Stronger Player - Turtle vs. Hare

**Lusted** · 07-28-2007, 15:25

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** · 07-28-2007, 16:09

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

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.

**Lusted** · 07-28-2007, 16:13

Oh i think the blitzer would win as well, and i would'n treally be playing as a pure turtle, i would be a moderate expansionist. I would likely try and divert my eastern expansion forces into the small raiding forces needed to try and hit amphibiously and try and even things out more. But yes money will always be a problem, i'd likely go on my own little blitz against you with my small forces to try and even things out. A pure turtle though would have no chance.

**Askthepizzaguy** · 07-28-2007, 16:23

Forgive my seemingly endless opinions, but I have another quick addition to the Turtle's defense strategy.

Use diplomats to siphon off as much florins from the AI as possible to boost your economy. Trade map info, trade rights, alliances, and offers to assault their enemies for as many florins as humanly possible. One advantage the Turtle has is his superior diplomatic status as a peaceful faction. That can be converted into an early lead in development.

I shut mouth now.

**Lusted** · 07-28-2007, 16:37

Indeed that is an option, but of limited use as the blitzer could likely divert enough resources to crush any ai nation that attacked them.

**Fisherking** · 07-28-2007, 18:09

Hay! You guys do know that it is represented in the game as the Mongels and Timorids. I don't ever recall loosing to them in all the games I have played.

Not only in the game do we see examples of Hare Vs. Turtles. Alexander was a Hare as were the Huns and a few others but they usually last until the strong man dies and then evaporate.

What ever method you use that works for you is a good one. There are ways to counter each.

**Ramses II CP** · 07-28-2007, 19:03

It would be interesting to see a 'scorched earth' defense against the hare. Cause rioting in all the towns the blitzer is reaching for, reducing the population and the sack prize. Sell all the structures before you leave, just so the enemy can't. Try to attack ahead of the hare on 3rd party provinces, exterminating them and then inciting riots. Play the game with the goal of evening out the income difference between a well managed economy and a sack blitz.

I don't think rioting alone would reduce the sack prize enough actually, but a policy of exterminating the lands between you and the blitz might inconvenience the blitzer. Of course it wouldn't work for a centrally located struggle, but around the edges...

Hrm, probably not. Movement range is wide enough that you wouldn't slow them enough to balance having to maintain an exterminator force in the borderlands.

**Askthepizzaguy** · 07-28-2007, 22:08

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

As stated previously, and widely acknowledged by many, the AI doesn't know how to seriously use aggression. It blockades ports for no reason, sends lone stacks to attack your empire, and the Mongols and the Timurids sometimes just sit there for decades. The AI is also stupid and predictable. They will fall for the same bridge defense, fort trap, city/castle trap, over and over and over again. It cannot be compared to facing a blitzer. A blitzer could steamroll your empire with two or three stacks, never mind ten.

If done properly, the defense against the Mongols can be executed before they snatch a single city. However, Blitzers actually have an empire that can churn out endless stacks of troops, and control them in less predictable ways.
I've been the target of crusades before, where the computer actually sends waves of attackers at me directly. Even this doesn't come close to a true comparison to a blitzer onslaught. I disagree with your analysis that real blitzing is represented in the game.

**Askthepizzaguy** · 07-28-2007, 22:19

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

Mmm I think you missed what I was driving at.

The point was to gain any and all florins from the AI, not to have the AI attack the blitzer. I personally have funded my early empire almost exclusively on diplomatic deals. With attacks on other factions selling for around 250-300 florins apiece, maps sometimes selling for 1000 florins, and alliances netting a random amount of coin, you can gain somewhere around 4000 or 5000 florins from each faction you meet. You can even sack cities and sell them to your opponents for coin.

Such a tactic is VITAL to struggling turtles and expansionists alike.

**Marquis of Roland** · 07-29-2007, 02:16

Up to this point, most of the strategies/scenarios that have been posted are either partially or wholly based on our in-game experiences fighting against the AI, esp. with regards to what a turtle or hare is "expected" to do. Considering the fact that a MP game involving the campaign is impossible right now (other than PBEM, which I think only very few have tried), that is certainly understandable. In order to fill in the gaps of our experiences, we substitute parallel experiences from other RTS MP games which may or may not represent the same situation in M2TW accurately. I will try to exclude these below.

First off, lets clarify the parameters of the game. Are we assuming a grand campaign MP game with all factions being controlled by human players? If this is the case, the particular faction choice of the player will greatly affect whether he/she will choose between attacking sooner than later.

With rebel provinces not being controlled by human players, it is safe to say that everyone will blitz these in the first 5 turns or so. Some factions will find it wiser to let other factions have certain rebel provinces, since some of these may prove to be a crutch to defend later on, or will reduce the number of factions a certain faction is bordering. In this early 5-10 turn period, blitzers that try to "go for broke" will probably find themselves overextended, and even if sacking a few of these rebel cities gives a financial boost, they expose themselves to small, cheap, but effective counterblitzes on their home provinces that will almost certainly spell doom for the initial blitzing faction, as they would have been effectively separated from their initial economic base, and be stuck in a "sacked" city with no economic value.

Since a blitzer will typically need almost all of his starting units to effect his/her strategy, You'd typically expect to have their home cities perhaps garrisoned with as little as 2 low level units and/or a general. In these cases, perhaps sending 1 single diplomat will destroy a massive part of the blitzer's economy. If bribery is not feasible, sending a spy and 1 general and 1 heavy unit (either infantry or cavalry) may be enough to take the city.

The blitzer cannot afford to not include a general (and perhaps other NPCS as well) in their blitzing army. A large stack of cheap troops can be bribed away; if this happens the blitzer will be in a very bad spot and will probably be wiped in as few as 1 to 3 turns.

This leads me to theorize that "blitzers" in an all human campaign will not blitz with actual troops, but instead will blitz with diplomats. This will make his/her cities/castles less vulnerable to bribes/quick strikes with small armies equipped with spies because the initial troops will be garrisoned along with all generals. In this case a player that is expert at diplomacy will be at a great advantage for the next step of the game in terms of finance and positioning (it may take a good amount to bribe a place like Flanders, but you'll be getting all your money back by the time the initial phase is over). Also keep in mind that diplomatic tactics will be rather limited in a human MP game; you will not be able to make 5k florins with diplomacy per turn as no human player will offer money for map information, and with limited money involved with making "alliances" (and this will be based on the human player's ability to make deals with the other players in real life).

After the initial smash and grab for the rebel provinces, players will probably spend another 5-10 turns building infrastructure and stabilizing their borders as further blitzing will now require actual troops and possible excommunication (for the catholics). In these next 5-10 turns is when the strategies of each player will diverge, heavily depending on their faction location and strengths/weaknesses.

In the actual AI campaign, the AI hardly ever uses its NPCs and navy to great effect. In a human campaign, I believe these will be used far more extensively by the savvy player. Building an extensive navy and recruiting an effective force of NPCs will be a considerable chunk of your income, and again will heavily depend on the faction you pick. For example, if England "turtles" by leaving France and building its navy, it'll only have to contend with Scotland, and will probably eventually win as the initial starting provinces of the English produce more income; Scotland can only get a real boost if it sacks either York or Ireland, which won't give great loot anyway since it is so underdeveloped. Blockading also severely reduces income, so most players with ports will probably build up their navy to a greater extent than they do facing the AI.

Alliances with other players will be an eventuality; with so many factions with different strengths and uneven starting locations, any player that does not form alliances will probably be done playing after another 5 turns. After the map "settles down", what you will see are coalitions of factions facing off with one another, possibly with a "no man's land" region between the coalitions as a result of the initial sacking of select rebel provinces to build up the buffer zone. It is likely that these provinces may never be truly "developed", and attacks will likely go straight thru these provinces and into developed areas. This may lead to players "sacking" their own developed cities/castles if they decide that the position is untenable.

With all this sacking going around, high-tech troops will possibly only be available in one's starting settlements (if they haven't been sacked already). Players will be forced to augment their armies with low tech troops, possibly throughout the majority of the campaign.

The next phase will probably involve the breaking of alliances and political backstabbing that will change alliances around and/or form new ones, until one or a few factions are dominant on the map. In these cases, a far off alliance that "turtles" will have the advantage after this phase is over. Theoretically, if the muslim factions will have the advantage if they stayed allied; there is much more room in the east to safely expand without sacking and without stepping on the toes of your neighbors. Russia, though initial troops are not great, will be a danger if left on its own. In any case, it is likely the Russian player will ally with the muslim at any rate, as the catholic factions it is closest to will expand east; the Turks will unlikely to be expanding north, as they'll have plenty of rich provinces already and will probably not want to deal with the Mongols (which, if player controlled, will be VERY interesting. If not, you still don't want to deal with them with other human players around).

Whatever the case, it seems that an actual completely human controlled campaign will offer the most realistic gameplay of all in terms of realistic historical issues.

By the way, it is IMO that, in a MP game, 2 low quality stacks cannot take a settlement from 1 quality stack. In certain cities the distance from the square to the walls exceed even seige engine range. The defender will obviously have just enough high-quality infantry to block all four entrances to the square, while defensive missile and artillery fire located inside the town square will lay waste to any concentration of troops forming in the streets to assault the town square. Bringing up your own artillery to as counterbattery fire will expose your attacking artillery to the defending artillery, and with the narrowness of the streets, the defense will be able to concentrate all their firepower while the attacker will not be able to unless he concentrates troops in the streets, which will mean massive casualties to the attackers without ever even engaging the defending melee infantry. Even splitting the assault into two or more avenues of attack would not be enough to breach the square defenses as concentrated defensive fire will break up an assault thru the streets in perhaps only 1 or 2 volleys, which gives the defenders of dealing with multiple assaults 1 or 2 at a time. Assaulting artillery will be at an ammunition disadvantage as well since they would have expended a good amount to break thru the walls/towers (assuming the defending player is smart enough to garrison the towers with their quick-moving troops).