How good can you make your kingdom in 22 turns?

[Kadagar_AV]

If you want a debate, please refrain from using "stupid" to support your argument.

If the HRE decide to skip Danmark, it wouldnt be blitzing anymore.

Why? Is it a "must" for HRE to attack Denmark? He has 3 other directions he can pick and choose from.

If they go to attack danmark, they also have to attack other countries otherwise this wouldnt be blitzing.

Again, why? There are numerous ways to blitz... If the game was player vs player, 2 players only, there is no reason to expand much if you can win in 10-15 turns by sending wave after wave of cheap troops:)

The HRE can maximum Bring one full stack To danmark in the first turns.

First of all, no need to use full stacks:)
Secondly, the game mechanics would allow me to have the equivalent of a couple of stacks in denmark faster than you think, using the crusade system.

A bit abusive though, but even without abuse there wouldnt take many turns before 4-5 ful stacks where on danish soil:)

Also the danish can block the bridge at Hamburg So the HRE has to fight bridge battle in advantage of Danmark against more and better men.

I would go around the bridge though... and take Hamburg... Then attack the bridge from two sides, if you didnt leave it to save hamburg:)

[Askthepizzaguy]

Generally speaking, the first person to use an ad hominem style attack, is the first person to lose any rational debate.

[gardibolt]

Try it in a custom battle

I think the knights (if dismounted) will tear through those spearmen though. If mounted, they would anyway unless you play modded

That's kind of my point. 10 Levy spearmen units is obviously more units and more men than three units of knights. But their numbers pretty clearly don't make them "better."

[Kadagar_AV]

That's kind of my point. 10 Levy spearmen units is obviously more units and more men than three units of knights. But their numbers pretty clearly don't make them "better."

You ARE kidding, right?

Before writing stuff taken from out in the air, could you PLEASE just spend some time testing it?

I did some quick testing, and not even when I played as stupid as I possibly could (charging the general in first to let him die, and so on) did the knights ever win.

So yes, the numbers pretty clearly makes them "better"

And pretty please, test stuff like this before claiming things, you might confuse some new player visiting the boards.

The test I did was 10 spear militia vs 3 units of dismounted feudal knights. Flat map.

[FactionHeir]

Testing it once is not informative. There are always chance results.

To really test it you need to play both the spears and the swords variably and each under VH no upgrades to either side. At least 20 times to get a decent outcome.

Just testing it once without specifying difficult etc and coming back and flaming others is not helpful.

[Kadagar_AV]

Of course ... I did 2 tests from each perspective, flat map, VH/VH, no chevrons.

"Quick testing" for me is 2 games per side, one game when I play as stupid as I can, one where I play as good as I can.

Thus, 4 tests were made (2x2)

I did not "flame", I just completely argued against his position based on my prio knowledge and tests done...

And added that some testing would be nice to see before claiming stuff like this, to not confuse players seeking information....

EDIT: I didnt say I only ran the test once... Also, no, 20 tests are needed to get an exact number, not to prove a theory wrong. IE, Elephant artillery vs peasants.... You need 20 tests to judge the outcome? Of course not (allthough I dont argue you need it to get more exact numbers). However, 4 tests is sufficient to prove a obviosly false theory wrong, and saves me the repetition of doing 20 tests just to show the LEVEL of error. Showing the error is sufficient in a case like this, methinks. Am i wrong?

[El Diablo]

I don't think it was so much the content of your post that was wrong it was more the type of discussion. Agressive negativity can get people backs up and results in flaming wars.

You may passionatly think that something is worong but just keeping it civil heps to get your point across.

Also it is very hard to judge the type of post when it is simply written down. You maybe trying to emphasie your point but alot of the good work can be undone by agressive posting that was probably not even intentional.

However - you did make a very good point and to get back on topic -

Perhaps the COST of the unit in a custom battle (to take account of any upgrades) could be the way to judge the value of the units. I know that some units are overpriced and hence over valued, but as a even way to determine an empires military value it could work?

Thoughts?

[Kadagar_AV]

You are right... However, I do get a little bit tired when I have to do the tedious testing just because someone chooses to make claims taken from thin air... I was not, however, insulting. I was just pleading for him to actually test his theorys before writing stuff that is, well, wrong. You know, I find it more insulting when people claim things that are not true, than when people correct them, harshly.

I guess I am just an elitist:)

On topic:

The value is rather hard to measure in defenite (sp?) terms...

Specially when it comes to upgrades...

A low cost unit with upgrades, will still not beat a high cost unit without upgrades, for the same money spent (in most cases).

[El Diablo]

Passionate can sometime come across (unintentionally) in the written word as agressive. Please don't think I was meaning you were agressive it was more the style in which it was written could be taken the wrong way. If that seems inflamatory to you I appologise.

But we are both reading off the same song sheet now so back to topic....

I realise that the monetary value system is flawed however it is consistent and easy for everyone to use.

Otherwise people will claim I can beat such and such with only this and that.
Some people put a higher value on cav, some on infantry and others on things like HA.

The cost of the units seems to me to take out personal bias in the valuation of the troops.

[Askthepizzaguy]

One versus one, elite troops obviously kick... "booty".

Looks at FactionHeir and flashes a grin.

However, spamming good militia troops or average, low cost troops, fully upgraded and standing side-by-side with other spam stacks... easier to replace and more places to recruit them for most of the campaign... more likely to have higher experience, and so on; I believe that medium-strength inexpensive troops will ultimately defeat superior forces. I lose one stack and spam another one. Elite loses a stack and must wait for another good one to be assembled.

Unless it's turn 150 or later, the balance of power favors the masses. (IMO, H though it may not be. )

[El Diablo]

I think the question at the moment is not how good you can get it but rather how to quantify what you have.

What you can personally do with the relevant troops is moot, it is more what value can be assigned to it so that one can compare their kingdom with another.

For example (and I don't have M2TW in front of me so I know the numbers will be wrong)

Kingdom "A" has a stack with 5 milita spearmen with silver chevrons and bronze weapons upgrades.

Go into the "custom battle" for that faction and see how much a militia spearmen unit with silver chev and bronze weapons would cost you.

Yes it is very crude - but it is consistent for all factions.

[Ibn-Khaldun]

Kingdom "A" has a stack with 5 milita spearmen with silver chevrons and bronze weapons upgrades.

Go into the "custom battle" for that faction and see how much a militia spearmen unit with silver chev and bronze weapons would cost you.

But this is custom battle and not campaign. In campaign you will pay only for the unit and the upgrades. If you use them in battles they will get those chevrons for free. So it would be a lot cheaper in campaign. Can't make decisions depending on things in custom battles.

I agree with ATPG here. Spamming those cheap militia troops can lead you to victory over an opponent who uses those high cost high tier troops. You just can't replace/retrain high tier units fast enough to make an effective stand against a multiple stack of militia spearmen.

[El Diablo]

Sorry if I have missed the point here... (it happens a lot)

I thought that we were trying to see how good you could make your kingdom in 22 turns.

Thus being able to compare different turtlers?

Thus you would compare income, provinces, construction and upgrades.

I had the impression that it would be a sort of kingdom wide "stocktake" at the "close of trading" on the 22nd turn????

One of the things that was mentioned was how do you put a value on your troops. It was obviously wrong to just count up the number of troops or even stacks. If player "b" had gone to the effort (and cost) of getting a stack of elites he would be penalised over the mass produced stack of milita fodder.

Thus to put a value on those troops you can compare types really as some are better with Cav than others and come are great with almost no troops at all....

So I thought the value of the troops would be the cost they would be in custom battle. It would be a alot of worrk but it would be consistant(ish) from faction to faction.

I realise that AFTER the 22 turn swarms of milita turning the turtle into a blitz would be the way to go but I had the impression that this was a turtler style thread.

If I am in error just ignore me and I will eventually go away...

[Proserpine]

Sorry if I have missed the point here... (it happens a lot)

I thought that we were trying to see how good you could make your kingdom in 22 turns.

Thus being able to compare different turtlers?

Thus you would compare income, provinces, construction and upgrades.

I had the impression that it would be a sort of kingdom wide "stocktake" at the "close of trading" on the 22nd turn????

One of the things that was mentioned was how do you put a value on your troops. It was obviously wrong to just count up the number of troops or even stacks. If player "b" had gone to the effort (and cost) of getting a stack of elites he would be penalised over the mass produced stack of milita fodder.

Thus to put a value on those troops you can compare types really as some are better with Cav than others and come are great with almost no troops at all....

So I thought the value of the troops would be the cost they would be in custom battle. It would be a alot of worrk but it would be consistant(ish) from faction to faction.

I realise that AFTER the 22 turn swarms of milita turning the turtle into a blitz would be the way to go but I had the impression that this was a turtler style thread.

If I am in error just ignore me and I will eventually go away...

No I think (as OP) that you have a valid point. That is broadly what I was thinking of.

[Askthepizzaguy]

@ ED


The reason why I guess we aren't going with the bottom line stock price is because all the money in the world isn't as good as men on the field when it comes to defense.

To realistically compare a turtler versus a blitzer, you gotta have men on the field. I'm just curious as to how many a turtle, focusing on his economic development, can come up with. I personally know the answer, but some have opined that a turtle could match up quite nicely with a blitzer, because of their superior economic power and better troops.

I honestly don't see much difference in growth after 22 turns, which is around the time when the entire world has been conquered by the blitzer, while the turtle has built several ports and a marketplace or two.



If I be more reasonable and give the turtler 40 turns of growth, they might be able to field more impressive armies. Myself and I believe the original poster wanted to see if the vaunted turtle growth power strategy stacked up defense-wise against a blitzer.

I can tell you from experience that no way, no how, unless you give 100 turns of growth, will a turtle be able to defend properly in the grand campaign of vanilla, or most mods. And by then, the blitzer has conquered the rest of the map and developed a "turtle" empire inside his own borders thrice the size, thereby winning the growth/economic development war as well.

This is all just my opinion though. I personally believe the turtle is doomed, but some are still curious as to how doomed, or if they are necessarily so doomed at all. So this particular challenge is about how powerful/combat ready a turtle could make his empire in preparation for a blitz attack. To me it's a matter of how "turtle" their strategy is. If they expand AND develop, they might stand a better chance.

A little off the subject, but I believe the defense of the turtle strategy comes from experiences as a turtle, where some 30-40 turns into the campaign, someone has developed quite well and has been able to field impressive armies, maybe 3 or 4 stacks of them, top notch troops. When exposed to the potential of one's empire, people are more vehement in their defensive strategy. It's just that the AI doesn't know how to expand or attack worth anything, and when confronted with a total annihilation blitzer, the map will get rolled up and the turtle will not be able to reach their full potential in time, and their money will be wasted on buildings which get destroyed and did not invest in enough defensive forces to repel the attack.

It's a matter of pride, I believe. One would think, logically, that developing and defending would prevail over someone who invests nearly nothing in their economy and pushes only for massing a giant force. Unfortunately, in this game, it doesn't work that way. Realism doesn't prevail here, the mass army and sack city strategy prevails. Competitively, that is.

Should both sides choose to roleplay a little bit and expand less quickly, it's anyone's game. If the game begins with both sides enjoying reign over most of the map, like the Hundred Years War scenario, then it's entirely possible that a more realistic defensive strategy could work. But when you have a massive continent to conquer, pillage, sack, and destroy before you even face your opponent, the game becomes a competition between two blitzers, or between two turtles.

Then again, you throw a competent or aggressive AI into the mix, or add more human players, and I've said all along, blitzers die a horrendously painful death.

[Askthepizzaguy]

No I think (as OP) that you have a valid point. That is broadly what I was thinking of.

I may be in error of what the OP had in mind then. My apologies.

[El Diablo]

I have always (assumed) that a blitzer would take out a turtle in M2TW. As ATPG has stated it would come down to numbers and men on the ground. I am not keen to take him on in a 1 on 1 as I struggle with the AI let alone the death god himself.

Slightly off topic...
In a way a blitz was harder to achive in MTW when due to the risk style campaign map you could have a very weak centre that could make your empire a paper tiger and collapse easily. Also with the potential for "civil wars" and "re-emergent factions" leaving a hole in your empire was very risky.

But with the game engine in M2TW so well known and the limits you can play to a blitzer will always win (just the number of turns is variable).

I thought that the OP was trying to determine what "quality" kingdom you could achive by turtling (or at the most moderate conquest) and then comparing. Then given that comparing the apples of an English kingdom with the oranges of say a turkish one how would you compare?

This thread was never about conquest more about how pretty you could make your kingdom (you know weed the garden of rebels and give the citadel a new coat of paint and get rid of those scruffy peasent archers and get and line of nice neat yeoman ones).

Just a differnt style really...

[Galain_Ironhide]

So here it is. You pick any faction. Your goal is to have the largest, most developed and richest kingdom you can possibly have, by turn 22. That is the max, no. of turns before the blitzer will get to you. Sacking is permitted. You can conquer (but you are a turtle not a blitzer, remember). You are in long campaign mode, and the settings are VH/VH.

So amongst all of the debate, has anybody actually bothered to take part in this challenge?

Wheres all the screenshots of glorious 22-turn-old nations?

[coldpolar]

while i agree with ATPG that no turtler can defeat a blitzer one-on-one. though i consider myself very able i would rather not be on the receiving end of his prodigious blitzing skills. however, i feel that by the time such a blitzer hits the turtler he has already won without the two ever having met.

to illustrate my point, as egypt i faced the mongols not much longer after i had first captured the lands around antioch. i had some time to prepare, cannon towers across the board, large if mediocre garrisons in cities, and one high quality field army and one of slightly lesser grade. much to the delight of my ego a long hard-fought campaign was concluded without a single mongol ever having set foot in a city square. i attribute my victory to intelligent manouevers on the battle map with a reliance of fords, good preparation and replenishment of troops, and of course a mixture of luck and poor AI.

i have no doubt that if the roles were reversed and i took charge of the horde the results would have been very different. with one exception- the AI would have lost again.

so i propose i better test would be to pit a blitzer against a map with every faction controlled by players (not acting in union of course). history has shown states utlizing an endlessly aggressive blitz to be the exception and thus only one or at the most two blitzers would be needed as representatives. then i feel it would be very much more debateable the outcome. sadly the situation is hypothetical. happily this means the deabte is potentially endless!

[Kadagar_AV]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

while i agree with ATPG that no turtler can defeat a blitzer one-on-one. though i consider myself very able i would rather not be on the receiving end of his prodigious blitzing skills. however, i feel that by the time such a blitzer hits the turtler he has already won without the two ever having met.

to illustrate my point, as egypt i faced the mongols not much longer after i had first captured the lands around antioch. i had some time to prepare, cannon towers across the board, large if mediocre garrisons in cities, and one high quality field army and one of slightly lesser grade. much to the delight of my ego a long hard-fought campaign was concluded without a single mongol ever having set foot in a city square. i attribute my victory to intelligent manouevers on the battle map with a reliance of fords, good preparation and replenishment of troops, and of course a mixture of luck and poor AI.

i have no doubt that if the roles were reversed and i took charge of the horde the results would have been very different. with one exception- the AI would have lost again.

so i propose i better test would be to pit a blitzer against a map with every faction controlled by players (not acting in union of course). history has shown states utlizing an endlessly aggressive blitz to be the exception and thus only one or at the most two blitzers would be needed as representatives. then i feel it would be very much more debateable the outcome. sadly the situation is hypothetical. happily this means the deabte is potentially endless!