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...