Stronger Player - Turtle vs. Hare

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.

---

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.

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.

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.

---

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:

---

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.

---

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.

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Privateerkev

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.

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.

Quote:

---

I realize this post could be interpreted as arrogant.

---

and it was... :yes:

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: 

:turtle: pride

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Privateerkev

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:

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: 

:turtle: pride

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by askthepizzaguy

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.

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 excersize 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.

---

Yup, as I predicted, this one is far less useful. :laugh4:

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: 

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Privateerkev

Yup, as I predicted, this one is far less useful. :laugh4:

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

---

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: 

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Privateerkev

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

---

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)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Privateerkev

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!

---

Interesting.

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

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)

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinan

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 !

---

I desperately want a MP game. PLEASE bring it on.

I will crush all of you. :knight:
Bwahahahahaha!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marrow

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.

Pizzaguy: That's what I've been advocating versus turtles and blitzers.

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.

Pizzaguy: Agreed.

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: Blitzing by itself is not impressive. Rolling up the entire map before turn 60... Please, I'm not bragging, but TRY it sometime.

@ askthepizzaguy - I sincerely wish you luck blitzing me as, say, Ireland in Brittania, the mother of all turtlers!

Askthepizzaguy: I haven't had the pleasure of playing the new game version. But I appreciate the offer.

Listen up though... remember THE LONG ROAD mod? Yeah, the game where hardly anyone could stand to field a single decent stack until midway through the game? I blitz in that game. Yes, from turn one. With any faction you pick.

It's hard as a diamond encrusted iron fist smashing repeatedly against your head, but I can roll up the map, from turn one, in THAT game.

Bring it the flip on.

@ 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

---

Thank you gentlemen, for keeping this thread alive.

: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: 

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marrow

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

---

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.

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?

---

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:

---

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 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:

---

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 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:

---

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...

---

No, you finally started to see what I had been saying the whole time. Read the older posts again...

Quote:

---

It's a fairly hollow point. I would be not proud if that were all I had to contribute.

---

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:

---

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.

---

Yup, after awhile I felt this conversation degenerated into, "Your right!" "No, your right!"

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.

---

yes to both. :yes:

Quote:

---

So, we agree on everything! Good show!

---

I was wondering when you would figure that out. :D

Quote:

---

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.

---

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: :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by askthepizzaguy

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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

I desperately want a MP game. PLEASE bring it on.

---

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).

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,

Quote:

---

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.

---

Assuming that your talking about an AI Byzantine, I fail to see your point with this. Against an AI HRE I've beeten

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).