Stronger Player - Turtle vs. Hare

[Lusted]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Fisherking]

A combination of scorched earth and counter blitz would likely kill him off. Don't engage his strongest force but go after his cities with your own stacks destroying his income base and forcing him to chase you...

[Askthepizzaguy]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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.

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]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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.

Such a strategy would have little effect on a blitzer. Any city which doesn't yield a substantial cash prize because it has been exterminated is an uneccessary loss for the opponent of the blitzer. This means the blitzer's opponent held the city, and chose to abandon it. I don't see how that in any way adds to the effectiveness of his defense.

The only potential gain for the defender is sacking florins, followed by the possibility of a large rebel garrison slowing me down. But what prevents me from strolling past the city? This isn't football, the defender in question is a city which cannot move.

Not to mention the fact that the Blitzer will have gained his cash prizes necessary to build his invasion army before taking the cities you have taken and exterminated, causing no real loss to the blitzer at all. I agree with your analysis that the strategy would be ineffective.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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.

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]

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).

[Ramses II CP]

The trouble with this last bit is you can't fight the battles in a MP campaign, you have to auto-calc which removes any benefit of walls, towers, or narrow roads.

[sapi]

The trouble with this last bit is you can't fight the battles in a MP campaign, you have to auto-calc which removes any benefit of walls, towers, or narrow roads.

We're talking hypothetically as if you could

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.

An interesting question.

To be honest, I'm not a turtle at all - I was merely explaining what I saw as the best way to act if I was forced to play in that way.

I do think that the key with any turtle defence is to abandon all pretences of turtling on the second front (against the AI, in my example - this would be nigh on impossible against a human) and snap up neighbouring cities for the sacking money, which can be reinvested in second tier defences.

It's true, though, that a critical mass will eventually be reached, and I think, as you do, that the blitzer's larger share of territory would let him win a war of attrition in the end.

Of course, by that point, he's not longer a blitzer but a moderate expansionist, so the point is moot

[Askthepizzaguy]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The trouble with this last bit is you can't fight the battles in a MP campaign, you have to auto-calc which removes any benefit of walls, towers, or narrow roads.

I agree with Sapi, this is intended to be a thought experiment, I believe.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

We're talking hypothetically as if you could

An interesting question.

To be honest, I'm not a turtle at all - I was merely explaining what I saw as the best way to act if I was forced to play in that way.

I do think that the key with any turtle defence is to abandon all pretences of turtling on the second front (against the AI, in my example - this would be nigh on impossible against a human) and snap up neighbouring cities for the sacking money, which can be reinvested in second tier defences.

It's true, though, that a critical mass will eventually be reached, and I think, as you do, that the blitzer's larger share of territory would let him win a war of attrition in the end.

Of course, by that point, he's not longer a blitzer but a moderate expansionist, so the point is moot

Whether you're a Turtle or not, your argument against the established point of view (blitzers win) is admirable and thought-provoking.

Sounds like we would agree that a combination of the two strategies is better in most situations, and that there are only rare instances where dedicated blitzing or dedicated turtling could prevail in a person-versus-person match.

I'd tend to favor riskier expansion in the beginning, as almost no one is prepared to defend themselves in the long term with just their starting nest egg. Cautious play should come later as it becomes more affordable.

Much like a chess game, in the beginning expansion and development and claiming territory is the most important factor. Later on, material advantages become more apparent, and there is room for more subtle play.

[Didz]

But that fact remains that as soon as we begin to suggest solutions based upon the modification of either the Turtle or the Blitzers strategy then we corrupt the point of the original question which assumed that the players would remain true to their nature.

[Marius Dynamite]

If its simply Blitz Vs Turtle, no other factions or rebel cities, my moneys on the turtle. If its a normal campaign with other factions and rebel cities, it's got to be the Blitz.

You get to have peasant archers, militia spearmen, light horse, and a general. You also get to have another stack filled with the same. You are allowed to have one catapult.

You are fighting a citadel filled with dismounted knights, mounted knights, and longbowmen. Can you win this battle?

Answer: I can, easily. Strength in numbers. I could pummel both outer walls with just the catapult and force a retreat of your men. If you sallied, you would have to sally against both armies, and I have yet to see an entire garrison escape through a gate to attack me without me being able to easily pin your troops at the bottleneck and surround them until they rout, even with bad troops.

The defending army could defend at the last wall and inwards and even use the centre square to stop a rout. In that case the numbers may not matter. As for sallying, well, that defeats the point of a Blitz, if you have to wait for a sally.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

If its simply Blitz Vs Turtle, no other factions or rebel cities, my moneys on the turtle. If its a normal campaign with other factions and rebel cities, it's got to be the Blitz.

The defending army could defend at the last wall and inwards and even use the centre square to stop a rout. In that case the numbers may not matter. As for sallying, well, that defeats the point of a Blitz, if you have to wait for a sally.

Well the hypothetical situation in question is debatable, because it wouldn't happen. The closest I have come is the Hundred years War on Lands to Conquer, and I blitzed the French to death. Too many cities to defend, and not enough troops to fully garrison them all.

And archers/artillery destroy those making a final stand in the city center. They aren't indestructible, and numbers do matter in the end.

I guess we're just going to have to disagree on that one.

I think we have also established that blitz does not simply mean kamikaze, and turtle does not mean simply pacifist. There is SOME wiggle room.

[Discoman]

Hares really don't need to establish an economy and can do what the Romans do; that is sack a settlement to pay off the production of buildings and units. Sometimes I play as hare and turtle. Starting off the game elimating the closest faction and then I slow down and resort to more diplomatic solutions to ensure a happy alliance. Then I build up an economy from my early warfare. I may engage in some wars but do try to end them diplomatically in order to gain territories without much troop loss. Then I become a hare towards the end and blitz my enemies with large armies that are made from my economy devolped during my "turtle" phase. When playing as the Scots I easily had armies moving in France, Germany, and Denmark.

Crusades make it easier to Bltiz if your friends of the Pope, In a England Campaign I decalred a Crusade against Leon and had 5 crusading armies go and take settlements in Spain. In less than 7 turns I had easily captured the peninsula without much trouble. Oh and to top it off my economy was booming and I had more than 1 million florins, thanks to the fact that I had alot of units garrisoned and it didnt cost me anything.

Also the Quantity over Quality isnt exactly true, I recall one battle where as England I tried taking Wales from Rebels, well during the siege my infantry was decimated in wall combat and for 5 seconds had capture of the gates. I then rushed in my cavalry, which was greatly out numbered, and took out the entire rebel force and miracoulsly won the battle.

But in games like RTW being a hare can leave you very vunerable. As Gual I immeaditly in the first turn took out a city of the Julii and eventually conquered Italy only to have, Carthage, Scipii, Spain, Germany, Britannia, and Greece trying to kill me. I gave up once the Germans began sweeping through France while the Scipii started recapturing cities. For my economy as a barbarian was too weak and the demanding upkeep of my troops did not allow me to make any defensive stands.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Hares really don't need to establish an economy and can do what the Romans do; that is sack a settlement to pay off the production of buildings and units. Sometimes I play as hare and turtle. Starting off the game elimating the closest faction and then I slow down and resort to more diplomatic solutions to ensure a happy alliance. Then I build up an economy from my early warfare. I may engage in some wars but do try to end them diplomatically in order to gain territories without much troop loss. Then I become a hare towards the end and blitz my enemies with large armies that are made from my economy devolped during my "turtle" phase. When playing as the Scots I easily had armies moving in France, Germany, and Denmark.

Crusades make it easier to Bltiz if your friends of the Pope, In a England Campaign I decalred a Crusade against Leon and had 5 crusading armies go and take settlements in Spain. In less than 7 turns I had easily captured the peninsula without much trouble. Oh and to top it off my economy was booming and I had more than 1 million florins, thanks to the fact that I had alot of units garrisoned and it didnt cost me anything.

Also the Quantity over Quality isnt exactly true, I recall one battle where as England I tried taking Wales from Rebels, well during the siege my infantry was decimated in wall combat and for 5 seconds had capture of the gates. I then rushed in my cavalry, which was greatly out numbered, and took out the entire rebel force and miracoulsly won the battle.

But in games like RTW being a hare can leave you very vunerable. As Gual I immeaditly in the first turn took out a city of the Julii and eventually conquered Italy only to have, Carthage, Scipii, Spain, Germany, Britannia, and Greece trying to kill me. I gave up once the Germans began sweeping through France while the Scipii started recapturing cities. For my economy as a barbarian was too weak and the demanding upkeep of my troops did not allow me to make any defensive stands.

Depends on how you take the walls. Did you wait two turns to max out your seige towers? Ladders are for the suicidal. Seige towers make the battle completely even, and they distract archers from burning your ram. You can't lose with massive amounts of seige towers.

Don't forget about archers. Once you have the walls, archers will win the battle.

If you have lots of heavy cavalry you can blitz rush to the city center and hold it off for 3 minutes and win the seige that way. It's exploitative but legal. More often than not they are too busy defending the walls and that leaves the city center vulnerable.

If they just decide to defend the center then the walls are yours easily and archers will win the battle while your infantry hold them down.

[llewellyn]

well i started to read this and was astounded that so many think the hare would crush the turtle, i am a turtle but after 10ish turns my nation controls the strategic provinces i need for
A income
B defense
C expansion of military forces
be advised this does change with every nation, you cant go after bruges and antwerp as the italians, you cant take adana and antioch if you are danish

dont think that the turtle gets that slow a start, if done right any faction can have the best economy in a few turns, and that directly translates into spending power eother with mercs or buildings to recruit an army that is professional. honestly i would like to see a hare go up against a eastern european army commanded correctly. tho if it is western europeans it is a different story you are almost forced to fight on the hares terms unless you are scotland or england (navy).
now to address the miltia aspect of blitzing, that is easy to address, chop the armies head off then push through minimal losses max casualties. it doesnt matter if you swarm with militia if you can kill the general, they are still gonna rout.
Fisherking good point about alexander and attila, but to counter that GENGISH KAHN is all you really have to say.
in some of my long campaigns i have been the hare and sure you win very fast, but your dread skyrockets and under most scenarios you would simply lose against a human player, because if you are gonna play a battle map game there will be 3+ players and you cant leave a flank open to rush a faction because only a fool would stand by and not go for your key provinces and ports.
also to throw my last idea out there. imagine you are a blitzer and come up against a entrenched army of either faction specific early units or a professional army you can either
A. go around but then open yourself up to a pillage campaign by a human enemy
B. try to go threw them but that would result in a serious loss of manpower for your side and you could not possibly get threw in one turn, which would allow me to divert all my economic resources (the ones i built up) to create yet another army and brush your battered and tired militia/merc army to the side and then advance on the next defensive postion to once again frustrate the blight out of you. this would go on and on and on until the war of attrition went to the one with the most developed core provinces and the most developed front line castles.
C. bribe me, but that just wouldnt work cus i would never put a army with a disloyal commander

also i would like to say, askthepizzaguy you do have some very good points on why the hare would win

[Askthepizzaguy]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

well i started to read this and was astounded that so many think the hare would crush the turtle, i am a turtle but after 10ish turns my nation controls the strategic provinces i need for
A income
B defense
C expansion of military forces
be advised this does change with every nation, you cant go after bruges and antwerp as the italians, you cant take adana and antioch if you are danish

dont think that the turtle gets that slow a start, if done right any faction can have the best economy in a few turns, and that directly translates into spending power eother with mercs or buildings to recruit an army that is professional. honestly i would like to see a hare go up against a eastern european army commanded correctly. tho if it is western europeans it is a different story you are almost forced to fight on the hares terms unless you are scotland or england (navy).
now to address the miltia aspect of blitzing, that is easy to address, chop the armies head off then push through minimal losses max casualties. it doesnt matter if you swarm with militia if you can kill the general, they are still gonna rout.
Fisherking good point about alexander and attila, but to counter that GENGISH KAHN is all you really have to say.
in some of my long campaigns i have been the hare and sure you win very fast, but your dread skyrockets and under most scenarios you would simply lose against a human player, because if you are gonna play a battle map game there will be 3+ players and you cant leave a flank open to rush a faction because only a fool would stand by and not go for your key provinces and ports.
also to throw my last idea out there. imagine you are a blitzer and come up against a entrenched army of either faction specific early units or a professional army you can either
A. go around but then open yourself up to a pillage campaign by a human enemy
B. try to go threw them but that would result in a serious loss of manpower for your side and you could not possibly get threw in one turn, which would allow me to divert all my economic resources (the ones i built up) to create yet another army and brush your battered and tired militia/merc army to the side and then advance on the next defensive postion to once again frustrate the blight out of you. this would go on and on and on until the war of attrition went to the one with the most developed core provinces and the most developed front line castles.
C. bribe me, but that just wouldnt work cus i would never put a army with a disloyal commander

also i would like to say, askthepizzaguy you do have some very good points on why the hare would win

I would like to say that you, Llewellen, have some good points yourself.

I've even argued that if the turtle does exactly as you suggest, he could put up a decent fight. I also fully concur that blitzers die in a fight against more than one human opponent. Of course, any game with more than two sides is impossible to predict because of all the permutations and possible outcomes. So for the sake of the discussion "is turtle better or worse than hare", we're talking just about one on one battles.

If the hare is smart, he does have the advantage. He doesn't necessarily HAVE to destroy the turtle immediately. He can focus on the entire map and hold off the Turtle using the turtle's own type of defensive tactics. When the blitzer has control over an empire twice or thrice the size of the turtle, and he brings all his forces to bear, it's not a game I would like to be playing as the turtle. By this point, the blitzer has access to equal technologies, has equal or better economy, has more troops, and is the aggressor.

I really don't see what the Turtle can do at this point but hope that the blitzer sucks at seige battles. Which I do not.


My conclusion is, and most turtles agree on this point, the game favors aggressive play. So long as the blitzer's empire is not located on the doorstep of the turtle, he has an advantage that is not easily nullified.

However, and this is interesting, suppose the Turtle is France and the Blitzer is England.
Now the blitzer is pretty screwed. France has the standing armies and resources to defend, and is strategically positioned to pretty much block England in. This would be true for many other neighboring factions. So these scenarios all depend on each individual game. The more space the Blitzer has, the better.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I just want to say that this thread was my favorite of all time.

I used to post big campaigns and endless screenshots of my blitzes, which were rather popular, but I never enjoyed a thread as much as this particular one. The debate was quite engaging, and re-reading the whole thing has really put me in the mood to do some more expansion campaigns.

I think... the Danes this time...

[Jacob Debroedere]

And what if the turtler destroys his buildings before the city falls?The looting would be far less profitable, while the hare still has to replenish his losses. Granted that the turtler has enough provinces to repeat this a few times the hare may end up like he Germans in 1943.

[Privateerkev]

Now that Kingdom's Hotseat PBM's are finally getting off the ground, I have to agree with ATPG's statement that the relations between the human controlled factions will decide how the game goes if there are more than 2 human players. In the two that I am currently in, in-character diplomacy is by far the most important aspect of the game. If you can convince other players to let you blitz, or even help you, you will whomp. If you can convince other players that your are worth keeping around, they will pool their resources to help defend you. If you can not establish good enough diplomatic relations with enough players, you will find that the rest of the players have divvied up the map (including your territories) and then it is just a matter of time.

If we're talking about 1 v 1 MP campaign games, I believe the hare would win because they have the math of the game on their side. They are basically pushing the in-game economics to their highest limits and will win through sheer weight of numbers. It's the way the game is designed and they are to be applauded for finding it and pushing it to it's limits.

Now for me, that way is simply not fun. In my SP games I am a total turtle. I decide on the first turn what my "homelands" will be, then I get them as fast as possible, and then I turtle for the rest of the game. I build up my homelands and finance them through acquiring colonies like islands, the New World, and Outremer. In a MP 1v1 campaign I would get owned though using this strategy.

[Askthepizzaguy]

And what if the turtler destroys his buildings before the city falls?The looting would be far less profitable, while the hare still has to replenish his losses. Granted that the turtler has enough provinces to repeat this a few times the hare may end up like he Germans in 1943.

The main target of sacking is rebel and AI controlled settlements.

Once I go after the Human player, I don't need any money at all. I have 5 or more stacks concentrated in one province. I could be in debt the rest of the game and still annihilate someone.

[CavalryCmdr]

First, I agree that the blitzer is likely to win, but I dont see it as one sided as most of you seem to think.

Askthepizzaguy, you are talking about going against a pure turtler while modifying your blitz strategy to consider the human turtler. To that point, the turtler who modifies his strategy to compansate for a human blitzer against a pure blitzer would win as well. If your modifying your strategies to compansate for having a human player it's only a fair comparison if said turtler is also modifying his. At that point it's agresive expansionist against defensive expansionist, remember to be a fair comparison the two players would have to be equaly skilled, you've mastered attacking in sieges, your opponant has mastered defending them, you've mastered crossing bridges, your opponant has mastered defending them.

In short, true blitzer against true turtler, the blitzer would probably win 9 out of 10 times. True blitzer needs to keep expanding to keep his economy, one too many losses and he's done, thus the turtler wins one game.

Moderate blitzer against true turtler the blitzer wins every time.

Moderate turtler against true blitzer would likely be turtler 9 out of 10, the one time being you just couldnt stop him long enough.

However, in a human vs human it would be moderate blitzer against moderate turtler and it's anyone's game, though I'd say the blitzer has an edge.

[Meldarion]

This is a complex question indeed. I have played strategy games for quite some time and I find its not always a case of who has more troops or who has a better economy. In most cases its about who puts the resources they have to better use, in most strategy games I find the "rush" tactic is a double edge sword. If it fails or burns out before doing severe damage to the enemy then that player will lose.

Many other factors would need to be considered such as faction but until it has been tried in real time its difficult to speculate what would happen. It always surprises me some of the strategies people do come up with, after all if the TW series is going online at some point it would be a pretty bad strategy game if all you had to do was bum rush.

In MTW2 however there is no reward for building an economy or "booming" as its called in most games. Pizzaguys strategies seem like they all rely on the stupidity of the AI, no discredit to him though his HRE campaign is most impressive. So with all said and done there really isn't that much of a reason to have armies sitting still I'm not a blitzer but armies standing about just cost money, so although I build up my cities my armies are always advancing too. I suppose I fall somewhere in between.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

First, I agree that the blitzer is likely to win, but I dont see it as one sided as most of you seem to think.

Askthepizzaguy, you are talking about going against a pure turtler while modifying your blitz strategy to consider the human turtler. To that point, the turtler who modifies his strategy to compansate for a human blitzer against a pure blitzer would win as well. If your modifying your strategies to compansate for having a human player it's only a fair comparison if said turtler is also modifying his. At that point it's agresive expansionist against defensive expansionist, remember to be a fair comparison the two players would have to be equaly skilled, you've mastered attacking in sieges, your opponant has mastered defending them, you've mastered crossing bridges, your opponant has mastered defending them.

In short, true blitzer against true turtler, the blitzer would probably win 9 out of 10 times. True blitzer needs to keep expanding to keep his economy, one too many losses and he's done, thus the turtler wins one game.

Moderate blitzer against true turtler the blitzer wins every time.

Moderate turtler against true blitzer would likely be turtler 9 out of 10, the one time being you just couldnt stop him long enough.

However, in a human vs human it would be moderate blitzer against moderate turtler and it's anyone's game, though I'd say the blitzer has an edge.

To respond to your points:

1. I've been waiting for someone to detail exactly how they would defend. I make it a point of showing how the attack would go. Simply saying one is a true turtle does not show any sort of compensatory strategem. Details, my friend, details.

2. Equal skill has always been the assumption. Given the blitzer's obvious territorial and time advantages, and near-endless economic resources, the turtle must abandon a purely defensive, economic game.

3. To be a "defending expansionist" one must field an attacking force, build the proper military buildings, and trade off some defending garrison in the process, distracting from the pure defensive game. One is then a moderate turtle, not a true turtle.

4. Defensive mastery does not apply to seige situations. It is a forced loss with overwhelming force. You might sally and destroy one stack, but not three. Should you defend your province with multiple stacks, I would advance elsewhere and take you where you are weakest.

It doesn't matter how skilled a person is, eventually force wins.

5. I've layed out a detailed explanation as to exactly why a turtle cannot defeat a good blitzer, unless there are 3 or more humans in play. Thus far, no one has layed out a detailed explanation showing how this is wrong, or that there is a good counter strategy for a turtle. The best defense so far is the moderate who slips behind the blitzer's defenses with a small raiding party, burns the blitzer's cities to the ground, and defends at choke points against his invasion force. However, in order to field that many troops, one must abandon an economic game, and move quickly to destroy the blitzer. In other words, one must be half defender, half blitzer. Not exactly turtle-ish.

6. Assuming even skill, and assuming each player sticks to his or her chosen strategy, assuming there aren't any other human players, and assuming neither faction is on the border of the other, the blitzer beats the turtle, every time. The AI is too incompetent to defeat the blitzer, and serves as his source of territory and income. Taking advantage of expansionism all over the map, while the turtle at best fields two offensive stacks, it's a simple math problem to figure out who wins long term.

Long term, the blitzer is utterly unstoppable. The ONLY way you can defeat the blitzer is to prevent the unlimited troops, florins, and territories from falling into the hands of your opponent. Which means you must defeat the blitzer quickly. No turtle is prepared for an all-out assault in the opening game, because that is contrary to his operating methods.

Blitzers are vulnerable at the opening. But the AI is too stupid to take advantage, and turtles are unprepared and unwilling to divert the neccessary resources to finish him off immediately. Then the battle swings in the blitzer's favor, ever more so as time progresses.

If you can illustrate why you think this is not so, I'd be very interested to hear your views.

[Privateerkev]

5. I've layed out a detailed explanation as to exactly why a turtle cannot defeat a good blitzer, unless there are 3 or more humans in play. Thus far, no one has layed out a detailed explanation showing how this is wrong, or that there is a good counter strategy for a turtle. The best defense so far is the moderate who slips behind the blitzer's defenses with a small raiding party, burns the blitzer's cities to the ground, and defends at choke points against his invasion force. However, in order to field that many troops, one must abandon an economic game, and move quickly to destroy the blitzer. In other words, one must be half defender, half blitzer. Not exactly turtle-ish.

I'm surprised no one has gone into detail with the use of "intelligence services". What if the turtle kept his armies at home, but spammed the blitzer with assassins and spies. A large group of them could sabotage all of the happiness buildings while the spies sit in the cities and cause them to revolt.

There would be an initial cost but it is slight compared to that of getting an professional army. You would just need a tavern in every city and you would have each of your cities pumping out 1 spy and 1 assassin per turn for the rest of the game. Subsequent tavern lines do not increase the effectiveness of the spies and assassins so you can stop once you spend 2400 per city (800 for brothel and 1600 per tavern.) This would take 5 turns total but hopefully some cities will start with brothels.

Also, the Guilds will start to come calling once you produce and use spies and assassins a lot. These will make your operatives even more effective.

Also when I defend, I do not defend my cities. I defend "frontlines". Bridges, mountain passes, forest roads, ect... Also, I believe I can defend against a multiple stack artillery laden army at a bridge crossing as long as I had reinforcements behind me. Lay a massive stake fort at the bridgehead and then move my archers back a little in the beginning of the battle. I always let the enemy take the bridgehead and then I turn it into a little cauldron of death as I pour shot on his head.

Your tactic of bringing fire support to hit my defenses will be minimized by the fact that I will move back a little. You will be forced to come forward or duke it out in an artillery duel that will either go to me or become a draw. You will need plenty of assault forces in your stacks but I can go heavy on archers and arty. I only need 5 or 6 actual melee units and the rest can be throwing things. I'd have a catapult fling a dead cow onto your side of the bridge to hurt your unit's moral. Your horses would charge into a massive tangle of stakes (I use at least 8 stake laying archers in each army and I would probably go more here) or they would have to walk where I would turn them into porcupines.

The only good counter against this kind of bridge defense is elephants but I will gamble that you won't have access to them yet. Elephants can charge and knock over the stakes and Panzerphaunts could just engage in a long-range artillery duel which would break all of my cannons. (The tactic I am discussing obviously does not work well against the Timurids but works wonders on Mongols).

In the end, I think the blitzer would win the campaign due to sheer weight of numbers but I believe that the strategy I have layed out shows that a more pure turtle does have the chance at putting up a good fight. Of course a lot depends on the terrain that the turtler starts out with.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I'm surprised no one has gone into detail with the use of "intelligence services". What if the turtle kept his armies at home, but spammed the blitzer with assassins and spies. A large group of them could sabotage all of the happiness buildings while the spies sit in the cities and cause them to revolt.

There would be an initial cost but it is slight compared to that of getting an professional army. You would just need a tavern in every city and you would have each of your cities pumping out 1 spy and 1 assassin per turn for the rest of the game. Subsequent tavern lines do not increase the effectiveness of the spies and assassins so you can stop once you spend 2400 per city (800 for brothel and 1600 per tavern.) This would take 5 turns total but hopefully some cities will start with brothels.

Also, the Guilds will start to come calling once you produce and use spies and assassins a lot. These will make your operatives even more effective.

Also when I defend, I do not defend my cities. I defend "frontlines". Bridges, mountain passes, forest roads, ect... Also, I believe I can defend against a multiple stack artillery laden army at a bridge crossing as long as I had reinforcements behind me. Lay a massive stake fort at the bridgehead and then move my archers back a little in the beginning of the battle. I always let the enemy take the bridgehead and then I turn it into a little cauldron of death as I pour shot on his head.

Your tactic of bringing fire support to hit my defenses will be minimized by the fact that I will move back a little. You will be forced to come forward or duke it out in an artillery duel that will either go to me or become a draw. You will need plenty of assault forces in your stacks but I can go heavy on archers and arty. I only need 5 or 6 actual melee units and the rest can be throwing things. I'd have a catapult fling a dead cow onto your side of the bridge to hurt your unit's moral. Your horses would charge into a massive tangle of stakes (I use at least 8 stake laying archers in each army and I would probably go more here) or they would have to walk where I would turn them into porcupines.

The only good counter against this kind of bridge defense is elephants but I will gamble that you won't have access to them yet. Elephants can charge and knock over the stakes and Panzerphaunts could just engage in a long-range artillery duel which would break all of my cannons. (The tactic I am discussing obviously does not work well against the Timurids but works wonders on Mongols).

In the end, I think the blitzer would win the campaign due to sheer weight of numbers but I believe that the strategy I have layed out shows that a more pure turtle does have the chance at putting up a good fight. Of course a lot depends on the terrain that the turtler starts out with.

Thank you, my friend; you've given me something I can actually sink some teeth into.

Although, assassins will do you no good. I typically have no happiness buildings. What's the point? I conquer half the map before any city comes close to revolt. (Within 30 turns, to be specific).

You may have some luck with spy spamming. However, by the time you get that up and running, I've assembled my forces. Granted, you could begin sending spies within 10 turns or so, and that would be a good tactic with good results. This would slow me down until I got some counterspies in my cities. This may buy you some time, it would indeed slow me down while I built a spy network, and was forced to recruit extra garrison forces. However, given the time and resources spent massing endless uber spies, it would slow you down just as well. I give you an edge on this strategy the first time I see it, but the effectiveness wears off after the first revolt, by then I see what you're doing and I will stop you. It may even trip me up on the first game enough to warrant a very prolonged, near-stalemate. I would be prepared next game with one dedicated anti-spy city. Which foils such a plan easily.

In response to your other points, I've always advocated a NON seige type of defense. Anything that puts your troops in a tactically superior defensive position. True, walls are helpful if attacked this turn... but are utterly useless if I have the time to wait you out. In fact, I can pin you at the choke point of the gate and surround n' pound you to death. Seige defense is suicide.

I think you overestimate the bridge advantage. Not because I am afraid of a challenge to my opinion, but because of a plan I've laid out previously. The bridge keeps both armies away from one another with a choke point in the middle, but does not prevent archer and artillery fire from pushing back your army. True, you can bring archers and artillery yourself, but then we've simply got an even archer shootout. There is no inherent advantage to defending a bridge unless I have few ranged units.

When assaulting such a fortified position, I'd be sure to bring plenty. Yet, your reinforcements make winning the battle a costly thing. I'd have to plow 3 stacks of troops through in order to defeat you, and your troops are in a fine position to rout and regroup. I'd think about going around a different way (by sea, perhaps... or reroute by land in multiple vectors).

It is DEFINITLEY a good idea to choke the blitzer with spies and fortified stacks in strategic areas. This buys you time, for certain.

However, in my humble analysis, the Turtle's position is mighty, but like the Titanic, it is a hopeless position. You will sink as time passes, until you are swamped by endless hordes of troops attacking from many fronts. The "pumps" buy you time, but decades only.

The ship is still sinking. Without some kind of massive assault, FAST, the blitzer will slowly build his advantage while the turtle attempts to do too much with too little.

So far he MUST:

1. Defend his cities with UBER garrison forces, or at least field massive armies in the borderlands for defensive purposes. A small empire is nearly bankrupt in such an undertaking.

2. Assault neighboring territories. No one is silly enough to think the turtle needn't expand. This requires at least one, preferably two, good assault stacks. So we're looking at a tiny empire fielding several full stacks of troops.

3. Build his economy. Obviously, the turtle's whole IDEA is to have "better quality" cities instead of more of them. So every spare florin is spent on developing roads, ports, markets, etc.

4. Build a spy network (optional, but required if under seige by spies from the blitzer's camp). Time consuming, and costly to maintain. Think an additional stack of troops worth of florins per turn.

5. Build the best garrisons available. Obviously, the Turtle needs BETTER troops, because the Blitzer has MORE of them. More $$$ and time invested.

6. Build a navy (if near the ocean). The blitzer can afford a navy, because he's only concerned with more troops and better mobility for them. Can you muster the florins to defend against a proper naval assault?

7. React rather than act. Because he is playing at least somewhat defensively, the turtle must plan to counter the other player's movements. This requires time. It's harder to defend against blows than it is to throw a punch. Because this is not a real time strategy game, this means careful planning, not quick reflexes, is required. Simply waiting for the inevitable and attempting to muster a defense is a poor plan.

8. Eventually, the Turtle MUST counterstrike the larger beast, AND DEFEAT HIM! No matter what, I have at least twice the territory and I've been sending soldiers to their deaths for a while now. I have the florins and the garrisons to replenish my numbers in one or two turns. You must not only turn back the tide of my assault, but engage and defeat the greatest empire in the history of mankind, after being brutalized by endless waves of troops.

And good luck on that last one. So far, every resource (and by my calculation, more than you even HAVE) has been spent merely fending off my assault. What of your goal to win? Stalemate is not an option. I have many, many cities, each growing slowly, each growing more powerful (perhaps not as fast as yours, but in due time...), each allowing more and more troops to be recruited, and as time goes by, I make the preparations for securing my holdings. Walls, armorers, spies, fortresses. Dare you invade my territory?

The door is open. But it's not a warm and friendly place inside...

[Privateerkev]

I think you overestimate the bridge advantage. Not because I am afraid of a challenge to my opinion, but because of a plan I've laid out previously. The bridge keeps both armies away from one another with a choke point in the middle, but does not prevent archer and artillery fire from pushing back your army. True, you can bring archers and artillery yourself, but then we've simply got an even archer shootout. There is no inherent advantage to defending a bridge unless I have few ranged units.

When assaulting such a fortified position, I'd be sure to bring plenty. Yet, your reinforcements make winning the battle a costly thing. I'd have to plow 3 stacks of troops through in order to defeat you, and your troops are in a fine position to rout and regroup. I'd think about going around a different way (by sea, perhaps... or reroute by land in multiple vectors).

While I will (and have from the beginning) concede that the Blitzer will win the campaign because they fully exploit the math of the game, I do think you underestimate my bridge defense advantage.

You keep thinking that the river cuts both ways. It doesn't. You have to come to me. While we can both deploy anywhere on our own side of the river, I have the advantage in knowing exactly where your forces are eventually going to be. And that is the bridge and the bridgehead. If we're playing with a timer on, you have only one hour to cross that bridge and beat me. And unless you have elephants, I am arguing that I can hold you for one hour if I have the proper stack plus some reinforcements.

I've already laid out how I would do it but I'll go over some points. I would pick a bridge or river crossing that had some heights overlooking the bridgehead. I would lay 8 rows of stakes at the bridgehead and then move the archers back as soon as the battle starts. I would put the archers on the heights. And I would have 6 Trebuchet/Cannon batteries for counter battery fire.

I would launch a couple of dead cows to your side of the bridge to force your army to take the penalty of walking through them if you wanted to assault. I would nail each piece of your arty. If you break mine, I would have more in reserve. You could win the arty duel only if you have more and better arty than me but then your using up precious time bringing the assault troops as reinforcements.

Once you cross, you'll have to walk your horses through the stakes or they will be impaled. When they walk, I will set them on fire with flaming arrows. I will put 2 spearmen and 2 DEK's on a V formation that opens towards the bridgehead with a Armored Swordsmen at the bottom of the V (spearmen would be at the far off ends, then DEK's, then Sword. Behind that, would be my high chiv general for the morale bonus.

I will gamble that you simply can not beat that in one hour. I might have to grab reinforcements. I might have to rush my 8 longbowmen into the battle. I might have to bring arty right on top of my troops' heads. But I can turn that bridgehead into a cauldron of firey death simply because I can predict where you are going to have to be. That is the advantage of defending a bridge. For once, I can predict the exact point where each and every one of your attacking forces will have to be and I can set up my forces to prepare for it.

Having said all that, while I believe I will win the battle, I will lose the war. A Blitzer can afford to lose hundreds of battles like the one I described. Where a slow attrition will wear me down. So I am not refuting your initial point regarding hare/turtle. But I am going to claim that you are severely underestimating how costly I can make assaulting a bridge.