Why Turtle

[Mount Suribachi]

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...?

[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.

[ArtistofWarfare]

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.

I feel this way too...

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?

[Carlos Matthews]

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.

[Proserpine]

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).

[gardibolt]

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.

[Lancome]

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.

I know Its a pricy army but makes it realistic to the Troops use in the Italian wars.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I challenge you to a DUEL TO THE DEATH, Lancome.

We shall see whose strategem is better.

[ArtistofWarfare]

I challenge you to a DUEL TO THE DEATH, Lancome.

We shall see whose strategem is better.

This is why we need a legitimate TW MP campaign at some point...

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.

[Askthepizzaguy]

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?

[Lancome]

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 away on the spearmen and Peasants.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Care to test your hypothesis in my mad scientist's lab of death incarnate?

[ArtistofWarfare]

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?

So hypothetically - in a real campaign and we're both Catholic: You just get excomm'd within the first 10 turns?

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.

[Askthepizzaguy]

So hypothetically - in a real campaign and we're both Catholic: You just get excomm'd within the first 10 turns?

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?

[Lancome]

Care to test your hypothesis in my mad scientist's lab of death incarnate?

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.

[ArtistofWarfare]

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 away on the spearmen and Peasants.

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.

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.

[Lancome]

Thank you ArtistofWarfare... as for you Askthepizzaguy (aka Rummel) Blitz has its limits when Great distance is involved.

[Askthepizzaguy]

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.

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.

[Askthepizzaguy]

And PS, I have proven the greater the distance, the more royally screwed you are.

[ArtistofWarfare]

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.

Most powerful, aggressive nations do feel confident...

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.

[ArtistofWarfare]

And PS, I have proven the greater the distance, the more royally screwed you are.

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.

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.

[Lancome]

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.

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 to support them in far campaigns.

[Askthepizzaguy]

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.