Stronger Player - Turtle vs. Hare

[Privateerkev]

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

There has been so much energy put into restarting the two Kingdom games that are going on, that I don't think anyone thought to start a third. If the two going on keep going at a good pace, I'll consider starting a third. (Brittania maybe?) Anyone else is welcome to start one anytime though.

Also some one could start a regular MP game but one is going on and those tend to need more people than Kingdom games.

[Didz]

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

Yes, but I suspect its harder to achieve as there are inter-alliance considerations to take into account.

For example: Lets assume that the North-European Alliance were planning a blitz style assault on the rebel held towns of the Low Countries.

Before such an assault could commence the allies would need to agree which towns were going to be assigned to which factions and which factions would be assigned to capture which town and somehow co-ordinate the timing of their attacks so that all member states achieved their assign goals and benefits within a reasonable time frame.

In the case of Scotland for example I don't currently have any navy so my faction would be unable to participate in such an assault for several turns. However, France could begin almost immediately. But if France were to begin without Scotland why should Scotland receive any benefit from the attacks, on the other hand if it doesn't then France gains in power and Scotland doesn't causing an imbalance in the alliance.

At the same time the Baltic alliance may be threatening Scotland with invasion because it has recently been ex-commed. So, Scotland is less keen to dispatch troops to the Low Countries anyway and would prefer France to be ready to assist it if enemy invasion fleets appear in the North Sea.

Then of course there are still the English to deal with.

So, multi-player blitzing might be possible in theory but it has a number of practical problems in application mainly focussed upon inter-player diplomacy than practical game play. At the end of the day an alliance will only hold if it satisfies the needs of all its members and blitzing is likely to provide more benefit to some factions than others actually creating tensions.

[Didz]

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?

Short answer is YES.

But its a double edged sword. Everyone is in the same boat, so at least your nicely balanced army if not getting trashed by some guy with a faster hand-eye coordination and a fetish for heavy cavalry.

knowing I won't be commanding my armies in battle personally I don't bother much about their composition. In autocalc an army is an army and I just treat them as risk counters really, I haven't really gone to the trouble of working out whether high cost troops give a corresponding auto-calc bonus, perhaps someone could confirm this.

[_Tristan_]

Multi-player blitzing might be possible in theory but it has a number of practical problems in application mainly focussed upon inter-player diplomacy than practical game play. At the end of the day an alliance will only hold if it satisfies the needs of all its members and blitzing is likely to provide more benefit to some factions than others actually creating tensions.

Moreover, if there are still some AI factions, you might still get some nasty surprises such as invasions in the least expected venues... and when you least expect it, forcing you to divert your plans to meeting that new threat...

[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.

[Zim]

askthepizzaguy,
just out of curiosity, why are you reserving your analysis to a one on one game in the main campaign with a map full of hapless A.I. factions? That seems like the least interesting background for a blitxer versus turtler battle. Of course in such a game the Blitzer would win. He would find himself quickly attaining a vast resource advantage over the turtle, that could only be prevented by the turtle becoming a blitzer himself.

Maybe if it were a map with only two factions, plus a couple of rebel settlements at most, it would be an interesting debate. It would also be interesting to see how blitzing versus turtling applies to a game with losts of factions and all human players, or even many human players, but in the setup you propose I'm not sure it's much in doubt whether turtling is better. Even most of the people defending turtling agree you'd win in the end.

Now, comparing these strategies in the kind of hotseat games we're playing in the throne room would be interesting. Despite greater importance for diplomacy, I suspect that agressive play is still best in these types of games, you just have to temper it somewhat more.

[Askthepizzaguy]

askthepizzaguy,
just out of curiosity, why are you reserving your analysis to a one on one game in the main campaign with a map full of hapless A.I. factions? That seems like the least interesting background for a blitxer versus turtler battle. Of course in such a game the Blitzer would win. He would find himself quickly attaining a vast resource advantage over the turtle, that could only be prevented by the turtle becoming a blitzer himself.

Maybe if it were a map with only two factions, plus a couple of rebel settlements at most, it would be an interesting debate. It would also be interesting to see how blitzing versus turtling applies to a game with losts of factions and all human players, or even many human players, but in the setup you propose I'm not sure it's much in doubt whether turtling is better. Even most of the people defending turtling agree you'd win in the end.

Now, comparing these strategies in the kind of hotseat games we're playing in the throne room would be interesting. Despite greater importance for diplomacy, I suspect that agressive play is still best in these types of games, you just have to temper it somewhat more.

You're absolutely correct, Zim.

I've said all along, if you go back to view my earliest posts on this thread, that the idea of multiple human players on the map makes blitzing a very risky and most likely losing proposition.

I've been reserving my analysis for purely one on one turtle v blitz games because of the strong debate that has been waged regarding it. There are a great many people who believe as I do that the turtle is absolutely inferior, and with good reason.

There are still a few, (actually many, but a minority) who believe the turtle is superior. However, the few strategies put forward by them honestly wouldn't make me hesitate. They were all expected counter strategies. I havent seen anything new.

Blitzing is superior against lone turtles and AI's. However, against another blitzer, or several humans, a strategy of diplomacy and moderate expansion is favoured.



Obviously on a tiny map with only two factions and barely any rebels, the game is even.

A great attacker can pick off your weakest territories instead of going for the throat. So a great defender will meet and ambush the assaulting force with a tightly compacted raider stack of good troops. But it would be a strain on both of them to accomplish their stated goals. And technically, neither would be a turtle or a blitzer, they would merely be attacker and defender.
-----------------

I'd personally enjoy seeing a real counter-threat from a turtle empire. I'd like to know which faction, what strategy, where the defensive stand would be made, by what turn, and under what circumstances. I'd also like to hear how and when the grand counterattack can be made.

Personally, I see the blitzer as the evil, terrible empire that must be eliminated, and the turtle as the realistic, moral, peaceful empire that MUST destroy it. How will Luke and his band of rebels destroy the Emperor?

Your strategy here.

Fair warning, I will look for any and all weaknesses and give you my fair estimate as to it's effectiveness. So far, I see the spy rush and the sneak attack against the back quarter while I am off crusading to be the most annoying and brutal counter. This is somewhat uncharacteristic of the turtle. However, I will allow it, seeing as it is a preemptive harrassment strike, not a full blown invasion. If the turtle is invading first, and quickly, he's not being a true turtle. I guarantee the blitzer will strike first, by the middle game at least, while we're building ourselves nice fat bloated marketplaces ripe for the pillaging.

Two things:

1. How to turn back the relentless tide of disposable troops?

2. How to assault the empire on it's own soil?

[Zim]

It has been an interesting debate. I've been following it for a long time, despite making only a few posts. As the King of Blitzes, I have a strong respect for your opinions on the issue.

I think you might be surprised by how much blitzing goes on in hotseat games, especially the smaller ones from Kingdoms. People use diplomacy to cover their backs, but even in an all human environment, there's a strong tendency for most players to put all their resources into an early attack, to eliminate their most threatening neighbor.

An exception seems to be the Britannia game, although it's a bit early to tell. I think it's because everyone's starting positions are so hugely different. Factions like Wales and Norway have to attack early, while England has to Turtle, lest it find itself fighting all it's neighbors. Then there's Ireland and Scotland, both of which would benefit most from a more moderate approach, I think.

It's been a blast, if you get Kingdoms you should join one of the games sometime.

You're absolutely correct, Zim.

I've said all along, if you go back to view my earliest posts on this thread, that the idea of multiple human players on the map makes blitzing a very risky and most likely losing proposition.

I've been reserving my analysis for purely one on one turtle v blitz games because of the strong debate that has been waged regarding it. There are a great many people who believe as I do that the turtle is absolutely inferior, and with good reason.

There are still a few, (actually many, but a minority) who believe the turtle is superior. However, the few strategies put forward by them honestly wouldn't make me hesitate. They were all expected counter strategies. I havent seen anything new.

Blitzing is superior against lone turtles and AI's. However, against another blitzer, or several humans, a strategy of diplomacy and moderate expansion is favoured.



Obviously on a tiny map with only two factions and barely any rebels, the game is even.

A great attacker can pick off your weakest territories instead of going for the throat. So a great defender will meet and ambush the assaulting force with a tightly compacted raider stack of good troops. But it would be a strain on both of them to accomplish their stated goals. And technically, neither would be a turtle or a blitzer, they would merely be attacker and defender.

[Privateerkev]

I'd personally enjoy seeing a real counter-threat from a turtle empire. I'd like to know which faction, what strategy, where the defensive stand would be made, by what turn, and under what circumstances. I'd also like to hear how and when the grand counterattack can be made.

I've said it before in here but since your putting out the challenge, I'll say it again.

I think England in the Kingdoms Brittania Campaign could win as a pure turtle. I have laid out why I think this in earlier posts in here. If you have any questions, please let me know.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

It has been an interesting debate. I've been following it for a long time, despite making only a few posts. As the King of Blitzes, I have a strong respect for your opinions on the issue.

I think you might be surprised by how much blitzing goes on in hotseat games, especially the smaller ones from Kingdoms. People use diplomacy to cover their backs, but even in an all human environment, there's a strong tendency for most players to put all their resources into an early attack, to eliminate their most threatening neighbor.

An exception seems to be the Britannia game, although it's a bit early to tell. I think it's because everyone's starting positions are so hugely different. Factions like Wales and Norway have to attack early, while England has to Turtle, lest it find itself fighting all it's neighbors. Then there's Ireland and Scotland, both of which would benefit most from a more moderate approach, I think.

It's been a blast, if you get Kingdoms you should join one of the games sometime.

I appreciate the compliment, however the title King of the Blitzes is one I feel uncomfortable with until I've seen my competition. Sure, I may have set a record with the HRE blitz conquering 50+ provinces by turn 16, and I've yet to see someone take 108 provinces by turn 57 other than myself, however there are far too many other players here. Surely one of them has beaten my records.

I'm hoping someone will post proof of that. As for Kingdoms, I'm afraid your king of the blitzers is a college student without the money to buy it. I'm still playing around with lands to conquer and the long road mods, now that my fellow forum members have talked me into it.

Update: My Danish campaign goes well... but falls apart mid-game on lands to conquer.

I manage to accumulate 10 or 15 stacks, and quite a few provinces, and then begin my massive backstab of HRE, France, England, Scotland, Spain, Portugal, and the Moors in a single turn. I completely decimate most of the resistance, but I do not have the troops or the Papal approval to continue slaughtering nor do I have the public order to do so. By now it's turn 20 or so, and I've taken out half of Europe. However, most of the map goes rebel and I lose massive florins.

I am thinking there is no way to conquer all provinces by turn 60 on LTC. I will have to start thinking smaller. Yes, the pizzaguy has been humbled by this mod, for what I hope to accomplish.

Then again, I can still destroy 7 factions at once, in the EARLY game. That's not bad either.

Anyone want some screenshots? It's hilarious to watch.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I've said it before in here but since your putting out the challenge, I'll say it again.

I think England in the Kingdoms Brittania Campaign could win as a pure turtle. I have laid out why I think this in earlier posts in here. If you have any questions, please let me know.

Agreed, a different game entirely might be a challenge. However, I've not played it, so I can't answer that one.

For now, I am referring only to games such as Vanilla M2TW, Lands to Conquer, The Long Road, RTW, RTR.

[Joh]

Hi everybody,

I fell humbled around such knowledgeable players and experienced posters, but after reading this thread I had to add my piece.

One on one, large map, plenty of rebel/faction lands: turtle is dead.
One on one, small map, no rebel settlements: in comes down to player capability.
Real human multiplayer: both turtle and blitzer are dead, and the day will go to the moderate expansionists.

Regarding discussions here I will address the most enthusiastic followers of each technique.

askthepizzaguy: imo you have too much confidence in your siege technique. I do not doubt it does work against AI, but I am sure an experienced player will not sally trough a single gate, nor would he/she move his/her whole army simultaneously (I do not and hell knows I am not a deep strategist). As for waiting for the city/castle to fall, well, human player would send aid in a much more intelligent way that the AI. And again, I do not think facing a human player surrounding my army would be as easy as with the AI. Also, the troops will be well balanced, and the general will not charge your 10000 peasant to die in vain and leave the whole army shaken.

Privateerkev: you are relying on your settlements to be more advanced and produce more cash. We here know that the worst thing about being at war with many AI factions is sieges. But not because AI would take your cities, but because a surrounded city/blockaded port does not generate income. As a blitzer, I do not need to take your city, just blockade and strangle your economy. You sally, well I retreat to lay siege next turn. In the mean time, I have negated you your income. Maybe my cities are not well develop, but at least they are generating some cash which I can convert into fresh troops.

All and all, I think that a much more cautions expansion is needed if human players were to control every faction and just but a few rebel settlements were present.

Personally, I'd rather play the turtlish approach because imo very early blitzing cripples the AI and therefore prevents any challenge in the game (=ruins the fun). Of course, if your challenge is to conquer as many provinces as possible in 125 turns, then turtling is out of the question.

By the way askthepizzagy, how do you fare playing the turks? I am having problems with them because they will not attack my stack/half stack on a river crossing, but move all their army (5 or so stacks) deep into my territory to my largest cities (even though they are well defended). How may provinces do you actually manage to hold after the mongol invasion?

Sorry for the long one, I write few, but rather long

[Lusted]

askthepizzaguy, you playing the latest version of LTC?

[Askthepizzaguy]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Hi everybody,

I fell humbled around such knowledgeable players and experienced posters, but after reading this thread I had to add my piece.

One on one, large map, plenty of rebel/faction lands: turtle is dead.
One on one, small map, no rebel settlements: in comes down to player capability.
Real human multiplayer: both turtle and blitzer are dead, and the day will go to the moderate expansionists.

Regarding discussions here I will address the most enthusiastic followers of each technique.

askthepizzaguy: imo you have too much confidence in your siege technique. I do not doubt it does work against AI, but I am sure an experienced player will not sally trough a single gate, nor would he/she move his/her whole army simultaneously (I do not and hell knows I am not a deep strategist). As for waiting for the city/castle to fall, well, human player would send aid in a much more intelligent way that the AI. And again, I do not think facing a human player surrounding my army would be as easy as with the AI. Also, the troops will be well balanced, and the general will not charge your 10000 peasant to die in vain and leave the whole army shaken.

Privateerkev: you are relying on your settlements to be more advanced and produce more cash. We here know that the worst thing about being at war with many AI factions is sieges. But not because AI would take your cities, but because a surrounded city/blockaded port does not generate income. As a blitzer, I do not need to take your city, just blockade and strangle your economy. You sally, well I retreat to lay siege next turn. In the mean time, I have negated you your income. Maybe my cities are not well develop, but at least they are generating some cash which I can convert into fresh troops.

All and all, I think that a much more cautions expansion is needed if human players were to control every faction and just but a few rebel settlements were present.

Personally, I'd rather play the turtlish approach because imo very early blitzing cripples the AI and therefore prevents any challenge in the game (=ruins the fun). Of course, if your challenge is to conquer as many provinces as possible in 125 turns, then turtling is out of the question.

By the way askthepizzagy, how do you fare playing the turks? I am having problems with them because they will not attack my stack/half stack on a river crossing, but move all their army (5 or so stacks) deep into my territory to my largest cities (even though they are well defended). How may provinces do you actually manage to hold after the mongol invasion?

Sorry for the long one, I write few, but rather long

Greetings, Joh.

As for my seige technique:

If the enemy does not have a full stack garrison, I can pretty much blitz rush the center square by making a feint to the walls, smashing the gate, and abandoning the ladders and seige equipment and rushing straight through the gate with my crusader mounts. (Good, cheap, mid-level knights from my insane crusades).

If the enemy foolishly guards the center, then I can easily take the walls and rain arrows of death upon him. Granted, if he's prepared, that means I will be taking arrow casualties as well.

Assuming he's got the dismounted knights or better, I will not be able to take the center simply by clubbing my way there. Then it comes down to waiting out the seige or surround/pound on the sally or seige relief.

If he's backed into the castle, I can afford to wait him out. I prefer seige relief battles because then it's an even ground numbers game. Simply surround with your cheapo crusader seargents, merc spears, crusader knights, militia spears, and general units (of which I have plenty).

There are decent troops you can get without any effort at all.

Once I'm out on the campaign map, and he must relieve the seige, I can play defender with my myriad stacks of troops. I can defend my general until my relief forces arrive, and by then even the best troops are tired and depleted from all the killing. Bye bye main defender stack.

I can wait them out, Blitz the center, take the walls, or win seige relief battles easily. What can they do?

They can sally... always a bad move. I brought far too many troops to defeat easily with a sally, not to mention my relief stack. They can cover the center while I take the walls. They can cover the walls while I take the center. They can do both and starve to death. They can relieve seiges and lose by numbers.

Defenders have poor options. True, a frontal assault against DFK's inside a citadel is a silly move. But then, if I did that all the time, I wouldn't be the pizzaguy, Blitz dude extraordinaire.

As the Turks, I tend to overwhelm the Egyptians first while allying with the Byzantines. Then, I call a jihad against any catholic faction or the Russians. If I get crusaded against, assassins or navies will sink thier mission.

Once I have the entire Arab caliphate under my control, I wipe the Byzantines off the map (Need a reason? How about insulting Islam. The Emperor named his teddy bear Mohammed. Therefore, according to the Holy Text, he must be executed!)

I send imams to convert and my jihadis to exterminate and pillage all settlements in my wake. Then I build up my castles and prepare for the Mongoloids.

A few well placed stacks near bridges near castles will trip them up. Night fighter works well. A good mix of heavy/missile cavalry and spearpoints will do wonders against the Mongrel scum.

Holding provinces is not a priority, my friend.

What happens when the Mongols take a province? Don't they let a stack sit inside of it?

Now what happens when you take a couple of generals with night fighter and catapults and re-take the settlement? It's called the Venus Fly Trap.

Come little mongrels... take my undefended castle... and then DIE!!!

catapults and archers rain death upon them... they sally into my spearpoints and slowly bleed to death... no reinforcements in sight. Mounted units suck inside of castles. Even stampy the elephant is a poor castle defender. I just aim fire at Stampy so that Stampy stamps his friends instead of me.

Alternatively, you could let the Mongols come... just prepare massive armies first and deploy them somewhere hidden to shadow their movements.

Let them come... let them take settlement after settlement... let them spread out and divide their forces... let them create a bloated, fat, poorly defended and spread out Mongol empire... and suddenly blitz their provinces which are defended with no more than one stack.

Slay them all.... rinse and repeat.

Seiges are too easy to kill the defender, especially when the defender is an AI. Seiges are the name of the game.

[Askthepizzaguy]

askthepizzaguy, you playing the latest version of LTC?

Possibly not. I got this version back in the day. Which was a Thursday, by the way.


Dont hurt me too badly yet, give me time to exploit all the weaknesses in my current version.

Right now I have HRE trading away half of their empire for 18000 florins, and then getting that money right back with promises to attack their evil neighbors, and then allying with their neighbors and backstabbing them.

Pretty big exploit, if you ask me. Hilarious though.

I'm off to kill the Kaiser, the Kaiser of the Roman Empire.
The emperor was a wonderful ally, a wonderful ally he was
And now the emperor will bleed to death with his filthy corpse atop a pike
because because because because because.... because of the horrible things I does.



__________________________

MY 500th POST!!!

[Lusted]

Was just curious as my latest version has improved campaign AI and diplomacy, and was wondering how it would cope with blitzing.

[crpcarrot]

@ askthepizzaguy

lol sometimes i wonder if u even read the other persons post cos u seem to have completely missed the point he was making.

althoguh i have no doubt that you are an excellent blitzer and probably can thrasht he ai in you sleep in a true multiplayer game i doubt it will be that simple. all the points you make are valid against the AI but against a human its not that simple or straightforward.

also i really dont understand how u can manage to have so many stacks and assume you can support them and reinforce them throughout you blitz. once the blitzers borders are wide enough he will be vunerable to counter blitz by other human players.

also if it was a true maltiplayer game exploits will be banned so you cant really rely on exploits to prop up your blitzing strategy.

i'm with most of the others here i got bored of blitzing when i played the original MTW semi turtling is more fun. once u have a a certain number of provinces managin the rest of the is plain boring.

and if i may also add i dont really want a half page reply to this post of things u have already said. i doubt you will convince me after so many posts.

cheers

[Joh]

Greetings, Joh.

As for my seige technique:

If the enemy does not have a full stack garrison, I can pretty much blitz rush the center square by making a feint to the walls, smashing the gate, and abandoning the ladders and seige equipment and rushing straight through the gate with my crusader mounts. (Good, cheap, mid-level knights from my insane crusades).

If the enemy foolishly guards the center, then I can easily take the walls and rain arrows of death upon him. Granted, if he's prepared, that means I will be taking arrow casualties as well.

Assuming he's got the dismounted knights or better, I will not be able to take the center simply by clubbing my way there. Then it comes down to waiting out the seige or surround/pound on the sally or seige relief.

If he's backed into the castle, I can afford to wait him out. I prefer seige relief battles because then it's an even ground numbers game. Simply surround with your cheapo crusader seargents, merc spears, crusader knights, militia spears, and general units (of which I have plenty).

There are decent troops you can get without any effort at all.

Once I'm out on the campaign map, and he must relieve the seige, I can play defender with my myriad stacks of troops. I can defend my general until my relief forces arrive, and by then even the best troops are tired and depleted from all the killing. Bye bye main defender stack.

I can wait them out, Blitz the center, take the walls, or win seige relief battles easily. What can they do?

They can sally... always a bad move. I brought far too many troops to defeat easily with a sally, not to mention my relief stack. They can cover the center while I take the walls. They can cover the walls while I take the center. They can do both and starve to death. They can relieve seiges and lose by numbers.

Defenders have poor options. True, a frontal assault against DFK's inside a citadel is a silly move. But then, if I did that all the time, I wouldn't be the pizzaguy, Blitz dude extraordinaire.

As the Turks, I tend to overwhelm the Egyptians first while allying with the Byzantines. Then, I call a jihad against any catholic faction or the Russians. If I get crusaded against, assassins or navies will sink thier mission.

Once I have the entire Arab caliphate under my control, I wipe the Byzantines off the map (Need a reason? How about insulting Islam. The Emperor named his teddy bear Mohammed. Therefore, according to the Holy Text, he must be executed!)

I send imams to convert and my jihadis to exterminate and pillage all settlements in my wake. Then I build up my castles and prepare for the Mongoloids.

A few well placed stacks near bridges near castles will trip them up. Night fighter works well. A good mix of heavy/missile cavalry and spearpoints will do wonders against the Mongrel scum.

Holding provinces is not a priority, my friend.

What happens when the Mongols take a province? Don't they let a stack sit inside of it?

Now what happens when you take a couple of generals with night fighter and catapults and re-take the settlement? It's called the Venus Fly Trap.

Come little mongrels... take my undefended castle... and then DIE!!!

catapults and archers rain death upon them... they sally into my spearpoints and slowly bleed to death... no reinforcements in sight. Mounted units suck inside of castles. Even stampy the elephant is a poor castle defender. I just aim fire at Stampy so that Stampy stamps his friends instead of me.

Alternatively, you could let the Mongols come... just prepare massive armies first and deploy them somewhere hidden to shadow their movements.

Let them come... let them take settlement after settlement... let them spread out and divide their forces... let them create a bloated, fat, poorly defended and spread out Mongol empire... and suddenly blitz their provinces which are defended with no more than one stack.

Slay them all.... rinse and repeat.

Seiges are too easy to kill the defender, especially when the defender is an AI. Seiges are the name of the game.

I can understand your strategy, but I can also see two (imo) flaws in it.

First: you are again assuming a human player is as incompetent and predictable as the AI. That would probably not be the case.

Second: it is the first turn of the campaign, and you are going to START your blitz. Where have you exactly got your multiple stack attacking armies from? I have not tried that many factions, and I know some (generally the small ones to even things out) start with large armies, but not all. You are using a small army to attack a (usually) small garrison, and you win because the AI is bad at defending (or attacking for that matter). In this case, reinforcement used by a human player will make a huge difference (imo).

Imagine you are catholic player, you cannot exploit crusades off the bat as no catholic faction will be excommunicated for a while, and either getting the Pope to accept it or reaching your destination takes time. Then again, I am assuming the aim of the crusade is a human player, who will make a much better work than the AI. Assume you take my settlement, next turn I will declare Jihad on you, which means things will level out, or even if you don't, I will do my best to punish you, I am a turtle, but not stupid. I do not even have to wait until you take my settlement, I can call for a Jihad and face my "almost free army" with yours ... of course mine in a defending position.

The whole point of the blitz is to gather momentum, the larger number of settlements I conquer, the larger the armies I can field. What I am saying here is that a HUMAN player can deny you that momentum.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

@ askthepizzaguy

lol sometimes i wonder if u even read the other persons post cos u seem to have completely missed the point he was making.

althoguh i have no doubt that you are an excellent blitzer and probably can thrasht he ai in you sleep in a true multiplayer game i doubt it will be that simple. all the points you make are valid against the AI but against a human its not that simple or straightforward.

also i really dont understand how u can manage to have so many stacks and assume you can support them and reinforce them throughout you blitz. once the blitzers borders are wide enough he will be vunerable to counter blitz by other human players.

also if it was a true maltiplayer game exploits will be banned so you cant really rely on exploits to prop up your blitzing strategy.

i'm with most of the others here i got bored of blitzing when i played the original MTW semi turtling is more fun. once u have a a certain number of provinces managin the rest of the is plain boring.

and if i may also add i dont really want a half page reply to this post of things u have already said. i doubt you will convince me after so many posts.

cheers

It appears as though you are guilty of that which you accuse me of.

If you had read my posts, you would realize that I've stated, not once, not twice, not three times, but over and over again, that blitzers are vulnerable to counter blitzes. This runs contrary to what the Turtle's stated objective is. Blitzing therefore makes a turtle not a turtle anymore. Like turtling makes a blitzer not a blitzer.

If you can't imagine how I can manage to support all those stacks during the blitz, I refer you to the PROOF that it can be done.

My thread, England. 108 provinces by turn 58.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...t=87236&page=2

Most of the good stuff begins on page two, however, If you are wondering where all the troops came from, I refer you to the bottom of page one.

However page two begins on turn 15... yes, you can believe your eyes. Those are all my troops, those are all my provinces. I have roughly as many stacks and provinces as I have turns in the game at this point. Even more so, in fact.

Simply put, the Ai will trade you lots of florins for diplomatic concessions. Crusades bring you thousands of free troops. Trading for territory gives you even MORE recruitment facilities. If there is an AI in this fictional Turtle V Blitzer game, guess what I will be attempting to do yet again?

You refer to game exploits. I am assuming you mean no one is allowed to crusade, or that there will be house rules that there are limits on the total number of crusading stacks? That's fine. But no one has stated such terms here thusfar. And it might be "exploitative", but then again so is making your enemy's entire empire rebel through spies. That's unrealistic as well, but perfectly legal... so call it what you will, turtles are attempting to play by the game rules to their advantage as well. Blitzers will do the same.

I can blitz without a crusade, but obviously it would be less devastating. Just as a defending turtler would be less effective without spy/assassin/rebel stack/enemy rebellion exploits.

As for convincing you that I am correct, it is not my goal. Feel free to believe whatever you want. A person does not need to convince his opponent to win a debate, or to be correct to begin with. Call it arrogant, perhaps, but it is also the truth. If I cannot convince you with the facts, with reason, and with proof, then you cannot BE convinced.

I'll also choose the appropriate length of my own replies, as will you. It's a free forum.

I appreciate your feedback, though. Please do not mistake my vigorous argument for hostility. I'm quite happy with the debate. I do feel you have overlooked what I have said. But I don't expect you to go back and check. Like you said:

Cue the music-

"If I haven't convinced you by now, you will never never never never be convinced.

Ooooo, ooo ooo"



____________________

Apologies for the shameless plug of my England thread, yet again, but it was necessary to prove a point.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I can understand your strategy, but I can also see two (imo) flaws in it.

First: you are again assuming a human player is as incompetent and predictable as the AI. That would probably not be the case.

Second: it is the first turn of the campaign, and you are going to START your blitz. Where have you exactly got your multiple stack attacking armies from? I have not tried that many factions, and I know some (generally the small ones to even things out) start with large armies, but not all. You are using a small army to attack a (usually) small garrison, and you win because the AI is bad at defending (or attacking for that matter). In this case, reinforcement used by a human player will make a huge difference (imo).

Imagine you are catholic player, you cannot exploit crusades off the bat as no catholic faction will be excommunicated for a while, and either getting the Pope to accept it or reaching your destination takes time. Then again, I am assuming the aim of the crusade is a human player, who will make a much better work than the AI. Assume you take my settlement, next turn I will declare Jihad on you, which means things will level out, or even if you don't, I will do my best to punish you, I am a turtle, but not stupid. I do not even have to wait until you take my settlement, I can call for a Jihad and face my "almost free army" with yours ... of course mine in a defending position.

The whole point of the blitz is to gather momentum, the larger number of settlements I conquer, the larger the armies I can field. What I am saying here is that a HUMAN player can deny you that momentum.

Firstly, no, I am assuming the human player is as competent, or more so, than I. But I am looking for stated strategies which will work, I've seen few so far which would really be much of a bother, with the exception of spy rush rebellions or a single raider stack hitting me behind the lines.

Those, I've admitted, would slow me down considerably.

But no, I am not convinced the most vigorous defense of a citadel is any bother to me. It simply does not worry me, because I would use every option except the frontal assault, which means eventually the defender would need to attack me. Which means I can surround and pound by the sheer weight of numbers. Granted, versus humans the losses would be exceptional. But by then, I've half the map rolled up and several, hundreds even, battles lost do not concern me. They are meant to wear your economy and your reserves down, cripple your trade, and completely distract you while my empire grows and prepares actual defenses and the best garrisons in the game.

Actually I can precisely exploit crusades right off the bat. I don't need to aim at another catholic faction to destroy them. The purpose of the crusade is to get free troops. I can easily take the target city and leave the other 10 stacks near my territory.

Never mind ending the crusade while most of my troops are in the middle of your territory. Mind a turn 15 rush of 10 stacks? I would. Again I refer you to my threads detailing blitz/crusade/jihads for proof that its not only possible, but routine.

As for the fairness thereof, I didn't design the game I just play it. Assuming I'm not using cheat codes or modded files, it's all perfectly legal.

I would expect the other player to make use of jihads or even join my crusade in progress. That would be a nifty counter strategy. However, strangely, you're the first one to mention such a tactic. Congratulations!

I appreciate the innovation.

I do believe it would be a nice trick to aim a jihad deep into catholic territory so soon, as there's no way you could hold any settlements without mass exterminations and huge garrisons. That cripples your economy.

Still, your use of a jihad to create defensive troops would WORK assuming I was even headed in your direction. Otherwise the jihad will end and you will have a lot of disbanding to do to stay afloat.

I appreciate your feedback! This debate is highly enjoyable.

[Robespierre]

ATPG, surely there are limits to this? you're not saying you don't build? not even merchants guilds in pursuit of that elusive monopoly on fruit?

definately a pure turtle makes soup and the sounding-body for a primitive lyre. but as the blitzer don't you need to exert some control over vast empire at all.

reminds me of Iain Banks is it feersum enjinn:What happens when the unstoppable force meets the immovable object?
The unstoppable force stops; the immovable object moves.

[Askthepizzaguy]

ATPG, surely there are limits to this? you're not saying you don't build? not even merchants guilds in pursuit of that elusive monopoly on fruit?

definately a pure turtle makes soup and the sounding-body for a primitive lyre. but as the blitzer don't you need to exert some control over vast empire at all.

reminds me of Iain Banks is it feersum enjinn:What happens when the unstoppable force meets the immovable object?
The unstoppable force stops; the immovable object moves.

I do indeed build. Mostly troop recruitment buildings in cities that would actually benefit from them (actual cities, decent castles). Then I work on public order buildings, if I have the money.

Eventually, I will capture regions that have blacksmiths and so forth... so it's fairly unneccessary to build my own.

I wouldn't pillage a decent merchant's guild. And by the late game, it's too wrapped up for me to be concerned with merchants, guilds, or anything peripheral to the actual seiging and destruction of the enemy.

Yes, there are limits to my strategy, it fails against multiple human opponents, fellow blitzers (or an even game... we both lose), and in games like The Long Road where I can field exactly two seiging armies at a time, if I try really hard. Then... it's defender advantage? Actually, they go bankrupt trying to defend and cannot field enough troops either. So we are both weakened, but at least my territory is expanding.

I've noticed the Lands To Conquer mod makes holding blitzed territory or purchased territory harder and unprofitable to some extent. That does indeed slow my advance.

But eventually, it's all the same result.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Caption: I still have 33 turns to go before I reach the ratio of one province per turn.

[Privateerkev]

Since I'm starting to be held up as the "Turtle Champion" I should make something real clear. Again.

In my opinion, in a 1 v 1 M2TW Grand Campaign MP game, a pure turtle will always lose. My posts have only tried to refute some specific points about how easy such a victory would be for the blitzer. I claim that I can add to the time it would take for the blitzer to win. I do not believe I could effect the eventual outcome though. The math is just too weighted in the blitzer's favor. Eventually you will be crushed by the sheer weight of numbers. No matter how good of a pure turtle you are, eventually the rest of the map will be the color of your opponents faction. And then you will get stomped on like a bug.

Kingdoms might change things a bit. The Brittania Campaign might be more difficult for a blitzer due to the massive unrest that a different culture causes when you take a settlement. So, without having tested it, I believe the English in the Brittania campaign have a good chance at winning as a pure turtle in a 1 v 1 MP game.

In MP games, no matter what campaign, that have more than 2 people, things change for the blitzer. There, the name of the game is diplomacy. If the blitzer can gain diplomatic support, he can blitz in the early game and be in a powerful position in the middle game. If no one sees the threat he poses in the middle game, he can then whomp in the later game and win. If the blitzer can not gain diplomatic support, then while he is blitzing, he will find that all of his settlements have disappeared and have been divided up amongst the other players.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Since I'm starting to be held up as the "Turtle Champion" I should make something real clear. Again.

In my opinion, in a 1 v 1 M2TW Grand Campaign MP game, a pure turtle will always lose. My posts have only tried to refute some specific points about how easy such a victory would be for the blitzer. I claim that I can add to the time it would take for the blitzer to win. I do not believe I could effect the eventual outcome though. The math is just too weighted in the blitzer's favor. Eventually you will be crushed by the sheer weight of numbers. No matter how good of a pure turtle you are, eventually the rest of the map will be the color of your opponents faction. And then you will get stomped on like a bug.

Kingdoms might change things a bit. The Brittania Campaign might be more difficult for a blitzer due to the massive unrest that a different culture causes when you take a settlement. So, without having tested it, I believe the English in the Brittania campaign have a good chance at winning as a pure turtle in a 1 v 1 MP game.

In MP games, no matter what campaign, that have more than 2 people, things change for the blitzer. There, the name of the game is diplomacy. If the blitzer can gain diplomatic support, he can blitz in the early game and be in a powerful position in the middle game. If no one sees the threat he poses in the middle game, he can then whomp in the later game and win. If the blitzer can not gain diplomatic support, then while he is blitzing, he will find that all of his settlements have disappeared and have been divided up amongst the other players.

They don't hand out those awards for nothing. Privateerkev is absolutely correct on all points.

King Turtle and King Blitzer agree, one on one it's no contest, but in 3 or better its anyone's game.

Blitzing is a terrible idea as no one would permit the blitzer to carve up the map, even if they were allied. Not unless the blitzer was also ceding territory to his ally. And even so... why trust the dangerous, powerful blitzer? He might be used as a tool to eliminate your neighbor and expand your empire through territorial gifts, but otherwise, why tie your fate so completely with someone who's stated goal is to eliminate you?

The blitzer, i.e. me, would be willing to cooperate as it offers me every advantage. Gifting you territories I can't afford to hold on my own in exchange for florins to build my armies, alliances, and promises of your own to guard my flank? that is a diplomatic treaty I'd be willing to sign AND honor.

You would need to demonstrate trustworthiness at the beginning. Leaving myself vulnerable to you means I need cash up front in case you betray me. And as you well know, the blitzer does not need to betray you until you're the last one standing. And I'll even tell you up front that's my intention. You'd bog me down in the interim if I backstabbed you, for little gain on my end. In other words, yes, I would be trustworthy as an ally. If you give me the starting florins I need, the honest defense of my border against an aggressor, and an alliance, I'd be willing to wipe out your neighbor for you and gift you half of their territory as payment. Just maintain my trust and you might get more favors from me, like additional territory in exchange for religious conversion missions to soften up my targets.

Or perhaps military assistance on the battlefield, rare if ever that I might need it.

Just remember, if you were to betray me first (as I expect you would) I would make certain my next crusade or jihad landed on your doorstep, I would burn your cities to the ground, and gift them to your worst enemies.

I'm very honest, but I'm also someone you may not want to deal with, and definitley not one to betray too soon. It might not be to your advantage to help me, unless you feel me increasing the size of your turtle empire prepares you for my eventual assault, and gives us an even endgame which would be fun. In which case, my diplomat is at your doorstep willing to make the deal.

I betray the computer routinely, but that is only because the AI is absolutely untrustworthy whenever there is even the slightest motive to betray.

I would be much more reliable an ally with a human. Probably because I miss having allies I can trust.

Sounds like Kingdoms will be a fun game... if I werent busy with Final exams I'd look for it.

[ReiseReise]

I appreciate the compliment, however the title King of the Blitzes is one I feel uncomfortable with until I've seen my competition. Sure, I may have set a record with the HRE blitz conquering 50+ provinces by turn 16, and I've yet to see someone take 108 provinces by turn 57 other than myself, however there are far too many other players here. Surely one of them has beaten my records.

Turn 16?!?! When did that happen? I thought it was Turn 18. I'd love to see the post and screenies.

SQ: Is 108 every province?

You have inspired me to take on the challenge. It might take me a month to rework my style but I am up for it. I thought I was pretty damn spiffy doing the short campaign in 13 turns so I obviously have some work to do Unfortunately commuting and working 48 hours severely cuts into playing time. Gah, and my boss asked me if I wanted 4 or 5 days next week and I said 5. WHY!?!?!

[phonicsmonkey]

You have inspired me to take on the challenge. It might take me a month to rework my style but I am up for it.

that's what I thought, but I got about eight turns into the super blitz and got so bored I went out and bought Kingdoms instead

I'm not saying I would have beaten or even equalled the 16-turn record, but after a few turns you can see how it can be done

[Askthepizzaguy]

Turn 16?!?! When did that happen? I thought it was Turn 18. I'd love to see the post and screenies.

SQ: Is 108 every province?

You have inspired me to take on the challenge. It might take me a month to rework my style but I am up for it. I thought I was pretty damn spiffy doing the short campaign in 13 turns so I obviously have some work to do Unfortunately commuting and working 48 hours severely cuts into playing time. Gah, and my boss asked me if I wanted 4 or 5 days next week and I said 5. WHY!?!?!

This is the screenshot of the finished product. Since the entire campaign was brief, predictable slash and burn, I felt it didn't need a thread of it's own.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

So, how is it going?

I managed 50 provinces by turn 16, but I forgot to take Rome, so it doesn't count.
The proof is here in the save file.

http://www.sendspace.com/file/n5083o



Although, theoretically I could still take Rome and beat the 20 turns... but I don't see the point.
I still have all the save files from each turn, so if anyone wants to see this turn by turn, I can send you a link.

Check out my other threads,

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=88366 (Russia)

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=88116 (Egypt)

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

Having taken over the known world using Catholics, Muslims, and Orthodox factions, I have since switched to Lands to Conquer. My current quest is the Danes, on VH/VH, and so far I've decimated the HRE, France, Portugal, Moors, and I'm only on turn 15 or so. This is very difficult to do as the Danes, given their sole starting province, isolated starting location, strong neighbors, poor economy, and on LTC anything outside of the middle of Europe earns you practically no income, plus there are public order penalties.

The fight goes well. Thus far, the biggest threats to my power are England (Which I just backstabbed), France (Which is already crippled), Venice (which I repulsed using town milita), the Holy Roman Empire (which is almost completely destroyed). I plan on taking all of France, Spain, and the British Isles while harassing northern Italy, then I will head east into Poland, Hungary, and Russia. Spain is in the process of being conquered, Portugal is already destroyed, the Moors are crippled and helpless, and I've too many troops for England to counterattack me.

Anyone interested in a LTC Danish thread with screenshots? I think you might find it pretty sweet.
Sorry, off-topic. Back to topic.

And yes, 108 provinces is the total number for the Old world. This does not include the Americas because it is impossible to blitz there. So it's fairly pointless to wait until you can.

__________________
Edit: The HRE blitz screenshot works, but I've since lost all the save files. Sendspace deletes them periodically! Dang them.

[Joh]

@askthepizzaguy

I just read your thread about conquering 108 provinces before turn 60. I have to admit I never thought the "abuse" of the crusades could reach such a scale, and please do not understand "abuse" as a derrogatory remark. I am basically impressed. I do not like to play the game like that, but that is my gaming style. I am not judging your style either, this is just a game after all.

I have to admit I have not played that much with catholic factions since I find them a little bit to much aim them and slug it out. Muslim factions add a little bit more in my opinion. Must admit, haven't played with eastern european factions though. And I seldom use crusades/jihads, only to keep up with the AI.

Anyway, I seem to remember that I tried crusading with the English in my initial campaign, and that I lost a lot of unit to desertion (playing 1.3). Have you tried your crusade tactic with the latest patch? I am not completely sure it will work since you loose units if you do not approach or slowly approach the crusade goal. It could also be because I only use a single stack army, so it could have an influence as at least one of your stacks is getting close to its destination.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

@askthepizzaguy

I just read your thread about conquering 108 provinces before turn 60. I have to admit I never thought the "abuse" of the crusades could reach such a scale, and please do not understand "abuse" as a derrogatory remark. I am basically impressed. I do not like to play the game like that, but that is my gaming style. I am not judging your style either, this is just a game after all.

I have to admit I have not played that much with catholic factions since I find them a little bit to much aim them and slug it out. Muslim factions add a little bit more in my opinion. Must admit, haven't played with eastern european factions though. And I seldom use crusades/jihads, only to keep up with the AI.

Anyway, I seem to remember that I tried crusading with the English in my initial campaign, and that I lost a lot of unit to desertion (playing 1.3). Have you tried your crusade tactic with the latest patch? I am not completely sure it will work since you loose units if you do not approach or slowly approach the crusade goal. It could also be because I only use a single stack army, so it could have an influence as at least one of your stacks is getting close to its destination.

Don't be ashamed to say it. It IS abuse of the crusade function to use it for non-crusading purposes.

I 'abuse' ALL the loopholes in the game. Crusading through Byzantium even if they aren't the crusade target, diplomatic trickery, crusading in the wrong direction and then leaving/joining the crusade to prevent desertion, and intentionally abusing the captain promotion device (even if you have a general, if you have overwhelming odds, let your troops ride ahead with a captain and slaughter your opponent on the field for an easy promotion) so that I can have endless stacks of generals and troops for crusades, buying/selling provinces to my advantage, the list goes on and on.

I don't do this every time. I am perfectly capable of 'restraining' myself and enjoying the game with actual use of assassins and merchants and realistic conquests and economic growth. However, one of the things that pleases me the most is seeing what the maximum limit is for possible advancement in this game, and attempting to reach that upper limit.

Is it possible to conquer all provinces by turn 55? Who knows until we try?
I say it might be possible. I was only 3 turns shy. 2 with France.

So my objective is to see what's possible with the game, without actually hacking the game files or using cheat codes. Just whatever the game allows you to do in it's original version. Different versions have different rules.

Example: There is no way to conquer all provinces on Lands to Conquer by turn 60. It is absolutely, physically impossible, and that's a fact.

But what about turn 90? It may be possible. The trouble is, excommunication is a much larger factor in LTC.

If you saw my Egypt thread, you know that the Muslim factions have the capability to roll up the map as well. I can abuse jihads very well indeed.

And with Russia, none of that was possible. But I did manage to obtain more than 1 province every turn. Which is pure blitzkreig at it's finest.

I am sure that if I played the game more often as the rest of you do, I would have more stable, defensible empires. But it's not all that impressive to look at if you post screenies of it. Anybody can do it.

I also think my skills as a general might improve if I slowed down a bit... but when you can win the war with force alone on the campaign map, it feels like a step backwards to put yourself in the position of turtling and using a stack at a time, even with better troops.

I know I can paste the computer with town militas, mounted scouts, and mercenaries. The only point of getting better troops is either overkill or amusement, and I'm plenty amused already. I note that many people say they become bored with blitzing... I don't know... it's easy to begin a blitz. What's difficult is going full throttle constantly, without breaks in the action, facing every single faction at once. If you blitz carefully, of course it's boring. You're supposed to blitz like you need to own the entire world by lunchtime.

[Malkut]

In a player vs. AI game, I combine the two.

For instance, as England, I rush to unite the islands, then settle down to create a steady economy and a military infastructure. When it comes to attacking the continent, multiple large stacks, each containing a core of elite units, are more effecient than a gajillion massive stacks of peasants. If you ever get to the point where you can't continue without excommunication and rebellion, you can always go back into turtle mode and still defend yourself well until you get your initative back.