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.