Why Turtle

**Askthepizzaguy** · 09-05-2008, 03:00

LOLZ

Underdeveloped economy?

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:

**ArtistofWarfare** · 09-05-2008, 03:36

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.

**gardibolt** · 09-05-2008, 17:48

Originally Posted by ArtistofWarfare

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.

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.

**Pater Familias** · 09-05-2008, 22:52

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.

**ArtistofWarfare** · 09-06-2008, 01:04

Originally Posted by gardibolt

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.

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.

Did you not read the post of mine that you're quoting?

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.

**Askthepizzaguy** · 09-06-2008, 01:06

If referring to me, and from your post's wording you're not

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.

**ArtistofWarfare** · 09-06-2008, 02:03

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

If referring to me, and from your post's wording you're not

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?

**Askthepizzaguy** · 09-06-2008, 02:22

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.

PS you have a kick-arse signature logo.

**ArtistofWarfare** · 09-06-2008, 02:55

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.

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.

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

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.

**Askthepizzaguy** · 09-06-2008, 03:03

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.

@ FactionHeir

**ArtistofWarfare** · 09-06-2008, 03:10

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

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.

@ 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?

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

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.

**TheLastPrivate** · 09-06-2008, 12:41

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?

**gardibolt** · 09-10-2008, 00:30

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.