Stronger Player - Turtle vs. Hare

[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.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Oh very well... I'll give you that the cows would be indeed frustrating.

However, I still believe I can nullify most of the advantage you describe.
(Forgive me for being stubborn on this point)

Stakes, indeed, that would be an awful point. Add the cow to the stakes, and yes, a frustrating battle indeed.

However, unless you have deployed stakes, my friend... I have got you.
I've brought the archers and artillery to push back any tightly knotted group of pikemen, spearmen, and so forth defending the opposing edge of the bridge. You can't choke mounted units that way.

Assuming you brought mostly artillery and archers (which you would have to, otherwise you could NOT hold me back) You've assembled a defensive position which is supremely weak against heavy mounted units. A quick volley or so of cover fire from my position, shooting out against your units from my side of the bridge, until your artillery units are toast, archers are weak, or they have moved back, and all of a sudden, I have a way of dashing hundreds of heavy mounts across the river.

Granted, a good third of them may die crossing the river. However, I will be able to charge directly into any archers or artillery you have. If you still have a bunch of heavy infantry or spears to greet, I can at least force a confrontation with my mounts, pinning both sides while my archers redeploy, and P.S. your archers and artillery will cause friendly fire casualties.

I am also saving a few mounted units for later...

I can afford to lose the mounts anyway. Lets say you crush all of them.

I have made the journey forward across the river, pounded what infantry you brought, forced a friendly fire/ archery shootout, and nullified most of the advantage of the bridge.

Meanwhile, I have troops battling on your side of the river, I have my massive array of archers firing directly into your infantry blockade (friendly fire casualties on my troops as well... such is the price of war), and I'm advancing my artillery. Should you attempt to reinforce your weakening infantry positions, a rain of death be upon thee.

A rain of death be upon me, as well. This is a situation where both sides will take massive damage. Once your infantry position is lost, Your archers and artillery are supremely vulnerable.

Now begins wave two of my mounted units charging across the river. While half my archers dash forward to engage your own in hand combat (pinning or forcing a retreat, causing their advantages to be nullified as well) My mounts charge across the river (part deux), weave around the fray, and charge into your artillery, forcing instant routs, followed by a charge against your scattered archers.

It requires barely two units of mounted knights to pull it off.

Now, lets say you brought mounts of your own. Part of my bridge crossing unit is made up of whatever heavy spears I can muster, and they will not be in the initial wave (except maybe the first lead unit).

Some will survive to meet you on the other side.

The battle, bloody. The carnage, unimaginable. The loss of life, appalling. The advantage of the bridge, nearly nullified. The reinforcements, on their way, on both sides. But the fortification is gone. The entrenched troop positions are destroyed. The battle is now even. And I've brought 3 stacks (as mentioned in previous posts... sheer weight of numbers beats any close battle).

Now, Allow me to say this:

While I am prepared to admit that the battle, if played human V human, would be supremely difficult, I do contend that the advantages are not as ironclad as you say.

I am also prepared to say, your type of active defense and wise fortification strategy is much more LIKELY to trip up a non-expert. Anyone, even a moderately good player, would be turned back by such a valiant defense.

I simply say, I can do it. It's been done. The archers and the artillery cancel one another out. Only the deployment of stakes could really be a slow-down because then mounts cannot charge through. All other units must walk.

However, stakes are not easy to come by in the first 30 turns or so of the game, and aren't always available. God help you if you don't have them. An alternate strategy is to have half archers, half heavy knights. The archers prevent a bottleneck at the other end of the bridge, and the heavy knights threaten to annihilate you completely while my heavy infantry and artillery reinforcements advance.

Good offensive planning can nullify any advantage. Even fortifications atop a mountain, even defending citadels, anything you can think of. To every defense, there is a vulnerability.

I give you 5 stars out of 5 for mustering a really really good defense which will DEFINITLEY slow me down. And you're right, ultimately blitzer wins anyway. However, if I were unable to bypass your bridge blockade by land or sea (dont know if thats possible), perhaps you could send half of your forces in the opposing direction to expand your empire as quickly as possible.

But then of course, that would require the turtle to be less turtle-ish.

Ultimately, it's the overall strategy that loses it for the turtle. Not the lack of mustering powerful defenses. When you've got less troops, less territory, less economic advantage... there's only so much defense you can muster.



I propose a challenge.

If the game were to be even, or even an advantage to the turtle, I suggest a turn limit to the game!

If the game were such that the blitzer had to defeat the turtle in a given time frame, and the turtle were not required to do anything but hold off the blitz until game over, and the victory condition for the blitzer was total annihilation of the turtle, and the turtle's victory condition was to prevent the loss of any of his starting provinces (a valid victory condition... in real life, no war could be waged indefinitely... the King's head would come off)...

Then, advantage, turtle.

You CAN harass my position with spies and raiding parties. You can sneak a boat around and attack my undefended front. You can mass serious defenses in hills and rivers. You CAN hold me back until time expires.

In real life, the would-be conquerors would pack it up and head home. There's only so many decades of losses a nation can stand before it considers the King's command to assault a peaceful neighbor for no reason, losing hundreds of thousands of people in the process, to be completely insane. Soon, that King gets killed under mysterious circumstances, or the heads of the army begin to rebel and disobey orders.

The Turtle, if only required to hold off the blitz for a given time, has the superior position in such a scenario.

Turtle fans... if I weren't in college and working full time, I would issue an open challenge to anyone who is willing to do just that. If only we would multiplayer game a campaign... This game just screams to be multiplayer.

I shut my mouth now. I'm sure everyone's sick of reading the stubborn ravings of a madman.

Dance pretty pink elephant, dance...

[Askthepizzaguy]

Wait, wait, wait, wait....

Ahem.... TREBUCHETS???? CANNON BATTERIES???

A stack of stake-deploying archers?
We're obviously not talking about the first 40 turns, now are we?

I'd send half my army towards you for harassment and sabotage purposes, and expand in all other directions, as quickly as possible.

We're likely thinking about some sort of ideal situation where our cities are maxed out and all troops are available. We're mistaken if we think this will ever happen when facing a blitzer.

Unless I'm Russia and you're the Moors, don't hold your breath on that one.

I knew there was something fishy about your defenses, turtle fans. I only just remembered, there's no such THING as trebuchets and cannon batteries in the point in the game where you'll need them to defeat the blitzer.

So, good luck on that one.

[Privateerkev]

Lets see, Longbows? England can get em by turn 5. Trebuchets? By 12.

You have not taken into account that the archers would be on heights overlooking the bridgehead which gives them better range than yours. Nor, that 8 stakes could block the bridgehead and force your horses to walk. Plus, you have neglected to detail your own stacks. You somehow have enough arty, archers, cavalry, and infantry to do all that you say it can do in one hour without saying how much you have of each. Yes, if you have 10 of each type, you can whomp. But you get 20 total. (My computer is slow and can only handle 1 stack per player at a time.)

Even if I don't have trebuchets, if your coming at me before turn 12, my guess is you don't have em either. So your whole arty duel promise gets negated. You will have to come within range of my catapults (and magonels if we play kingdoms) while I'll be out of range of yours.

You have to understand, your on the Turtle's ground now. While you have the game's math on your side, defending is what we DO!

While I will easily agree that you can win any war, your almost claiming that you can win any battle. Allow me a little ego when I say that I am confident I can win a battle or two against you before you whomp my little turtle empire.

pride!

[Askthepizzaguy]

Lets see, Longbows? England can get em by turn 5. Trebuchets? By 12.

You have not taken into account that the archers would be on heights overlooking the bridgehead which gives them better range than yours. Nor, that 8 stakes could block the bridgehead and force your horses to walk. Plus, you have neglected to detail your own stacks. You somehow have enough arty, archers, cavalry, and infantry to do all that you say it can do in one hour without saying how much you have of each. Yes, if you have 10 of each type, you can whomp. But you get 20 total. (My computer is slow and can only handle 1 stack per player at a time.)

Even if I don't have trebuchets, if your coming at me before turn 12, my guess is you don't have em either. So your whole arty duel promise gets negated. You will have to come within range of my catapults (and magonels if we play kingdoms) while I'll be out of range of yours.

You have to understand, your on the Turtle's ground now. While you have the game's math on your side, defending is what we DO!

While I will easily agree that you can win any war, your almost claiming that you can win any battle. Allow me a little ego when I say that I am confident I can win a battle or two against you before you whomp my little turtle empire.

pride!

Hmm... let's see. You're England, so there's no way you will ever, ever, ever, ever, EVER (and the Rock means EVER) force me into a riverfront confrontation.

Thats number one.

Number two, you didn't tell me your computer can only handle one stack per player per time. I thought we each had reinforcements. Which makes your riverfront confrontation a VERY easy affair. I smash you with all I have in one battle, troops rout... then I hit you again with a second or third stack in the same turn. Mmm... toasty.

Number three, and this is the clincher,

You're going to field a stack of trebuchets, stake archers, and otherwise insane troops by turn 12? or even turn 25?

Forgive my uncharacteristic lack of humility here, but...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I'm not saying it's impossible. I'm saying it's imprudent.
There's no way your economy would ever recover from such a move. By the time you've dedicated your entire English Island to that strategy, your economy is crippled from the expensive standing armies, the dedicated military building tree, (lack of economic development) and the lack of proper expansion. Plus, again, Navy destroys England, which means you MUST field a massive navy.

England is in a particularly BAD position to Turtle. I can sneak my navy in, spy open your gates (NOT neccesary, even) and SMASH your entire capital in one turn.

You're going to want to go with a faction like Byzantines or HRE if you're going to Turtle, in my ever less humble opinion.

Detailing my stack for your increasingly hypothetical riverfront stronghold:

archers, archers, archers... (nearly half of the stack) whatever artillery is available at the time. Perhaps only a trebuchet or three. Even a single cat will do. A fair amount of my heaviest infantry (4 units, including spearpoints), and heavy horse mercs if I have them. Not to mention the reinforcements which will most likely be all heavy infantry and cavalry. Perhaps early game I couldn't field a third stack, but then again, in the early game, I wouldn't even need a second stack.

Given England's terrible defensive options (that ocean is England's sole defensive point) I suggest a new strategy, my friend.


==================

I realize this post could be interpreted as arrogant. That is not my intention, and please understand this is with all due respect, and that the rivalry is intended to be friendly in nature.

It's a medieval war game, and I'm speaking "in character". In real life I'm not so harsh a critic.



Forgive MY pride... as a blitzer, I am fairly certain I can crack any defense.

I took Thessalonica, which was defended by an entire stack of Byzantine's best troops, and further reinforced by their 10 star faction leader, complete with ANOTHER stack of the best troops a mid-game Byzantine army has to offer.

I crushed them like ants, with minimal casualties. Granted, a human may be more innovative... but when it comes down to sheer weight of numbers, and you still get your carcass served to you on a bloody platter, there's only so much strategy can do for you.

I will grant you a won battle or two, in riverfront defenses, based upon some realistic chances. But as stated before, your defense will crumble if struck multiple times in a single turn. Which is what the reinforcing stacks are there to do.

You wouldnt actually want to field them in battle when your main force is about to rout. That just lowers morale. Spread them out.

That can help YOUR defense as well.

For the glory of our respective empires, I thoroughly enjoyed this discussion. Peace be with you friend.

[ReiseReise]

I haven't read this whole thread in detail, but yet I think it is THE single best thread in this forum, due to the number of repeat replies and well thought-out posts. Kudos to everyone for having such a lively and friendly debate.

I don't necessarily agree that the Turtle will win, however I like to argue as the devils advocate, so...

One thought that I've had is that a human vs human siege would be absolutely horrific for the besieging Hare. Sure we are all used to steamrolling AI cities defended by 4 spear militia and 2 archers who immediately retreat to city center, but imagine an actual organized defense of 10-15 units. The turtle is likely to have high-level walls/castles, and the hare is unlikely to have much arty due to expensive siege shops and slow movement. Therefore, anything and everything would be slaughtered at the gates, or atop the walls. Hell, 2 defending town militias will give towered DFKs a very rough day on the walls. The loss of an entire stack to an unsuccessful siege might be crippling to the Hare, even with other stacks in reserve. The hare has to replace his losses from a spread out and underdeveloped empire ie low level units taking multiple turns to arrive, while the Turtle with his geographically compact kingdom can build 2-3 prime units in each of several provinces and send 10+ high quality units to the point of conflict in a single turn. Even up-armoured peasants can become a major obstacle to any besieger, but the Turtle would probably be sending up-armoured Arm. Spear or even better. If you say the Hare would simply bypass those regions and go for ill-defended ones, the close proximity of so many units would mean that the Turtle could either A) garrison any settlement at a whim or if that failed B) have a massive reinforcement army waiting for the assault. And remember, unlike the AI a human player would not simply amass his reinforcements in the square and let you pound him with archers/arty, he would be actively defending.

Comments/Critiques/Flames welcome, just a few thoughts of mine.

[regor]

I don't participate much on these boards, but this a really interesting topic.

In the interest of full disclosure, I should mention I am a full-on turtle. I play at the pace of he AI, as anything more is not fun at all. Though if (once in a blue moon) the AI manages to take one of my settlements, I go into a 'rage of the righteous' mode and cream that faction. You could argue that the fact a printed circuit board can get an emotional response out of me is just sad, but I choose to put it down do good game design.

As for the question of turtle vs. hare, I think it's not really a contest at all. To sum up the simple, yet brutally effective strategy of askthepizzaguy: while you (the turtle) are are slowly expanding and lovingly cultivating your small patch of the strategy map, he (the hare) is rolling over the incompetent AI and, once he hits the 10-15 province mark, can pump out bland but numerous armies as fast or faster than you can keep beating them.

If you somehow force a prolonged stalemate, you invariably do so at the expense of minimally garrisoning the cities and castles furthers from the main axis of his attack. At this point, the smart hare has you pinned and will begin the back door assault. Three stacks of militia and some siege arty appearing out of the FOW behind your front line, taking three of your settlements in 1-3 turns will cripple your faction economically beyond repair, because a turtle at this point (by definition) can only have max. 5-10 provinces under his control. If by some miracle you recover, you now have another battlefront to deal with and are still vulnerable to the same tactic.

And there is always a back door. In the previously proposed scenario of the Byz. Empire defending against a Catholic faction, Asia Minor is just waiting for a naval invasion. Even largely landlocked factions such as Russia fare no better. The gaps between settlements are so large, the hare can easily slip trough the cracks. In short, you are lacking in one of the crucial ingredients of successfully waging war: initiative.

That is why I believe there is really no viable options for the turtle, or even the moderate expansionist and the whole thing makes me suspect that any full fledged MP game (strategy&tactical map included) is utterly unplayable. As far as I can see, there is no way it won't degenerate into a backstabbing, quarter-stack raids on the most vulnerable settlements of you opponent, with the sole aim of sack&abandon. The only factor in determining the victor is that you have more luck doing it (i.e. are spotted approaching less times than he is).

I see no way of moderating the exploit of the game mechanic that limits your movement speed to (at best) something like 300 km/year (that's 0.0342 km/h or 0.0212 mph ), and your recruiting speed to (again, at best) 7 turns/full stack. Not to mention the fact that a single enemy unit exerting it's zone of control can mess up your startegy for the entire turn.

That's why I am interested in hearing from the guys that have tried the PBEM games. Is it as frustrating as I imagine it to be?

[Askthepizzaguy]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I don't participate much on these boards, but this a really interesting topic.

In the interest of full disclosure, I should mention I am a full-on turtle. I play at the pace of he AI, as anything more is not fun at all. Though if (once in a blue moon) the AI manages to take one of my settlements, I go into a 'rage of the righteous' mode and cream that faction. You could argue that the fact a printed circuit board can get an emotional response out of me is just sad, but I choose to put it down do good game design.

As for the question of turtle vs. hare, I think it's not really a contest at all. To sum up the simple, yet brutally effective strategy of askthepizzaguy: while you (the turtle) are are slowly expanding and lovingly cultivating your small patch of the strategy map, he (the hare) is rolling over the incompetent AI and, once he hits the 10-15 province mark, can pump out bland but numerous armies as fast or faster than you can keep beating them.

If you somehow force a prolonged stalemate, you invariably do so at the expense of minimally garrisoning the cities and castles furthers from the main axis of his attack. At this point, the smart hare has you pinned and will begin the back door assault. Three stacks of militia and some siege arty appearing out of the FOW behind your front line, taking three of your settlements in 1-3 turns will cripple your faction economically beyond repair, because a turtle at this point (by definition) can only have max. 5-10 provinces under his control. If by some miracle you recover, you now have another battlefront to deal with and are still vulnerable to the same tactic.

And there is always a back door. In the previously proposed scenario of the Byz. Empire defending against a Catholic faction, Asia Minor is just waiting for a naval invasion. Even largely landlocked factions such as Russia fare no better. The gaps between settlements are so large, the hare can easily slip trough the cracks. In short, you are lacking in one of the crucial ingredients of successfully waging war: initiative.

That is why I believe there is really no viable options for the turtle, or even the moderate expansionist and the whole thing makes me suspect that any full fledged MP game (strategy&tactical map included) is utterly unplayable. As far as I can see, there is no way it won't degenerate into a backstabbing, quarter-stack raids on the most vulnerable settlements of you opponent, with the sole aim of sack&abandon. The only factor in determining the victor is that you have more luck doing it (i.e. are spotted approaching less times than he is).

I see no way of moderating the exploit of the game mechanic that limits your movement speed to (at best) something like 300 km/year (that's 0.0342 km/h or 0.0212 mph ), and your recruiting speed to (again, at best) 7 turns/full stack. Not to mention the fact that a single enemy unit exerting it's zone of control can mess up your startegy for the entire turn.

That's why I am interested in hearing from the guys that have tried the PBEM games. Is it as frustrating as I imagine it to be?

Good points, Regor.

I laugh at the notion that somehow defending a citadel with hundreds of your best, most effective troops would even come close to stopping me.

Number one, you've wasted tens of thousands of florins getting the citadel to that size. Number two, the citadel is defending itself with a net loss of florins per turn. I can lay seige with infinite disposable troops, and you are forced to sally or die. My empire is making tons of florins profit because my troops are expanding my empire and stifling your growth, while yours defend your bloated yet strangely unprofitable citadels and cities. All those "best troops" do nothing but drain your coffers and turn your little empire into a stagnant swamp of debt.

I will suffocate you to death. I don't NEED to roll over your castle. I can wait you out. This is not just true in this game, it's realistic according to history. Your expensive, expensive troops sit in your expensive, expensive castle, and you slowly die of hunger unless you sally against ten thousand of my lightly armored milita spearment, archers, and mounted crusaders left over from previous wars which I purchased at a tiny fraction of retail cost.

My troops are being maintained by my ever growing cities which are not overdefended. My empire is expanding and turning a profit.

Oh no, I can't believe I am going to say it... yes, indeed, I am going to say it.

"It's the economy, stupid!"

AAAAARRRRRGGGGHHH I swore I would never quote Carville or Clinton and mean it! Dang! I will never live that down.

Lets face facts, folks. Turtle empires, when largely unattacked, can prosper. But when a small empire must field impressive numbers of high quality troops just to defend its own borders, then its economy is dead. Not to mention the only way to overcome that problem is with city growth and economic buildings, which by the way, cost money and TIME, which is much more valuable in this game than money.

Remember that Hares (I loathe the term... call me a blitzer or a berserker) are continuously growing their empire. They can fight on 3 fronts and remain stagnant in two of them. Just as long as the third front expands.

My empire will continue to expand, my cities will grow on their own with minimal investment over time, I will eventually become rich beyond my wildest dreams and be capable of constructing a "turtle" empire of my own inside the protective coccoon of my surrounding territories.

Not to mention I can afford to go deep into debt and conquer my way out of it. When my troops die, do you know what happens? My profit per turn rises. When my troops don't die, do you know what happens? I can harass you and strangle your empire until you die from starvation and debt. When my troops kill your troops, do you know what happens? I conquer your territory and grow even stronger.

When I have unlimited funds coming from a massive, military-based empire, I can afford to harass you and stalemate you while I focus on my own economy in the middle game. Oops! Anything a turtle can do, a berserker can do BETTER. Sorry, you have ZERO advantages! NONE! You start off at a disadvantage, because I immediately field more troops than you can repel without stifling your development and/or losing territory, going into debt if necessary. I expand in different directions so a loss on a given front doesnt mean anything to me. I quickly gain a severe advantage after taking several AI provinces and sacking them, turning the profits into more troops and the territories into money makers to support them. I strangle your empire with at least one harassing stack and a few naval units. The middle game has me expanding rapidly, while stifling your growth. If you can't make your stand here, you've lost. The late middle game has me choking you to death while focusing almost exclusively on economic growth and troop replacement. The end game is me sending 20 stacks of mid level troops through what was once a proud empire of yours, now a mere province in mine.

Thanks be to Regor for "getting it".
Get it???

PS, I want to once again reiterate for the umpteen-billionth time that this whole strategy falls to dust if there is another blitzer or several turtles in the game. This applies solely to berserker versus turtle one on one games. In other games, a moderate or conservative style of play would be prudent.

PSS, to make it even remotely close to a FAIR berserker V turtle game, I cannot start with:

England- Too easy to attack and not be attacked, great starting position and numbers of troops
France- Too many starting provinces and troops/generals
HRE- Way too many starting troops and castles in the mountains
Byzantium- Starts with best navy and a ten star general with great troops. Duh.
Poland- Too easy to destroy people in the early game with mounted range units and militias.
Hungary- Same deal, but with a better empire.
Milan- Free access to the Pope-o-matic "infinite troops every crusade" machine
Sicily- Same, but with a kick-butt navy and starting position
Venice- Same.

Give me Scotland, Denmark, or Portugal, Russia perhaps... then maybe, maybe, a close game is to be had.

[CavalryCmdr]

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.

How would I defend? Early. I dont need to stop you at this point, just slow you down. Early game I have much more then I need to deal with the AI around me, and I have money to spare after the first few turns incase you decide to send an expidition force my way. I also have watch towers and all-cavalry mobile defence force very early on, again, I am not beliving they will stop you, just slow you down and weaken you in the process. If they are unable to do that they follow and wait until they can.

Later on I think your underestimating the income a turtler has available, vanila M2 by turn 20 I have more florins then I know what to do with. By the time of the Mongol invasion, I am able to spam them with junk/mercs until they are helpless, and not even dent my treasury. I'm aware I wouldnt have the luxury of that much time, but I will have resources to spare, and you are my only threat. I'm not going to garison my cities with full stacks, just enough to make taking them costly, but the biggest cost to you is getting to them. I dont need to win battles, I can loose 5 or 6 times before you get to one of my cities at no real cost to me. I'll also be attacking, not with the intent of capturing or even looting your cities, just exterminate, burn and move on, one full stack and you will need to divert some of your attack to stop it. Once you loose momentum, something I'll be working at from turn 1, we are on a more even field, at no point am I sitting there waiting for you, if I am youve already won.

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.

I'm not going to sally until the last minute, either you will have to assault or your masive armies are sitting around draining your bank account. Even with a (relatively) small defence force you will take casualties in the assault, if I'm lucky, enough to slow you down. A human defending with a half stack militia will cause more trouble to you then the AI with a full stack of castle troops. However, ultimately, you are correct and if it comes down to a siege defence the question is how much can I make the city cost you, not can I win.

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.

The point is, as the attacker, you must cross the bridge. There is no even archer shootout, my archers are not in range of yours until they are crossing the bridge. The same with artillery, it's not shooting at you until you start crossing the bridge. The advantage offered by a bridge defence (against a human opponant) is the cost of crossing the bridge, not stopping you at the bridge. You have to cross, I do not. Granted it's not the end all stopping point, but it is better then a field battle, because it is a field battle after youve taken casualties crossing.

[Cheetah]

I will just repreat the concluison but there are few points worth to note. Turtling to succeed it has to offer some advantages. Basically it can be defense, technology or economical. I do not see any of these advantages in MTW2.

1, Defense. Walls, ballista towers are no major obstacles. Wooden forts more of a death traps than real forts. Stone forts could be a major advantage if you can build them where ever you want. There are regions that can be walled off with a few forts. Alas, as there are no stone forts in MTW2, so this wont help the turtle.

2, Technology. There is no advantage here either. Quite a good number of factions get there best units from the start, like vardariotais, hungarian nobles, jinettes, or can get them very easily like LB. Most factions get good spears and good x-bows from low tier city barracks, and most christian factions get elite heavy inf and heavy cavs (DFK, and FK,. or even better like norman knights) from fortress walls. So, IMO it is unlikely that a turtle will field significantly better troops. Also, the discovery of gunpowder is tied to a date so a turlte wont get an advantage here either. (IMO turtling might work if the turtle could speed up reasearch and could discover gunpowder faster than the rusher. Though, even in that case nothing would prevent the rusher to capture settlements with gunsmith).

3, Economy. We all know that sacking is a huge income. Also, nothing would prevent the rusher to build the economy line buildings (mines, markets, ports). Also simply having more provinces means a much greater economic potential. Again turtling might work if the turtle could research economic systems (like banking) that would give him a significant economic edge but that is not the case in MTW2.

All in all, none of these advantages are there in MTW2. Also, turtling would work the best if all 3 advantages could have been researched (as these potential advantages complement each other).