Stronger Player - Turtle vs. Hare

[Askthepizzaguy]

I am a turtle. I agonize over each turn, each unit, each agent and character. I will spend decades planning for a two province assault w/diplomacy on the front and back end. I live in my tech tree, trying to get a technological edge. I maintain few armies, but the ones have are structured, well trained and advanced. My economy is my happy place where I like to spend time squeezing every penny I can out of my ppl. I am good chatholic and trusted ally. I play until the map is the color of my faction. I am boring. My playing style would drive most to snort vodka through their nose in order to make the pain go away. But as a turtle, I get the "job" done.

New to the forum, but I read some post from guys who were wrecking shop with Germany in something like 18 turns. I would probably have a heartattack at that speed. So I guess the Blitzers are flashy, by the seat of their pants guys who get all the chicks. But I was wondering, all things being equal, and if player could campaign against each other, who would win? The Turtle or the Hare?

The Hare would win.

Speaking as a guy who demolished 106 regions in 28 turns with the HRE, I can safely say that a hare will put more troops and better troops on the field, and send hordes of mercenaries, crusaders, militia men, and mounted knights at you before you can possibly spit out your first truly incredible high-tech unit.

The sad truth about this game is that 1000 peasants utterly annihilate 100 dismounted knights. The game, as is, without mods, clearly favors more troops over better troops.

The hare is more aggressive, can field more units, has more regions, and can literally conquer his way up the tech tree. Head for Sicily to get an instant Fortress, head for Constantinople to get a big city. Whatever you want, you can probably conquer it.

Sacking once every 10 turns provides more florins than all the merchants in china can in one turn, unless you happen to be Russia and have a stack of 10merchants sitting on Ivory in Timbuktu inside a fort.

By the time you accomplish that, I've wiped you and your merchants off the map.

That's not to say one is better than the other. But in head to head competition, one is better than the other.

Clearly, playing a slower and more deliberate game can be lots of fun. You certainly get to experience a more realistic feel. However, on the battlefield, you would get destroyed by a human opponent.

Let's even pretend I GAVE you 5 regions with maxed out troop levels and the best equipped soldiers. Playing a slow, defensive game, or even a slightly offensive one, a "hare" player will gobble up the map and surround you with endless stacks of troops. You might even win one or two battles, but you would finally end up surrounded by three stacks versus one. A horde of spear militia, light cavalry, and peasant archers led by three generals versus your top army.

You: Crushed.
Me: Barely scratched. And if the game were realistic, I'd steal your armor from your dead soldiers and improve my offensive game that way. I guess it makes sense to leave armor on the battlefield covering rotting corpses.

This is not true for The Long Road mod.
If you like turtling, this is the game for you.

Blitzing is not allowed... it's not even possible during the first 50 turns or so without crusading. You would really get a kick out of that game.

Although I may not be gobbling up the map, I am still an expansionist. I managed to nab all of France before England captured it's fourth province. So even under that game, faster is better. It's just harder to do so.