Stronger Player - Turtle vs. Hare

[Togakure]

All else being equal, the blitzer has it all over the turtler and will win much more often than lose. The turtler requires time to achieve power; the blitzer's MO is to deny that time to his opponents.

There is a rhythm, a flow of pace that is neither blitz nor turtle, dynamic for each game, never the same. Knowing when to use what approach dynamically as the game progresses is the real key to being a "strong" player.

Finding that balance as the political landscape changes is the fun and challenge of it all as I see it--when to blitz, when to stop, when to expand and hold, when to chevauchee, when and how to to fake, when to build, when to save, when to retreat in order to advance later (I do this last thing a lot and it works beautifully, drawing my enemies in and getting them to over-extend themselves, and develop a province nicely so I can take it and benefit from their investment, etc).

student: the world is not black or white. It is gray.
teacher: what is gray, but black and white in motion.

Blitz-turtle, either/or? Both and neither.

[Ramses II CP]

Obviously under the current hotseat conditions a turtle would have no chance. Battles have to be auto-calc'd, ergo city walls and towers are meaningless. So even if you start with the same quantity and quality of troops your blitzer opponent has, his generate income by sacking while yours bleed it away sitting about the fort. There's no contest and no question IMHO. By turn ten his armies will be three to five times the size of yours even if you're much, much better at managing cities.

Even granting the turtle expands as fast as the blitzer, he's still going to defend his provinces (That's the definition of a turtle, after all) while the blitzer brings those troops to the battle at a time and place of his choosing. It's the modern warfare 'revolution' all over again, speed and mobility vs static defenses. The turtle loses.

Even granting them everything equal, the blitzer will bring more troops to the table and fight them when and where he chooses. As long as battles must be auto-calc'd the turtle is dead meat.

[Kadagar_AV]

Hey, aren't you all aware defense is the way of winning??

Insert heavily sarcastic voice to the above sentence.

As allready stated, the magginot line is a very nice example of what a nicely planned blitzing strat can do.

But that's IRL, ingame it gets even worse in my oppinion...

A) You want to act, NOT react to the enemy... turtling by definition forces the player to react.

B) Battles will mainly be fought on the turtles lands, meaning the best he can achieve is NOT losing ground, contrary to gaining land.

C) Well, pretty much every part of the code works in favour of the blitzer.

[Rebellious Waffle]

I have an argument for turtling.

If you turtle, other factions have time to build their faction-specific buildings (merchant banks, artist's studia, printing presses, racing tracks, castle libraries, public baths, etc.) which you may later take by conquest. These buildings remain in operation when you take over, so you get some of the benefits of other peoples' factions as an added bonus.

It doesn't make much difference in a turtle vs. hare battle, but it does mean that turtles get long-term advantages which are quite impossible for hares to acquire.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I have an argument for turtling.

If you turtle, other factions have time to build their faction-specific buildings (merchant banks, artist's studia, printing presses, racing tracks, castle libraries, public baths, etc.) which you may later take by conquest. These buildings remain in operation when you take over, so you get some of the benefits of other peoples' factions as an added bonus.

It doesn't make much difference in a turtle vs. hare battle, but it does mean that turtles get long-term advantages which are quite impossible for hares to acquire.

I have another opinion on that.

When I conquered 106 provinces as England by turn 58, I had access to bucketloads of money every single turn, had access to every province, and did not require a standing army.

Provinces that never would have been captured and built up are now under my control and prospering. Long term, the hare will actually outrun the Turtle even in the economic development question. I lowered all taxes across the board to low, and focused exclusively on economic development. My population skyrocketed, and my vast empire experienced a renaissance the likes of which that is impossible to achieve through turtling.

In the long term, the blitzer has a better economy than the turtle, and I don't mean from sacking. I mean from more provinces owned, fewer fronts, more law and order, more religious conversion, and total focus on economic concern. A Pax Romana of the Medieval world. True, I never got any merchant banks, but one or two merchant banks is more like a trophy that you don't need when compared to all your provinces pumping out economic buildings every turn.

I guess it depends on your personal taste. By the time you get half the map under your control, you've accomplished so much through pillaging, just on your home front, by adding buildings to your best cities, that you have the empire of a turtle wrapped inside of the empire of a regular player, wrapped inside the empire of a blitzer.

There is no question that the mathematical benefit to blitzing FAR outweighs the prospect of turtling. More money, more provinces, more growth, more standing armies, and eventually, the quality of your empire surpasses that of the turtle's anyway due to the massive economy. Basically, the blitzer can do anything the turtle can do, and do it better.

[Bob the Insane]

Would blitzing really work in our hypothetical MP campaign game though? Where the other player(s) could take advantage of the blitzer in ways the AI never does??

[John_Longarrow]

In a multi-player game, the best strategy tends to be steady expansion while constantly upgrading. You expand faster than a turtle and specialize different parts of your empire as needed. You do not expand as fast as a Blitzer though.

A pure blitzer tends to push as far and as fast as possible. When they start losing, they go out quickly though. Turtles are hard to break, but they tend to not expand much. An Expansionist tends to have armies that are the quality of a turtle but with the troop strength of a Blitzer. These tend to be spread across a smaller front that a Blitzer but are able to overwhelm a turlte. Net result is often that Blitzers implode when they fight another Blitzer or they get bogged down cracking a turtle. This is where a steady expansionist tends to do best because they are often very good at popping Blitzers.

The smaller the number of players, the more chance a Blitzer will have to expand fast enough to keep up the momentum. Once that momentum stops, Blitzers tend to go to pieces.

Against an AI, there isn't much to slow a Blitzer down. Throw a dozen turtles around him and you get a much slower expansion. Replace the turtles with expansionists (who will raid like a Blitzer but with a pure goal of weakening their emeny) and you can see a Blitzer go out quickly after expanding fast.

This is often because a Blitzer can't keep a strong enough presence on their borders to kee the expansionists at bay. This becomes more true the larger the Blitzer becomes. It is a dynamic that appears in multi-player games but not in one-on-one games.

[joe4iz]

I play like a turtle but must admit that the blitzer would win the war hands down. If there were the ability to play head to head, then a turtle might stand a chance depending on the level of quality of his troops and his own tactical ability. He still loses if all battles are autocalced.

The AI does a terrible job of blitzing as is evident from anyone who allowed the Mongols to expand. By the time they get to Europe's edge, their empire is ripe for plucking. (I must admit never having allowed them that oppurtunity.)

Also the Mongols then have the problem with the Timoruds coming in behind them. It would be immensely more challenging if they were not fighting amongst themselves....say one goes thru Baghdad and the other appears at Bulgar.

[Mangudai]

Hmm.

An interesting question.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and bet on the turtle (in a one-on-one campaign situation).

I don't care how good you may be at blitzing, coming up against a player in a defensive position is vastly different to fighting the AI. A competent turtler could easily fight at each good defensive position leading into their territory and cause a series of pyrrhic victories that would strain the resources of the hare.

Considering that in such a match-up, both sides would be advancing into rebel territory at the same rate behind the battle line, I'd have to say that a strategy of building up would win in the end.

The key difference as I see it is that, as ATPG pointed out himself, the hare needs to take a city and sack it in order to maintain inertia. Unfortunately, such a strategy relies upon the turtler not holding them up out of their heartland.

The AI may fail on this count; but I sincerely doubt that the player would.

It is incorrect to assume that both sides would be advancing into rebel territory at the same rate behind the battle line. Obviously the Hare has more troops and is more aggressive.

The turtle may be good at holding defensive positions. Let him! The Hare can menace with a smaller force, or disappear for a couple turns and then come back. The defenders options are lost by his own choice to stand around and wait for the other guy to attack.

The hare does not have to be better at fighting battles to win. He wins on the strategic map. He wins space, tempo, and material.

[Valdincan]

A hare probably has the advantage over a turtler, in a PvP campaign that is. However, its not really that two sided.

A turtler has the advantage of defense, his armies are more organized and cities better defended. In a PvP match, the turtle could easily sneak a large army into the the hare's weaker defended provinces. If the hare was relying mainly on sacking money, the turtle may be able to fend of his attacks, and stem his flow of money.

But of course the hare would most likely also have more provinces, and could easily turn them into money makers, while the turtle would have a hard time maintaining his armies due to his lack of provinces.

It could go either way depending on the player. I play as both, but personally I prefer turtling, and playing in a more civilization type way.

[PseRamesses]

Sorry for OT but I didn't realise there where any versions of this available yet?

Hmm, well I´m playing the AD mod (0.93beta I think) and have been the last 2-3 months. It´s under "mods in development" in this forum.

[Didz]

Would blitzing really work in our hypothetical MP campaign game though? Where the other player(s) could take advantage of the blitzer in ways the AI never does??

In our hypothetical scenario the 'Turtle' and the 'Hare' remain true to their nature. Under such conditions the Turtle would never consider modifying his strategy to exploit the weakness of the Hare. Consequently, he would not suddenly launch a counter-blitz to overrun a weakly held opponents cities as that is not in his nature.

In reality, a player might well decide what the hell, I'm losing, and go hell bent to take out a few of those exposed cities. But as soon as he does so he ceased to be a 'Turtle' and becomes another 'Hare' (or at least a Goffer) and so the hypothetical situation we are discussing is ruined.

Except in so far it would prove my hypothesis that in an MP Campaign everyone would need to be a blitzer to win. Just as in any MP game the specialist rushers always dictate the standard of play for others.

[icek]

too many turtle defending guys here think that confrontation between turtle and hare will be like battle of elite "turtle" army againts some peasants. but from where turtle will get their amy in such short time, having 5 territories, 4 cities and 1 castle. did everybody thinks that rusher will wait untill 70 turn so you can have ballista towers and citadel. if english turtle with london, nothingam,york, caen and brugge will lose london in 25 turn it will be end for him.

[Didz]

Yep! I'm with Icek...it would be a very short game for the Turtles.

[crpcarrot]

until CA bring in the negative affects of a captured province like we saw in MTW blitzing will alwasy be a better option in the current game. sacking gives too much of a financial booste at a negligible cost. sacking should have a really bad affect on popularity and public order. after all you have just releived the cities population of their valuables they are not going to forget that in a couple of years.

[_Tristan_]

Except in so far it would prove my hypothesis that in an MP Campaign everyone would need to be a blitzer to win. Just as in any MP game the specialist rushers always dictate the standard of play for others.

Not necessarily...

As has been pointed out before, a MP game (with more than 1v1) would not allow blitzer to maneuver at their ease...

The blitzer must concentrate on an assault path and thus must leave home territories undefended (or almost), thus becoming primary targets for other blitzers... So in order not to be defeated, the blitzer will have to turtle a bit, leaving better troops behind and consolidating his starting position (thus himself becoming a Goffer, as you stated...

Therefore, IMHO, in a XvX MP game, there should be room for all styles of play but I think the most viable would be what has been qualified as Expansionist (or moderate) which I construe as taking a province at a time out of necessity or willingness and building a strong defending position as a base of operations...

I fervently hope that blitzers would not rule as it would ruin any pleasure I would have in playing M2TW online or MP, but as I have stated here above I don't think it will happen...

Remember that we are talking M2TW and not StarCraft (No peasant rush... ) and that the level of complexity is much higher...

You also have to remember that in a MP game the blitzer takes the risk of becoming everybody else's scapegoat, once his style of play is discovered and should many blitzers take part in the same game, they would mainly cancel each others' efforts.

[Bob the Insane]

Well, surely a true turtle can't be defined as being purely defensive, I mean you need 45 provinces to win the game...

Maybe we a being too strict with the desciption of the turtle. The guy that holds 5 provinces for 225 turns loses the game. So the turtle must expand to, the difference is the style of expansion is it not? The Hare being fast, aggresive, almost reckless, and the Turtle being slow, (overly?) cautious and defensive in his expansion.

Does the turtle expand slowly never leaving anywhere unproctected, or does he sit and defend himself and develop until late in the game where he explodes in a flurry of action?

We might as well be comparing strategies that can both win or the discussion will remain very one sided...

[andrewt]

Not necessarily...

As has been pointed out before, a MP game (with more than 1v1) would not allow blitzer to maneuver at their ease...

The blitzer must concentrate on an assault path and thus must leave home territories undefended (or almost), thus becoming primary targets for other blitzers... So in order not to be defeated, the blitzer will have to turtle a bit, leaving better troops behind and consolidating his starting position (thus himself becoming a Goffer, as you stated...

Therefore, IMHO, in a XvX MP game, there should be room for all styles of play but I think the most viable would be what has been qualified as Expansionist (or moderate) which I construe as taking a province at a time out of necessity or willingness and building a strong defending position as a base of operations...

I fervently hope that blitzers would not rule as it would ruin any pleasure I would have in playing M2TW online or MP, but as I have stated here above I don't think it will happen...

Remember that we are talking M2TW and not StarCraft (No peasant rush... ) and that the level of complexity is much higher...

You also have to remember that in a MP game the blitzer takes the risk of becoming everybody else's scapegoat, once his style of play is discovered and should many blitzers take part in the same game, they would mainly cancel each others' efforts.

Well, if we're talking about a free-for-all MP game with more than 2 players, the best strategy is to be in 2nd place for most of the game. You catapult to 1st only when you're sure you can take everybody else once they gang up on you. In other words, you're likely to blitz. Just make sure somebody is blitzing faster than you.

[Guyus Germanicus]

Well, I'm certainly no expert at this game. But here's my

After reading thru some of the pizza chronicles at the Pizza War College, I don't think there's any question but that the AI is completely toast against a serious blitz. Half a dozen sainted generals, total control of the papacy, huge stacks covering the campaign map like the barbaric hordes. It really is an awesome sight.

I've never played any total war game against a living breathing opponent. But at this point I just can't imagine the turtle standing up to such an onslaught. I suppose much would depend on who the tutle is and how experienced he is with the game. Also, it might depend on how the game itself plays in PvP. How is the Pope handled in a PvP game. Does he dispense orders? Do the guilds still give out assignments? I assume they do. But I don't know how the PvP game works. Does the AI still play the unchosen factions? How these and other issues might affect a PvP game would be intersting to find out.

Regardless, I still think the blitz has an edge.

For the blitzer, early mobilization is the key. Once you have a few city sackings under your belt, you should have all the cash you need to put some large armies in the field like they ones I see in ATPG's screenshot chronicles. Pizza guy plays with huge debts too. If you can stop up that strategy, I suppose you can kill the blitz. Certainly the Russians did in WW II. After Barbarossa, the Germans were never really fully in control of the Eastern Front war again. They were able to take the initiative once more into the Don River area toward the Caspian Sea. But Hitler's blitzkreig was never intended to be a long campaign strategy. The wide open spaces of Russia caused a great loss of momentum. That's a big campaign map in M2TW, if you haven't noticed.

So my thinking is - if there is a weakness in the PvP blitz, it will be the same as the German weakness on the Eastern Front. The blitzer has to refresh his bank account by taking cities. If he runs out of money and the turtle has built up his economic base, the blitz could run out of steam. The blitzer has been fighting, not building so much. Sapi seems to think along these lines, so I guess I agree with him. However, if I were the turtle, I'd be toast.

A multiple player game might be even more problemmatic for the blitzer, especially if some of the turtlers have time to build up their forces. In this case, I think the goal of the turtlers would be to try to break up the blitzer's rhythym. If they could do that, the blitzer would then have to slow down, or get eliminated early. But again, I'm speculating.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I'm glad some have been paying attention at my 'war college', but of course I am not so self-congratulatory that I think only my strategy can work.

For all those Turtlers out there, I've stated before and I'll state it again, the blitz has weaknesses. But no, friends, I am not weak against your heavily defended settlements. Not even in the slightest. If anyone saw my England thread, you would have seen three full stacks going against a heavily defended garrison of the Byzantine empire, Thessalonica, which was further reinforced by another full stack of the Eastern Roman empire's best troops, commanded by none other than their 10 star faction leader. You simply CANNOT defend a settlement any more vigorously.

I crushed them like ants. Doesn't matter what you do, my friends, I do have seiges worked out just fine. I went after the reinforcements first, and crushed his majesty outside the settlement, just before his reinforcements arrived. Then it was a 3 stack versus one battle, child's play. Had they only ONE stack to deal with, a simple 3 on 1 seige would have ended their hopes and dreams.

So no, in spite of many claims to the contrary, you cannot simply repel a blitzer's seiges like you would an AI. Blitzers HAVE to be experts at seiges. And while I am sure that the human would do better at defending, I almost always do seiges when I can literally win by force. I make sure you can't touch my general, destroy walls if necessary (against a human I would actually bring artillery), lead with my heavy infantry, rain fire arrows and flaming rocks down upon thee, and wear you down even as you defend at your strongest point. The AI actually does a fairly good job defending during seiges. There's only so much you can do. It really is up to the attacker to force a win, and that's exactly what I do.

This is not supposed to be a boast; it is a preface to a larger argument for what a Turtle could actually do against the blitzer. Rather than making your stand inside city walls, the answer is on the campaign map. You cannot afford to be passive against the blitzer, because he will always have more troops on the field than yourself, probably (as I do) putting himself into terrible debt in order to do so. He does have an edge on force, so you cannot put yourself in the position of being backed into a corner where he can win purely by force, which are seige situations.

The answer is, defend your borders. Lay traps. Defend bridges, put yourself on top of hills, prepare for an assault on the campaign trail. Ambush if possible.

If you can put yourself in a superior tactical position out in the field, even if your ambush fails (which it might... I have a tendency to spring traps with a single unit of scouting cavalry or spies) you are in the most defensible and maneuverable position that can be offered. Get yourself some HEAVY infantry, longbowmen or crossbowmen, heavy cavalry, and perhaps a catapult or better. Rain death upon me as I advance, charge downhill to meet my attack, destroy my general with your heavy infantry, and rout my forces and destroy them with your heavy cavalry. If I brought reinforcements (and I will have), you now have an even match against them, with only slightly winded troops. Get back to your defenses, and wait for my second assault. Of course, at this point, I would probably do the smart thing and retreat. But assuming I didn't, you could make your valiant stand, and your economy would warrant rebuilding your army afterwards, whereas I might not be able to do so.

Second tactic: Sometimes I decide to ignore your army completely and go for your settlements. This forces you on offense.

I've left myself vulnerable in doing so, because I've slipped past your front line, thereby allowing you behind my front line. Which means you have got to be quick. Either you repel the invader with seige relief forces, or you counter-strike. I recommend the counter-strike. I probably haven't prepared defenses like you have. While I am busy seiging and winning difficult battles in your territory, you could easily open my settlement gates and take a city per turn in my territory, counter-blitz and burn my settlements to the ground. From here it becomes a race to see who kills who faster. I'd give you a run for your money, having more assault forces than you do, but you could take active defenses at home. Remember, defending against seiges is NOT your friend when fighting pizzaguy. So, bring out your garrisons, stack them all together, and meet my invasion force head on, from a defensive position. See above example. You have better odds doing this than waiting to die, cowering behind walls. Proactive defense beats forced losses any day.

You must destroy my entire empire, though, because I likely have enough forces in your territory to wipe you out. So you must neutralize my empire by taking all my settlements and repelling the invasion force. Do this, and you can win. Fail at taking all my settlements, or fail at repelling my invasion force, and you have a forced loss. However, difficult as it may be, this kind of active defense has a much better chance of winning against the superior blitzer, because you actually have a chance to force a win, if you are really good. Anything else is not a forced win, it is an eventual loss. I will either slowly take your settlements one at a time, (and after the first one, the war really turns in my favor. Pillaging one of your fat bloated cities is all it takes) or I will slip behind your front line defenses and attack your less defended inner cities. I am fairly close to imitating the Mongol invasion here, except with far more expertise than the AI has.

I have posted several times about repelling the Mongol hordes. Almost all of those tactics will work here. You are dealing with a superior invading force, so you cannot afford to sit inside your cities at all. A counter-strike is neccessary.

Don't skimp on the possibility of assassins either. Unlike the blitzer, you probably have some of those. Night fighter is also a good thing. If you could perhaps stack 2 or 3 defending armies together, headed by generals with Night fighter, you may in fact be able to perform my own Anti-Mongol tactic against me! Surround each of my invading stacks and eliminate me by superior force.

These are examples for a Blitzer versus Turtle campaign, NOt assuming some silly hypothetical situation where you cannot attack anyone else, even rebels, which wouldn't ever happen so why discuss it.

What is of MORE interest to me is the possibility of 3 or more human players.

Now blitzing is synonymous with suicide. Even if I could FORCE a victory against a single Turtle, the other would invade my territory and destroy my undefended homes. The AI needs to learn a thing or two about aggressive defense. Humans, on the other hand, have the intuition to seize the moment and wipe the belligerent from the map.

I disagree with some who fear that blitzing would ruin multiplayer mode... simply because blitzing works best against inferior AI or perhaps a single human turtle. Blitzing also destroys other blitzers, and when there are other humans on the field, the moderate players have a clear advantage.

Turtling is weak against a single blitzer, but not against multiple blitzers. Assuming they aren't working together. I still believe that blitz is superior in single player and 1 on 1 matches, however, the moderate "expansionist" is the clear winner in matches 3 humans and above.

Turtling is good versus an expansionist, because they don't have the superior mega-offense of a blitzer, and therefore a Turtle would win against an expansionist unless it is a one on one match, which would be a slow war of attrition that the Turtle would probably lose, but it is not always the rule.

Turtling is generally not a good idea. However, it does provide you with superior defense against other turtles and expansionists. It leaves you vulnerable to the blitz. Fortunately, in 3 or more player mode, blitzers lose, and it is anyone's game. However, if one human player defends his territory and counter-strikes a blitzer, and wins, he now has the massive territory of a blitzer and the core defense of a turtle, the best of both worlds, leaving a Turtle in the dust.

For this reason, folks, I say unless you are fighting a brainless AI or a single human opponent, moderate expansionism rules the day, not blitzing or turtling.
For one on one or single player mode, the current AI allows blitzing to win.

That does not mean turtling for a little while is a bad thing for multiplayer. It may be a good idea. But eventually, the turtle needs a massive aggressive strike to gain the advantage, so the turtle must eventually become a blitzer.

In the long term, if a Turtle survives, he may be able to expand to the point where he can field both a massive defensive force and a massive offensive force, in which case the Turtle is in a superior position. If he proactively defends his territory, and strikes like a blitzer eventually with a superior army, I'd say that the Turtle might be able to stay in the game.

I would conclude, however, that the passive Turtle will rely on luck, not force, to win the day. If the other humans target him first, he is toast.

Now that I am sure everyone is fed up with my opinion, I leave the floor open for rebuttal.



__________________________
Sorry for off-topic question, but how do I rate threads? I think this thread is really good (for the healthy debate, not my opinion) and I would like to give it 5 stars. Or is that a feature reserved for senior members?

[Guyus Germanicus]

I would have to definitely agree that the turtle couldn't settle into a passive defense. That surrenders all initiative, and that is suicide. You can't just let the blitzer go for your cities and castles. You have to take the initiative and make the blitzer fight on your terms as much as possible. Otherwise your always reacting. So passive defense is not going to work as I see it.

The only circumstances that I can relate to that comes close to actually facing a blitzer was in Barbarian invasion, the RTW expansion. When I took the Alemanni or the Franks, there were occasions when I had to go nose to nose with the Vandals or the Goths in 'horde' mode. The Vandal horde is a little larger and can amount to five or six fullstacks with lots of horse archers. I had one army with a good supply of archers and mercenary horse archers defending a bridge crossing. I'll be darned if the Vandals didn't hit me four or five times in one turn. The Goths did the same doggone thing later in the game. (My troops sure acquired a lot of experience chevrons in those encounters.) Again, in one turn no less. Needless to say, if I had to defend against a blitz of multiple stacks, I'd prefer to be stationed at a river crossing. But the key was I was forcing the AI to fight on the ground of my choosing. A human opponent wouldn't try to force a river crossing like that multiple times.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I would have to definitely agree that the turtle couldn't settle into a passive defense. That surrenders all initiative, and that is suicide. You can't just let the blitzer go for your cities and castles. You have to take the initiative and make the blitzer fight on your terms as much as possible. Otherwise your always reacting. So passive defense is not going to work as I see it.

The only circumstances that I can relate to that comes close to actually facing a blitzer was in Barbarian invasion, the RTW expansion. When I took the Alemanni or the Franks, there were occasions when I had to go nose to nose with the Vandals or the Goths in 'horde' mode. The Vandal horde is a little larger and can amount to five or six fullstacks with lots of horse archers. I had one army with a good supply of archers and mercenary horse archers defending a bridge crossing. I'll be darned if the Vandals didn't hit me four or five times in one turn. The Goths did the same doggone thing later in the game. (My troops sure acquired a lot of experience chevrons in those encounters.) Again, in one turn no less. Needless to say, if I had to defend against a blitz of multiple stacks, I'd prefer to be stationed at a river crossing. But the key was I was forcing the AI to fight on the ground of my choosing. A human opponent wouldn't try to force a river crossing like that multiple times.

Of course, a human might have better river crossing strategies, so don't assume that blocking a river is any more effective than a standard battle. For example, river crossing battles favor archers and artillery. I can defend my side of the bridge and advance across it with a single unit of infantry. I can target the defenders on the other side of the bridge with longbowmen (if available), ballistae, catapults, and other such 'things that fling'.

This forces the defender to move back, out of the path of fire, or take damage and return fire, which depending on the situation may be a good or a bad move. It depends on whether you brought artillery and archers of your own in copious amounts. I'm going to assume that you did.

I cross the river quickly with heavy cavalry, because any dense areas of spearmen or infantry defending your side of the river are toast, routed, or have moved away from the line of fire. Now I can charge whatever is there to meet me, and hold them up while my infantry cross. If you try to close the gap and meet my forces, there will be a rain of death upon you for bunching your forces together. I can afford to lose my heavy cavalry here, because they are largely useless in a close quarters situation like this. Can you afford to have your infantry pummeled with flaming objects moving through the air at great speed while my infantry is relatively safe?

I will assume that you allowed my infantry to cross as well, otherwise I now have pasted your infantry and they are ready to rout, which loses you the battle. Now I can move my archers across and set up a perimeter with my infantry, and maneuver my cavalry into a better tactical position so that they might actually be useful in some way.

Inevitably, the advantage of the bridge itself is now nullified. Now we have an even battle. So I highly recommend we not rely exclusively on bridge defense. It is a good trick, but like building stone walls, it is an advantage which can be nullified by artillery and archers.

I recommend the defender (turtle, expansionist, whichever) attempt to spring ambushes, trap the invading force with multiple armies, or find a defensive mountain pass or hilltop to make your stand from. Those advantages cannot be nullified during battle.

[Didz]

I fervently hope that blitzers would not rule as it would ruin any pleasure I would have in playing M2TW online or MP, but as I have stated here above I don't think it will happen...

Remember that we are talking M2TW and not StarCraft (No peasant rush... ) and that the level of complexity is much higher...

I would also hope that this would not be the case, but if it wasn't then it would be a first MP game I've played where it wasn't. Usually, playing style declines to the lowest common denominator. The only real hope I would hold is that provided the game was PBEM and therefore allowed time for player interaction between turns then there might be a chance for the Turtles to ally themselves against a Blitzer and thus keep him in check.

As for the issue of the 'Zergling Rush' not being an option outside Starcraft, I have less hope. I have never played MTW2 battlegrounds, but certainly in the STW battleground game the 'Zergling Rush' was perfectly feasible, either as a 'Monk Rush', a 'High Honour Peasant Rush' or 'Massed Heavy Cavalry'. I see no reason to assume that something similar is not possible in MTW2, where Blitzers could easily form imba armies based upon their preferred unit type. I would certainly imagine a heavy preferance for 100% Horse Archer Armies amongst some players. but others are claiming massed peasants can be equally useful for seige assaults.

[icek]

russia could do that with ease. thank god they have hard start. or moors with those camel gunners

[TevashSzat]

Sigh...wrote a long reply and then lost it due to accidental closing IE. Will edit post later

[sapi]

Interesting analysis, askthepizzaguy.

I do agree with you that, under some circumstances, the turtler stands no chance of mounting a successful defence. None of the strategies of turtle defence would work if the hare's only goal in the game was to kill that faction, and if they put every resource into it from day one.

But say it's a normal game for five or ten turns. That's necessary anyway, really, to develop armies and differentiate the two sides. At that point, the turtle, knowing that an attack was coming, would have decent garrisons in frontier cities, and could hold for a few turns.

At that point, the turtler does have a good chance.

I'll use the example of the byzantines here, but this would really work for any faction, just at different locations. From day one, I'd have given Thessalonia up for dead, and donated it to the papacy to prevent the hare sacking it. I'd have an army holding greece from the narrow pass above corinth (and east of modern day athens).

Two fleets could block the dardenelles, removing access to many of my core provinces. From there, troops could be churned out from the castle in nicea to reinforce constantinople, which as a large city has the potential of holding out for a significant time period in sieges (and has decent defences).

Any competent player would then, of course, divert the majority of their resources to expansion eastwards. Some quick strikes could capture antolia, then bring the turks to peace, giving me a bigger economic base for no loss. And no, that's not stretching the definition of turtling, as no offensive actions have yet been launched against the other player.

From there, the game gets more interesting. While holding constantinople wouldn't be easy, and it may fall, it could certainly hold the hare up for some time, with a decent garrison. A numerical advantage is meaningless in street to street fighting - four infantry units, backed up by archers, could hold the town square very easily, especially with the battle timer enabled.

At this point, it simply becomes the usual turtle-hare matchup, but with a more developed economy - and there's a good chance that the hare would be held up for long enough for some decent turtle units to come into play.

I'm not saying that the hare would necessarily lose; merely that a human player will make use of bottlenecks that an AI never would, and may buy himself enough time to create a decent standing army.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Interesting analysis, askthepizzaguy.

I do agree with you that, under some circumstances, the turtler stands no chance of mounting a successful defence. None of the strategies of turtle defence would work if the hare's only goal in the game was to kill that faction, and if they put every resource into it from day one.

But say it's a normal game for five or ten turns. That's necessary anyway, really, to develop armies and differentiate the two sides. At that point, the turtle, knowing that an attack was coming, would have decent garrisons in frontier cities, and could hold for a few turns.

At that point, the turtler does have a good chance.

I'll use the example of the byzantines here, but this would really work for any faction, just at different locations. From day one, I'd have given Thessalonia up for dead, and donated it to the papacy to prevent the hare sacking it. I'd have an army holding greece from the narrow pass above corinth (and east of modern day athens).

Two fleets could block the dardenelles, removing access to many of my core provinces. From there, troops could be churned out from the castle in nicea to reinforce constantinople, which as a large city has the potential of holding out for a significant time period in sieges (and has decent defences).

Any competent player would then, of course, divert the majority of their resources to expansion eastwards. Some quick strikes could capture antolia, then bring the turks to peace, giving me a bigger economic base for no loss. And no, that's not stretching the definition of turtling, as no offensive actions have yet been launched against the other player.

From there, the game gets more interesting. While holding constantinople wouldn't be easy, and it may fall, it could certainly hold the hare up for some time, with a decent garrison. A numerical advantage is meaningless in street to street fighting - four infantry units, backed up by archers, could hold the town square very easily, especially with the battle timer enabled.

At this point, it simply becomes the usual turtle-hare matchup, but with a more developed economy - and there's a good chance that the hare would be held up for long enough for some decent turtle units to come into play.

I'm not saying that the hare would necessarily lose; merely that a human player will make use of bottlenecks that an AI never would, and may buy himself enough time to create a decent standing army.

I'd agree that the human would put up a much more vigorous fight than the AI would. A human with a half stack garrison is harder to beat than an AI with a full stack garrison.

For the sake of this argument, you are Byzantine and I am the HRE or France.

The plan you propose gives up Thessalonica, an interesting move. You may be assuming that the human would not attack the Papacy, or at the very least the Papacy would delay an attacking force. But why shouldn't I attack the Papacy? A blitzer may in fact be excommunicated anyway. Or I might not be Catholic at all. But let's use your scenario; I'm Catholic and I haven't been excommunicated yet. What if I just trapse through Thessalonica, ignoring it completely?

In such a scenario, wouldn't it be better to hold Thessalonica and reap what florins you can from it, while you can?

I certainly do not fault you at all for new tactics. Anything at all that the Turtle can do to change his situation is something I'd have to consider. On this specific one, I question whether it is necessary. Further, I offer a counter-proposal: why not make your stand against the hypothetical invading Catholic from the West in the Thessalonica/Durazzo/Sofia region? Plenty of good mountain passes and hilltops to defend from, a good place to set up an early warning network with a spy and watchtowers, a good place to have delaying forts. In general, a good place to have a first stand against possible sneak attacks. At worst, you force the Blitzer to come up with a truly superior army that can knock out your main defensive force in one of the toughest battle maps around; a steep valley/mountain region. That is quite an effective delaying tactic; I know because I've tried to attack people who were holed up in the valleys of the Alps. Big mistake if not completely prepared, and even if prepared, still expecting a loss of beaucoup troops, thus allowing you to muster a secondary defense at Thessalonica (any seige battle is an excellent roadblock, because it loses time and troops to the attacker). When and if that fails, you have had all the time in the world to prepare for your main defense at Constantinople. If you lose your huge first-line defense force in Thessalonica region, you all of a sudden have florins aplenty to spend on reinforcements for Constantinople, if you don't have reinforcements already. Then, the seige of Thessalonica (a likely event, but be prepared for the attacker to skip and head straight for Constantinople) makes an excellent next-line of defense and delays my strike even further, while providing you with taxes for as long as possible.

In any event, the case can be made to not give ground so quickly. Thessalonica doesn't even need a full garrison, you can stick to freebie militias until pressed, then recruit as many troops as possible when your spy or watchtower spots the enemy approaching.

Believe you me, even as a blitzer, or perhaps especially as a blitzer, I think about possible defenses all the time. I believe you would be right to move east and carve out a safe haven in Asia minor, and perhaps use navies to delay, block, or sink invading fleets to further fortify your territory.

The stand made inside Constantinople should be a last resort as a defense. If possible, and assuming the attack will be coming from the West, I'd recommend a second stack join your first-wave defenders in Thessalonica, or perhaps stationed outside Sofia to react to any Northern threats, as well as reinforce the West. When possible, make your stand far from the heart of your empire, so you have room to fall back, not just once, but twice in this case, and still have time for a massive final stand.

I note that you may consider it more likely that the blitz would strike early... interesting. I tend to go for the soft, rebel targets first, build my armies, attack neighboring factions, expand my front line away from my core territories, and then assault my targets with a massive flood of troops in the form of 2+ stacks sriking rapidly and without mercy, with reinforcements following close behind if I am able to muster them.

Like the Borg, I don't do anything piecemeal. When I come for you, I come in force, and I leave nothing left in my wake. Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated. It's best to attack me when I am young and vulnerable, because when the collective is up and running, I send the entire hive after you. Much like the Mongol invasion, and with almost as many troops. The troops may be of poor quality at first, but the more I expand, the more distinctive cultures are added to my own, the more and better units I have access to. I can assimilate a Turtle-like AI faction and have equal technology to a human Turtle.

However, it is not in the Turtle's nature to aggressively strike first, so chances are I will have developed quite a bit, and likely you will have as well, before the epic battle takes place.

I'd say Byzantium has a good shot at defending against the West as a Turtle if you use the above suggested tactic. And some further advice: The units don't need to be superb; they only need to be there on the battlefield. Better units are good, but more units are better. Until you can get more and better units, which is best; but that takes florins, and you need to build your economy first. So stick with cheapo troops in large numbers, and have Thessalonica build some armor shops so that the troops you send to defend can all get the good armor as soon as it becomes available. Cheapo troops plus good armor equals decent troops.

Truth be told, it would be a difficult assault. I would NOT be able to strike you right away, so you would have time to rally your defenses, which would further delay my attack, which buys you more time. However, unless you do something drastic, I will continue to build my empire and continue to build my troop levels to the point where no defense may be adequate.

Then again, people have repelled the Mongols and the Timurids with smaller empires than I would be comfortable with; so anything is possible. My question to you is, when would you beat me? How and when would you counter-strike? By the time you accomplish your Turtle goals for your Turtle empire, I will have gobbled up a good third of the map. What is your strategy for taking on an empire thrice your size, especially if you are on defense and the empire in question is pummeling you with a pure militaristic strategy?

That would be not only a defense, but a counter-offensive I would personally love to witness. I believe I would have renewed respect for anyone who could pull that off. The defense against the Borg is one thing... the counter-strike is a whole different beast I have not seen addressed yet.

If the offensive fails against your culture, I believe I would make every effort to defend against your counter-strike, and I would have the economy and vast number of recruitment facilities to rebuild a very large fighting force in short order, especially if I found myself without a giant standing army for some reason.

I think the best you may hope for is a small counter-offensive that catches me off-guard, which leads to a war of attrition. We may become very evenly matched at this point, but by now enough time has passed that my blitzer empire has grown to the point where it can match your Turtle empire. At this point, it's a virtual stalemate, unless someone makes a series of terrible blunders.

In any case, I laud your enthusiastic devotion to your chosen strategy. I believe you would be a formidable opponent, and could possibly advance far enough in your objectives to credibly oppose me on the battlefield. I have to give myself an edge unless there is yet another human in the game, but like two great masters of chess, the edge may not be enough to force a win every time. In such terms, I believe I would be up in space, development and tempo, but the material would be even. A difficult game.

[d3nn16]

Does anyone know if it will it be possible to play multi-player campaigns in the expansion or only 1 human vs 1 human vs AI or any other kind ?
I'd like to see X vs X campaigns and battles fought manually. Any chances of having that in Kingdoms ?

[Lusted]

ATPG, if a situation developed where a large blitzer and smaller turtle reached a stalemate after the turtle beating back the blitzers assault, i would likely lauch a series of small counter strikes at various parts of his empire by sea.

This would open multiple fronts, and whilst all of the counter-strikes would not succeed, some might, and then i would carry on the offensive from there. Then the war would probably degenerate into an epic battle of attrition.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

ATPG, if a situation developed where a large blitzer and smaller turtle reached a stalemate after the turtle beating back the blitzers assault, i would likely lauch a series of small counter strikes at various parts of his empire by sea.

This would open multiple fronts, and whilst all of the counter-strikes would not succeed, some might, and then i would carry on the offensive from there. Then the war would probably degenerate into an epic battle of attrition.

Because I am limited by my own preferred styles, I admit that part of what gives my strategy teeth is the utter lack of navy or preparedness for naval assaults. It is another one of Pizzaguy's secret shames.

It is a trade off. I trade a nearly insurmountable Mongol-invasion type of assault for all the necessary sacrifices; defender garrisons, religious buildings, assassins, economic buildings, ports, and navies. Basically, I become a cross between the Mongols and the Vikings. I pillage and pillage until I can't pillage any more. What I get for my trouble is an endless supply of money and troops.

Against a human opponent, this is slightly modified. I WILL be developing armor and troop producing facilities. That's about it, though.

What you get is almost an unholy hybrid of the offensive/defensive potential of the Turtle with the vast volume of troops and money that only a Blitzer can provide. This is one notch above Expansionist, and one notch below Kamikaze: the truly determined Blitzer. Sometimes I even have money left over to worry about public order buildings and the like, but more often than not I simply convert it into more troops.

Anyone who saw my England thread knows that I field about as many troops as there are civilians in my entire empire. They also know that by turn 70, I had about 15 full stacks of troops all concentrated on one spot on the map to repel the Mongol invasion... with three times as many troops as the Mongols themselves sent.

This wouldn't be the case, of course, when focusing on a human in a player V player game, but the point is, no Turtle could possibly repel the endless tide of troops that the ultimate M2TW aggressor could churn out. There is a point where it does become unfair.

Thankfully, against a human it probably wouldn't get to that point, because I would see the need to eliminate him before he becomes a major threat. Sapi provided me with a situation that would likely hold me off until it became a fair game... and occupy my attention so that it would remain a fair game.

Anyway... sidetracked. Getting back to my point.

Yes, a sneak series of amphibious assaults would have a definite impact on the war. I question whether or not the Turtle would have the resources to pull it off.

So far, he must:

1) Field a massive defensive army on his border facing me (in the Byzantium versus the West scenario)
2) Expand east militarily (more troops...)
3) Expand his economy and troop producing facilities (yet more money...)
4) Develop a navy (more money...)
5) Build bigger defensive walls, armor producers, and upgrades to his key cities (ouch... expensive!)

So... where does he get the resources to do his little piracy raid? If I am not mistaken, unless his empire is massive, he doesn't have the resources to accomplish four of the above goals, let alone all 5 plus send a navy filled with raiders as a sixth goal. Feel free to correct me.

I estimate I will have made my initial assault into his territory by turn 30 at the latest, so... where's the beef?

Unless you guys are cheating and you have more florins than humanly possible, how does he make 4, 5, or all 6 goals by the time 5 stacks of troops start knocking on his door? I ask you, where is the beef?

Eventually, it is the sheer lack of enough territory that is the downfall of the turtle. having well developed provinces may give you an even game for a while, but eventually the sheer number of opposing provinces and the fact that they are all growing too makes it impossible for the Turtle to ultimately keep up. His best bet is if he repels my intial assault and counter-attacks, but eventually the counter-strike will fizzle out and we will be back where we started, except by now my provinces are fairly well developed, leading to a woefully lopsided end game.

Ironically, the Turtle needs to win quickly, and the Blitzer can afford to wait. The longer the game progresses, the more powerful the Blitzer becomes. It is in the Turtle's best interest to repel the initial assault and counter-attack sooner rather than later. The larger the Blitzer becomes, the easier it is to replace the kamikaze stacks of troops he sends into enemy territory. I can get to the point where I literally ship off endless stacks of troops, and you have to beat me before I get there.

Not so much a problem in 3 player mode or above, but in 2 player mode the Blitzer can afford to hold off his assault and become ever more powerful, and the longer this goes on, the weaker the Turtle becomes by comparison.

I yield the floor again for further debate. The pro-Turtle side has made some very good points, but on my own personal scoreboard they don't yet add up to the pro-Blitz side. So far the audience would seem to agree, there have been more 'votes' cast for the Blitz side. However, the debate is certainly not over, and I strongly encourage more rebuttals and more fresh ideas. If I see something strong that I haven't yet considered, I would have to change my analysis of the situation. Not that my little opinion matters, or anything.