Blitzing = Casual

[Privateerkev]

Blitzing is one challenge. Turtling is another. They are two different ways to play the same game. Assigning value judgments to either is not helpful. Because there are plenty of people who have fun playing both ways.

I don't blitz because it is not fun for me. But I see why others have fun with it. And I am impressed by the logistical challenge and the fact that they refine their "game" to a fine art.

[Proserpine]

In chess, and many other games, there are different ways to play. "Blitz", as used in these forums is nothing to do with Blitzkrieg, a common mistake. It is actually from chess and refers to really short time limit games (like 5 minutes, compared to "long form" chess which has time limits of an hour or more per player). The time limits, in chess, impose a completely different style on the game, make mistakes much more likely, and incidentally make it way more exciting to watch. There are also many variants of chess (usually called "fairy" chess), where the pieces are different from the standard setup, e.g. no knights, or move differently.Then there is "problem" chess. The point being that virtually all games have different modes or ways to extend the gameplay for those who want to.

The other thing is that people have different skill levels, even at different forms of the game. And that is only partly about practice. I will never be a chess grandmaster, if I practiced for the next thousand years, however, I appreciate the skill and dedication involved for those who are grandmasters. Not all grandmasters. I, personally, do want to spend the time to reach even the "average club" level that I could probably obtain in chess. However, I do play chess occasionally (often vs the a computer) because, for me, it is "fun".

Similarly, in STW, RTW, MTW and MTW2 you can play the game in different ways. The problem with the game in this respect is that the "victory conditions" assigned are quite limited in how you go about completing them. I would love it if it was possible to set up something like the old Civ "One City Challenge" (win the game with only one city) in MTW2 - actually there are some good scenarios that approach this. Note to self: try them sometime. Mostly though you resort to "house rules" and essentially build your own variant. This is easy to do (not necessarily easy to win, note), partly because of the way the game is normally played (against the computer) and partly because there are so many rules and options. Some of these I find interesting, some not so, but I appreciate the skill and dedication of those who set up and play such modes, even though not necessarily my thing. In exactlythe same way as I appreciate the skill and dedication of the people who mod the game in various ways, which also takes a huge amount of dedication and effort.

Finally, some people, if enough play it, will find any game "easy". There are great footballers, like pele, and there are park players. I like to think, in MTW2, I am somewhere beyond a park player, but I will never be pele. However, I enjoy reading reports from other players, both those more and less skilled than myself. And I have learned a lot from these forums about how to play the game to the best of my limited ability.

Does Blitz = Casual? Does Blitz = Easy Mode? No to both questions. Blitz in MTW2 is simply a way to play the game, different to, but not inherently better (or worse) than any other way of playing. End of

[TheDruid]

Sure there are many ways to play this game :) But since i see this " a historical " game. i tend to realisticly build up countries. Now correct me if i'm wrong : I only know 1 person who ever blitzt in history ; that would be Alexander The great. all the rest kept armies home to keep peace so...
Even though i already quit many games because i get bored, blitzing would ultimately bore me.
why? there is "no realism" in it. like most games if you know what to do and what the enemy will do its no more game.
Since i'm "hardcore" gamer in an MMO i know a game always has problems dont know how to explain in English though.
its just that there are always ways to make a game easier. I find blitzing one of those. I see cheating just beyond.
this is not an attack on the ones who do ( i usually try cheats, i just get tired of them so quick :) ) Its just taking advantage of something you know that the game is incapable of anticipate on.
I like the historical or role playing campaigns much more.

[Proserpine]

Sure there are many ways to play this game :) But since i see this " a historical " game. i tend to realisticly build up countries. Now correct me if i'm wrong : I only know 1 person who ever blitzt in history ; that would be Alexander The great. all the rest kept armies home to keep peace so...
Even though i already quit many games because i get bored, blitzing would ultimately bore me.
why? there is "no realism" in it. like most games if you know what to do and what the enemy will do its no more game.
Since i'm "hardcore" gamer in an MMO i know a game always has problems dont know how to explain in English though.
its just that there are always ways to make a game easier. I find blitzing one of those. I see cheating just beyond.
this is not an attack on the ones who do ( i usually try cheats, i just get tired of them so quick :) ) Its just taking advantage of something you know that the game is incapable of anticipate on.
I like the historical or role playing campaigns much more.

Other famous historical "blitzers" would in my opinion include: Genghis/Chingis Khan; Timur/Timurlane, and Hannibal, just for starters. Oh, and maybe Clive of India

[Ibn-Khaldun]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

In chess, and many other games, there are different ways to play. "Blitz", as used in these forums is nothing to do with Blitzkrieg, a common mistake. It is actually from chess and refers to really short time limit games (like 5 minutes, compared to "long form" chess which has time limits of an hour or more per player). The time limits, in chess, impose a completely different style on the game, make mistakes much more likely, and incidentally make it way more exciting to watch. There are also many variants of chess (usually called "fairy" chess), where the pieces are different from the standard setup, e.g. no knights, or move differently.Then there is "problem" chess. The point being that virtually all games have different modes or ways to extend the gameplay for those who want to.

The other thing is that people have different skill levels, even at different forms of the game. And that is only partly about practice. I will never be a chess grandmaster, if I practiced for the next thousand years, however, I appreciate the skill and dedication involved for those who are grandmasters. Not all grandmasters. I, personally, do want to spend the time to reach even the "average club" level that I could probably obtain in chess. However, I do play chess occasionally (often vs the a computer) because, for me, it is "fun".

Similarly, in STW, RTW, MTW and MTW2 you can play the game in different ways. The problem with the game in this respect is that the "victory conditions" assigned are quite limited in how you go about completing them. I would love it if it was possible to set up something like the old Civ "One City Challenge" (win the game with only one city) in MTW2 - actually there are some good scenarios that approach this. Note to self: try them sometime. Mostly though you resort to "house rules" and essentially build your own variant. This is easy to do (not necessarily easy to win, note), partly because of the way the game is normally played (against the computer) and partly because there are so many rules and options. Some of these I find interesting, some not so, but I appreciate the skill and dedication of those who set up and play such modes, even though not necessarily my thing. In exactlythe same way as I appreciate the skill and dedication of the people who mod the game in various ways, which also takes a huge amount of dedication and effort.

Finally, some people, if enough play it, will find any game "easy". There are great footballers, like pele, and there are park players. I like to think, in MTW2, I am somewhere beyond a park player, but I will never be pele. However, I enjoy reading reports from other players, both those more and less skilled than myself. And I have learned a lot from these forums about how to play the game to the best of my limited ability.

Does Blitz = Casual? Does Blitz = Easy Mode? No to both questions. Blitz in MTW2 is simply a way to play the game, different to, but not inherently better (or worse) than any other way of playing. End of

Now that was a good post

And I share this opinion of Ramses..

All this stuff is supposed to be about fun. If you're not having fun, you're doing something wrong. If the way someone else has fun makes you angry, you've really missed the point of entertainment altogether.

Everyone plays the game in their own way. Some like to do it fast, some will take it slow. And no one should say that because they don't like the way others play it then they play it in a wrong way or your way is right one. Also people should never forget that this is just a game!!!

[gardibolt]

Really, I'm not sure why this is so contentious. I'm a hardcore turtler, and ATPG is a hardcore blitzer, and we have had some back and forth about how the various strategies work, and I think we've 100%managed to be quite respectful about each other's play styles. I dunno why people are starting to take this personally. If you don't like blitzing, don't blitz. I do think it's a little presumptuous to proclaim blitzing is 'easy mode' if you've never tried doing it, though. It'd be one thing to say "I did a couple of blitzes and it was so easy I went back to turtling since it seemed like more of a challenge to me." But that isn't how I'm reading the OP. Of course, I've misread the OP's posts before so maybe I'm missing something.

[TheLastPrivate]

I am sorry but I can't help erase the nuance that what OP is tryign to convey is:

"Turtling requires more skill than blitzing, therefore turtler > blitzer. Blitzers do not deserve the attention they get."

or something along that line. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what I'm receiving from OP's posts.

If anyone read my post; https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...8&postcount=72
you'll see that I insist that turtling be practice as the normative gameplay due to my personal wishes for CA and future
TW titles, but I honestly find this old topic unnecessary of debate, if we can even call this a "debate." I'm pretty disappointed actually, and I'm willing to compare turtle vs. blitz debate with euthanasia, abortion, and gun control debates at this point.

[Warmaster Horus]

From what I see, the Blitzing vs Turtling debate is like those issues. Mainly, it's a matter of opinion.

We all are different. I like to lounge in bed for 5 minutes before getting up, while my best mate litterally springs up from the bed. Same thing with gaming. We've all got different styles. Let's live with it. Leave the debate standing, and have the result be a draw. Blitzers will blitz, Turtlers will turtle. Blitzers will post their achievements, and Turtlers can as well (somehow... Getting to the end date will be one thing).

While the debate is understandable (even though I think it's ridiculous to try to convince the other side here), starting - continuing, rather - the debate the way the OP did is inexcusable. If there's one thing that does not work in debating, it's insulting your opponent. And that's what the OP did, as I understand.

My two cents... That's all.

[Doug-Thompson]

Well, as it says in my signature ...

[TheDruid]

Other famous historical "blitzers" would in my opinion include: Genghis/Chingis Khan; Timur/Timurlane, and Hannibal, just for starters. Oh, and maybe Clive of India

2 of those 4 i dont even know :(
Hannibal and Genghis Khan did great things yes. but they did not conquer the by that time known world. as that is what i meant.
Hitler's generals did a good blitz as well, but they didnt even conquer a quarter of the world.
you understand what i'm trying to say?
off course blitzing as you name could be quite interesting if you are not that experienced in it.
But my experience in every game i have played is that you may come at a point when gaming isn't gaming anymore, but beating the game by using its limits.
Lets say in game milanese seem to conquer a lot and become very strong : with that knowing before it will happen you can anticipate it. just like going to the limits of the AI. I really cannot explain well in English.
btw I do seem wanting to know how you can conquer 106 provinces in less than 30 turns. how do you mobilize?
Perhaps that would be the greatest challenge (for me)

[SirRethcir]

Hm, I think there a two meanings for blitzing used in discussion.
1. overrun the AI
2. do 1. in the least amount of turns

I admit 1. is easy an can be very boring and I don't recommend it.
But 2. is hard and a challenge.
So, if I'm talking of 'blitzing', I mean 2.

Correction:
I'm not a green, nor am I a casual player.
I play TW since the Shogun-Demo.

And, yes, it is hard to play M2TW in a historical manner, cause it has very very few in common with the 'real' history and historical conditions.

[TheDruid]

Hm, I think there a two meanings for blitzing used in discussion.
1. overrun the AI
2. do 1. in the least amount of turns

I admit 1. is easy an can be very boring and I don't recommend it.
But 2. is hard and a challenge.
So, if I'm talking of 'blitzing', I mean 2.

Correction:
I'm not a green, nor am I a casual player.
I play TW since the Shogun-Demo.

And, yes, it is hard to play M2TW in a historical manner, cause it has very very few in common with the 'real' history and historical conditions.

That is nicely said what i was trying to say.
now for your point 2 i mean that if you go so quick, the AI always does the same moves (in my opinion in the beginning ) so you can counteract and perfect the game.
As said i am interested in how you do that, i probably will try it to seek it out.
But once you are perfecting your gameplay thats when it gets so boring.
Or is there someone who finds if you do 2 the exactly same campaign, the AI will not react 2 the same?

[Proserpine]

2 of those 4 i dont even know :(
Hannibal and Genghis Khan did great things yes. but they did not conquer the by that time known world. as that is what i meant.
Hitler's generals did a good blitz as well, but they didnt even conquer a quarter of the world.
you understand what i'm trying to say?
off course blitzing as you name could be quite interesting if you are not that experienced in it.
But my experience in every game i have played is that you may come at a point when gaming isn't gaming anymore, but beating the game by using its limits.
Lets say in game milanese seem to conquer a lot and become very strong : with that knowing before it will happen you can anticipate it. just like going to the limits of the AI. I really cannot explain well in English.
btw I do seem wanting to know how you can conquer 106 provinces in less than 30 turns. how do you mobilize?
Perhaps that would be the greatest challenge (for me)

Well Alex conquered most of what he knew, but he also knew that the "known world" was not the same as "the world that can be known". Timur is in MTW2 (founder of the Timurids), in reality he spent most of his life fighting, he won the battles but could not establish a stable empire. Genghis would have conquered more for sure if he had lived longer - his empire was considerably larger than Alexander's I think. Clive of India was a British soldier who won the battle of Plassey (1757, I think) that resulted - ultimately - in the conquest by Britain of India.

[TheDruid]

so : Alexander made the " known" world bigger.
Timur : failed & unstable lands
Genghis : died as you said, so he didnt conquer all.
Clive of India : This is the first time i heard of him.... (says enough i think)

And as for timur and Genghis Khan : Steppe armies fight alot other in woods.
As TW player you should know ;) lol
Genghis was great yes. But what would the horse archers do in the forests lets say against Brute Danish men (my favourites :) ), or against the European spearmen....

Back on topic ; AOW is right when he says there are blitzers here who say turtling is "green"
cannot remember name of post however but i read that one as well.
I do remember it was not the Pizzaguy who wrote it though.

And if find this topic is quite the same as the : how to get the best kingdom in 22 turns turtle challenge
===> both over the same topic , both as stupid.

You ever played : who becomes multimillionaire on console?
if you have an answer wrong, next time you get the same questions , so you know the right answer and go on.
That is the way i find blitzing.. still cant find the right words

[Ferret]

Somone's a little jealous methinks...

Listen to the wise words of the Pharaoh:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I must suggest that bragging on a forum about how 'hardcore' a gamer an individual might be is an unhealthy sign. I've played my fair share of MTWII and plenty of other games, but I've somehow never found myself tempted to tie my ego up in that particular fact. We're talking about light entertainment here, an almost inherently unskilled pursuit. I mean, in my prime I was a pretty spectacular television watcher, and I could surf channels with the best of them, but I still managed to avoid demeaning the sad little weak-thumbed peasants who were outside running around in the grass throwing footballs like clowns.

All this stuff is supposed to be about fun. If you're not having fun, you're doing something wrong. If the way someone else has fun makes you angry, you've really missed the point of entertainment altogether.

And from personal experience all of the casual gamers I have seen play are extreme turtles, lacking enough experience in the game to pull off a blitz. One person I knew was playing RTW as the Julii and managed to conquer the few Gallic places in Northern Italy by turn 100...

[FactionHeir]

Please stay on topic. 2 posts removed. (yes, that means you, ATPG )

[ArtistofWarfare]

requesting move to monastery...

More history mentioned here than on the Military Channel.

[KarlXII]

I do not see historical discussion

Anyway,

Blitzing and Turtling are used frequently in RTS games. It is not a "new" or "green" thing, it is a gaming term.

[ArtistofWarfare]

I just double checked...

I sure do see historical discussion

[Ethelred Unread]

Hmm, the title is Blitzing = Casual so any historical content is either to back up an arguement or off topic.



I'd have to disagree because surely pulling off a succesful blitz would require strategic planning, not seen in casual gamers?

In successful blitz I would assume not to be using save/load, the console or even autoresolve.

IMHO these would be casual gamers. Exploiting the AI, whilst distateful to me as a player, isn't really the actions of a casual gamer as they would have had to put some time in learning how the AI works in order to be able to exploit it, again not the marks of a casual gamer.

[Askthepizzaguy]

to Ethelred Unread. Good post!

For blitzers, in terms of competitive, every-tile-every-turn, full on hardcore blitzing, autoresolve is allowed, and if those results aren't favorable, reloading is allowed. (Saves time, fight your own battles if the computer cannot pull it off).

In actual campaigning, I see autoresolve as a bit of a cheap play, because it usually ignores walls. And besides, when I actually campaign, it's purely for the battles, because I already know how to annihilate the AI on the campaign map too easily.

[Carlos Matthews]

When blitzing you have to rely on poor starting troops to beat the computers poor starting troops, easy enough right? Then you need to keep these poor troops alive and defeating hundreds and thousands of Ai poor troops. Then if they die you have to then rely on poor quality mercenaries, you have to be able to fund them also which means keep moving.

When turtling you use good human brainwork to queue up beneficial buildings and troops which can easily slaughter the rabble the AI has. Now do you see the true test of blitzing AoW?

[Askthepizzaguy]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

From my understanding, he's no longer with us.

Good post, though Carlos. And you're absolutely right that your starting troops get creamed as the blitz continues unabated, however; crusaders/jihadis and mercenaries, as well as reinforcements from the territories you claim, all ADD to your total troop count. This is necessary because as you expand you will be fighting 10 or more empires simultaneously, and you need a decent general and some fair troops on every front.

[TheLastPrivate]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

From my understanding, he's no longer with us.

Did I miss something?

One fun factor of blitzing is that I get to have high quality generals when I need it where I need it.

When I turtle generals usually don't get past 3 stars most of the time, since a general will MAYBE conquer one province during his entire lifetime...

[Askthepizzaguy]

I cannot say for certain.


But yes, the ONLY way to build a general is to engage in multiple pitched battles, exterminating or releasing consistently, and joining crusades or not ever joining them.

[coldpolar]

i find i have to 'hot-house' generals if i want a superstar by sending them on prolonged wars either hurtling around the provinces picking up new armies, taking the city and then moving on himself. or alternatively command a field army in an active front. got a nice candidate after finally winning over north italy now. best concentrated on kings and princes tho.

[TheLastPrivate]

Turtling will enable the micromangement of building good governnors (not generals) and ancillaries/traits via city swapping and construction.

But in this game, high chivlary/dread will make better governor than anyone with less chiv/dread and more governor-related stats.

[pevergreen]

Anyone wishing to discuss AoW should not do so in this thread, there topics in the watchtower, or you can PM me.