or they will be impaled. When they walk, I will set them on fire with flaming arrows. I will put 2 spearmen and 2 DEK's on a V formation that opens towards the bridgehead with a Armored Swordsmen at the bottom of the V (spearmen would be at the far off ends, then DEK's, then Sword. Behind that, would be my high chiv general for the morale bonus.
I will gamble that you simply can not beat that in one hour. I might have to grab reinforcements. I might have to rush my 8 longbowmen into the battle. I might have to bring arty right on top of my troops' heads. But I can turn that bridgehead into a cauldron of firey death simply because I can predict where you are going to have to be. That is the advantage of defending a bridge. For once, I can predict the exact point where each and every one of your attacking forces will have to be and I can set up my forces to prepare for it.
Having said all that, while I believe I will win the battle, I will lose the war. A Blitzer can afford to lose hundreds of battles like the one I described. Where a slow attrition will wear me down. So I am not refuting your initial point regarding hare/turtle. But I am going to claim that you are severely underestimating how costly I can make assaulting a bridge. :skull:
How would I defend? Early. I dont need to stop you at this point, just slow you down. Early game I have much more then I need to deal with the AI around me, and I have money to spare after the first few turns incase you decide to send an expidition force my way. I also have watch towers and all-cavalry mobile defence force very early on, again, I am not beliving they will stop you, just slow you down and weaken you in the process. If they are unable to do that they follow and wait until they can.Quote:
1. I've been waiting for someone to detail exactly how they would defend. I make it a point of showing how the attack would go. Simply saying one is a true turtle does not show any sort of compensatory strategem. Details, my friend, details.
Later on I think your underestimating the income a turtler has available, vanila M2 by turn 20 I have more florins then I know what to do with. By the time of the Mongol invasion, I am able to spam them with junk/mercs until they are helpless, and not even dent my treasury. I'm aware I wouldnt have the luxury of that much time, but I will have resources to spare, and you are my only threat. I'm not going to garison my cities with full stacks, just enough to make taking them costly, but the biggest cost to you is getting to them. I dont need to win battles, I can loose 5 or 6 times before you get to one of my cities at no real cost to me. I'll also be attacking, not with the intent of capturing or even looting your cities, just exterminate, burn and move on, one full stack and you will need to divert some of your attack to stop it. Once you loose momentum, something I'll be working at from turn 1, we are on a more even field, at no point am I sitting there waiting for you, if I am youve already won.
I'm not going to sally until the last minute, either you will have to assault or your masive armies are sitting around draining your bank account. Even with a (relatively) small defence force you will take casualties in the assault, if I'm lucky, enough to slow you down. A human defending with a half stack militia will cause more trouble to you then the AI with a full stack of castle troops. However, ultimately, you are correct and if it comes down to a siege defence the question is how much can I make the city cost you, not can I win.Quote:
4. Defensive mastery does not apply to seige situations. It is a forced loss with overwhelming force. You might sally and destroy one stack, but not three. Should you defend your province with multiple stacks, I would advance elsewhere and take you where you are weakest.
The point is, as the attacker, you must cross the bridge. There is no even archer shootout, my archers are not in range of yours until they are crossing the bridge. The same with artillery, it's not shooting at you until you start crossing the bridge. The advantage offered by a bridge defence (against a human opponant) is the cost of crossing the bridge, not stopping you at the bridge. You have to cross, I do not. Granted it's not the end all stopping point, but it is better then a field battle, because it is a field battle after youve taken casualties crossing.Quote:
I think you overestimate the bridge advantage. Not because I am afraid of a challenge to my opinion, but because of a plan I've laid out previously. The bridge keeps both armies away from one another with a choke point in the middle, but does not prevent archer and artillery fire from pushing back your army. True, you can bring archers and artillery yourself, but then we've simply got an even archer shootout. There is no inherent advantage to defending a bridge unless I have few ranged units.
Oh very well... I'll give you that the cows would be indeed frustrating.
However, I still believe I can nullify most of the advantage you describe.
(Forgive me for being stubborn on this point)
Stakes, indeed, that would be an awful point. Add the cow to the stakes, and yes, a frustrating battle indeed.
However, unless you have deployed stakes, my friend... I have got you.
I've brought the archers and artillery to push back any tightly knotted group of pikemen, spearmen, and so forth defending the opposing edge of the bridge. You can't choke mounted units that way.
Assuming you brought mostly artillery and archers (which you would have to, otherwise you could NOT hold me back) You've assembled a defensive position which is supremely weak against heavy mounted units. A quick volley or so of cover fire from my position, shooting out against your units from my side of the bridge, until your artillery units are toast, archers are weak, or they have moved back, and all of a sudden, I have a way of dashing hundreds of heavy mounts across the river.
Granted, a good third of them may die crossing the river. However, I will be able to charge directly into any archers or artillery you have. If you still have a bunch of heavy infantry or spears to greet, I can at least force a confrontation with my mounts, pinning both sides while my archers redeploy, and P.S. your archers and artillery will cause friendly fire casualties.
I am also saving a few mounted units for later...
I can afford to lose the mounts anyway. Lets say you crush all of them.
I have made the journey forward across the river, pounded what infantry you brought, forced a friendly fire/ archery shootout, and nullified most of the advantage of the bridge.
Meanwhile, I have troops battling on your side of the river, I have my massive array of archers firing directly into your infantry blockade (friendly fire casualties on my troops as well... such is the price of war), and I'm advancing my artillery. Should you attempt to reinforce your weakening infantry positions, a rain of death be upon thee.
A rain of death be upon me, as well. This is a situation where both sides will take massive damage. Once your infantry position is lost, Your archers and artillery are supremely vulnerable.
Now begins wave two of my mounted units charging across the river. While half my archers dash forward to engage your own in hand combat (pinning or forcing a retreat, causing their advantages to be nullified as well) My mounts charge across the river (part deux), weave around the fray, and charge into your artillery, forcing instant routs, followed by a charge against your scattered archers.
It requires barely two units of mounted knights to pull it off.
Now, lets say you brought mounts of your own. Part of my bridge crossing unit is made up of whatever heavy spears I can muster, and they will not be in the initial wave (except maybe the first lead unit).
Some will survive to meet you on the other side.
The battle, bloody. The carnage, unimaginable. The loss of life, appalling. The advantage of the bridge, nearly nullified. The reinforcements, on their way, on both sides. But the fortification is gone. The entrenched troop positions are destroyed. The battle is now even. And I've brought 3 stacks (as mentioned in previous posts... sheer weight of numbers beats any close battle).
Now, Allow me to say this:
While I am prepared to admit that the battle, if played human V human, would be supremely difficult, I do contend that the advantages are not as ironclad as you say.
I am also prepared to say, your type of active defense and wise fortification strategy is much more LIKELY to trip up a non-expert. Anyone, even a moderately good player, would be turned back by such a valiant defense.
I simply say, I can do it. It's been done. The archers and the artillery cancel one another out. Only the deployment of stakes could really be a slow-down because then mounts cannot charge through. All other units must walk.
However, stakes are not easy to come by in the first 30 turns or so of the game, and aren't always available. God help you if you don't have them. An alternate strategy is to have half archers, half heavy knights. The archers prevent a bottleneck at the other end of the bridge, and the heavy knights threaten to annihilate you completely while my heavy infantry and artillery reinforcements advance.
Good offensive planning can nullify any advantage. Even fortifications atop a mountain, even defending citadels, anything you can think of. To every defense, there is a vulnerability.
I give you 5 stars out of 5 for mustering a really really good defense which will DEFINITLEY slow me down. And you're right, ultimately blitzer wins anyway. However, if I were unable to bypass your bridge blockade by land or sea (dont know if thats possible), perhaps you could send half of your forces in the opposing direction to expand your empire as quickly as possible.
But then of course, that would require the turtle to be less turtle-ish.
Ultimately, it's the overall strategy that loses it for the turtle. Not the lack of mustering powerful defenses. When you've got less troops, less territory, less economic advantage... there's only so much defense you can muster.
:knight:
I propose a challenge.
If the game were to be even, or even an advantage to the turtle, I suggest a turn limit to the game!
If the game were such that the blitzer had to defeat the turtle in a given time frame, and the turtle were not required to do anything but hold off the blitz until game over, and the victory condition for the blitzer was total annihilation of the turtle, and the turtle's victory condition was to prevent the loss of any of his starting provinces (a valid victory condition... in real life, no war could be waged indefinitely... the King's head would come off)...
Then, advantage, turtle.
You CAN harass my position with spies and raiding parties. You can sneak a boat around and attack my undefended front. You can mass serious defenses in hills and rivers. You CAN hold me back until time expires.
In real life, the would-be conquerors would pack it up and head home. There's only so many decades of losses a nation can stand before it considers the King's command to assault a peaceful neighbor for no reason, losing hundreds of thousands of people in the process, to be completely insane. Soon, that King gets killed under mysterious circumstances, or the heads of the army begin to rebel and disobey orders.
The Turtle, if only required to hold off the blitz for a given time, has the superior position in such a scenario.
Turtle fans... if I weren't in college and working full time, I would issue an open challenge to anyone who is willing to do just that. If only we would multiplayer game a campaign... This game just screams to be multiplayer.
I shut my mouth now. I'm sure everyone's sick of reading the stubborn ravings of a madman.
Dance pretty pink elephant, dance... :elephant:
Wait, wait, wait, wait....
Ahem.... TREBUCHETS???? CANNON BATTERIES???
A stack of stake-deploying archers?
We're obviously not talking about the first 40 turns, now are we?
I'd send half my army towards you for harassment and sabotage purposes, and expand in all other directions, as quickly as possible.
We're likely thinking about some sort of ideal situation where our cities are maxed out and all troops are available. We're mistaken if we think this will ever happen when facing a blitzer.
Unless I'm Russia and you're the Moors, don't hold your breath on that one.
I knew there was something fishy about your defenses, turtle fans. I only just remembered, there's no such THING as trebuchets and cannon batteries in the point in the game where you'll need them to defeat the blitzer.
So, good luck on that one.
Lets see, Longbows? England can get em by turn 5. Trebuchets? By 12.
You have not taken into account that the archers would be on heights overlooking the bridgehead which gives them better range than yours. Nor, that 8 stakes could block the bridgehead and force your horses to walk. Plus, you have neglected to detail your own stacks. You somehow have enough arty, archers, cavalry, and infantry to do all that you say it can do in one hour without saying how much you have of each. Yes, if you have 10 of each type, you can whomp. But you get 20 total. (My computer is slow and can only handle 1 stack per player at a time.)
Even if I don't have trebuchets, if your coming at me before turn 12, my guess is you don't have em either. So your whole arty duel promise gets negated. You will have to come within range of my catapults (and magonels if we play kingdoms) while I'll be out of range of yours.
You have to understand, your on the Turtle's ground now. While you have the game's math on your side, defending is what we DO! :2thumbsup:
While I will easily agree that you can win any war, your almost claiming that you can win any battle. Allow me a little ego when I say that I am confident I can win a battle or two against you before you whomp my little turtle empire. :yes:
:turtle: pride!
Hmm... let's see. You're England, so there's no way you will ever, ever, ever, ever, EVER (and the Rock means EVER) force me into a riverfront confrontation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Privateerkev
Thats number one.
Number two, you didn't tell me your computer can only handle one stack per player per time. I thought we each had reinforcements. Which makes your riverfront confrontation a VERY easy affair. I smash you with all I have in one battle, troops rout... then I hit you again with a second or third stack in the same turn. Mmm... toasty.
Number three, and this is the clincher,
You're going to field a stack of trebuchets, stake archers, and otherwise insane troops by turn 12? or even turn 25?
Forgive my uncharacteristic lack of humility here, but...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
I'm not saying it's impossible. I'm saying it's imprudent.
There's no way your economy would ever recover from such a move. By the time you've dedicated your entire English Island to that strategy, your economy is crippled from the expensive standing armies, the dedicated military building tree, (lack of economic development) and the lack of proper expansion. Plus, again, Navy destroys England, which means you MUST field a massive navy.
England is in a particularly BAD position to Turtle. I can sneak my navy in, spy open your gates (NOT neccesary, even) and SMASH your entire capital in one turn.
You're going to want to go with a faction like Byzantines or HRE if you're going to Turtle, in my ever less humble opinion.
Detailing my stack for your increasingly hypothetical riverfront stronghold:
archers, archers, archers... (nearly half of the stack) whatever artillery is available at the time. Perhaps only a trebuchet or three. Even a single cat will do. A fair amount of my heaviest infantry (4 units, including spearpoints), and heavy horse mercs if I have them. Not to mention the reinforcements which will most likely be all heavy infantry and cavalry. Perhaps early game I couldn't field a third stack, but then again, in the early game, I wouldn't even need a second stack.
Given England's terrible defensive options (that ocean is England's sole defensive point) I suggest a new strategy, my friend.
:knight:
==================
I realize this post could be interpreted as arrogant. That is not my intention, and please understand this is with all due respect, and that the rivalry is intended to be friendly in nature.
It's a medieval war game, and I'm speaking "in character". In real life I'm not so harsh a critic.
:beam:
Forgive MY pride... as a blitzer, I am fairly certain I can crack any defense.
I took Thessalonica, which was defended by an entire stack of Byzantine's best troops, and further reinforced by their 10 star faction leader, complete with ANOTHER stack of the best troops a mid-game Byzantine army has to offer.
I crushed them like ants, with minimal casualties. Granted, a human may be more innovative... but when it comes down to sheer weight of numbers, and you still get your carcass served to you on a bloody platter, there's only so much strategy can do for you.
I will grant you a won battle or two, in riverfront defenses, based upon some realistic chances. But as stated before, your defense will crumble if struck multiple times in a single turn. Which is what the reinforcing stacks are there to do.
You wouldnt actually want to field them in battle when your main force is about to rout. That just lowers morale. Spread them out.
That can help YOUR defense as well.
For the glory of our respective empires, I thoroughly enjoyed this discussion. Peace be with you friend.
Never say never. (and the Rock says, "can you smell it?")
Computer can handle reinforcements. Just one at a time. I get reinforcements when I send stuff off the field. Sorry, I have to make due with the computer I have.
I routinely field the stack I discuss as England before turn 25 in my SP games. And I usually get there sooner. Do not underestimate the power of the all-mighty money making island.
The earlier we move the confrontation, the easier a bridge defense would be for me. Your early archers can't shoot across the river and you won't have trebs. Again, you would have stepped into my world.
and it was... :yes:Quote:
I realize this post could be interpreted as arrogant.
I fear we are in real danger of having this conversation degenerate into a contest of who's :daisy: is longer. Without any real way to prove either of our assertions, I suspect this debate will become less useful the longer it goes on. :wall:
I have laid out my strategy, you laid out yours, I still think I'm right, you still think your right. We're probably not going to move the other much farther past that and I'm having a hard time gleening useful information from your post due to the glare of your immense ego over-shadowing everything. :clown:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
You still haven't dealt with England's inability to force a riverfront confrontation. Where's the river? Next to London? I couldn't just sail past it?
If you invaded the mainland, I could ignore those troops and head straight for the capital. I'm sorry, England is too vulnerable for the strategy you've laid out.
England is an offensive powerhouse, but defensively, in this game anyways (and according to history) once you get on the island itself, England usually crumbles to invaders.
And lest we forget, if you are managing to field such awesome troops so early, something is being traded off for the luxury. In other words, pure economic development. Which means you can field a stack or maybe 3, 4 at best with England really cranking. That's with mid-cost troops.
Unless you manage to tickle the Pope's fancy and crusade against my excommunicated "daisy", in which case the sky is the limit on troop numbers. As witnessed by my own England campaign.
Which I would not be so stupid to let you do... hehe. I may not have written the book on crusade exploits, but I know it like I know my own "daisy".
I don't think it's degenerated into a "daisy" comparing exercise just yet, as I'm still responding to your points. I think you've tactfully avoided mine.
:thumbsup:
As for my ego, if you must use that as an excuse not to respond to points, then I don't suggest being in any real debates. Anyone who is in a serious, competitive debate is bound to have a boundless ego. I at least try to focus on the topic and avoid the type of "red herring" or "ad hominem" style arguments that others, wink wink, choose to use.
:beam:
Truthfully, I tire of wearing a mask of humility all the time. I'm not in the mood tonight. My apologies.
Yup, as I predicted, this one is far less useful. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by askthepizzaguy
I've responded to your points fine, you just didn't seem to like the answers.
Place? a river crossing with heights overlooking my bridgehead (and how specific do you want me to be? Do you want the coordinates on the game map? Or are we doing this just on a custom MP battle?)
Stack? I've detailed it.
Time? I can get stack I detailed before turn 20.
Tactics on the field? I've detailed it.
Conclusion? I can probably win once or twice this way. Then I would lose the campaign.
Since your fond of offering debating tips, I have one for you. Be willing to admit that it is possible that you could conceivably lose at something. It is not only realistic and inevitable, but will give the rest of what you say far more weight. :yes:
As for red herrings or ad hominums, I didn't use any that I know of. The ego comment had a clown emoticon to display mirth and is something you have long ago stated about yourself. My comment about your post being arrogant was about your post. I didn't say your arrogant. But I did perceive your post to be. If you believe that me stating my perception of your post was some sort of ploy to redirect you from our debate, then I apologize. :bow:
Now that we've laid out our :daisy:s for the board to measure and comment on, how about some ~:grouphug: (after we put our :daisy:s away of course) :beam:
:turtle: pride
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Not to be picky, but you once again refer to a hypothetical river.
You know I'm correct here. England has no river, except the one near London, which can be easily by passed by simply climbing ashore on the other side of it.
I also love the hypothetical heights overlooking the bridge. Not every bridge has one. Certainly not the one next to London, which is the only conceivable (and entirely irrelevant, mind you) choke point England has to offer.
At this point, unless you can name the river, yes, I am actually calling you out on this one. Give me some map coordinates. If I am wrong, I will gracefully bow out of this discussion entirely. I don't think I'm wrong here.
It's time to compare notes. Exactly where is this mythical river you refer to?
Unless I get some proof that England even has a relevant river, and the one next to London doesn't count, then I am forced to ask, where's the beef, sir?
At least we agree you can probably force a loss at such a hypothetical situation, once, maybe twice. However, I am again going to have to refer you to my previous points. You are dooming yourself by directing all of England's energy towards creating such a (IMHO useless, given the lack of river crossings relevant to England's defense) stack of troops, crippling your economy. Even if this were not the case (I will even spot you the miraculous amount of economic development you'd need to stay in the game), Your stack in question is utterly useless in any other kind of situation. Given the fact (until proven otherwise) that England has no defensive river, but sea which is it's defensive line, your miracle stack of trebuchets and stake archers is absolutely meaningless.
With due respect sir, I believe the point is mine. Not because I'm obsessed with "winning" a debate. Frankly, if you can prove me wrong here, I'd be delighted. However, objectively speaking now, your position has far too many holes to be considered legitimate at this point.
Pride and enthusiasm aside, your argument is not reasonable. I do applaud your ethusiasm for sure, and I do enjoy the debate. But I do believe it's one that you aren't going to win today.
If it's any consolation, you would be a formidable opponent in battle, based upon what I've read. And if there's anyone out there that COULD humble me using such a strategy, I think it could be you.
But let's talk realistically here. England is the wrong faction to do as you suggest. Can we agree on that point? England has exactly the wrong terrain, starting location, and defensive problems that would render your above strategem meaningless.
France? Maybe. HRE? Definitley. Poland? Absolutely.
England? There is absolutely no way, and the pink elephant means :elephant: NO WAY, that England could possibly do as you suggest. There is a sea running directly against every single one of England's provinces, providing a highway into your backdoor.
Don't drop the soap, my friend. You will need more than archers, stakes, and cows to save you this time.
And feel free to criticize my egotism, because that is a valid criticism. However, it can't be your sole legitimate point. So far, by my calculations, and by any objective, measurable standard, it is your only trump card.
I cordially invite you to respond to my above points; your river is hypothetical, and doesn't exist in England's campaign in any meaningful location. Your archers and trebuchets will do you no good due to the absolutely inevitable amphibious assaults against England. And you will indeed cripple yourself in time and development attempting to create this delightful little fantasy of yours.
Ego aside, you know I am correct. Take me out of the equation. Is the argument valid? It is indeed.
Your response, sir?
P.S> Go turtle pride! I am cheering for you to win a point here. I love rooting for the underdog. But I would be doing you a disservice by not systematically dissecting your argument for weaknesses and forcing you to address them. I want you to earn those points.
I fear we are starting to debate different things. Look over my other posts and you will see that I am quite consistent. My only real point that is in all of my posts is this: I believe I can successfully defend a bridge/river crossing against you. Period. That is all I have ever claimed.
You want to somehow put this in the context of a larger campaign when I am not arguing that. I have long conceded that the blitzer will always win a 1 v 1 MP campaign because of the math of the game.
That is why I never listed which river I was defending. It doesn't matter. No matter what river it is, I believe I will A.) win a battle or two and B.) lose the campaign.
Your last post simply beat home a point I had accepted long ago. And that is that a blitzer would beat a turtle in the campaign. Have I mentioned enough that I already agree that a blitzer can beat turtle? Or about how a blitzer can beat a turtle?
So, I have stuck to my original argument and you have tried to move us on to a different one. But I already agree with you with regards to the one you are trying to move us to. And that is that a blitzer can beat a turtler in a campaign game. I am saying this multiple times in hope that one of them will reach you.
As for why I picked England as my faction? Simple. They have sharp pointy things to stick in the ground. That and I am familiar with them.
So, to summarize, I believe a blitzer can beat a turtle in the campaign game but I also believe that I can successfully defend a bridge/river crossing. If you would like details to back this statement up, I will politely refer you to my previous posts where I lay out my strategies and tactics.
PS: I believe a blitzer can beat a turtle in a campaign game :clown:
:turtle: pride
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
So, to be clear, you believe a blitzer can beat a turtle? :beam:
Other than that filler, your post confirmed everything I already knew. There is no relevant bridge. The above strategy is meaningless except in a simple multiplayer battle situation. Which, by the way, is interesting, because in such a situation, I would not HAVE to cross the river. Only in campaign would I be forced to do so.
So even in your perfect, unworkable fantasy battle that does not apply to campaigns, we are assuming you have the perfect troops, in a perfect location, and you also conveniently do not have to attack me.
Pardon me, but I was hoping for something more meaningful a point to concede.
Very well, if I must concede that, I will.
"In A One on One battle With only One stack Per side You will defeat Me in a river crossing Defense with the Troops you select because of The inherent Advantages you've designed for Yourself." End quote.
In all other points relevant to this discussion, you've conceded:
1. You lose the campaign
2. England, while delightfully suited for bridge defense, has no bridges worth defending in her territory
3. The battle could never take place, therefore in campaign in a hypothetical multiplayer version thereof, with you playing England.
4. Only if we elected to do a multiplayer one on one battle, to your very specific specifics, for lack of a better term, would you indeed prevail.
Ultimately, therefore, all we've established thus far is
1. If you stack the deck in your favor, you could win.
A bit disappointing.
Sorry to dissapoint you but that was all I was ever claiming. You came on here bragging about how you could assault any bridge and I decided to refute you with the knowledge gained in nearly a year of defending bridges as England. You wanted to turn it into some sort of challenge to your blitzing superiority when I was never actually challenging it. Didn't mean to get you all excited there. :no:
Also, I believe a blitzer can beat a turtle...
:clown:
:turtle: pride!
It really depends on the faction your playing, HRE can turtle, its already very large and quite powerful, on the other hand, we have Denmark, I personally always rush (Get a long boat too england by turn 3 and take the village between england and scotland is priceless) if Denmark dosnt go rushing, it will be only 4 regions at max without having to attack another faction or sail to the british isles
Some factions may turtle at the beginning, then ruh like mad, such Byzantine (Id rather be firing my bombards at walls, than getting attack by basilisks)
Interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Privateerkev
So all that argument on your part regarding what you've done with England on campaigns, referring to x number of turns until goal y, everything you've stated referring to everything NOT RELATED to multiplayer situations designed for yourself with the perfect troops in the perfect location without having to attain victory for yourself, that was all... what? What was all that?
If all you ever claimed was a very specific multiplayer stack V stack victory, then you should never have referred to anything campaign related for me to respond to.
Sorry sir, but you can go back and change what you said, but it doesn't change the fact that you said it, and my responses were all valid to the points you tried to make, but now claim you never attempted to make.
I apologize for getting "excited", however, I did reduce your entire argument down to what it may have originally intended to be, but never was, which was the point that if you construct a battle of your choosing, with ultimate freedom in picking troops, location, unrelated to campaigns, and not even requiring yourself to do anything but stalemate, you might gain victory...
It's a fairly hollow point. I would be not proud if that were all I had to contribute.
That being said, we at least agree that Turtles are toast in campaign, England cannot do as you suggest versus a human being due to the location of the oceans, the entire point is irrelevant, and so on and so forth.
In the end, we even agree on your two valid points. I've got quite the ego, and your intricately-laid out plan works wonders under the perfect, designed, campaign unrelated circumstances, and then only if you don't have to win the battle, just draw.
So, we agree on everything! Good show!
:smash:
PS The topic at hand refers to Turtles and Blitzers, which has everything to do with campaign strategy and nothing to do with MP human v human battles. But that's not a relevant point, either.
A round of ales for everyone, on me!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abokasee
Brilliant!
I'd agree with most of that.
Actually, I think Byzantine has quite good chances of fielding a relevant navy AND defending herself via the mountain passes. I'd turtle with her anyday.
Since the discussion, the TOPIC itself is about campaigns, your points were all relevant.
__________________________
Askthepizzaguy
Smug: -5 popularity
Arrogant: -15 popularity, reduces chance of having children,
Berserker: +20 when attacking
Blitzer: +15 when attacking turtles, when commanding militas
Often correct: increases chance of winning debates.
Just what is the composition of your marvelous unstoppable army? We keep hearing about it but so far no one has been able to test it.
Beating up the AI is no serious accomplishment with a few exceptions. It is mostly hypothetical but I am sure you have used the tactics in winning the game, but I would say that any winning strategy and the tactics that accomplish the winning of the battles is a good one and the one you enjoy the most is the best.
Otherwise you have to try it in multi play games and run the risk of everyone ganging up on you…if you can defeat that then you really have something.
I'm sure in an MP game pizzaguy will be the first to be ganked, and they'll probably ask you to stay on and play another faction, so they can gank you again !.
Funny thread though. Hilarious !
Put the handbags away, ladies.
Realistically I'm yet to meet a TW player who sticks entirely to either of the strategies. Sensible expansionist will always have the edge.
For the sake of the argument though I have to say it all depends on the factions you choose to lead. Abokasee is indeed correct pointing out that factions like Denmark simply cannot survive turtling (pathetic economy powered by 4 - 5 regions max including bloody Oslo which takes decades to break even). On the other hand they start with units capable of cutting through their neighbours' defences like hot knife through butter and if you choose to play as Denmark you know you're going to have to draw blood from the word go.
Factions of this particular sort are IMHO Poland, Denmark, Russia, Sicily to name a few. Portugal has it tougher as on top of obvious money worries their units tend to suck a good deal in early game.
Some factions can just sit there and build up until they simply spill over the brink unto their neighbours - HRE, the Byz, Egypt, perhaps even France if you're crafty and take Bordeaux and that town in Bittany immediately.
Strategy then, to a large degree, depends on the faction you choose to play, some factions are forced to rob and plunder their way to stability, whereas others are perfectly comfortable delaying offensive warfare for many turns.
Again, however - neither strategy in their purest form is particularly atrractive to me. Blitzing in M2TW feeks like kicking a five-year-old in the teeth with a steel-cap toe - there are certainly better ways to prove you're a man. Turtling is fun for a while but eventually becomes tedious beyond my endurance and I cannot help but flex my military muscle gobbling up my neighbours in huge chunks.
@ askthepizzaguy - I sincerely wish you luck blitzing me as, say, Ireland in Brittania, the mother of all turtlers!
@ Priveteerkev - There is simply no way you could contain me playing as Poland if you go for a turtling game as HRE or Hungary, tried and tested.
As someone poited out earlier (sincere apologies, don't rember who it was) - every campaign has a certain flow and rhythm and strongest players know how to use both blitzing and turtling to their advantage, anticipating problems ahead and stemming them before their grow to dangerous size.
'spect
Actually, the composition of the army itself is largely irrelevant, the point all along being it's massive size and endless reserves. Once you have the territories of three factions under your belt, you can send troops off to die forever. There is apparently no such thing as war fatigue at that point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
I never attempt to make one stack of unbeatable troops because, well, no stack is unbeatable. I simply attempt to create more, more, more. And I do, and the proof is in some of my previous threads. See England, Russia, and Egypt campaigns c/o askthepizzaguy. I am not just spitballing here, I have the cards to back it up.
Unfortunately, many of my photobucket images may have to be reloaded. But do a search for my england, russia, or egypt threads and see what I mean about sheer masses of troops. And also pay attention to the turn number. Anyone can have a million troops after the Mongols arrive. On turn 20, having endless stacks IS impressive.
I have indeed played multiplayer on here before. And, barring being ganged by two or more people, which of course means I lose by sheer numbers (MY entire strategy against others) I usually prevail due to good generalship. Although I admit others may actually be better in battle due to more experience versus humans.
I desperately want a MP game. PLEASE bring it on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinan
I will crush all of you. :knight:
Bwahahahahaha!!!
Thank you gentlemen, for keeping this thread alive.Quote:
Originally Posted by marrow
:knight:
Askthepizzaguy: Blitzing by itself is not impressive. Rolling up the entire map before turn 60... Please, I'm not bragging, but TRY it sometime.
Been there, done that mate. In STW i rushed through entire map as quickly as possible with most clans, In MTW my armies trampled Europe at express rate too a few times. But the novelty wears off and I sway in favour of a slower game these days. By the time Alexander came out (oh, you know what your mean, so no silly smirks :beam: ) I was already bored with steamrolling the map and I never completed it (even though it was going pretty well). I have come to despise masses of standard troops and instead nowadays I choose to grant AI the only chance it has of ever doing anything - sit and wait for it to develop a bit so that it can give me a tougher nut to crack. Added benefit is seeing more balanced and tactically flexible armies that make for a far more enjoyable battles. Lining up 15 units of militia crowd and double clicking behind the enemy? I'd rather auto-calc, thank you.
'spect
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
So, I take it that means you've never done it with M2TW?
Anyone who can come close to 60 turns and all 108 provinces deserves my 'spect.
Simple. I said I could defend a bridge. You kept trying to tease out how. I told you how. You kept trying to apply it to a campaign game that I was never applying it to. My answers were specific answers regarding specific questions. They were never meant to be some sort of claim on a master campaign plan.Quote:
So all that argument on your part regarding what you've done with England on campaigns, referring to x number of turns until goal y, everything you've stated referring to everything NOT RELATED to multiplayer situations designed for yourself with the perfect troops in the perfect location without having to attain victory for yourself, that was all... what? What was all that?
Sorry but I had to refute your claims that I could not somehow get stakes by turn 25. I can. If it confused you, it was not meant to.Quote:
If all you ever claimed was a very specific multiplayer stack V stack victory, then you should never have referred to anything campaign related for me to respond to.
I never changed what I said. You just read what I said differently than I intended it. While you might argue that is the fault of the writer (me) for writing it that way, you are making the whole thing sound more malicious than it was.Quote:
Sorry sir, but you can go back and change what you said, but it doesn't change the fact that you said it, and my responses were all valid to the points you tried to make, but now claim you never attempted to make.
No, you finally started to see what I had been saying the whole time. Read the older posts again...Quote:
I apologize for getting "excited", however, I did reduce your entire argument down to what it may have originally intended to be, but never was, which was the point that if you construct a battle of your choosing, with ultimate freedom in picking troops, location, unrelated to campaigns, and not even requiring yourself to do anything but stalemate, you might gain victory...
Actually I am quite proud of my bridge defense strategy. Your the one that tried to make this more than it was. Maybe that is the fault of how I write. Maybe it's the fault of how you perceived it. (it probably is a little of both)Quote:
It's a fairly hollow point. I would be not proud if that were all I had to contribute.
Yup, after awhile I felt this conversation degenerated into, "Your right!" "No, your right!"Quote:
That being said, we at least agree that Turtles are toast in campaign, England cannot do as you suggest versus a human being due to the location of the oceans, the entire point is irrelevant, and so on and so forth.
yes to both. :yes:Quote:
In the end, we even agree on your two valid points. I've got quite the ego, and your intricately-laid out plan works wonders under the perfect, designed, campaign unrelated circumstances, and then only if you don't have to win the battle, just draw.
I was wondering when you would figure that out. :DQuote:
So, we agree on everything! Good show!
What is funny is that your the one that started this claiming you could assault a bridge. That therefore opened the door for a MP conversation about a bridge battle. I refuted you and you counter-refuted. Yet you kept trying to take the conversation in places it was never meant to go. So, you opened a door, and then tried real fast to shut it again. Then you got mad at me for keeping it open. Well, my response to that is: :PQuote:
PS The topic at hand refers to Turtles and Blitzers, which has everything to do with campaign strategy and nothing to do with MP human v human battles. But that's not a relevant point, either.
No I haven't done it with M2TW for reasons previously stated - it's plain boring to repeat the same steamrolling feat because the outcome is predictable if not assured when playing against AI.Quote:
Originally Posted by askthepizzaguy
I doubt the game is even remotly engaging if played this way and the guys who made the game gave us later units for a reason. I, for one, prefer "the longer way" to instant, cheaply won gratification.
Shame my opinion doesn't deserve your respect mate!
Hey pizzaguy, have you tried the Britannia campaign? I haven't, but I have heard it is more difficult to blitz because of the effect of Culture - somehow I doubt it would hold you up for too long, but I'd be interested to hear your experience.
I'd be happy to. I have a six-hour exam on Sunday but after that I'm definitely looking for some Hotseat action (yeahbaby).Quote:
I desperately want a MP game. PLEASE bring it on.
Anyone else interested? I understand battles must be autoresolved, which might even help out the turtle against the blitzer....discuss?
Just making a statement here,
Assuming that your talking about an AI Byzantine, I fail to see your point with this. Against an AI HRE I've beetenQuote:
I took Thessalonica, which was defended by an entire stack of Byzantine's best troops, and further reinforced by their 10 star faction leader, complete with ANOTHER stack of the best troops a mid-game Byzantine army has to offer.
1 General
1 Feudal Knight
3 Mailed Knight
2 Armored Sergents
3 Peasant Archers
2 Town Militia
With...
4 Border Horse. I took enough losses so I actually had to send one back to retrain. This was not a particularly dificult nor memoral battle either, the only reason I remember this battle in particular is because I was allied with them and had sent my cavalry over to help them.
My point being , 'a human may be more innovative' dosnt even begin to cover it. If your really thinking you'll win every battle just because you could easily win that same battle against the AI your in for a much tougher game then I had thought.
The Kingdoms Britannia campaign is about the only hope of beating a blitzer in a 1 v 1 MP game. Especially if the Turtle plays England.
First let me elaborate on the concept of culture. Culture replaces religion and adds massive amounts of unrest if you capture a region of a different culture than yours. You will have to slowly convert the settlement to your culture through the use of religious buildings (which convert culture instead of religion) and a good governor who has a high management skill (which replaces piety). Plus there are no priest agents. This won't stop blitzing but it will slow it down. Plus almost every region has a stone fort in a strategic location.
As England, you start off with almost half of the territories in the map so you can go pure turtle. I advise abandoning Ireland though. The high Irish culture will turn Ireland into a money pit. Pull the English troops out of Ireland and sell off the buildings in those territories. Pull those troops to the main island. Then just build up.
The blitzer will have to nail the other AI factions first. That will take a bit of time. In that time, the English turtle can just build and build. I will disagree with Marrow about picking Ireland as the turtle. The blitzer will eventually take all of the main island and Ireland will fall to sheer weight of numbers.
Phonicsmonkey: I'm always up for playing more hotseat games but I think the point is to play ATPG 1 on 1. Also, it doesn't seem like he has Kingdoms yet.
I'd happily take on the pizzaguy one-on-one - it would be a good fight.
It wouldn't provide any test of this theory though, as I am neither a committed turtle nor an all-out blitzer.
But I wonder how auto-calc'ing all battles would affect the blitzer.
As I understand it auto-calc takes no account of walls or other defences (so no opportunity for bottlenecks, use of terrain etc.), and is purely a mechanism based on the "quality" of the units.
In that case isn't it a possibility that a high-quality stack of the turtler's finest upgraded troops could hold off several low-grade militia stacks sent by the blitzer?
Especially, I would have thought, if he can take them on one at a time...
From what I experienced in Hotseat games, I think the advantage will go to the blitzer up to the point that it is a 1v1 match and no other party interfering, otherwise blitzing is a risky strategy if you have not the power (in money and men) to back it up... In the Kingdoms Hotseat that went down the drain, I blitzed all rebel settlements within striking distance and managed to hold up the Jihading armies of Egypt by striking fast in response to aggression...
The only exception to the above would be factions with starting positions such as Scotland and Denmark (with only one challenger at the start)
Moreover, sieges in autocalc are a blitzer's friend as walls are not taken into account and you can get them open with a single siege engine (catapult,...) or after one turn at the most (time to build rams or else)...
You guys seem to be forgeting that most people don't like the hare.
I'm going to assume that everyone is playing as a different faction. When humans are allied with one and another they tend to be more modest and helpful. In order for the hare to stay alive he has to keep pushing in order to supplie himself. The hare can't be trusted by anyone and is a threat to other blitzers, thus the are targets for everyone. Recently I was playing RTW as Dacia, I took out thrace, Macedonia, and Scythia quick (turn 20 or less, can't remember). But now that left me at war with neighboring Armeina, Greece, Germania, and Brutii, who all attacked me. I was the blitzer and they where neither the turtle, nor the hare, but the AI. But that left me wondering after I saw this thread: What would have happened if they where humans and allied?
I, the blitzer, would have been outnumberd and dead. Especially senice I rushed poor thrance and took them out on turn 3 it exposed me as a major threat. Yes the blitzer has the upper cards in the first rounds but eventually humans will come together to destroy the bigger threat then fight over it for themselfs.
For some reason why are we only useing WWII tatics here? Blitzing can be countered. I can see many moments in history where blitzers got destoryed (Napolens retreat from moscow is about the only I can think of but i'm trying to think about the punic wars and mongol defeats).
When you're playing as the person who trys to defeat the blitzer you have to remember that the blitzer relies on 1 thing: Resources. Without there resources they are useless and will cripple very easily. I was playing as Ireland on kingdoms when I conquered all of Ireland and wondered what to do next. Welsh where my allies so I decided to try something different, I built up atleast 1 stack of assisians and spys and started sabotogeing everything I saw. Wales conquered everything to london until I got bored and quit that game.
Anyways thats just my :2cents:
I will just repreat the concluison but there are few points worth to note. Turtling to succeed it has to offer some advantages. Basically it can be defense, technology or economical. I do not see any of these advantages in MTW2.
1, Defense. Walls, ballista towers are no major obstacles. Wooden forts more of a death traps than real forts. Stone forts could be a major advantage if you can build them where ever you want. There are regions that can be walled off with a few forts. Alas, as there are no stone forts in MTW2, so this wont help the turtle.
2, Technology. There is no advantage here either. Quite a good number of factions get there best units from the start, like vardariotais, hungarian nobles, jinettes, or can get them very easily like LB. Most factions get good spears and good x-bows from low tier city barracks, and most christian factions get elite heavy inf and heavy cavs (DFK, and FK,. or even better like norman knights) from fortress walls. So, IMO it is unlikely that a turtle will field significantly better troops. Also, the discovery of gunpowder is tied to a date so a turlte wont get an advantage here either. (IMO turtling might work if the turtle could speed up reasearch and could discover gunpowder faster than the rusher. Though, even in that case nothing would prevent the rusher to capture settlements with gunsmith).
3, Economy. We all know that sacking is a huge income. Also, nothing would prevent the rusher to build the economy line buildings (mines, markets, ports). Also simply having more provinces means a much greater economic potential. Again turtling might work if the turtle could research economic systems (like banking) that would give him a significant economic edge but that is not the case in MTW2.
All in all, none of these advantages are there in MTW2. Also, turtling would work the best if all 3 advantages could have been researched (as these potential advantages complement each other).
That is true, but there are regions where one can rush without much interference. For example, if you blitz the Turks (and then Byzantines) with Egpyt then there is only a few factions (Venice or perhaps Hungary) that might interfere. Same holds for the Iberian peninsula (like Spain rushing the Moors and Portugal), or for Russia vs Poland/baltikum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpt_oo7
The "strength in numbers" argument pizzaguy brought up earlier is correct assuming the side with fewer but better troops defending a citadel is AI. Any remotely competent human with one stack of dismounted knights/spearmen/longbowmen would utterly crush two stacks of militia with a catapult. All he has to do is let the catapult make 2-3 holes in the walls (at which point it will run out of ammo) and contain the cheap militia at the breaches. You don't even need a lot of men, a thin line is good enough because you will have longbowmen on the second line of walls doing the killing anyway.
As to the thread topic: rushing the AI is obviously more powerful than turtling because the AI sucks. If every nation was played by humans, the zerg player would get their arse handed to them because it's not exactly difficult to defend against a rush (pump out tons of militia and hire the good mercs; the rusher will hire what's left and then go bankrupt supporting them with no dumb AI to easily blitz). However, single-player rushing is very effective for all the reasons mentioned above. As a matter of fact, I never do it because it's too effective. Makes the game too easy and no fun.
I haven't read this whole thread in detail, but yet I think it is THE single best thread in this forum, due to the number of repeat replies and well thought-out posts. Kudos to everyone for having such a lively and friendly debate.
I don't necessarily agree that the Turtle will win, however I like to argue as the devils advocate, so...
One thought that I've had is that a human vs human siege would be absolutely horrific for the besieging Hare. Sure we are all used to steamrolling AI cities defended by 4 spear militia and 2 archers who immediately retreat to city center, but imagine an actual organized defense of 10-15 units. The turtle is likely to have high-level walls/castles, and the hare is unlikely to have much arty due to expensive siege shops and slow movement. Therefore, anything and everything would be slaughtered at the gates, or atop the walls. Hell, 2 defending town militias will give towered DFKs a very rough day on the walls. The loss of an entire stack to an unsuccessful siege might be crippling to the Hare, even with other stacks in reserve. The hare has to replace his losses from a spread out and underdeveloped empire ie low level units taking multiple turns to arrive, while the Turtle with his geographically compact kingdom can build 2-3 prime units in each of several provinces and send 10+ high quality units to the point of conflict in a single turn. Even up-armoured peasants can become a major obstacle to any besieger, but the Turtle would probably be sending up-armoured Arm. Spear or even better. If you say the Hare would simply bypass those regions and go for ill-defended ones, the close proximity of so many units would mean that the Turtle could either A) garrison any settlement at a whim or if that failed B) have a massive reinforcement army waiting for the assault. And remember, unlike the AI a human player would not simply amass his reinforcements in the square and let you pound him with archers/arty, he would be actively defending.
Comments/Critiques/Flames welcome, just a few thoughts of mine.
I don't participate much on these boards, but this a really interesting topic.
In the interest of full disclosure, I should mention I am a full-on turtle. I play at the pace of he AI, as anything more is not fun at all. Though if (once in a blue moon) the AI manages to take one of my settlements, I go into a 'rage of the righteous' mode and cream that faction. You could argue that the fact a printed circuit board can get an emotional response out of me is just sad, but I choose to put it down do good game design.:laugh4:
As for the question of turtle vs. hare, I think it's not really a contest at all. To sum up the simple, yet brutally effective strategy of askthepizzaguy: while you (the turtle) are are slowly expanding and lovingly cultivating your small patch of the strategy map, he (the hare) is rolling over the incompetent AI and, once he hits the 10-15 province mark, can pump out bland but numerous armies as fast or faster than you can keep beating them.
If you somehow force a prolonged stalemate, you invariably do so at the expense of minimally garrisoning the cities and castles furthers from the main axis of his attack. At this point, the smart hare has you pinned and will begin the back door assault. Three stacks of militia and some siege arty appearing out of the FOW behind your front line, taking three of your settlements in 1-3 turns will cripple your faction economically beyond repair, because a turtle at this point (by definition) can only have max. 5-10 provinces under his control. If by some miracle you recover, you now have another battlefront to deal with and are still vulnerable to the same tactic.
And there is always a back door. In the previously proposed scenario of the Byz. Empire defending against a Catholic faction, Asia Minor is just waiting for a naval invasion. Even largely landlocked factions such as Russia fare no better. The gaps between settlements are so large, the hare can easily slip trough the cracks. In short, you are lacking in one of the crucial ingredients of successfully waging war: initiative.
That is why I believe there is really no viable options for the turtle, or even the moderate expansionist and the whole thing makes me suspect that any full fledged MP game (strategy&tactical map included) is utterly unplayable. As far as I can see, there is no way it won't degenerate into a backstabbing, quarter-stack raids on the most vulnerable settlements of you opponent, with the sole aim of sack&abandon. The only factor in determining the victor is that you have more luck doing it (i.e. are spotted approaching less times than he is).
I see no way of moderating the exploit of the game mechanic that limits your movement speed to (at best) something like 300 km/year (that's 0.0342 km/h or 0.0212 mph:wall: ), and your recruiting speed to (again, at best) 7 turns/full stack. Not to mention the fact that a single enemy unit exerting it's zone of control can mess up your startegy for the entire turn.
That's why I am interested in hearing from the guys that have tried the PBEM games. Is it as frustrating as I imagine it to be?
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Good points, Regor.
I laugh at the notion that somehow defending a citadel with hundreds of your best, most effective troops would even come close to stopping me.
Number one, you've wasted tens of thousands of florins getting the citadel to that size. Number two, the citadel is defending itself with a net loss of florins per turn. I can lay seige with infinite disposable troops, and you are forced to sally or die. My empire is making tons of florins profit because my troops are expanding my empire and stifling your growth, while yours defend your bloated yet strangely unprofitable citadels and cities. All those "best troops" do nothing but drain your coffers and turn your little empire into a stagnant swamp of debt.
I will suffocate you to death. I don't NEED to roll over your castle. I can wait you out. This is not just true in this game, it's realistic according to history. Your expensive, expensive troops sit in your expensive, expensive castle, and you slowly die of hunger unless you sally against ten thousand of my lightly armored milita spearment, archers, and mounted crusaders left over from previous wars which I purchased at a tiny fraction of retail cost.
My troops are being maintained by my ever growing cities which are not overdefended. My empire is expanding and turning a profit.
Oh no, I can't believe I am going to say it... yes, indeed, I am going to say it.
"It's the economy, stupid!"
AAAAARRRRRGGGGHHH I swore I would never quote Carville or Clinton and mean it! Dang! I will never live that down.
Lets face facts, folks. Turtle empires, when largely unattacked, can prosper. But when a small empire must field impressive numbers of high quality troops just to defend its own borders, then its economy is dead. Not to mention the only way to overcome that problem is with city growth and economic buildings, which by the way, cost money and TIME, which is much more valuable in this game than money.
Remember that Hares (I loathe the term... call me a blitzer or a berserker) are continuously growing their empire. They can fight on 3 fronts and remain stagnant in two of them. Just as long as the third front expands.
My empire will continue to expand, my cities will grow on their own with minimal investment over time, I will eventually become rich beyond my wildest dreams and be capable of constructing a "turtle" empire of my own inside the protective coccoon of my surrounding territories.
Not to mention I can afford to go deep into debt and conquer my way out of it. When my troops die, do you know what happens? My profit per turn rises. When my troops don't die, do you know what happens? I can harass you and strangle your empire until you die from starvation and debt. When my troops kill your troops, do you know what happens? I conquer your territory and grow even stronger.
When I have unlimited funds coming from a massive, military-based empire, I can afford to harass you and stalemate you while I focus on my own economy in the middle game. Oops! Anything a turtle can do, a berserker can do BETTER. Sorry, you have ZERO advantages! NONE! You start off at a disadvantage, because I immediately field more troops than you can repel without stifling your development and/or losing territory, going into debt if necessary. I expand in different directions so a loss on a given front doesnt mean anything to me. I quickly gain a severe advantage after taking several AI provinces and sacking them, turning the profits into more troops and the territories into money makers to support them. I strangle your empire with at least one harassing stack and a few naval units. The middle game has me expanding rapidly, while stifling your growth. If you can't make your stand here, you've lost. The late middle game has me choking you to death while focusing almost exclusively on economic growth and troop replacement. The end game is me sending 20 stacks of mid level troops through what was once a proud empire of yours, now a mere province in mine.
Thanks be to Regor for "getting it".
Get it??? :knight:
PS, I want to once again reiterate for the umpteen-billionth time that this whole strategy falls to dust if there is another blitzer or several turtles in the game. This applies solely to berserker versus turtle one on one games. In other games, a moderate or conservative style of play would be prudent.
PSS, to make it even remotely close to a FAIR berserker V turtle game, I cannot start with:
England- Too easy to attack and not be attacked, great starting position and numbers of troops
France- Too many starting provinces and troops/generals
HRE- Way too many starting troops and castles in the mountains
Byzantium- Starts with best navy and a ten star general with great troops. Duh.
Poland- Too easy to destroy people in the early game with mounted range units and militias.
Hungary- Same deal, but with a better empire.
Milan- Free access to the Pope-o-matic "infinite troops every crusade" machine
Sicily- Same, but with a kick-butt navy and starting position
Venice- Same.
Give me Scotland, Denmark, or Portugal, Russia perhaps... then maybe, maybe, a close game is to be had.
Denmark would give you an even better advantage then England, asside from the money making british isle, which would be yours soon enough, Denmarks low grade troops (that youd be using throughout most of the game) are at least a match for most other factions mid grade or even better. No, Denmark offers the biggest advantage to the blitzer with the posible exception of an italian faction with thier insanely powerfull low grade militia.
I see no great advantage to England or France, nor even Poland or Hungary, the easy acces to missile cavalry will only speed you up comparatively little. HRE is an advantage to either player due to the close proximity of alot of landlocked regions, but in general starting position means little to the blitzing player.
I dont see how Byzantium is advantagious to the turtler as your capital (and major money maker) is vulnerable to attack from literally any direction and will simultaniously cut your small empire in half.
England is not so vulnerable as you seem to think, great economy allows the recruitment and support of a large navy, and the close proximity of all the regions allow a small standing army to companste the cost. Better as Denmark and take britain (even a turtler would do so I'm sure) giving access to Longships and Dragon Boats and very effective mid-grade troops with comparatively low upkeep cost.
Finally, I say again, you are underestimating the economy of even an early turtle empire. Your entire image of how the game would go requires the turtler to just sit there and let you do whatever you want, and, you see yourself defeating the turtler as easily as the AI in battle. Nither would be the case, dismiss both these rediculous notions and take another look at how the game would go. Yes, you would most likely win, but it will not nearly be the easy ride you are imagining, and if you go into a game with that mindset you would actually stand a small chance of loosing.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Denmark has only one starting province and takes a lot of time to build its economy, as most of the surrounding provinces are fairly well defended for their size, and are tiny. Plus if I were to take the British Isles that quickly I would face excommunication which runs contrary to my early strategy. You can't blitz when the Pope calls a crusade on you, and no one wants to exhange maps and alliances for florins in such a case. Denmark in fact has a very hard time generating a strong blitzing game. Thats why I am enjoying it right now, its giving me a greater challenge than any so far, except Portugal or Russia.
Denmark becomes a powerhouse in the late game, but not really before that.
With England and France I start with massive troop numbers and excellent positional advantages. They are also the only two factions I managed to conquer 108 provinces with by turn 60. Needless to say, they are DESIGNED to blitz.
First of all, they can crusade directly through Spain into the Moors, And then quickly backstab Spain and Portugal and conquer them in ONE TURN. That's three, count them, three factions annihilated in a single turn. Bribe senor Pope until he likes you again, and you can't be excommunicated.
Boom. Thats numero uno. Number two, once you have all of England/France, Spain, and Africa under your control, a SINGLE additional crusade wipes out the rest of the map. Thats how you beat all factions (minus aztecs) by turn 60.
You merely conquer any rebel fortress and leave the crusade during that turn, and all of a sudden you have a full stack on non crusading troops to backstab HRE, Italy, Poland, and Hungary.
Chances are, by then at least one Catholic faction has been excommed. That means you can slay them for free with crusaders. It's too easy.
So thats why England and France are indestructible blitzers.
The HRE is slightly faster at the beginning, but unfortunately has more than two directions to expand in. I'm sorry but the blitz falls apart after 50 regions fall, and it crumbles due to bloated empire, massive troop numbers, poor economy and post-crusade debt.
Poland and Hungary can do the same thing. Crusade towards Baghdad, pummel the Byzantines, Turks, and Egyptians all at once, and then sack and sack their way to public order in the Muslim lands until the second crusade, wherein they attack the Moors and doom the entire map in reverse order. Nevermind the fact that a few mounted ranged troops can decimate entire infantry armies, which the Ai foolishly parades around with in the early game. You can make their few mounts rout easily, and the rest is child's play.
I think you underestimate these factions. They are virtually indestructible in the hands of a master.
Byzantium is too defensible, and cannot blitz properly, to be considered a non-turtling faction. Religious conversion of most of the map, and lack of crusading means the SLOW way to blitz. You can defend the entire sea with your SUPREME naval power (all your cities are ports, you can afford it) and you can EASILY defend the mountains of Greece and Turkey from foolish land assaults.
Byzantium is the ULTIMATE turtle faction. Even I love to turtle with her. Those mounted troops with ranged abilities are excellent at repelling hordes of troops, making them superior defenders. Trouble is they are expensive, and you can't crusade your way to free ones. Nope, Byzantine has the best chance at holding off crusaders with a stronghold in Greece, and slowly overtaking the Muslim lands until they are converted, then taking Italy, Spain, France, and HRE with ease.
Ps Byzantium is great because of not only it's ability to defend, but relative ease in controlling the seas (they actually have relevant seas) and the fact that the AI doesnt know how to attack. It might be weaker if every faction attacked at once, in one turn, but they dont. And they dont know how to plan a prolonged war. Usually its a few landed troops and a port blockade. This game favors the aggressor because the AI cant ever destroy you. Even their pathetic Ai-run crusades usually involve a single stack or two from each faction. Simply slaying their general ends the campaign. It's too simple to defend against the AI. And attacking Byzantium as a human player requires a tremendous investment of resources if they are actively defending. Not to mention they can seriously counterattack you with a single navy and a stack dropped off easily on your shores. The mountains and seas make it impenetrable, due to their superior starting economy, troops, and naval forces. Just because the AI doesnt know how to handle Byz doesn't mean a human couldnt fight valliantly with it.
The trouble with England's defensiveness is, yes it can field a large navy, but it doesnt MATTER.
Anyone who controls the Belgian, or northern French provinces can keep a ship safely in port until a large army is ready to cross and do it in one turn.
Anyone can also simply recruit a merc ship and cross in one turn.
"My eyes... the goggles do nothing!"- Rainier Wolfcastle, the Simpsons
The ships do nothing defensively. Sorry to disagree with your analysis.
(I'm so stubborn, aren't I? Sheesh. How do you people stand me?)
And once again, I've layed out why the turtle is easy to beat. I can harass them, and they lack the initiative, and my economy is boundless. There's only so much you can develop a smaller nation. And by turn 30, I've got half the map rolled up. Turtles do not start with a massive empire, if they did, they could afford to be so... turtle-y.
Slowly taking one or two provinces from the AI every few turns will not make much of a difference. Fielding a strong defense wastes a LOT of money that could have otherwise been spent on economic or territorial expansion. It yields you no economic reward, and it can suffocate and choke you into debt.
I can field more troops, which gives me more possibilities to attack from multiple fronts, and I can decimate your navy if neccesary, block your ports, cause devastation through your lands, lay seige to your cities, slaughter just enough of your heavy expensive troops to cause you economic pain in recovery, and meanwhile, it costs me close to nothing to do so.
Its all about the benjamins. Offense beats defensive play in this game.
Even if you swarmed all of your troops together and attempted to knock me out quickly, I'm a blitzer and I'm gunning for you. I'd seige your relatively undefended cities and slay your core provinces, burning all that you used to have and selling what's left for profit, and move on.
You could trade hits with me, but the blitzer usually has more provinces, making that a very tricky strategy at best. Granted, you would be a major pain in the butt, but you'd be pretty much toast yourself, and I'd still have more provinces.
More equals better in this game. No matter how you slice it, a thousand peasants beats a hundred dismounted knights. Just add one general and watch those peasants actually engage, surround, and defeat superior forces.
Maybe it's not realistic, but I didnt design the game, I just play it.
I dont have an unrealistic view of how the turtle would play. Yes, they would be a tough nut to crack, but I dont have to destroy them immediately. By the time I get around to it, I'm ten times the size of the Mongol horde, and I'm a human not a silly computer.
Unless you own half of the map and have marshalled all your forces at every access point, I say good day to you.
Any turtle must counterstrike quickly, which is usually contrary to what turtles do, and more blitzerish. Otherwise the game slowly progresses in my favor over time. Otherwise, they must have a large empire, which again, runs counter to the Turtle's stated plans.
You can't have 12 provinces and 15 stacks of troops very easily.
I on the other hand routinely have that many rather early, and I can endlessly replace them. You can't defeat that unless you're bigger than me, or I am a complete idiot.
Thats my take. Feel free to disagree, but I'm afraid all the arguments I've seen have not, by my calculations (and by the calculations of most) proved the turtle to be much of a threat.
======================
For more information on how blitzers completely and totally dominate this game, I refer you all to my legendary (immodestly, yes it was) thread regarding England.
Hundreds of huge color screenshots of my devastating strategy described above to annihilate the entire map in only two crusades.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=87236
If too many people view it, it breaks for a month. Come back again later. Should be working now.
AtPG:
I do wish you had Kingdoms. (I think I have seen you say you don't have it.)
I stated earlier in a post on here that England in the Kingdom's Brittania campaign might be the best chance of a pure turtle beating a blitzer in 1 v 1 MP.
I already wrote a lengthy reason why I think this on the last page. If you have any questions, let me know and I'll try to explain more/better.
Post is here: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=116
In Britania campaign nobody can blitz thx to ridiculou amount of insurgents that wreck your settlement if you decide to leave it. Leaving 3 units of whatever won't work, since a governor is the ONLY method of keeping a place in check and converting culture. A church does do the job but a lot slower, and if u wait for churches to be built then ure not blitzing.
If you would blitz in Britannia you would probably have to exterminate any settlement above large town and move on while norwegian raiders will (they only hav a chance to survive by raiding and abandoning settlement) chew up your undefended backwater.
the thing here is that we are talking about a true multiplayer campaign because its what we all want to see.
in that game, papacy would be player-controlled, a dungeon-master, and able to give missions, communicate without diplomats, direct inquisitions, set piety ratings, excommunicate, and demand crusades at will.
so long as the pope is not a blitzer,but plays as refereee, any catholic blitzers may soon find themselves isolated and with 3 or 4 crusades making for their innards at double-movement.
i don't know about the AI in Britannia though. it is not only incompetent but has a split personality too. turtling wil not help the english when the Welsh are still live and on the warpath. then there are all those oceans to police and patrol. the shores of Ireland are only two turns sail off. in my English campaign it has given ceasefire and trade rights and dropped a stack at Caernarvon in the same turn.
also since Black Death is not only inevitable but also you know exactly when its coming, does it not make more sense to turtle a bit before its arrival, get the towns to huge size in the early game? i thought that is the game rationale for the BD. in rtw or BI you could too easily forget about cultivating population growth, i felt the designers wanted to rule this out.
The nords must blitz though. any let up in the momentum and their offensive goes to pot. truth is i am only just learning how to blitz.
We all forget our childhood Aesop's fables, the Turtle always wins :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
I play similarly to how I play Civ, though TW brings out more of a ruthless nature because of rebels and having more reason to be aggressive right away.
The first few turns I'll decide which will be my military cities, which will be the breadbasket of my empire and which will be primarily port cities. I tend to group all of my armies in one or two decent sized forces and attempt to quickly take any weak provinces surrounding my borders. Mopping up rebels is first priority, and I'll even take a chance of leaving cities with only 2 or so units so I can rush off with a family member to gain a trait or so while cleaning up the unrest in the countryside or that weak settlement.
I'm not usually too interested in assaulting a strong AI faction until I have a small advantage, usually it's to be sure that my Infantry types are better than theirs so in a long fight to the death I'll come out ahead. I really despise pitting my troops against enemy troops in city squares. It's ridiculous because they won't break and flee so you have to just throw trash at them, or hope you have a superior force to grind them down eventually.
In the end, I tend to turtle on one or two sides of my empire and concentrate my remaining power to consolidate whichever portions of my border seem difficult to maintain as a border - so my troops fill that vacuum as I thunder across the landscape.
In an all human game the turtle would win, in less all the players are bunnies, then everyone dies. In an all human game the more cautious players will band together against the more aggressive ones. The aggressive players are less likely to ally as they know that if they lower their guard even a little they may be attacked. Thus either the hare becomes the tortoise or they fight each other mercilessly while the tortoise nibbles around the edges.
Even if it's one-on-one in a campaign game, the turtle will win. A slow, deliberate player will construct watchtowers, reinforcement forts, use their night fighters effectively, and have better cash and troops.
It doesn't matter if you attack an interior, poorly garrisoned city. Even if you make it there without being ambushed by my army I have another waiting for you, close enough to attack immediately. Led by my night fighter I'm able to isolate and pincer your inferior troops or force you to retreat. If you're carrying siege equipment you'll be able to assault that turn but you may not make it there with your reduced movement.
Let's say you bring a catapult and attack my fortress or citadel, it won't be enough. You'll either run out of ammunition or your inferior troops will be chewed up as they're forced to fight in smaller areas against elite troops. Batter down my first gate and you'll have to expose it to archer fire which may kill the crew. But wait, how did you get it in the first place? Did you spend the time and cash to build a siege engineer and what's the recruitment pool?
If you do assault you'll have trouble maintaining morale as I've use the assassins I trained on a rebel stack to kill your general; maybe I'll gain another rebel stack to practice on. My spies tell me which of your generals don't take personal security seriously so you may have trouble finding one in the first place, that is, if I haven't eliminated your royal line.
So now you've already lost a couple of "cheap" stacks of troops, how are you going to raise more? Since you weren't able to take any of my cities with no economy you're dangerously short of cash and have ran out of steam. Now I can pick you apart.
Turn-based favors turtling. Go too fast and you become a victim of your own strategy.
If you guys ever played the board game diplomacy with real people (takes HOURS), its kinda like how totalwar would be played out. Althogh the board game doesn't take tactical skills into account in totalwar mp game diplomacy dynamics would be the core that makes or breaks the rise to power imo.
Actually, I can defend England for a while with a navy. I can create a picket line, and since "zone of control" will limit your movement, you'll have to sink my ships first.Quote:
Originally Posted by askthepizzaguy
Also, with your Belgium and northern French provinces, I can slow you down. I will probably get to those provinces first because of how close England is. I would then exterminate them and sell every building. Then I'll abandon them, only have provinces in England, and disband my armies. Then I'll just focus on economic and ship buildings. And I'll have a massive navy and can afford it because I'll have no army.
You'll eventually get to northern france but you'll have to build it up from scratch. In the meantime, my ships are teched up and England gets the Naval Academy which means cheaper ships and better gun ships. I can blockade your northern ports and you'll have to fight your way out with your new ships.
You can hire merc ships but only one or two so many turns. And you won't get by my picket line with just one or two ships. You'll have to build your navy far off, and then sail it over. Which will take time. You will still win eventually but blitzing England is not necessarily as easy as you keep boasting. I can make it take 2, 3, maybe even 10 times as long as it would normally take you to blitz the stupid AI.
Because of your economy, you can eventually overwhelm me. But it will take you many turns to build up your cities and then build the navy. I won't let you just move one ship with a full stack across the channel. You'll have to overwhelm me with a gigantic navy first.
If the game was played with 2 player controled factions and rest were AI, the blizter would win.
But if it ALL the factions save for Aztecs, Mongols, Timurs, and the Pope were players, then blitzing would be limited to eastern factions mostly.
Example:
I am Sicily and my spy finds Egyptian coastal cities near emtpy due to Egypt blizting up the holy lands and its defended by 2 town militia then I'm sacking it with a general and 2 norman knights, then promptly sell everything and run away.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Ah, ah, ah... you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. Only I'm allowed to do that. ;)
You are trying to overwhelm me with your superior naval defenses. That only works if they are in a stack, given the one-turn crossing of the sea. Otherwise you have to surround and pound, but as the defender, you dont have time to do that. I can cross in one turn.
And if you try the zone of control defense, you have to cover all of southern and eastern English channel.
You can't do that with full stacks of naval forces unless you're cheating or it's turn 100.
I will simply run the blockade at it's weakest point, or cross in one turn via ship. You can't have both formations at once. Perhaps a ring of ships and a single stack, but then why couldn't I just sail by Ireland and invade that way?
Too much sea to defend, not enough sea to give you time to stop me, not enough ships for the undertaking.
Entirely unworkable plan until late game. And even if you could do it, it would cripple your economy. Why shoot yourself in the foot that way?
Change the strategy (turtle versus moderate expansion), not the tactics.
Tactics will not overcome poor strategy.
I will tell you what. Show me a screenshot of such a thing before turn 30, and I will concede the point. Otherwise, it's pure fantasy.
I only need to place a stack at each port and blockade the port. Any ship you build would have to fight their way out. The pickets can be 1 space apart and only 1 or 2 good ships in each picket stack. The picket line would just be to stop your 1 merc ship. The port stack would stop your recruited ships. Again, you'd win because you could just build a massive navy in the med and sail it over. But, again, it will not be as easy as you keep claiming. :no:Quote:
Originally Posted by askthepizzaguy
askthepizzaguy :knight: versus Privateerkev :viking:
Man, I'd love to see you two in a p vs p. I think it would be brilliant. :2thumbsup:
atpg, I can see why you love this thread. Top posting! If you delivered a pizza late, I'm sure you would end up having the customer believing that it was their fault in the end! :clown:
Pk participates in a lot of hotseat games, maybe Askthepizzaguy can join the next one. :yes:
I would love a chance to play with ATPG and I'm sure we'd have fun. Unfortunately, he does not seem to have Kingdoms at the moment. But if that changes, we can set one up. Maybe Brittania?Quote:
Originally Posted by Zim
And Galain, thanks. But I think the general consensus of the community is that a hare would own a turtle in a 1 v 1 MP game. But I would play for fun in a MP one with multiple players. I'm in two at the moment and their a blast. :yes:
Forgive my ignorance but can you explain to me how ATPG works?
Sorry, I was to lazy to type out "askthepizzaguy". My mistake. :sweatdrop:Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLastPrivate
Does sound like some kind of weapon or something, doesn't it?
Based on the current multiplayer game I am in there are a few obvious observations to make so far.
1) Scotland almost took out England in a blitzer rush, but was persuaded by the French player to let England survive to keep the English player in the game. In fact, England agreed to vassal itself to France to secure this deal and it was made quite clear to Scotland that finishing off England would upset the French player.
2) Diplomacy is now much more in line with the game Diplomacy. What is said and what is the truth are now suitably disconnected. For example, England promised Scotland the castle of Nottingham in return for a cease fire and return of London. London was duly handed over and the cease fire agreed then England refused to hand over Nottingham leaving Scotland looking stupid. The only good news was that England also welched on the deal with the French player making him look stupid too. The net result being that England is now sandwiched between two player controlled factions both of which view him as unreliable and dishonest.
3) The blitzer who ignores the Pope now risks major retribution as he becomes a real target for real players.
4) Lack of funds now poses a very real risk as human players do not ignore weakness of defence due which results.
5) Its terribly slow to play. Anyone who still thinks its feasible in real-time online play ought to try a PBEM to get a feel for just how long it takes for people to complete their turns.
The multiplayer game seems to be heavily influenced by diplomacy, most of the human controlled countries have formed into larger allied factions quite early on and are discussing their long term goals and targets. One faction going bald headed for blitz style growth will almost certainly make itself the focus of a lot of attention particularly if that growth is into an area earmarked for the expansion of an allied player group.
Indeed just being an unallied player makes you a target in the first place.
But alliences can chose to rush or turtle, right? So the question is still there.
Thanks for the first hand info Didz, got a nice chuckle out of #2.Quote:
Originally Posted by Didz
I've got to ask about battles. In my SP games I have several combined arms stacks for each historical era, with which I am confident (all else being equal) I can beat any other full-stack army with it - no matter what the autocalc says.
So my question is: is it frustrating to be beaten by a stack of catapults and town militia, when you know that, if you you where to play the battle yourself, you would win hands down? Do the players exploit this fact?
Apologies to the OP for going off topic.
I like to play as a turtle and agonize over my choices of who to attack. And have a nice family tree with some heroic figures. Normally takes about 20 turns for the plan to the execution.
If there is a MP game with more than two players, then it will be up to the players if a blitzer survives or thrives. I will second Didz in saying that diplomacy is the name of the game in 3+ player MP games. I'm in two Kingdom Hotseats and the most important part of the game is the diplomacy that happens before the initial save game even gets uploaded. That is where you establish your allies and targets. If a blitzer can get a group of allies to ignore/aid his blitzing, then he will do very well and might be well positioned in the later game for fulfilling the victory conditions. If the blitzer fails to establish diplomatic relations with enough people, then he will find in about 3 turns that his territories have already been divvied up by the rest of the players. And he will have a violently short game.
In the Teutonic Order game we restarted, no one initially picked the TO when we were picking factions. So, a bunch of us agreed to knock them out of the game and divvy up their territories. I opened my big mouth on the game thread and another player thought the TO should be given a fighting chance since the whole campaign is about them. So, knowing that he might be in for a short game, he bravely took the TO. A few of us realized that the TO is a good faction for a blitzer. They have awesome units and a faction squeezed in between it's territories. Plus, they pretty much need to blitz due to initial money problems. So, seeing the threat of this potential blitzer, add to that the fact that the player of the TO is experienced and skilled, and don't forget that we still want those territories, many of us continued our plan to knock out the TO.
We're only finishing up our second turn but the game is very interesting and the fate of the TO is still up in the air. It's a good case study of how important diplomacy is in 3+ MP games. :2thumbsup:
and then there's me as Russia hiding away in the corner, too bad at the game to blitz and hoping no-one will want to come East :beam: .Quote:
Originally Posted by Didz
:sweatdrop: maybe the Poles will be interested?Quote:
Originally Posted by Didz
Are there plans to organise a new hotseat game? I would be very much interested.
There has been so much energy put into restarting the two Kingdom games that are going on, that I don't think anyone thought to start a third. If the two going on keep going at a good pace, I'll consider starting a third. (Brittania maybe?) Anyone else is welcome to start one anytime though. :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheetah
Also some one could start a regular MP game but one is going on and those tend to need more people than Kingdom games.
Yes, but I suspect its harder to achieve as there are inter-alliance considerations to take into account.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheetah
For example: Lets assume that the North-European Alliance were planning a blitz style assault on the rebel held towns of the Low Countries.
Before such an assault could commence the allies would need to agree which towns were going to be assigned to which factions and which factions would be assigned to capture which town and somehow co-ordinate the timing of their attacks so that all member states achieved their assign goals and benefits within a reasonable time frame.
In the case of Scotland for example I don't currently have any navy so my faction would be unable to participate in such an assault for several turns. However, France could begin almost immediately. But if France were to begin without Scotland why should Scotland receive any benefit from the attacks, on the other hand if it doesn't then France gains in power and Scotland doesn't causing an imbalance in the alliance.
At the same time the Baltic alliance may be threatening Scotland with invasion because it has recently been ex-commed. So, Scotland is less keen to dispatch troops to the Low Countries anyway and would prefer France to be ready to assist it if enemy invasion fleets appear in the North Sea.
Then of course there are still the English to deal with.
So, multi-player blitzing might be possible in theory but it has a number of practical problems in application mainly focussed upon inter-player diplomacy than practical game play. At the end of the day an alliance will only hold if it satisfies the needs of all its members and blitzing is likely to provide more benefit to some factions than others actually creating tensions.
Short answer is YES.Quote:
Originally Posted by regor
But its a double edged sword. Everyone is in the same boat, so at least your nicely balanced army if not getting trashed by some guy with a faster hand-eye coordination and a fetish for heavy cavalry.
knowing I won't be commanding my armies in battle personally I don't bother much about their composition. In autocalc an army is an army and I just treat them as risk counters really, I haven't really gone to the trouble of working out whether high cost troops give a corresponding auto-calc bonus, perhaps someone could confirm this.
Moreover, if there are still some AI factions, you might still get some nasty surprises such as invasions in the least expected venues... and when you least expect it, forcing you to divert your plans to meeting that new threat...Quote:
Originally Posted by Didz
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
In an all human game I favor your analysis. In a pure human V turtle, one on one game, I feel you haven't done your homework.
Your entire analysis presumes I aimed directly towards your empire and ignored all the other, weak AI ones. That WOULD be stupid.
You're last on my list of concerns, seeing as how you, as a turtle, are less aggressive than the simpleton AI. You on the map gives me almost free reign to do what I want.
By the time you recruit enough spies to make my settlements rebel, I've tripled the size of my empire and my standing army is ten times what it was. I can afford to lose settlements.
Generals? I've too many for you to assassinate. While you train assassins on rebel stacks, I train captains against the AI troops. With large empires, I'm virtually guaranteed a new general every single time.
Good luck on agents winning this game. I can also afford to counterspy you in the middle game, making that strategy ineffective long term.
You ambushing with night fighter is fine. That will work exactly once. And that's only IF I don't do what I always do, which is send a scouting mounted unit ahead of my main army to spring all traps.
Once I locate your main force, I can surround it with three stacks and destroy it. I don't even need to auto-calculate it. That battle would be easy even if you were on a hilltop behind a river. And assuming you were impressivly fortified, I could just ignore your stack and beseige your worthless settlements, forcing you to engage me on a level battlefield. Yes, your night fighter and superior troops make this one battle yours. Now when your somewhat depleted forces face my other two stacks simultaneously in the light of day you haven't a prayer.
More troops beat better troops, and that's all there is to it. This is a numbers game. tactics work great against the AI, against humans who arent idiots and against sheer numbers of troops, it's almost pointless.
So now you've already lost a couple of "cheap" stacks of troops, how are you going to raise more? Since you weren't able to take any of my cities with no economy you're dangerously short of cash and have ran out of steam. Now I can pick you apart.
Sorry, but thats not even remotely realistic.
Unless you and I were the only empires on the map, and we had few provinces, this doesn't make any sense. Of course I can replace entire stacks of troops.
1. I have at least (if I'm having a BAD day) twice your recruitment garrisons.
2. I have a profit-making economy (few garrison forces mean all my standing armies pillage and provide new income sources, and are an investment, not a drain on my economy like your superior but initiative-lacking national guardsmen)
3. When I lose an entire stack (or 3) of my worthless troops which took me no time or effort to recruit, I suddenly turn an even larger profit for the next few turns, which is all I need to churn out more idiot peasants armed with sticks willing to die for a quick florin (the word peasants is misleading, by the middle game I am really recruiting everything but the top tier Dismounted Knights and so forth).
4. You will pick me apart? You and what army? :grin2:
Every defensive scenario you can construct is FAR easier for me to pull off, given my initiative, sheer number of territories, sheer number of standing armies, same tactics, same strategies, and better economy.
Lets say you manage to DECIMATE 12 stacks of my troops. I have to be an (expletive deleted) for you to manage this.
Now I have the equivalent of 12 stacks worth of maintenence cost coming towards me per turn. What to do with 40 provinces, 12 castles, great garrisons, and a GIANT pile of money.... what to do, what to do....
It's ridiculous. I actually laugh when you defeat my forces on the battlefield. It's hilarious because it almost makes you believe you're winning the war.
Then larger stacks with better troops and more of them start coming towards you. Unless you can engage and defeat a larger, superior empire with more troops (and in the late game, same quality troops), and QUICKLY, there is no hope, my friends! No hope.
It's all about the numbers. Fewer provinces, even when properly developed which takes time, cannot put up the kind of numbers a blitzer can. More territories, more recruitment facilities, more florins per turn, faster reinforcement recruitment, quicker expansion, initiative, and an ever-strengthening strategic and tactical position.
The ONLY way to beat a blitzer is by being bigger and stronger than him, or beating him QUICKLY in the early game when he is vulnerable.
Otherwise, he must be an idiot to lose the game. He is positionally and mathematically superior to you in every sense. Sure, you might have reached "pleasure palace" and "grand cathedral" before I have. But I'm on my way to take them from you and you cannot stop me.
You must switch strategy to moderate expansion to have a prayer of a hope. Turtles cannot stop the mighty blitz.
:knight:
askthepizzaguy,
just out of curiosity, why are you reserving your analysis to a one on one game in the main campaign with a map full of hapless A.I. factions? That seems like the least interesting background for a blitxer versus turtler battle. Of course in such a game the Blitzer would win. He would find himself quickly attaining a vast resource advantage over the turtle, that could only be prevented by the turtle becoming a blitzer himself.
Maybe if it were a map with only two factions, plus a couple of rebel settlements at most, it would be an interesting debate. It would also be interesting to see how blitzing versus turtling applies to a game with losts of factions and all human players, or even many human players, but in the setup you propose I'm not sure it's much in doubt whether turtling is better. Even most of the people defending turtling agree you'd win in the end.
Now, comparing these strategies in the kind of hotseat games we're playing in the throne room would be interesting. Despite greater importance for diplomacy, I suspect that agressive play is still best in these types of games, you just have to temper it somewhat more. :yes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zim
You're absolutely correct, Zim.
I've said all along, if you go back to view my earliest posts on this thread, that the idea of multiple human players on the map makes blitzing a very risky and most likely losing proposition.
I've been reserving my analysis for purely one on one turtle v blitz games because of the strong debate that has been waged regarding it. There are a great many people who believe as I do that the turtle is absolutely inferior, and with good reason.
There are still a few, (actually many, but a minority) who believe the turtle is superior. However, the few strategies put forward by them honestly wouldn't make me hesitate. They were all expected counter strategies. I havent seen anything new.
Blitzing is superior against lone turtles and AI's. However, against another blitzer, or several humans, a strategy of diplomacy and moderate expansion is favoured.
:yes:
Obviously on a tiny map with only two factions and barely any rebels, the game is even.
A great attacker can pick off your weakest territories instead of going for the throat. So a great defender will meet and ambush the assaulting force with a tightly compacted raider stack of good troops. But it would be a strain on both of them to accomplish their stated goals. And technically, neither would be a turtle or a blitzer, they would merely be attacker and defender.
-----------------
I'd personally enjoy seeing a real counter-threat from a turtle empire. I'd like to know which faction, what strategy, where the defensive stand would be made, by what turn, and under what circumstances. I'd also like to hear how and when the grand counterattack can be made.
Personally, I see the blitzer as the evil, terrible empire that must be eliminated, and the turtle as the realistic, moral, peaceful empire that MUST destroy it. How will Luke and his band of rebels destroy the Emperor?
Your strategy here.
Fair warning, I will look for any and all weaknesses and give you my fair estimate as to it's effectiveness. So far, I see the spy rush and the sneak attack against the back quarter while I am off crusading to be the most annoying and brutal counter. This is somewhat uncharacteristic of the turtle. However, I will allow it, seeing as it is a preemptive harrassment strike, not a full blown invasion. If the turtle is invading first, and quickly, he's not being a true turtle. I guarantee the blitzer will strike first, by the middle game at least, while we're building ourselves nice fat bloated marketplaces ripe for the pillaging.
Two things:
1. How to turn back the relentless tide of disposable troops?
2. How to assault the empire on it's own soil?
It has been an interesting debate. :yes: I've been following it for a long time, despite making only a few posts. As the King of Blitzes, I have a strong respect for your opinions on the issue.
I think you might be surprised by how much blitzing goes on in hotseat games, especially the smaller ones from Kingdoms. People use diplomacy to cover their backs, but even in an all human environment, there's a strong tendency for most players to put all their resources into an early attack, to eliminate their most threatening neighbor.
An exception seems to be the Britannia game, although it's a bit early to tell. I think it's because everyone's starting positions are so hugely different. Factions like Wales and Norway have to attack early, while England has to Turtle, lest it find itself fighting all it's neighbors. Then there's Ireland and Scotland, both of which would benefit most from a more moderate approach, I think. :yes:
It's been a blast, if you get Kingdoms you should join one of the games sometime.
Quote:
Originally Posted by askthepizzaguy
I've said it before in here but since your putting out the challenge, I'll say it again.Quote:
Originally Posted by askthepizzaguy
I think England in the Kingdoms Brittania Campaign could win as a pure turtle. I have laid out why I think this in earlier posts in here. If you have any questions, please let me know.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
I appreciate the compliment, however the title King of the Blitzes is one I feel uncomfortable with until I've seen my competition. Sure, I may have set a record with the HRE blitz conquering 50+ provinces by turn 16, and I've yet to see someone take 108 provinces by turn 57 other than myself, however there are far too many other players here. Surely one of them has beaten my records.
I'm hoping someone will post proof of that. As for Kingdoms, I'm afraid your king of the blitzers is a college student without the money to buy it. I'm still playing around with lands to conquer and the long road mods, now that my fellow forum members have talked me into it.
Update: My Danish campaign goes well... but falls apart mid-game on lands to conquer.
I manage to accumulate 10 or 15 stacks, and quite a few provinces, and then begin my massive backstab of HRE, France, England, Scotland, Spain, Portugal, and the Moors in a single turn. I completely decimate most of the resistance, but I do not have the troops or the Papal approval to continue slaughtering nor do I have the public order to do so. By now it's turn 20 or so, and I've taken out half of Europe. However, most of the map goes rebel and I lose massive florins.
I am thinking there is no way to conquer all provinces by turn 60 on LTC. I will have to start thinking smaller. Yes, the pizzaguy has been humbled by this mod, for what I hope to accomplish.
Then again, I can still destroy 7 factions at once, in the EARLY game. That's not bad either.
Anyone want some screenshots? It's hilarious to watch.