Stronger Player - Turtle vs. Hare

[John_Longarrow]

Ah...

Finally, something that can face off against the Frickin Elephants with Frickin Cannons on their Frickin heads!

[Lamprey]

The "strength in numbers" argument pizzaguy brought up earlier is correct assuming the side with fewer but better troops defending a citadel is AI. Any remotely competent human with one stack of dismounted knights/spearmen/longbowmen would utterly crush two stacks of militia with a catapult. All he has to do is let the catapult make 2-3 holes in the walls (at which point it will run out of ammo) and contain the cheap militia at the breaches. You don't even need a lot of men, a thin line is good enough because you will have longbowmen on the second line of walls doing the killing anyway.

As to the thread topic: rushing the AI is obviously more powerful than turtling because the AI sucks. If every nation was played by humans, the zerg player would get their arse handed to them because it's not exactly difficult to defend against a rush (pump out tons of militia and hire the good mercs; the rusher will hire what's left and then go bankrupt supporting them with no dumb AI to easily blitz). However, single-player rushing is very effective for all the reasons mentioned above. As a matter of fact, I never do it because it's too effective. Makes the game too easy and no fun.

[Colovion]

I play similarly to how I play Civ, though TW brings out more of a ruthless nature because of rebels and having more reason to be aggressive right away.

The first few turns I'll decide which will be my military cities, which will be the breadbasket of my empire and which will be primarily port cities. I tend to group all of my armies in one or two decent sized forces and attempt to quickly take any weak provinces surrounding my borders. Mopping up rebels is first priority, and I'll even take a chance of leaving cities with only 2 or so units so I can rush off with a family member to gain a trait or so while cleaning up the unrest in the countryside or that weak settlement.

I'm not usually too interested in assaulting a strong AI faction until I have a small advantage, usually it's to be sure that my Infantry types are better than theirs so in a long fight to the death I'll come out ahead. I really despise pitting my troops against enemy troops in city squares. It's ridiculous because they won't break and flee so you have to just throw trash at them, or hope you have a superior force to grind them down eventually.

In the end, I tend to turtle on one or two sides of my empire and concentrate my remaining power to consolidate whichever portions of my border seem difficult to maintain as a border - so my troops fill that vacuum as I thunder across the landscape.

[Vladimir]

In an all human game the turtle would win, in less all the players are bunnies, then everyone dies. In an all human game the more cautious players will band together against the more aggressive ones. The aggressive players are less likely to ally as they know that if they lower their guard even a little they may be attacked. Thus either the hare becomes the tortoise or they fight each other mercilessly while the tortoise nibbles around the edges.

Even if it's one-on-one in a campaign game, the turtle will win. A slow, deliberate player will construct watchtowers, reinforcement forts, use their night fighters effectively, and have better cash and troops.

It doesn't matter if you attack an interior, poorly garrisoned city. Even if you make it there without being ambushed by my army I have another waiting for you, close enough to attack immediately. Led by my night fighter I'm able to isolate and pincer your inferior troops or force you to retreat. If you're carrying siege equipment you'll be able to assault that turn but you may not make it there with your reduced movement.

Let's say you bring a catapult and attack my fortress or citadel, it won't be enough. You'll either run out of ammunition or your inferior troops will be chewed up as they're forced to fight in smaller areas against elite troops. Batter down my first gate and you'll have to expose it to archer fire which may kill the crew. But wait, how did you get it in the first place? Did you spend the time and cash to build a siege engineer and what's the recruitment pool?

If you do assault you'll have trouble maintaining morale as I've use the assassins I trained on a rebel stack to kill your general; maybe I'll gain another rebel stack to practice on. My spies tell me which of your generals don't take personal security seriously so you may have trouble finding one in the first place, that is, if I haven't eliminated your royal line.

So now you've already lost a couple of "cheap" stacks of troops, how are you going to raise more? Since you weren't able to take any of my cities with no economy you're dangerously short of cash and have ran out of steam. Now I can pick you apart.

Turn-based favors turtling. Go too fast and you become a victim of your own strategy.

[TheLastPrivate]

If you guys ever played the board game diplomacy with real people (takes HOURS), its kinda like how totalwar would be played out. Althogh the board game doesn't take tactical skills into account in totalwar mp game diplomacy dynamics would be the core that makes or breaks the rise to power imo.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

In an all human game the turtle would win, in less all the players are bunnies, then everyone dies. In an all human game the more cautious players will band together against the more aggressive ones. The aggressive players are less likely to ally as they know that if they lower their guard even a little they may be attacked. Thus either the hare becomes the tortoise or they fight each other mercilessly while the tortoise nibbles around the edges.

Even if it's one-on-one in a campaign game, the turtle will win. A slow, deliberate player will construct watchtowers, reinforcement forts, use their night fighters effectively, and have better cash and troops.

It doesn't matter if you attack an interior, poorly garrisoned city. Even if you make it there without being ambushed by my army I have another waiting for you, close enough to attack immediately. Led by my night fighter I'm able to isolate and pincer your inferior troops or force you to retreat. If you're carrying siege equipment you'll be able to assault that turn but you may not make it there with your reduced movement.

Let's say you bring a catapult and attack my fortress or citadel, it won't be enough. You'll either run out of ammunition or your inferior troops will be chewed up as they're forced to fight in smaller areas against elite troops. Batter down my first gate and you'll have to expose it to archer fire which may kill the crew. But wait, how did you get it in the first place? Did you spend the time and cash to build a siege engineer and what's the recruitment pool?

If you do assault you'll have trouble maintaining morale as I've use the assassins I trained on a rebel stack to kill your general; maybe I'll gain another rebel stack to practice on. My spies tell me which of your generals don't take personal security seriously so you may have trouble finding one in the first place, that is, if I haven't eliminated your royal line.

So now you've already lost a couple of "cheap" stacks of troops, how are you going to raise more? Since you weren't able to take any of my cities with no economy you're dangerously short of cash and have ran out of steam. Now I can pick you apart.

Turn-based favors turtling. Go too fast and you become a victim of your own strategy.

In an all human game I favor your analysis. In a pure human V turtle, one on one game, I feel you haven't done your homework.

Your entire analysis presumes I aimed directly towards your empire and ignored all the other, weak AI ones. That WOULD be stupid.

You're last on my list of concerns, seeing as how you, as a turtle, are less aggressive than the simpleton AI. You on the map gives me almost free reign to do what I want.

By the time you recruit enough spies to make my settlements rebel, I've tripled the size of my empire and my standing army is ten times what it was. I can afford to lose settlements.

Generals? I've too many for you to assassinate. While you train assassins on rebel stacks, I train captains against the AI troops. With large empires, I'm virtually guaranteed a new general every single time.

Good luck on agents winning this game. I can also afford to counterspy you in the middle game, making that strategy ineffective long term.

You ambushing with night fighter is fine. That will work exactly once. And that's only IF I don't do what I always do, which is send a scouting mounted unit ahead of my main army to spring all traps.

Once I locate your main force, I can surround it with three stacks and destroy it. I don't even need to auto-calculate it. That battle would be easy even if you were on a hilltop behind a river. And assuming you were impressivly fortified, I could just ignore your stack and beseige your worthless settlements, forcing you to engage me on a level battlefield. Yes, your night fighter and superior troops make this one battle yours. Now when your somewhat depleted forces face my other two stacks simultaneously in the light of day you haven't a prayer.

More troops beat better troops, and that's all there is to it. This is a numbers game. tactics work great against the AI, against humans who arent idiots and against sheer numbers of troops, it's almost pointless.

So now you've already lost a couple of "cheap" stacks of troops, how are you going to raise more? Since you weren't able to take any of my cities with no economy you're dangerously short of cash and have ran out of steam. Now I can pick you apart.

Sorry, but thats not even remotely realistic.

Unless you and I were the only empires on the map, and we had few provinces, this doesn't make any sense. Of course I can replace entire stacks of troops.

1. I have at least (if I'm having a BAD day) twice your recruitment garrisons.

2. I have a profit-making economy (few garrison forces mean all my standing armies pillage and provide new income sources, and are an investment, not a drain on my economy like your superior but initiative-lacking national guardsmen)

3. When I lose an entire stack (or 3) of my worthless troops which took me no time or effort to recruit, I suddenly turn an even larger profit for the next few turns, which is all I need to churn out more idiot peasants armed with sticks willing to die for a quick florin (the word peasants is misleading, by the middle game I am really recruiting everything but the top tier Dismounted Knights and so forth).

4. You will pick me apart? You and what army?

Every defensive scenario you can construct is FAR easier for me to pull off, given my initiative, sheer number of territories, sheer number of standing armies, same tactics, same strategies, and better economy.

Lets say you manage to DECIMATE 12 stacks of my troops. I have to be an (expletive deleted) for you to manage this.

Now I have the equivalent of 12 stacks worth of maintenence cost coming towards me per turn. What to do with 40 provinces, 12 castles, great garrisons, and a GIANT pile of money.... what to do, what to do....

It's ridiculous. I actually laugh when you defeat my forces on the battlefield. It's hilarious because it almost makes you believe you're winning the war.

Then larger stacks with better troops and more of them start coming towards you. Unless you can engage and defeat a larger, superior empire with more troops (and in the late game, same quality troops), and QUICKLY, there is no hope, my friends! No hope.

It's all about the numbers. Fewer provinces, even when properly developed which takes time, cannot put up the kind of numbers a blitzer can. More territories, more recruitment facilities, more florins per turn, faster reinforcement recruitment, quicker expansion, initiative, and an ever-strengthening strategic and tactical position.

The ONLY way to beat a blitzer is by being bigger and stronger than him, or beating him QUICKLY in the early game when he is vulnerable.

Otherwise, he must be an idiot to lose the game. He is positionally and mathematically superior to you in every sense. Sure, you might have reached "pleasure palace" and "grand cathedral" before I have. But I'm on my way to take them from you and you cannot stop me.

You must switch strategy to moderate expansion to have a prayer of a hope. Turtles cannot stop the mighty blitz.

[Zim]

askthepizzaguy,
just out of curiosity, why are you reserving your analysis to a one on one game in the main campaign with a map full of hapless A.I. factions? That seems like the least interesting background for a blitxer versus turtler battle. Of course in such a game the Blitzer would win. He would find himself quickly attaining a vast resource advantage over the turtle, that could only be prevented by the turtle becoming a blitzer himself.

Maybe if it were a map with only two factions, plus a couple of rebel settlements at most, it would be an interesting debate. It would also be interesting to see how blitzing versus turtling applies to a game with losts of factions and all human players, or even many human players, but in the setup you propose I'm not sure it's much in doubt whether turtling is better. Even most of the people defending turtling agree you'd win in the end.

Now, comparing these strategies in the kind of hotseat games we're playing in the throne room would be interesting. Despite greater importance for diplomacy, I suspect that agressive play is still best in these types of games, you just have to temper it somewhat more.

[Askthepizzaguy]

askthepizzaguy,
just out of curiosity, why are you reserving your analysis to a one on one game in the main campaign with a map full of hapless A.I. factions? That seems like the least interesting background for a blitxer versus turtler battle. Of course in such a game the Blitzer would win. He would find himself quickly attaining a vast resource advantage over the turtle, that could only be prevented by the turtle becoming a blitzer himself.

Maybe if it were a map with only two factions, plus a couple of rebel settlements at most, it would be an interesting debate. It would also be interesting to see how blitzing versus turtling applies to a game with losts of factions and all human players, or even many human players, but in the setup you propose I'm not sure it's much in doubt whether turtling is better. Even most of the people defending turtling agree you'd win in the end.

Now, comparing these strategies in the kind of hotseat games we're playing in the throne room would be interesting. Despite greater importance for diplomacy, I suspect that agressive play is still best in these types of games, you just have to temper it somewhat more.

You're absolutely correct, Zim.

I've said all along, if you go back to view my earliest posts on this thread, that the idea of multiple human players on the map makes blitzing a very risky and most likely losing proposition.

I've been reserving my analysis for purely one on one turtle v blitz games because of the strong debate that has been waged regarding it. There are a great many people who believe as I do that the turtle is absolutely inferior, and with good reason.

There are still a few, (actually many, but a minority) who believe the turtle is superior. However, the few strategies put forward by them honestly wouldn't make me hesitate. They were all expected counter strategies. I havent seen anything new.

Blitzing is superior against lone turtles and AI's. However, against another blitzer, or several humans, a strategy of diplomacy and moderate expansion is favoured.



Obviously on a tiny map with only two factions and barely any rebels, the game is even.

A great attacker can pick off your weakest territories instead of going for the throat. So a great defender will meet and ambush the assaulting force with a tightly compacted raider stack of good troops. But it would be a strain on both of them to accomplish their stated goals. And technically, neither would be a turtle or a blitzer, they would merely be attacker and defender.
-----------------

I'd personally enjoy seeing a real counter-threat from a turtle empire. I'd like to know which faction, what strategy, where the defensive stand would be made, by what turn, and under what circumstances. I'd also like to hear how and when the grand counterattack can be made.

Personally, I see the blitzer as the evil, terrible empire that must be eliminated, and the turtle as the realistic, moral, peaceful empire that MUST destroy it. How will Luke and his band of rebels destroy the Emperor?

Your strategy here.

Fair warning, I will look for any and all weaknesses and give you my fair estimate as to it's effectiveness. So far, I see the spy rush and the sneak attack against the back quarter while I am off crusading to be the most annoying and brutal counter. This is somewhat uncharacteristic of the turtle. However, I will allow it, seeing as it is a preemptive harrassment strike, not a full blown invasion. If the turtle is invading first, and quickly, he's not being a true turtle. I guarantee the blitzer will strike first, by the middle game at least, while we're building ourselves nice fat bloated marketplaces ripe for the pillaging.

Two things:

1. How to turn back the relentless tide of disposable troops?

2. How to assault the empire on it's own soil?

[Zim]

It has been an interesting debate. I've been following it for a long time, despite making only a few posts. As the King of Blitzes, I have a strong respect for your opinions on the issue.

I think you might be surprised by how much blitzing goes on in hotseat games, especially the smaller ones from Kingdoms. People use diplomacy to cover their backs, but even in an all human environment, there's a strong tendency for most players to put all their resources into an early attack, to eliminate their most threatening neighbor.

An exception seems to be the Britannia game, although it's a bit early to tell. I think it's because everyone's starting positions are so hugely different. Factions like Wales and Norway have to attack early, while England has to Turtle, lest it find itself fighting all it's neighbors. Then there's Ireland and Scotland, both of which would benefit most from a more moderate approach, I think.

It's been a blast, if you get Kingdoms you should join one of the games sometime.

You're absolutely correct, Zim.

I've said all along, if you go back to view my earliest posts on this thread, that the idea of multiple human players on the map makes blitzing a very risky and most likely losing proposition.

I've been reserving my analysis for purely one on one turtle v blitz games because of the strong debate that has been waged regarding it. There are a great many people who believe as I do that the turtle is absolutely inferior, and with good reason.

There are still a few, (actually many, but a minority) who believe the turtle is superior. However, the few strategies put forward by them honestly wouldn't make me hesitate. They were all expected counter strategies. I havent seen anything new.

Blitzing is superior against lone turtles and AI's. However, against another blitzer, or several humans, a strategy of diplomacy and moderate expansion is favoured.



Obviously on a tiny map with only two factions and barely any rebels, the game is even.

A great attacker can pick off your weakest territories instead of going for the throat. So a great defender will meet and ambush the assaulting force with a tightly compacted raider stack of good troops. But it would be a strain on both of them to accomplish their stated goals. And technically, neither would be a turtle or a blitzer, they would merely be attacker and defender.

[Privateerkev]

I'd personally enjoy seeing a real counter-threat from a turtle empire. I'd like to know which faction, what strategy, where the defensive stand would be made, by what turn, and under what circumstances. I'd also like to hear how and when the grand counterattack can be made.

I've said it before in here but since your putting out the challenge, I'll say it again.

I think England in the Kingdoms Brittania Campaign could win as a pure turtle. I have laid out why I think this in earlier posts in here. If you have any questions, please let me know.

[Jambo]

Other than perhaps ports and wharfs, the economic buildings aren't worth the money. Markets are a complete joke and farms are only marginally less poor. In essence, regular sacking will easily make you more money.

In short, the Hare will win. Blitzing has always been the most efficient way to play TW games. Maybe it's design intent, maybe it's not. To me it's just bad design. Civ 4's economic aspects are far superior.

[Alpedar]

I play my second camapign (as Milan, first was Venice). I was somehow medium agressive at first (rebel taking phase), then went to slower motion and developing cities. And even this way, its hard NOT to beat it too fast (I want to get to gunpowder units). And my feel is, that if I (noon in this game) could beat it much faster, if i did not restrict myself.
So I must agree, that full agressive approach is probubly much stronger than cautious.

[Old Geezer]

Well I'll be hornswaggled! I had no idea that the order in a stack made any difference! Was that on page 2 or 3 of the manual. Not that such information is important a player, of course. This is great information. Now I won't be forced to field battle all the time when I am in a hurry to finish and go to bed. I can't believe that in 11 months I never came across this info. Was it that way in MTW too?

[Askthepizzaguy]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Well I'll be hornswaggled! I had no idea that the order in a stack made any difference! Was that on page 2 or 3 of the manual. Not that such information is important a player, of course. This is great information. Now I won't be forced to field battle all the time when I am in a hurry to finish and go to bed. I can't believe that in 11 months I never came across this info. Was it that way in MTW too?

Actually this is all my pet theory about auto-resolution battle mechanics, based upon oodles of experience auto-resolving and hitting bizarre snags when my lead units are weakened.

Sometimes all you have to do is solidify your troops by joining together weak units and all of a sudden the battle will auto-res better. I figured that out because it makes sense... you wouldn't send 20 units of depleted troops into battle, you would rather send 10 units at full strength to avoid routing.

But I really, really think I am on to something regarding auto-res calculations. You will get better results if you organize your stack properly. Much better.

In fact, I rarely if ever lose an auto-resolve battle ever since I've been subconsciously combining troops after every battle and purposefully managing stacks without generals.... and finally stacks with generals.

[_Tristan_]

I would have to agree on this... That's pretty much what I do in hotseat games (as all battles are auto-resolved)..

A few tries in SP games led me to believe that the way you order your troops can really make a difference...