Stronger Player - Turtle vs. Hare

[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.