Printable View
There has been at least one thread of turtle vs blitz games. It seems that the blitz player will always win, even against a human opponent. A blitz campaign can be over in less than 30 turns. Other than play-style, why would (or should) anyone choose to go turtle?
-the game is too easy, therefore you have to turtle to get at least sa bit of a challenge
Also, with proper blitzing one can roll up the whole map with only spear militia. Turtling is pretty much necessary if you ever want to see any of the rest of the unit roster, or the Mongols, gunpowder, the New World, most of the game in fact.
And one could argue that blitzing is essentially an exploit, since you are taking advantage of the woeful inadequacy of the AI in the face of relentless aggression.
What PBI said.
Spear-spamming might win the game, but I happen to enjoy watching the Aztecs route in the face of concentrated musket fire. Or ram themselves into walls of pikemen. Or be run down by conquistadors.
Nothing like a bit of a native massacre to get you ready for ETW ;)
I agree... I've tried to turtle, intentionally, and I keep finding myself looking at the enemy settlements next to me and thinking... why can't I just go kill them?
I have armies. And they aren't going to attack me properly. They aren't aggressive enough or committed to my destruction.
When I see them, I think KILL KILL KILL KILL.... I can't not blitz anymore. I can't.
Must.... destroy.... everyone.
:laugh4:
I'm still trying to get the overall hang of the game, but I've found myself still relapsing into my old MTW grand strategy of quick blitzes followed by long periods of peace, if possible. IE- I just started a Moors game with SS 4.1, and with the original faction Heir, I conquered all the rest of Iberia with spear militia, mercs, and 3 jihads. T'was a rather nice holy warrior Sultan by the time he was laid to rest. After I essentially knocked out the Portugese(they somehow ended up taking Cork in Ireland:inquisitive:) and the Aragonese(still haven't figured out where they are, prolly have a family member wandering around), I basically sat down, with the exception of some conquests a bit later on in Africa, taking Tunis and El Qoed, then Timbuktu and whatever that tiny, worthless village in west Africa is. Of course, not continuing my conquests into Europe seems to perhaps be coming back to bite me. As of now, its about 1255, and I'm at war with France, Hungary, England, Poland, Milan, the Papacy, Portugal, Aragon(bearing in mind those two are moot points), and the HRE, after his Holiness called for a crusade to take back Tunis from me. And of course, nearly all of Catholicism banned together to come after me, with France, Poland, England, and the HRE sending full stack armies with 5 star commanders(including a two kings and a faction Heir), armed with light men at arms and oodles of various knights. I rather do hope a one or two of the crusades make it to Tunis, I would like to test out my shiny new citadel armed with cannon towers, defended by my shiny new dismounted christian guards.:smash:
If you read it, the OP was referring to Player vs Player and in single player mode. In P v P he is absolutely right. There is no point turtling against a human player because he will just gobble you up quicker than you can say - BUT I HAVENT RECRUITED ARMOURED SWORDSMEN YET!. (Looks at Askthepizzaguys hotseat 1v1 record - what is it 8-nil or something?!)
However in the single player game I can not and will not bring myself to blitz the map, there is just no fun in it for me (but I do admire reading up on those who have done it). If I were to do that, I think my interest in the TW series would have perished some time ago. I confess to being a "single player" Turtler, I am one of those players who loves micromanagement and waiting around for the good units to become available. It can take me months (my work has a lot to do with it as well) to finish a good camaign. Thats just how I love to play the game.
Different strokes for different folks. :beam:
Simple for me: GUNS! Shiny armoured foot knights, muskets, dragoons, cannons and ribaults are something that 30-turn campaigns cannot replace. Also, I far prefer buying and garissoning land to sending thousands of virtual men to their deaths.
Has anyone found a way of modding the military AI, besides a ton of king's purse? It would make turtling far more fun
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galain_Ironhide
It's 8-0, and thats not even counting those who abandoned their campaigns. Those should count as losses as well.
If so, that would be another loss for Ichigo, Monk, and losses for Ignoramus, Elite Ferret, and some others as well.
More like 12-0, plus a draw because I couldn't get the epic pizzaguy versus Grog (blitzmaster v blitzmaster) duel to the death working, and maybe another draw because Chaotix didn't drop on me, my computer died, and now I cant get any save files to work that werent generated by my own computer for some odd reason.
As for your points about blitzing...
I can get armoured swordsmen and stuff. When I blitz, my bank account is insane. All that pillaging, sacking, selling of useless crap. (No need for an armourer, ballista range, or stables in England, when I'm the HRE conquering everything else already)
What I do is, unless I'm doing the UBER blitzes where I'm trying for a record, I occupy the largest cities and fortresses on the map and I spend all my money there. After a crusade, I have like 8-15 generals who have 5 chivalry or better, and I ship them off to my core cities to boost them up. Especially ones who already have a significant boost from the local farming and a good population. HINT: NOT DURAZZO.
Take Rome, Take Constantinople, Take Bran, Take Palermo... turn Bologna into a fortress. Then, sack everyone and sell their stuff, and pour the profits into these areas. And send the uber chivalrous generals to govern them.
In 20 turns, I'll have the most advanced facilities the game has to offer, (still slower than an uber blitz, but wayyyy faster than a turtle or moderate speed) and I will have a vast stretch of territory as well.
Here's my issue.
I honestly cannot turtle anymore. I used to... I tried to do it again. But what's stopping me?
1. The AI will eventually betray you, so unless you share no border and are not in range of their military, the AI will invade you in pathetic fashion.
2. Unless you disband all your forces, you typically can get a pretty awesome invasion force by turn 2 or 3, and an unstoppable one by turn 10. Then you're paying all that money for a huge stack... which is magnetically attracted to every single large, bloated, underdefended idiot AI province. You cannot resist the awesome power of the laws of physics.
Here's a quote for everyone's signature line:
3. Because the game gives me huge armies and allows me to control them, and any human player can defeat any AI opponent even with 2:1 or 3:1 odds against you, and the AI is too stupid to rally all their forces towards my empire, I simply allow the stupidational force to attract my armies towards the fat bloated cities the AI has created by the order of highest stupidity and smallest distance.Quote:
My armies are attracted to all stupidity in the universe, with a force equal to the product of the mass of my army multiplied by the stupidity of the population, and inversely proportional to the distance between them.
4. Once my armies come in contact with the enemy, they are instantly destroyed. I am not sure how. Sometimes I black out and when I wake up, I am covered in blood and I have skulls all around me, and I'm always holding a plastic picnic spoon for some reason.
5. When the enemy army is obliterated, their undefended provinces become involuntarily occupied by my very large, victorious forces, who sack the province before I even consciously click the button. They seem to know my wishes.
6. I must destroy their armour and troop making facilities and ransom or exterminate their prisoners. My brain will not allow me to continue the game until I do.
7. As soon as another province is taken, the stupid people in the province are all killed or given a thorough education in warfare, and the stupidity coefficient becomes zero, and then my armies are attracted once again to the irresistable forces of stupidity around me.
So, you see, I'm not really a blitzmaster, or a bloodthirsty conqueror, or a mass murderer. It's nature itself which compels my armies forward and, through no fault of my own, they destroy everything stupid in thier path. One might say I am completely and totally innocent in all of this. I'm being painted as some insane death god, but really, I'm just issuing orders for my troops to cleanse the world of dumbness. If there are a few million casualties along the way, what's the harm in that?
And when I tell my troops to turtle, they don't listen. They report back to me how weak and vulnerable my enemy is, and how they are a mere one to two turn march away from my forces, and how few casualties I will take, and how those casualties are most likely militia, mercenary, or peasants, and they have taken a poll, and those people actually like dying. (!)
So, you see folks, I've tried very hard to be a patient, moral leader. But nature itself makes me do evil things to stupid people. I'm totally blameless in all this. Would you put a kitten on trial for chasing a yarn ball? No, of course not.
In closing, I'd just like to say how much I like kittens. The End.
Play using a mod that has some AI improvements. :wink:
Someday, somehow, I will make you laugh, Factionheir.
I think you did during MPC1 diplomacy :grin:
What? The taunting from tiny Denmark didn't strike cold fear into your heart? Even when I threatened to obliterate the Sicilian Empire?
You've got nerves of steel, my friend. Few trifle with me and live to tell the tale.
EDIT: Forgot to add the death vikings.
:viking: :viking: viking :viking: :viking: :elephant: :viking:
THERE! Now fear me, foolish mortal. I mean, assistant moderator, sir.
Have a daisy. :daisy:
How much you can blitz certainly depends on the MOD you play (if any).
Personally, it's a few simple house rules that stop me from blitzing that I use out of personal preference for a more immersive game experience. My main "rule" is to roleplay the faction leader's overall direction of his forces and management of the empire and I roleplay it as a nice guy on a mission to make his people succesfull.
Har-de har-har:laugh4: Well ATPG you made me laugh, but also scared the bejasus out of me:sweatdrop: I hope I never meet you in multiplayer, your "Armoured Spearmen" would no doubt clean my clock toot-de-sweet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy
Here's a question though for you ATPG, have you used VanillaMod or do you only use Vanilla MTW2?
I'm actually engaged in a Sicilian campaign where the goal is both to blitz effectively, and also to create fairly decent armies, all the while following the Total Independence house rules.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
And no, I don't use vanillamod. I should give it a try.
The simple answer is that both turtling and blitzing are different game styles. Chalk and cheese.
I have never really played a turtle game, but have played long campaigns before with max rep/max chivalry objectives and had a lot of fun in doing so (ie: taking down the hordes with HRE infantry based armies after diplomaticly relocating the pope to Asia minor was fun)
I can see why people turtle(or moderately expand) as it does have a more historical aspect to the game than the 'take 45 provinces + city x/y' of the vanilla long campaign. ie: you can micro-manage an empire for a few hundred years and nurture alliances, all good fun.
However, uberschnelling blitzkrieg provides you with the greatest opponent known to man...TIME! Far more devastating than any AI*
(* - I realise that by posting this, I may attract the attention of an AI-driven hegemonising swarm in a far off galaxy, who will subsequently abandon their galactic blitzing and proceed to Sol at 233 kilolights to teach the dumb apes a lesson; in which case it's all ATPG's fault :2thumbsup: )
Also, for record speed blitzing it's not a simple matter of overwhelming the PLAI with outrageous stacks of unwashed peasants and militia, as this is a sign of using too many troops in too few places at once.
The reality is you have to fight a lot of offensive battles with threadbare armies against tough odds, as opposed to the Turtle defending castles/cities/terrain against the AI with a well armoured and upgraded garrison of elite troops, and generally advance warning of enemy incursions via spies/watchtowers etc so giving time to train extra men and recruit mercs/reinforce areas before the AI siege stack trundles into view.
So in all, two very different playstyles for different objectives. :beam:
Already I'm looking forward to your AAR on that one. Good luck!Quote:
Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy
What so when the other person can no longer play you win but if you can no longer play it's a draw? That sounds fair...Quote:
Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy
I'm guessing you knew you couldn't beat Grog and so pretended the save broke and then thought you would lose the rest and the hotseats and so claimed that BC doesn't work on your new computer. I've got you sussed out...
Besides I am willing to continue our duel now that I have more time, but you haven't been able to play for months now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elite Ferret
I thought you were simply unwilling to play? :laugh2:
You didn't mention any reason. Just put it off.
And yes, none of my hotseats work, and I havent been able to get duels to work either. And since the rest of y'all never conceded defeat, I couldn't add those to my total. not that it matters anyway, since I don't really get anything for winning.
I'd be delighted to duel again, if I could figure out how. I'm guessing I'd have to start a new save file using my current version and settings. My own save files should be compatible, I can't imagine why they wouldn't be. I can't imagine why I can't play the old saves either, but I'm no computer expert.
Apologies however, if I worded it in such a way to suggest the rest of you conceded if you didn't, but I haven't gotten the save from you in months, so I just assumed you didn't want to play anymore.
:sad:
:bow:
I'm just lazy :wink:
Waiting for the two important events; Discovery of Gunpowder and that world is round (Copernicus thingy) ~:)
Turtling and Blitzing are related to personality types. Some people eat fast while others take an hour to eat a hot dog. Some micromanage every aspect of the game whilst others automanage everything. Some go to DisneyWorld or on cruises whereas the sane go skiing and backpacking or kayaking or bowling.
I personally enjoy both, altho naturally a turtle I've had great fun adopting ATPG's guides to my playstyle.
It's about what YOU enjoy, nothing more.
Given the EZmode of the singleplayer game even on VH/VH, argueing over which is "superior" or "efficient" is hardly worth the debate.
It's like debating on why you shoul eat a pizza with your hands or forks. Maybe we should ask ATPG :laugh4:
The answer is obvious. You must cook the pizza over a bonfire, fuelled by the carcass of the infidel, you must cut the pizza with your ceremonial assassin's blade, which you just used to kill the Pope, and you must season the pizza with the blood of weeping women and the eyes of little peasant children.
Then, you have a full-fledged pizza my friends.
:evil:
EDIT: Eat the pizza with your blood-soaked hands, of course.
Mmmm. Pizza. One of the best pizzas ever was the pepperoni one from Pizza Hut that we reheated in a cardboard oven (box lined with aluminum foil) when we backpacked (a whole mile) into Wheeler Geologic are in Colorado. Now that's one thing that is even better than destroying the Timurids with peasants.
Guys, please get back on topic, eh? ~;)
I doubt it's possible to defeat the Timurids with peasants,said peasants would run at the sight of the giant pachyderms which they field. On the Blitzing topic, What happens when say, a turkish blitz meets the mongols,as they can be lethal in field battles...
I think a really flat-out blitz is supposed to be complete long before the Mongols arrive. Otherwise the expansion is probably slow enough to prepare a defense against the Mongols.
The Mongols arrives in the 13th century. A blitz would normally take no more than 60 years to complete, or else it wouldn't be called a blitz.Quote:
Originally Posted by oz_wwjd
I'm an old school TWer. I consider Blitzing to be the TW equivalent of playing FIFA on "easy" with all the cheats, and then going "look, I won 88-0!"
I play with my own set of Iron Man rules - never break an alliance, always go to an allies aid, no reloads etc.
As for the Blitzkrieg itself - that can still be done. Indeed, part of the fun of turtling is to suddenly unleash an all-powerful army on the enemy and lay waste to their lands before they know whats happening ~:) . Took me forever though playing as Bactria to win my RTRPE game - I promised myself Rome would be the last settlement I took to win the game and capture my last objective and 50th settlement. I furthermore promised myself I would do it with elephants in my army. Do you have any idea how long it takes to get Elephants from India to Rome...?
And by the time the Mongols arrived you'd have had the whole income of the map to pour into armies, the Mongols wouldn't stand a chance...Quote:
Originally Posted by Quintus.JC
And MS, ATPG did his blitz under those rules I think, you don't need allies in this game, it's easy to take everyone on at once, no matter the difficulty, that's why hotseats rule :yes:
I love the name dropping, Elite Ferret. Keep up the good work!
:bow:
Well, I didn't list all my rules - others include don't attack neutral factions without good reason (eg crusade called, at war with an ally), don't attack Rebel faction without good reason (eg given a mission). If the Diplomacy AI was a bit cleverer I'd conclude a ceasefire with an enemy as well rather than have to annihilate themQuote:
Originally Posted by Elite Ferret
Wow. All good stuff here, and I take elements of all of those in my own games. e.g. Iron Man rules. If I might rephrase my original question, it was "what compelling game-reason is there to play turtle style, other than the way you like to play the game". The short answer seems to be, there isn't one, really. The AI is too weak and/or does haveenough advantages to challenge a good human player. But some people, inclunding me, are just natural turtlers.
Partial exceptions to that answer can be made though if (1) you are waiting for late-game units and/or (2) discoveries, such as new world and/or new factions such as Mongol/Timurid invasions. To my mind though they are hardly compelling, and it would be very boring for a blitz player to wait 100 turns for the Mongols to show.
I tried to turtle in Rome once, with Brutii, after playing Medieval. My plan was to build up Tarentum(?) and the other starting city, Croton?... It's amazing how much more difficult RTW is compared to MII, I was very close to losing that campaign and I had to fight several desperate battles to get out of the bind I was in after both greek city states and macedonia went to war with my 2 settlement "empire" :p I think I was at war with Gaul as well hehe.
Short answer to the OP, you turtle to use other units than spearmen and to make it a little bit harder for yourself i suppose.
Yah, with all honesty, I wish for a TW game where we HAVE to turtle and use diplomacy to survive at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Proserpine
I think CA could use some change in political sciences people. TW series, so far, have been way too much morally nihilistic and neo-liberal.
Not sure what you mean by "neo-liberal" in this context, though by "morally nihilistic" you presumably refer to the emphasis on war/conquest as the route to victory. To my mind there has yet to be a TW (or similar) game where the AI can't be beaten, without cheating/exploits, by a good human player. And AI's are particularly vulnerable to the sort of blitz tactics that the likes of ATPG favour. That is a limitation of AI/programming not pol sci.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLastPrivate
I enjoy turtling and building my economy---I tend to be liberal and like my little society to grow and thrive peaceably, and therefore don't attack other people (excluding rebels) except to defend myself. So I just spend the first 60 or so turns building my economy, getting diplomatic relations, and getting things in order for when someone strikes at me. Liberal does not mean defenseless. Eventually someone does attack, and I beat them back. They persist, they get excommunicated for their trouble and then they, like the rebels, are fair game for annihilation. My people just want to be left alone, but if the outside forces are determined to invade me, then they must be taught a lesson. It seems to me that the game's philosophy is clearly neo-conservative: kill everyone before they have a chance to attack you, whether or not they are actually a threat to you, and above all remember that alliances aren't worth the paper they're printed on since everyone can be bought off.
I feel this way too...Quote:
Originally Posted by Galain_Ironhide
To me, a major goal in any of my campaigns is to build a ridiculously powerful empire- not just a powerful military. Economics, technology, architecture, etc...I like to bring them all up to high standards and really dominate the world as a superpower.
As for multiplayer? I'm not convinced a blitzer would always just decimate a turtler. If the blitzer's initial blitz was repelled by the turtler, the game could turn into a "cold war" period with an arms race ...and the turtler's counter attack would be significantly more powerful than the blitzer's initial or subsequent invasions.
I doubt I would blitz in MP. I would tighten the defenses and set traps ...awaiting the inevitable invasion from a blitzer. After I withstood his initial invasion, I would start getting small bands of guerillas and mercenaries running raids into his lands as I built up the counter attack and my economy. I would imagine that if I made it past this point safely, I would be the one doing the blitzing beyond that point.
Still, it would be entirely dependent upon that initial defense. Regardless, my entire style of play in any situation is to build, build, build and play the "defend enemy invasion and then counterattack in large numbers" strategy. I just think the advantage always goes to the defender- In a single battle as well as in a large scale war.
"He who does not attack, will be attacked"- my response? Yeah...so?
I think what your are missing is the fact that you do not get to play out your defensive battles as you play the battles where you attack. Therefore a blitzer is always playing against the AI, and we all know what that means. Basically what I am saying is that if you don't blitz and gain more cities to enhance your economy so much that you can afford full stack garrisons you will be on the back foot.
Basically I feel that a blitz player will always beat a turtle in a PvP match. The reason is not so much the superiority of one style over the other, but the blitz player will always slaughter the AI factions first, then come after the turtle with a massive advantage in resources. The turtle cannot build fast enough to counter this. ATPG has proved it to my satisfaction.
There are two ways to even this up: multiplayer (no AI) with 50:50 blitz:turtle players and/or, in PvP impose a house rule forbidding conquest of the AI factions (you can defend but not attack them).
Yeah, ATPG has plenty well convinced me that a blitzer will almost always beat a turtler. It's kind of too bad there isn't a blitz mode for the AI.
Nahhh... Turtling is the best. Especially when you finally train your victory army (or at least my version) composed of 3 sword & bucklermen, 3 Tercios, 2-3 Gendarme, 4 arquebusiers , and 4 Basilisks. For the fun of it march them right to to kill that pesky Pope in thy name.:laugh4:
I know Its a pricy army but makes it realistic to the Troops use in the Italian wars.
I challenge you to a DUEL TO THE DEATH, Lancome.
We shall see whose strategem is better.
:skull::skull::skull::skull::skull::skull::skull:
This is why we need a legitimate TW MP campaign at some point...Quote:
Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy
The thing is ATPG - While you're building florins/experienced troops/provinces early against the AI factions, the turtler is going to be teching up, increasing troop numbers and troop producing capabilities (while you're fighting wars) as well as setting the stage for the coming war in which they'll be defending initially.
I would think that in Total War, a turtler would be a more formidable enemy than in any MP strategy game before. Once you take the total RTS out of the equation and throw in the turn based hybrid that is TW, things are different.
Again though - it's 2 play styles and we're both just theorizing. I repeat: This is why we need a TW MP campaign at some point. We already have an active enough community just on the .org alone that we could have large numbers of player factions in campaigns if they were available tomorrow.
Not hot seat. A real campaign.
If we're talking about M2TW, I believe the duel to the death thread has conclusively proven, turtling gets destroyed by blitzing.
The power graphs alone are daunting. When one side is ten times the other side in terms of total strength, and the blitzer is capturing entire empires filled with turtle-y goodness (fortresses, large cities, etc), you have one turtle empire versus 5 turtle empires all under the direct control of one blitzer empire. Turtles just cannot do what blitzers can, given equal starting strength, or even a handicap against them. Starting as Oman versus Jerusalem, or Sindh versus the Ayyubids... unless you blitz as well you cannot keep up.
The only way it doesnt work is if the turtle is on the border of the blitzer's empire. And in such a case, it wouldn't be a blitzer versus turtle game, it would be a cage match. And there is a different strategy for a cage match. I am still open to the idea of being proven wrong about blitzers triumphing over turtles 100 percent of the time, but I am still looking for a seriously strong turtle who doesn't fear getting his head smashed in.
Takers?
:medievalcheers:
But I dont think The Blitz dude would ever get to touch the Turtler early in the Game if their Factions are far away. One such example Britain(Blitz) vs. Egypt (turtle)... Perhaps by early mid game... but by then The turtler should have units able to easily hack :smash: away on the spearmen and Peasants.
Care to test your hypothesis in my mad scientist's lab of death incarnate?
So hypothetically - in a real campaign and we're both Catholic: You just get excomm'd within the first 10 turns?Quote:
Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy
I mean if that's the case, any difficulty at all in one of your wars and immediately the turtler could invade you and turn the tables fast. Right, especially if they're a border faction. Now you're screwed.
Care to test your hypothesis in my mad scientist's lab of death incarnate? :laugh2:Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtistofWarfare
Ok what if there is a random button and you end up being england and I Egypt... would you be able to Blitz me if you didnt know which specific faction I were to be. :whip:Quote:
Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy
That's the thing: Either the turtler starts out bordering or semi enveloped in the blitzer's kingdom or they are located far away and there won't be any early clash between the two factions any way. Hence, by the time the faction's did clash - the turtler isn't some early period 6 province faction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lancome
If it's dozens upon dozens of turns into the game and the turtler has 12-20 provinces...regardless of how big the blitzer is there's absolutely no guarantee on that war. Clearly, the turtler will be fielding better quality troops and obviously wouldn't be short on numbers.
Thank you ArtistofWarfare... as for you Askthepizzaguy (aka Rummel) Blitz has its limits when Great distance is involved. ~:joker:
As long as we were not neighboring factions, and you did not use a blitz strategy, I feel confident that you will join the ranks of those I have vanquished.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lancome
And PS, I have proven the greater the distance, the more royally screwed you are.
Most powerful, aggressive nations do feel confident...Quote:
Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy
The problem is when you move 6,000 medium quality (but your best) troops into my provinces for your invasion and you lose the first battle along with 3,200+ troops.
Now you're "at war" with me and there's no reason to believe you will win either than by sheer numbers. That's one factor out of hundreds.
We're not even discussing specifics so this is degenerating. The point is that in a REAL mp campaign where everything is as is but it's players behind the factions, you wouldn't have one player to worry about...as there would be several on the map and the AI factions would basically be what rebels are in a single player campaign today.
You really wouldn't be able to just blitz AI factions - and if you did, you know very well you'd be invaded by a player.
If there are 4 factions under player control and I'm France, while you're the Byzantines - there wouldn't be a situation where you would be bee-lining it to my faction right off of the get go. And if you did, you just threw your chances of winning out the window.Quote:
Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy
Let's be real...
If we're far apart, by the time we do meet - I'm not 6 provinces and undeveloped. You might be bigger , but you're putting the ENTIRETY of what determines who wins a war into who controls more land.
Not to Mention Pizza's Large amount of troops and underdeveloped economy :no: to support them in far campaigns. :whip:Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtistofWarfare
To be clear:
I'm only referring to two-player, turtle versus blitzer games.
And in all cases, 100% of the time, turtle loses. Ask those who have played turtle against me. Visit my duel thread.
In all other cases, blitzer will lose because all the other nations rise as one to attack me. Two different arguments.
If you would like to test your theory, in one on one campaign battle, I invite you to duel me to the death and see the results.
:bow:
LOLZ
Underdeveloped economy?
:wall:
The single fastest way to grow an economy is sacking other territories while building your own. Before this discussion continues further, please read my duel thread and hear testimonials and witness the results of actual death combat, turtle versus blitzer.
And if thats not enough, I cordially invite you to battle me.
See my signature.
I must go now, but I will be back to hear your responses.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Well to be clear myself: I'm not talking about a duel to the death between 2 player factions and the rest AI farm factions.
I'm talking about a real multiplayer campaign ...with anything from 3 players, to every faction controlled by players.
In that situation, my previous thoughts apply.
p.s.- Again, in that situation the blitzer is excomm'd almost immediately and DOES have an underdeveloped economy. Your army sacks/pillages and profits yes...but your Kingdom does not have a developed economy. Your economy stalls as soon as you get into a war with a faction who starts beating you on the battlefield. At that point you're at the old "decrease troops or start losing money" choice. A faction in that shape, taking losses, is hardly some blitzing war machine that is going to paint Europe it's own color.
The problem is, there's no such game as this. In the game we have, there is no "faction who starts beating you [the blitzer] on the battlefield." It just doesn't happen. Maybe if the game were modded to make all the AI factions fully-upgraded Timurid armies at the beginning it would but otherwise, uh, no.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtistofWarfare
That said, I enjoying turtling myself when I play the game. It's just how I like to do it. But clearly it ain't the most efficient way to go about things.:whip:
It's an interesting question. At some point in my computer gaming life I became a turtle without realizing it, having started out as a blitzer.
I think it's because the AI in so many games could only counterattack. It couldn't mount a successful assault; that was too complicated to program. It couldn't defend particularly well; that was way too complicated to program. But in early computer wargames, one after another, if you were successfully attacking, the AI would build (often with built-in cheats to enable it) a Stack of Doom and drive it through the weakest part of your territory. It was mutually assured destruction, because it didn't prevent you from doing the same. And yes, Sid Meier, I'm looking at you here. And SSI.
Then, after the first enemy suicide-attacked, the AI, sensing weakness, would pile on until every enemy on the board followed suit. Even if you survived, just triggering the suicide SoD made it almost impossible to win.
So at some point, I got in the habit of building big honking garrisons and keeping at least one defensive stack to defend the counterattack, regardless of what game I was playing. As games have gotten more sophisticated, it's less necessary (just ask ATPG here, or Sulla over on the Civ IV sites), but now it's a habit.
Did you not read the post of mine that you're quoting?Quote:
Originally Posted by gardibolt
It clearly describes the situation I'm talking about. As mentioned multiple times: It's hypothetical since we don't have a real MP campaign to play.
That said: I doubt you go the entirety of your VH/VH campaigns and never lose one battle. I just...really doubt that.
But once again: In a real MP campaign, we don't know whether turtling or blitzing is more effective because we don't have a real MP campaign to play against eachother as things stand today.
If referring to me, and from your post's wording you're not :clown:
I do lose around 10 battles or so by the end of the campaign. Mostly it's naval battles with my leftover mercenary ships dying from pirate attacks.
I quoted Gardibalt. That should clear up the confusion, no?Quote:
Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy
I didn't think you were referring to me, but I was following the conversation and something seemed out of place in your post, so I thought I would make certain.
The part about the vh/vh not losing battles thing... I guess I thought that comment came out of nowhere and seemed like it would be something someone would ask me.
:bow:
PS you have a kick-arse signature logo.
Look - I said posts ago that this was degenerating. That's quite a bit my own fault. It becomes a frustrating debate when we really have very, very little hard information to go by. It's all hypothetical.Quote:
Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy
In the duel mode campaign you're describing: Agreed- To turtle is to simply be inactive and weak. It just wouldn't make any sense strategically in that situation.
In the mode I'm talking about (aka, full blown campaign with player controlled factions): Well, I don't know. All I know is what I've stated and that is the various benefits the turtle would have given those circumstances.
If I came across as a little testy tonight - sorry. It's been a long day ya know?
Just know that I don't look down on blitzers or anything like that. Nor do I turtle every single time I start a campaign. I go with what seems strategically and logistically optimal.
Regarding the signature logo: It's garbage and I know it :laugh4: I'm far from an expert when it comes to artwork and signatures etc. My copy and pasting of a jpg file was about the best I could muster when I updated my profile earlier this week. This is something I plan on learning a bit about over time as when I see some of the amazing signatures floating around out there - I get envious.
p.s.- I wasn't referring to you when I said "I doubt you go the entire campaign on VH/VH without losing a battle". I was quoting Gardibolt. He basically implied that if you started the game in 1080 @ war with Timurids on steroids he STILL would be undefeated in the field and at sea. I just don't see that as realistic. I mean as which faction? Scotland, Denmark, France, HRE, Turks...etc? He's going like 250-0 in a campaign? Uh uh.
Not to press the subject, but I feel that the hotseats between 10 to 16 or more players that we do are fair tests for whether or not blitzing is good in that situation. And let me tell you, it's a dumb idea to blitz in that situation, except perhaps against ONE faction, and with their neighbor's support, too. Then watch as they betray you.
I'm unsure of what kind of multiplayer mode you'd be referring to, but I agree a game like this seems to lack true multiplayability.
As for your signature, I was being honest I like it. If you would like some pointers as to how to make a signature like this:
(see signature below)
Then by all means ask me privately about it and I can help somewhat. Though FactionHeir might be a better source of information, or at least point you in the right direction. He's got awards for a reason, and I don't because... he's got awards.
:grin: @ FactionHeir
1) Don't hot seat modes ignore a lot of other factors that come up during a campaign? In other words, isn't it a bear bones glorified deathmatch basically just using the campaign map as a graphical overlay?Quote:
Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy
2) That's the thing- the true nature of the campaign would determine the viability of both blitzing and turtling. How many humans and how many AI, the rules, the length of the campaign to victory conditions, etc. Only once I knew the entire scenario of the campaign in MP, would I be able to fully determine what my approach would be.
3) Thank you for the props on the sig. If you really like it, I got it from here: (and every faction in the game has one up on the site) http://www.twcenter.net/wiki/France
4) I will definitely be asking BOTH of you about it in the near future :clown: Especially after I get some in game battle screenshots up from my French campaign I'm going to start. I'd like to do something with a background using them.
For some reason this game gets us thinking that turtling is the "standard" gameplay style and blitzing is a deviation.
However, after playing many, many campaigns, I really am convinced that blitzing is the way to go in terms of efficiency with the current game mechanics.
HOWEVER
I refuse to accept it and will continue to turtle because I want CA to improve their diplomacy and AI.If nobody gave a honk about turtling or reputations, there will be little incentive for CA to invest in the required areas.
I play turtle games because that's how I want Total War games to be. I want to play diplomacy.
If I wanted a game where relentless and defenseless offensive with masses of cheap troops win, I can always play Starcraft and mass more zerglings and mutalisks.
I want to stare at the campaign map rigorously calculating the effects and consequences of military actions and diplomatic initiations, and find thrill in the gamble between conquest and diplomatic consequences.
I want the damn world in the campaign map to respond to my actions other than scripted betrayals. I want the very hard difficulty to counter my army composition and block bridges. I want them to ally and push me to the end of my ropes where only a dramatic and epic annhilation of the invaders can save my faction.
..I can still dream, can't I?
Ha, no, I'm not claiming that *I* would never lose a battle on VH/VH. I'm by no means that proficient. Guys who are really good, like ATPG, though, are a different story, and way out of my league.
And I didn't say "never lose a battle." Your original post talked about if the AI "faction starts beating you on the battlefield." That implies to me that you're losing the game to an AI faction, or at least being pushed back hard, not that you never lose a battle. Very different things.
It would be nice if CA would be able to come up with a true multiplayer mode. The AI is never as good as a human foe, no matter what the game, ceteris paribus.