Stronger Player - Turtle vs. Hare

[Askthepizzaguy]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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.

In an all human game I favor your analysis. In a pure human V turtle, one on one game, I feel you haven't done your homework.

Your entire analysis presumes I aimed directly towards your empire and ignored all the other, weak AI ones. That WOULD be stupid.

You're last on my list of concerns, seeing as how you, as a turtle, are less aggressive than the simpleton AI. You on the map gives me almost free reign to do what I want.

By the time you recruit enough spies to make my settlements rebel, I've tripled the size of my empire and my standing army is ten times what it was. I can afford to lose settlements.

Generals? I've too many for you to assassinate. While you train assassins on rebel stacks, I train captains against the AI troops. With large empires, I'm virtually guaranteed a new general every single time.

Good luck on agents winning this game. I can also afford to counterspy you in the middle game, making that strategy ineffective long term.

You ambushing with night fighter is fine. That will work exactly once. And that's only IF I don't do what I always do, which is send a scouting mounted unit ahead of my main army to spring all traps.

Once I locate your main force, I can surround it with three stacks and destroy it. I don't even need to auto-calculate it. That battle would be easy even if you were on a hilltop behind a river. And assuming you were impressivly fortified, I could just ignore your stack and beseige your worthless settlements, forcing you to engage me on a level battlefield. Yes, your night fighter and superior troops make this one battle yours. Now when your somewhat depleted forces face my other two stacks simultaneously in the light of day you haven't a prayer.

More troops beat better troops, and that's all there is to it. This is a numbers game. tactics work great against the AI, against humans who arent idiots and against sheer numbers of troops, it's almost pointless.

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.

Sorry, but thats not even remotely realistic.

Unless you and I were the only empires on the map, and we had few provinces, this doesn't make any sense. Of course I can replace entire stacks of troops.

1. I have at least (if I'm having a BAD day) twice your recruitment garrisons.

2. I have a profit-making economy (few garrison forces mean all my standing armies pillage and provide new income sources, and are an investment, not a drain on my economy like your superior but initiative-lacking national guardsmen)

3. When I lose an entire stack (or 3) of my worthless troops which took me no time or effort to recruit, I suddenly turn an even larger profit for the next few turns, which is all I need to churn out more idiot peasants armed with sticks willing to die for a quick florin (the word peasants is misleading, by the middle game I am really recruiting everything but the top tier Dismounted Knights and so forth).

4. You will pick me apart? You and what army?

Every defensive scenario you can construct is FAR easier for me to pull off, given my initiative, sheer number of territories, sheer number of standing armies, same tactics, same strategies, and better economy.

Lets say you manage to DECIMATE 12 stacks of my troops. I have to be an (expletive deleted) for you to manage this.

Now I have the equivalent of 12 stacks worth of maintenence cost coming towards me per turn. What to do with 40 provinces, 12 castles, great garrisons, and a GIANT pile of money.... what to do, what to do....

It's ridiculous. I actually laugh when you defeat my forces on the battlefield. It's hilarious because it almost makes you believe you're winning the war.

Then larger stacks with better troops and more of them start coming towards you. Unless you can engage and defeat a larger, superior empire with more troops (and in the late game, same quality troops), and QUICKLY, there is no hope, my friends! No hope.

It's all about the numbers. Fewer provinces, even when properly developed which takes time, cannot put up the kind of numbers a blitzer can. More territories, more recruitment facilities, more florins per turn, faster reinforcement recruitment, quicker expansion, initiative, and an ever-strengthening strategic and tactical position.

The ONLY way to beat a blitzer is by being bigger and stronger than him, or beating him QUICKLY in the early game when he is vulnerable.

Otherwise, he must be an idiot to lose the game. He is positionally and mathematically superior to you in every sense. Sure, you might have reached "pleasure palace" and "grand cathedral" before I have. But I'm on my way to take them from you and you cannot stop me.

You must switch strategy to moderate expansion to have a prayer of a hope. Turtles cannot stop the mighty blitz.