Why Turtle

[Ferret]

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.

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...

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

[Askthepizzaguy]

I love the name dropping, Elite Ferret. Keep up the good work!

[Mount Suribachi]

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...

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

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 them

[Proserpine]

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.

[Dead Guy]

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.

[TheLastPrivate]

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.

Yah, with all honesty, I wish for a TW game where we HAVE to turtle and use diplomacy to survive at all.

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.

[Proserpine]

Yah, with all honesty, I wish for a TW game where we HAVE to turtle and use diplomacy to survive at all.

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.

[gardibolt]

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.