Stronger Player - Turtle vs. Hare

[Cheetah]

You guys seem to be forgeting that most people don't like the hare.

....

I, the blitzer, would have been outnumberd and dead.

That is true, but there are regions where one can rush without much interference. For example, if you blitz the Turks (and then Byzantines) with Egpyt then there is only a few factions (Venice or perhaps Hungary) that might interfere. Same holds for the Iberian peninsula (like Spain rushing the Moors and Portugal), or for Russia vs Poland/baltikum.

[Lamprey]

The "strength in numbers" argument pizzaguy brought up earlier is correct assuming the side with fewer but better troops defending a citadel is AI. Any remotely competent human with one stack of dismounted knights/spearmen/longbowmen would utterly crush two stacks of militia with a catapult. All he has to do is let the catapult make 2-3 holes in the walls (at which point it will run out of ammo) and contain the cheap militia at the breaches. You don't even need a lot of men, a thin line is good enough because you will have longbowmen on the second line of walls doing the killing anyway.

As to the thread topic: rushing the AI is obviously more powerful than turtling because the AI sucks. If every nation was played by humans, the zerg player would get their arse handed to them because it's not exactly difficult to defend against a rush (pump out tons of militia and hire the good mercs; the rusher will hire what's left and then go bankrupt supporting them with no dumb AI to easily blitz). However, single-player rushing is very effective for all the reasons mentioned above. As a matter of fact, I never do it because it's too effective. Makes the game too easy and no fun.

[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]

Denmark would give you an even better advantage then England, asside from the money making british isle, which would be yours soon enough, Denmarks low grade troops (that youd be using throughout most of the game) are at least a match for most other factions mid grade or even better. No, Denmark offers the biggest advantage to the blitzer with the posible exception of an italian faction with thier insanely powerfull low grade militia.

I see no great advantage to England or France, nor even Poland or Hungary, the easy acces to missile cavalry will only speed you up comparatively little. HRE is an advantage to either player due to the close proximity of alot of landlocked regions, but in general starting position means little to the blitzing player.

I dont see how Byzantium is advantagious to the turtler as your capital (and major money maker) is vulnerable to attack from literally any direction and will simultaniously cut your small empire in half.

England is not so vulnerable as you seem to think, great economy allows the recruitment and support of a large navy, and the close proximity of all the regions allow a small standing army to companste the cost. Better as Denmark and take britain (even a turtler would do so I'm sure) giving access to Longships and Dragon Boats and very effective mid-grade troops with comparatively low upkeep cost.

Finally, I say again, you are underestimating the economy of even an early turtle empire. Your entire image of how the game would go requires the turtler to just sit there and let you do whatever you want, and, you see yourself defeating the turtler as easily as the AI in battle. Nither would be the case, dismiss both these rediculous notions and take another look at how the game would go. Yes, you would most likely win, but it will not nearly be the easy ride you are imagining, and if you go into a game with that mindset you would actually stand a small chance of loosing.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Denmark would give you an even better advantage then England, asside from the money making british isle, which would be yours soon enough, Denmarks low grade troops (that youd be using throughout most of the game) are at least a match for most other factions mid grade or even better. No, Denmark offers the biggest advantage to the blitzer with the posible exception of an italian faction with thier insanely powerfull low grade militia.

I see no great advantage to England or France, nor even Poland or Hungary, the easy acces to missile cavalry will only speed you up comparatively little. HRE is an advantage to either player due to the close proximity of alot of landlocked regions, but in general starting position means little to the blitzing player.

I dont see how Byzantium is advantagious to the turtler as your capital (and major money maker) is vulnerable to attack from literally any direction and will simultaniously cut your small empire in half.

England is not so vulnerable as you seem to think, great economy allows the recruitment and support of a large navy, and the close proximity of all the regions allow a small standing army to companste the cost. Better as Denmark and take britain (even a turtler would do so I'm sure) giving access to Longships and Dragon Boats and very effective mid-grade troops with comparatively low upkeep cost.

Finally, I say again, you are underestimating the economy of even an early turtle empire. Your entire image of how the game would go requires the turtler to just sit there and let you do whatever you want, and, you see yourself defeating the turtler as easily as the AI in battle. Nither would be the case, dismiss both these rediculous notions and take another look at how the game would go. Yes, you would most likely win, but it will not nearly be the easy ride you are imagining, and if you go into a game with that mindset you would actually stand a small chance of loosing.

Denmark has only one starting province and takes a lot of time to build its economy, as most of the surrounding provinces are fairly well defended for their size, and are tiny. Plus if I were to take the British Isles that quickly I would face excommunication which runs contrary to my early strategy. You can't blitz when the Pope calls a crusade on you, and no one wants to exhange maps and alliances for florins in such a case. Denmark in fact has a very hard time generating a strong blitzing game. Thats why I am enjoying it right now, its giving me a greater challenge than any so far, except Portugal or Russia.

Denmark becomes a powerhouse in the late game, but not really before that.

With England and France I start with massive troop numbers and excellent positional advantages. They are also the only two factions I managed to conquer 108 provinces with by turn 60. Needless to say, they are DESIGNED to blitz.

First of all, they can crusade directly through Spain into the Moors, And then quickly backstab Spain and Portugal and conquer them in ONE TURN. That's three, count them, three factions annihilated in a single turn. Bribe senor Pope until he likes you again, and you can't be excommunicated.

Boom. Thats numero uno. Number two, once you have all of England/France, Spain, and Africa under your control, a SINGLE additional crusade wipes out the rest of the map. Thats how you beat all factions (minus aztecs) by turn 60.

You merely conquer any rebel fortress and leave the crusade during that turn, and all of a sudden you have a full stack on non crusading troops to backstab HRE, Italy, Poland, and Hungary.

Chances are, by then at least one Catholic faction has been excommed. That means you can slay them for free with crusaders. It's too easy.

So thats why England and France are indestructible blitzers.

The HRE is slightly faster at the beginning, but unfortunately has more than two directions to expand in. I'm sorry but the blitz falls apart after 50 regions fall, and it crumbles due to bloated empire, massive troop numbers, poor economy and post-crusade debt.

Poland and Hungary can do the same thing. Crusade towards Baghdad, pummel the Byzantines, Turks, and Egyptians all at once, and then sack and sack their way to public order in the Muslim lands until the second crusade, wherein they attack the Moors and doom the entire map in reverse order. Nevermind the fact that a few mounted ranged troops can decimate entire infantry armies, which the Ai foolishly parades around with in the early game. You can make their few mounts rout easily, and the rest is child's play.

I think you underestimate these factions. They are virtually indestructible in the hands of a master.

Byzantium is too defensible, and cannot blitz properly, to be considered a non-turtling faction. Religious conversion of most of the map, and lack of crusading means the SLOW way to blitz. You can defend the entire sea with your SUPREME naval power (all your cities are ports, you can afford it) and you can EASILY defend the mountains of Greece and Turkey from foolish land assaults.

Byzantium is the ULTIMATE turtle faction. Even I love to turtle with her. Those mounted troops with ranged abilities are excellent at repelling hordes of troops, making them superior defenders. Trouble is they are expensive, and you can't crusade your way to free ones. Nope, Byzantine has the best chance at holding off crusaders with a stronghold in Greece, and slowly overtaking the Muslim lands until they are converted, then taking Italy, Spain, France, and HRE with ease.

Ps Byzantium is great because of not only it's ability to defend, but relative ease in controlling the seas (they actually have relevant seas) and the fact that the AI doesnt know how to attack. It might be weaker if every faction attacked at once, in one turn, but they dont. And they dont know how to plan a prolonged war. Usually its a few landed troops and a port blockade. This game favors the aggressor because the AI cant ever destroy you. Even their pathetic Ai-run crusades usually involve a single stack or two from each faction. Simply slaying their general ends the campaign. It's too simple to defend against the AI. And attacking Byzantium as a human player requires a tremendous investment of resources if they are actively defending. Not to mention they can seriously counterattack you with a single navy and a stack dropped off easily on your shores. The mountains and seas make it impenetrable, due to their superior starting economy, troops, and naval forces. Just because the AI doesnt know how to handle Byz doesn't mean a human couldnt fight valliantly with it.

The trouble with England's defensiveness is, yes it can field a large navy, but it doesnt MATTER.

Anyone who controls the Belgian, or northern French provinces can keep a ship safely in port until a large army is ready to cross and do it in one turn.

Anyone can also simply recruit a merc ship and cross in one turn.
"My eyes... the goggles do nothing!"- Rainier Wolfcastle, the Simpsons

The ships do nothing defensively. Sorry to disagree with your analysis.
(I'm so stubborn, aren't I? Sheesh. How do you people stand me?)

And once again, I've layed out why the turtle is easy to beat. I can harass them, and they lack the initiative, and my economy is boundless. There's only so much you can develop a smaller nation. And by turn 30, I've got half the map rolled up. Turtles do not start with a massive empire, if they did, they could afford to be so... turtle-y.

Slowly taking one or two provinces from the AI every few turns will not make much of a difference. Fielding a strong defense wastes a LOT of money that could have otherwise been spent on economic or territorial expansion. It yields you no economic reward, and it can suffocate and choke you into debt.

I can field more troops, which gives me more possibilities to attack from multiple fronts, and I can decimate your navy if neccesary, block your ports, cause devastation through your lands, lay seige to your cities, slaughter just enough of your heavy expensive troops to cause you economic pain in recovery, and meanwhile, it costs me close to nothing to do so.

Its all about the benjamins. Offense beats defensive play in this game.

Even if you swarmed all of your troops together and attempted to knock me out quickly, I'm a blitzer and I'm gunning for you. I'd seige your relatively undefended cities and slay your core provinces, burning all that you used to have and selling what's left for profit, and move on.

You could trade hits with me, but the blitzer usually has more provinces, making that a very tricky strategy at best. Granted, you would be a major pain in the butt, but you'd be pretty much toast yourself, and I'd still have more provinces.

More equals better in this game. No matter how you slice it, a thousand peasants beats a hundred dismounted knights. Just add one general and watch those peasants actually engage, surround, and defeat superior forces.

Maybe it's not realistic, but I didnt design the game, I just play it.

I dont have an unrealistic view of how the turtle would play. Yes, they would be a tough nut to crack, but I dont have to destroy them immediately. By the time I get around to it, I'm ten times the size of the Mongol horde, and I'm a human not a silly computer.

Unless you own half of the map and have marshalled all your forces at every access point, I say good day to you.

Any turtle must counterstrike quickly, which is usually contrary to what turtles do, and more blitzerish. Otherwise the game slowly progresses in my favor over time. Otherwise, they must have a large empire, which again, runs counter to the Turtle's stated plans.

You can't have 12 provinces and 15 stacks of troops very easily.

I on the other hand routinely have that many rather early, and I can endlessly replace them. You can't defeat that unless you're bigger than me, or I am a complete idiot.

Thats my take. Feel free to disagree, but I'm afraid all the arguments I've seen have not, by my calculations (and by the calculations of most) proved the turtle to be much of a threat.



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

For more information on how blitzers completely and totally dominate this game, I refer you all to my legendary (immodestly, yes it was) thread regarding England.

Hundreds of huge color screenshots of my devastating strategy described above to annihilate the entire map in only two crusades.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=87236

If too many people view it, it breaks for a month. Come back again later. Should be working now.

[Privateerkev]

AtPG:

I do wish you had Kingdoms. (I think I have seen you say you don't have it.)

I stated earlier in a post on here that England in the Kingdom's Brittania campaign might be the best chance of a pure turtle beating a blitzer in 1 v 1 MP.

I already wrote a lengthy reason why I think this on the last page. If you have any questions, let me know and I'll try to explain more/better.

Post is here: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=116

[TheLastPrivate]

In Britania campaign nobody can blitz thx to ridiculou amount of insurgents that wreck your settlement if you decide to leave it. Leaving 3 units of whatever won't work, since a governor is the ONLY method of keeping a place in check and converting culture. A church does do the job but a lot slower, and if u wait for churches to be built then ure not blitzing.

If you would blitz in Britannia you would probably have to exterminate any settlement above large town and move on while norwegian raiders will (they only hav a chance to survive by raiding and abandoning settlement) chew up your undefended backwater.

[Robespierre]

the thing here is that we are talking about a true multiplayer campaign because its what we all want to see.

in that game, papacy would be player-controlled, a dungeon-master, and able to give missions, communicate without diplomats, direct inquisitions, set piety ratings, excommunicate, and demand crusades at will.
so long as the pope is not a blitzer,but plays as refereee, any catholic blitzers may soon find themselves isolated and with 3 or 4 crusades making for their innards at double-movement.

i don't know about the AI in Britannia though. it is not only incompetent but has a split personality too. turtling wil not help the english when the Welsh are still live and on the warpath. then there are all those oceans to police and patrol. the shores of Ireland are only two turns sail off. in my English campaign it has given ceasefire and trade rights and dropped a stack at Caernarvon in the same turn.

also since Black Death is not only inevitable but also you know exactly when its coming, does it not make more sense to turtle a bit before its arrival, get the towns to huge size in the early game? i thought that is the game rationale for the BD. in rtw or BI you could too easily forget about cultivating population growth, i felt the designers wanted to rule this out.

The nords must blitz though. any let up in the momentum and their offensive goes to pot. truth is i am only just learning how to blitz.

[ReiseReise]

We all forget our childhood Aesop's fables, the Turtle always wins

[Colovion]

I play similarly to how I play Civ, though TW brings out more of a ruthless nature because of rebels and having more reason to be aggressive right away.

The first few turns I'll decide which will be my military cities, which will be the breadbasket of my empire and which will be primarily port cities. I tend to group all of my armies in one or two decent sized forces and attempt to quickly take any weak provinces surrounding my borders. Mopping up rebels is first priority, and I'll even take a chance of leaving cities with only 2 or so units so I can rush off with a family member to gain a trait or so while cleaning up the unrest in the countryside or that weak settlement.

I'm not usually too interested in assaulting a strong AI faction until I have a small advantage, usually it's to be sure that my Infantry types are better than theirs so in a long fight to the death I'll come out ahead. I really despise pitting my troops against enemy troops in city squares. It's ridiculous because they won't break and flee so you have to just throw trash at them, or hope you have a superior force to grind them down eventually.

In the end, I tend to turtle on one or two sides of my empire and concentrate my remaining power to consolidate whichever portions of my border seem difficult to maintain as a border - so my troops fill that vacuum as I thunder across the landscape.

[Vladimir]

In an all human game the turtle would win, in less all the players are bunnies, then everyone dies. In an all human game the more cautious players will band together against the more aggressive ones. The aggressive players are less likely to ally as they know that if they lower their guard even a little they may be attacked. Thus either the hare becomes the tortoise or they fight each other mercilessly while the tortoise nibbles around the edges.

Even if it's one-on-one in a campaign game, the turtle will win. A slow, deliberate player will construct watchtowers, reinforcement forts, use their night fighters effectively, and have better cash and troops.

It doesn't matter if you attack an interior, poorly garrisoned city. Even if you make it there without being ambushed by my army I have another waiting for you, close enough to attack immediately. Led by my night fighter I'm able to isolate and pincer your inferior troops or force you to retreat. If you're carrying siege equipment you'll be able to assault that turn but you may not make it there with your reduced movement.

Let's say you bring a catapult and attack my fortress or citadel, it won't be enough. You'll either run out of ammunition or your inferior troops will be chewed up as they're forced to fight in smaller areas against elite troops. Batter down my first gate and you'll have to expose it to archer fire which may kill the crew. But wait, how did you get it in the first place? Did you spend the time and cash to build a siege engineer and what's the recruitment pool?

If you do assault you'll have trouble maintaining morale as I've use the assassins I trained on a rebel stack to kill your general; maybe I'll gain another rebel stack to practice on. My spies tell me which of your generals don't take personal security seriously so you may have trouble finding one in the first place, that is, if I haven't eliminated your royal line.

So now you've already lost a couple of "cheap" stacks of troops, how are you going to raise more? Since you weren't able to take any of my cities with no economy you're dangerously short of cash and have ran out of steam. Now I can pick you apart.

Turn-based favors turtling. Go too fast and you become a victim of your own strategy.

[TheLastPrivate]

If you guys ever played the board game diplomacy with real people (takes HOURS), its kinda like how totalwar would be played out. Althogh the board game doesn't take tactical skills into account in totalwar mp game diplomacy dynamics would be the core that makes or breaks the rise to power imo.

[Privateerkev]

The trouble with England's defensiveness is, yes it can field a large navy, but it doesnt MATTER.

Anyone who controls the Belgian, or northern French provinces can keep a ship safely in port until a large army is ready to cross and do it in one turn.

Anyone can also simply recruit a merc ship and cross in one turn.
"My eyes... the goggles do nothing!"- Rainier Wolfcastle, the Simpsons

The ships do nothing defensively. Sorry to disagree with your analysis.
(I'm so stubborn, aren't I? Sheesh. How do you people stand me?)

Actually, I can defend England for a while with a navy. I can create a picket line, and since "zone of control" will limit your movement, you'll have to sink my ships first.

Also, with your Belgium and northern French provinces, I can slow you down. I will probably get to those provinces first because of how close England is. I would then exterminate them and sell every building. Then I'll abandon them, only have provinces in England, and disband my armies. Then I'll just focus on economic and ship buildings. And I'll have a massive navy and can afford it because I'll have no army.

You'll eventually get to northern france but you'll have to build it up from scratch. In the meantime, my ships are teched up and England gets the Naval Academy which means cheaper ships and better gun ships. I can blockade your northern ports and you'll have to fight your way out with your new ships.

You can hire merc ships but only one or two so many turns. And you won't get by my picket line with just one or two ships. You'll have to build your navy far off, and then sail it over. Which will take time. You will still win eventually but blitzing England is not necessarily as easy as you keep boasting. I can make it take 2, 3, maybe even 10 times as long as it would normally take you to blitz the stupid AI.

Because of your economy, you can eventually overwhelm me. But it will take you many turns to build up your cities and then build the navy. I won't let you just move one ship with a full stack across the channel. You'll have to overwhelm me with a gigantic navy first.

[TheLastPrivate]

If the game was played with 2 player controled factions and rest were AI, the blizter would win.
But if it ALL the factions save for Aztecs, Mongols, Timurs, and the Pope were players, then blitzing would be limited to eastern factions mostly.

Example:
I am Sicily and my spy finds Egyptian coastal cities near emtpy due to Egypt blizting up the holy lands and its defended by 2 town militia then I'm sacking it with a general and 2 norman knights, then promptly sell everything and run away.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Actually, I can defend England for a while with a navy. I can create a picket line, and since "zone of control" will limit your movement, you'll have to sink my ships first.

Also, with your Belgium and northern French provinces, I can slow you down. I will probably get to those provinces first because of how close England is. I would then exterminate them and sell every building. Then I'll abandon them, only have provinces in England, and disband my armies. Then I'll just focus on economic and ship buildings. And I'll have a massive navy and can afford it because I'll have no army.

You'll eventually get to northern france but you'll have to build it up from scratch. In the meantime, my ships are teched up and England gets the Naval Academy which means cheaper ships and better gun ships. I can blockade your northern ports and you'll have to fight your way out with your new ships.

You can hire merc ships but only one or two so many turns. And you won't get by my picket line with just one or two ships. You'll have to build your navy far off, and then sail it over. Which will take time. You will still win eventually but blitzing England is not necessarily as easy as you keep boasting. I can make it take 2, 3, maybe even 10 times as long as it would normally take you to blitz the stupid AI.

Because of your economy, you can eventually overwhelm me. But it will take you many turns to build up your cities and then build the navy. I won't let you just move one ship with a full stack across the channel. You'll have to overwhelm me with a gigantic navy first.

Ah, ah, ah... you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. Only I'm allowed to do that. ;)

You are trying to overwhelm me with your superior naval defenses. That only works if they are in a stack, given the one-turn crossing of the sea. Otherwise you have to surround and pound, but as the defender, you dont have time to do that. I can cross in one turn.

And if you try the zone of control defense, you have to cover all of southern and eastern English channel.

You can't do that with full stacks of naval forces unless you're cheating or it's turn 100.

I will simply run the blockade at it's weakest point, or cross in one turn via ship. You can't have both formations at once. Perhaps a ring of ships and a single stack, but then why couldn't I just sail by Ireland and invade that way?

Too much sea to defend, not enough sea to give you time to stop me, not enough ships for the undertaking.

Entirely unworkable plan until late game. And even if you could do it, it would cripple your economy. Why shoot yourself in the foot that way?

Change the strategy (turtle versus moderate expansion), not the tactics.

Tactics will not overcome poor strategy.

I will tell you what. Show me a screenshot of such a thing before turn 30, and I will concede the point. Otherwise, it's pure fantasy.

[Privateerkev]

Ah, ah, ah... you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. Only I'm allowed to do that. ;)

You are trying to overwhelm me with your superior naval defenses. That only works if they are in a stack, given the one-turn crossing of the sea. Otherwise you have to surround and pound, but as the defender, you dont have time to do that. I can cross in one turn.

And if you try the zone of control defense, you have to cover all of southern and eastern English channel.

You can't do that with full stacks of naval forces unless you're cheating or it's turn 100.

I will simply run the blockade at it's weakest point, or cross in one turn via ship. You can't have both formations at once. Perhaps a ring of ships and a single stack, but then why couldn't I just sail by Ireland and invade that way?

Too much sea to defend, not enough sea to give you time to stop me, not enough ships for the undertaking.

Entirely unworkable plan until late game. And even if you could do it, it would cripple your economy. Why shoot yourself in the foot that way?

Change the strategy (turtle versus moderate expansion), not the tactics.

Tactics will not overcome poor strategy.

I will tell you what. Show me a screenshot of such a thing before turn 30, and I will concede the point. Otherwise, it's pure fantasy.

I only need to place a stack at each port and blockade the port. Any ship you build would have to fight their way out. The pickets can be 1 space apart and only 1 or 2 good ships in each picket stack. The picket line would just be to stop your 1 merc ship. The port stack would stop your recruited ships. Again, you'd win because you could just build a massive navy in the med and sail it over. But, again, it will not be as easy as you keep claiming.

[Galain_Ironhide]

askthepizzaguy versus Privateerkev

Man, I'd love to see you two in a p vs p. I think it would be brilliant.

atpg, I can see why you love this thread. Top posting! If you delivered a pizza late, I'm sure you would end up having the customer believing that it was their fault in the end!

[Zim]

Pk participates in a lot of hotseat games, maybe Askthepizzaguy can join the next one.

[Privateerkev]

Pk participates in a lot of hotseat games, maybe Askthepizzaguy can join the next one.

I would love a chance to play with ATPG and I'm sure we'd have fun. Unfortunately, he does not seem to have Kingdoms at the moment. But if that changes, we can set one up. Maybe Brittania?

And Galain, thanks. But I think the general consensus of the community is that a hare would own a turtle in a 1 v 1 MP game. But I would play for fun in a MP one with multiple players. I'm in two at the moment and their a blast.

[TheLastPrivate]

Forgive my ignorance but can you explain to me how ATPG works?

[Zim]

Forgive my ignorance but can you explain to me how ATPG works?

Sorry, I was to lazy to type out "askthepizzaguy". My mistake.
Does sound like some kind of weapon or something, doesn't it?

[Didz]

Based on the current multiplayer game I am in there are a few obvious observations to make so far.

1) Scotland almost took out England in a blitzer rush, but was persuaded by the French player to let England survive to keep the English player in the game. In fact, England agreed to vassal itself to France to secure this deal and it was made quite clear to Scotland that finishing off England would upset the French player.

2) Diplomacy is now much more in line with the game Diplomacy. What is said and what is the truth are now suitably disconnected. For example, England promised Scotland the castle of Nottingham in return for a cease fire and return of London. London was duly handed over and the cease fire agreed then England refused to hand over Nottingham leaving Scotland looking stupid. The only good news was that England also welched on the deal with the French player making him look stupid too. The net result being that England is now sandwiched between two player controlled factions both of which view him as unreliable and dishonest.

3) The blitzer who ignores the Pope now risks major retribution as he becomes a real target for real players.

4) Lack of funds now poses a very real risk as human players do not ignore weakness of defence due which results.

5) Its terribly slow to play. Anyone who still thinks its feasible in real-time online play ought to try a PBEM to get a feel for just how long it takes for people to complete their turns.

The multiplayer game seems to be heavily influenced by diplomacy, most of the human controlled countries have formed into larger allied factions quite early on and are discussing their long term goals and targets. One faction going bald headed for blitz style growth will almost certainly make itself the focus of a lot of attention particularly if that growth is into an area earmarked for the expansion of an allied player group.

Indeed just being an unallied player makes you a target in the first place.

[Cheetah]

But alliences can chose to rush or turtle, right? So the question is still there.

[regor]

Based on the current multiplayer game I am in there are a few obvious observations to make so far....

Thanks for the first hand info Didz, got a nice chuckle out of #2.

I've got to ask about battles. In my SP games I have several combined arms stacks for each historical era, with which I am confident (all else being equal) I can beat any other full-stack army with it - no matter what the autocalc says.

So my question is: is it frustrating to be beaten by a stack of catapults and town militia, when you know that, if you you where to play the battle yourself, you would win hands down? Do the players exploit this fact?


Apologies to the OP for going off topic.

[Alexander of Yorkshire]

I like to play as a turtle and agonize over my choices of who to attack. And have a nice family tree with some heroic figures. Normally takes about 20 turns for the plan to the execution.

[Privateerkev]

If there is a MP game with more than two players, then it will be up to the players if a blitzer survives or thrives. I will second Didz in saying that diplomacy is the name of the game in 3+ player MP games. I'm in two Kingdom Hotseats and the most important part of the game is the diplomacy that happens before the initial save game even gets uploaded. That is where you establish your allies and targets. If a blitzer can get a group of allies to ignore/aid his blitzing, then he will do very well and might be well positioned in the later game for fulfilling the victory conditions. If the blitzer fails to establish diplomatic relations with enough people, then he will find in about 3 turns that his territories have already been divvied up by the rest of the players. And he will have a violently short game.

In the Teutonic Order game we restarted, no one initially picked the TO when we were picking factions. So, a bunch of us agreed to knock them out of the game and divvy up their territories. I opened my big mouth on the game thread and another player thought the TO should be given a fighting chance since the whole campaign is about them. So, knowing that he might be in for a short game, he bravely took the TO. A few of us realized that the TO is a good faction for a blitzer. They have awesome units and a faction squeezed in between it's territories. Plus, they pretty much need to blitz due to initial money problems. So, seeing the threat of this potential blitzer, add to that the fact that the player of the TO is experienced and skilled, and don't forget that we still want those territories, many of us continued our plan to knock out the TO.

We're only finishing up our second turn but the game is very interesting and the fate of the TO is still up in the air. It's a good case study of how important diplomacy is in 3+ MP games.

[Ferret]

Based on the current multiplayer game I am in there are a few obvious observations to make so far.......

and then there's me as Russia hiding away in the corner, too bad at the game to blitz and hoping no-one will want to come East .

Indeed just being an unallied player makes you a target in the first place.

maybe the Poles will be interested?

[Cheetah]

Are there plans to organise a new hotseat game? I would be very much interested.