A few questions about turtling

[PaleBlueDot]

Hi, I´m new to M2TW, but Ive played RTW before.

Ive read about turtling here, in the best-turtling-nation-thread. It sounds fun: find a naturally well defended area, send your best elite troops to the front and wait for the enemies to come while economy builds up.

Is this just meant to be the strategy until you are well developed enough to attack back? How would you otherwise gain enough territories to win the game? Also, will you be able to unlock other factions this way?

Also, is the point usually to get loads of enemies and much bridge/mountain/siege action to bleed them as much as possible, or to develop in peace with a minimum of enemies?

I found that attacking armies with loads of missile and artillery units had a huge advantage in RTW - often the (defending) enemy would pretty much stay still until last man is killed by missiles, or routed. Is this not also the case in M2TW? Should you launch your armies at nearby enemy factions, or wait for them to attack your armies, cities?

In RTW, I cant imagine such a strategy to make much sense - if I just stayed in English territories defending myself, my units would not have any technological advantage over that of the enemies, I would be poor, and the strongest factions would develop much faster and become huge and very rich. Has this changed? Can I become powerful and developed enough to take on the rest after turtling by myself on the iberian peninsula?

Edit: And why do you need to keep the pope happy if you are in such a good defending position? To have your enemies excommunicated and fight each other, because the catholics are too strong, to keep your population happy? And does acquiring vassal state make more sense if you stick to turtling, f.eg to get enough territories to win the game?

Answers to any of these questions is much appreciated.

[Irelia]

Is this just meant to be the strategy until you are well developed enough to attack back? How would you otherwise gain enough territories to win the game? Also, will you be able to unlock other factions this way?

to unlock the faction u have to defeat it during the campaign (and of course win the campaign))

I found that attacking armies with loads of missile and artillery units had a huge advantage in RTW - often the (defending) enemy would pretty much stay still until last man is killed by missiles, or routed. Is this not also the case in M2TW?

yes

Should you launch your armies at nearby enemy factions, or wait for them to attack your armies, cities?

launch ur armies

[PaleBlueDot]

to unlock the faction u have to defeat it during the campaign (and of course win the campaign)
now rep

So just outliving it is not enough, I can' t just wait for my "allies" to kill them? What if I utterly destroy them, but my ally strikes the final blow, or if I only slay the remainder of a once huge faction, will that still count?
I don´t think you have to win the campaign to unlock enemies, I unlocked Scotland without completing.

[Romanichine]

So just outliving it is not enough, I can' t just wait for my "allies" to kill them? What if I utterly destroy them, but my ally strikes the final blow, or if I only slay the remainder of a once huge faction, will that still count?
I don´t think you have to win the campaign to unlock enemies, I unlocked Scotland without completing.

AFAIK,
Winning a campaign unlocks all factions.
Eliminating a faction unlocks it immediately.

Alternatively you can edit a file to unlock all of them without doing nothing.

Read this: http://www.twcenter.net/wiki/HowTo:Unlock_All_Factions

In RTW, I cant imagine such a strategy to make much sense

On a strategic point of view, turtling does not make sense in M2TW either.

I rarely turtle, so I can't speak much about this. Blitzing is stronger because you get more territories quickly and thus become powerful early. Some people don't like blitzing because the AI can't really compete with this strategy, and they're right.

Turtling is a bad strategy: by consciously choosing not to expand, you gimp yourself.

The idea of turtling is to add a challenge, play a different way for fun, roleplay etc. How are you gonna take province if you turtle? Well, don't turtle . Or only attack someone who declared war on you first. Or take your time and conquer your neighbors slowly and meticulously. It really depends on why you want to turtle in the first place.

I found that attacking armies with loads of missile and artillery units had a huge advantage in RTW - often the (defending) enemy would pretty much stay still until last man is killed by missiles, or routed. Is this not also the case in M2TW? Should you launch your armies at nearby enemy factions, or wait for them to attack your armies, cities?

In a strategic sense it's always best to be the aggressor. You get to choose the when, where and how. If you wait you never know what the enemy will do. If you wait for them while they siege your cities, you will lose trade and get unrest/income penalties.

Defending is fun, specially in a big town or castle, plus the AI sucks at sieges. But sometimes they will siege and wait for you to sally out or for your food reserves to end. It might mean waiting 8 turns, who want to do that?

Edit: And why do you need to keep the pope happy if you are in such a good defending position? To have your enemies excommunicated and fight each other, because the catholics are too strong, to keep your population happy? And does acquiring vassal state make more sense if you stick to turtling, f.eg to get enough territories to win the game?

You don't have to keep the Pope happy, but if he's very happy, then you can attack any catholic faction without being excommunicated.

It is much better to keep the Pope happy though. Being excommunicated means a worse reputation, thus harder alliances, and more enemies. They may call a crusade on you, and you'll have your lands flooded by crusaders armies. You don't want this if you've been turtling and can't afford large armies.

Good luck about getting vassals. In my experience the AI rarely agrees to this in vanilla unless it has one territory left. But maybe don't try hard enough.

[Mithrane]

On a strategic point of view, turtling does not make sense in M2TW either.

I rarely turtle, so I can't speak much about this. Blitzing is stronger because you get more territories quickly and thus become powerful early. Some people don't like blitzing because the AI can't really compete with this strategy, and they're right.

Turtling is a bad strategy: by consciously choosing not to expand, you gimp yourself.

Not so. Turtling makes perfect sense in many circumstances. Just the same, Blitzing makes perfect sense on many circumstances.

Turtling is best used as a faction which has very powerful units which need research to unlock or with units which, when fully armored, become significantly more powerful. Further, if you are a nation with a powerful strategic location (Byzantium, for example) but with a lot of potential for enemies, one will often find the slow, steady, and defensive play-style to be more advantageous in the long run.

In a strategic sense it's always best to be the aggressor. You get to choose the when, where and how. If you wait you never know what the enemy will do. If you wait for them while they siege your cities, you will lose trade and get unrest/income penalties.

It is not always the best to be the aggressor. I can hold a well fortified city / castle against forces 3, 5, even 8 times their size / power. Put a strong castle on the front with an enemy and you can bleed their forces (and thus their income) dry very quickly. Couple this with an ally faction also at war with them, and you will quickly eliminate the aggressor.

Further, as the defender, you can pick choke-points and place ambushes, allowing you to get a force advantage over the enemy and growing some incredible generals, if you play the fight right. As the defender, you pick where they fight. If they pass you by, then they leave their homeland vulnerable or enter into yours, thus giving you a force advantage (as you should have more forces in your region than they do).

You don't have to keep the Pope happy, but if he's very happy, then you can attack any catholic faction without being excommunicated.

It is much better to keep the Pope happy though. Being excommunicated means a worse reputation, thus harder alliances, and more enemies. They may call a crusade on you, and you'll have your lands flooded by crusaders armies. You don't want this if you've been turtling and can't afford large armies.

Good luck about getting vassals. In my experience the AI rarely agrees to this in vanilla unless it has one territory left. But maybe don't try hard enough.

And here is where actually being one who turtles often leads one to learn the secrets of the game. Diplomacy is a very fineky thing in this game, and even more so in Vanilla. Your reputation determines how others interact with you every turn. It makes others more likely to go to war with you. It makes your diplomats have more or less leverage. Keep a good reputation, and you can manipluate the AI factions into things you wouldn't dream of trying otherwise. Vassals and the purchasing of cities are things one rarely sees with an average reputation. However, if one takes the time and effort to avoid conflicts and spend money to get the favor of others, they'll be happy to sell you that small town which is on their outskirts.

By turtling, you should build up a very strong economy. This should give you plenty of cash to spend gaining the favor of other factions. You can then manipulate those factions into wars with eachother, thus reducing the strength of multiple future-enemies at once while keeping your borders safe. You also avoid getting a bad reputation, which causes other factions to hate you, and thus attack you.


In the end... why turtle?

Pros :
- gain financial advantage over aggressive factions / players
- gain technological advantage over same
- manipluate other factions into wars against eachother
- avoid unwanted wars caused by reputation
- defensive positions grow great generals, which, when used to attack, can make a huge difference
- single-front wars

Cons :
- Slower game play
- Potential to be out-paced by an opponent who blitzes fast enough to gain a significant financial advantage (most common in Western Europe and Middle East)
- Smaller armies (If you get surprised by a large enemy force, you can be outmatched)
- Each settlement becomes more important as you can not replace them easily
- Less significant force in determining how others' wars turn out.

[Romanichine]

Good post (+rep), you are courageous to side with turtling in a debate that you can only lose.

Not so. Turtling makes perfect sense in many circumstances. Just the same, Blitzing makes perfect sense on many circumstances.

I am going to clarify something, I wrote:
"Turtling is a bad strategy: by consciously choosing not to expand, you gimp yourself"

By this I mean that turtling is bad because you do not achieve your full potential. That is what "gimp" means. It's widely used by gamers in RPGs and MMORPGs to refer to a character who did not make the best development decisions (when choosing his skills, raising his stats etc).

I did not mean that turtling in itself is bad. You can win using it, but it is bad because you could have done better.

As for it "making perfect sense in many circumstances", I have to disagree. In vanilla, no factions will benefit more from a turtling strategy than a blitzing strategy. We can debate on that if you want. You gave Byzantine as a possible example, we're getting to that.

Turtling is best used as a faction which has very powerful units which need research to unlock or with units which, when fully armored, become significantly more powerful. Further, if you are a nation with a powerful strategic location (Byzantium, for example) but with a lot of potential for enemies, one will often find the slow, steady, and defensive play-style to be more advantageous in the long run.

It can't be better in the long run.

A typical western expansion for Byzance is to war Venice and Hungary. A realistic but aggressive expansion after 30 turns is to conquer Budapest, Bucharest, Sofia, Bran, Smyrna, Rhodes, Iraklion, Ragusa, Zagreb and Durazzo. That's 14 cities by turn 30, and an economy so good that you will be able to support a very large army (2 full stacks++) to defend it. You'll make a lot of money, and will be upgrading all your settlements, able to specialize them all.

I'd like to see a better situation coming from a turtling strategy. With only a few settlements you can't specialize as much. You don't have as much money. Your army is smaller. You're worse at everything.

It is not always the best to be the aggressor. I can hold a well fortified city / castle against forces 3, 5, even 8 times their size / power. Put a strong castle on the front with an enemy and you can bleed their forces (and thus their income) dry very quickly. Couple this with an ally faction also at war with them, and you will quickly eliminate the aggressor.

Further, as the defender, you can pick choke-points and place ambushes, allowing you to get a force advantage over the enemy and growing some incredible generals, if you play the fight right. As the defender, you pick where they fight. If they pass you by, then they leave their homeland vulnerable or enter into yours, thus giving you a force advantage (as you should have more forces in your region than they do).

Great points, I'm not gonna debate this one, as it is indeed obviously true that it is not always best to be the aggressor.

Although poorly phrased of me, this was an answer to the OP asking if he should in general attack or defend against the AI. Globally, I think it is better to be the aggressor, but as you pointed out there are indeed situations where defending is a better option.

And here is where actually being one who turtles often leads one to learn the secrets of the game. Diplomacy is a very fineky thing in this game, and even more so in Vanilla. Your reputation determines how others interact with you every turn. It makes others more likely to go to war with you. It makes your diplomats have more or less leverage. Keep a good reputation, and you can manipluate the AI factions into things you wouldn't dream of trying otherwise. Vassals and the purchasing of cities are things one rarely sees with an average reputation. However, if one takes the time and effort to avoid conflicts and spend money to get the favor of others, they'll be happy to sell you that small town which is on their outskirts.

Diplomacy, ah!

First, everything you said is wise and true. You certainly can achieve nice things with diplomacy alone, however a blitzing strategy does not exclude the use of diplomacy.

Attacking one or two neighbors early will taint your reputation but a wise leader will make allies and be able to keep his reputation on the higher end.

The two above paragraphs were for the sake of the argument. Now let me tell you what I think about diplomacy: You can flush it down the toilet! In this game, having a great reputation and great relations does not guarantee anything. Diplomacy, beside with the Pope, is just a distraction. Sure I'll go for trade rights and try to not be attacked by everyone, but in the end the AIs are just a bunch of when it comes to diplomacy.

By turtling, you should build up a very strong economy. This should give you plenty of cash to spend gaining the favor of other factions. You can then manipulate those factions into wars with eachother, thus reducing the strength of multiple future-enemies at once while keeping your borders safe. You also avoid getting a bad reputation, which causes other factions to hate you, and thus attack you.

A very strong economy as opposed to what? Cities are what drives the economy in this game. The more cities you have, the better your economy will be. That's a fact that can't be changed. Blitzing = more cities = better economy.

In the end... why turtle?

Pros :
- gain financial advantage over aggressive factions / players

Turtlers have no financial advantages over larger factions. As I said, more cities mean a better economy.

- gain technological advantage over same

Early technology can be achieved by anyone, turtling or not. But when it comes to late technology, the more settlements you have, the better you are because you can specialize.

A pro for turtling that you missed is that it's definitely fun to play (and roleplay).

I understand that people like turtling for its fun factor, but it's far from the best strategy. Multiplayer games prove that: You can't win by turtling against other human players. Using it to win single player games is just a big illusion because you're actually in a Disneyland world.

[Irelia]

So just outliving it is not enough, I can' t just wait for my "allies" to kill them? What if I utterly destroy them, but my ally strikes the final blow, or if I only slay the remainder of a once huge faction, will that still count?
I don´t think you have to win the campaign to unlock enemies, I unlocked Scotland without completing.

Yes i was wrong sry xP TBH i never won any campaign and i unlocked factions by editing files

[Commander5xl]

Turtling is basically the idea of low armies only enough to defend yourself possibly attack once, and focus your money on economy and buildings instead of recruiting units. Then once you think you are ready ( get into the proffessional units unlocked) and ranking in the money, you asses from there and expand outwards slowly. Its basically the oposite of blitzing. In all my campaigns i seem to do a cross between them. I am slow taking settlements though I don't just sit back idle.

[Loki_999]

I sometimes turtle for RP reasons. In Medieval 1 i once played a game where my objective was only to take England (as the English) and hold it, with the only expansion being allowed via crusades. This was pretty much turtling as armies were only needed for defense the odd crusade.

[leseras]

I don't agree on turtling, turtling in RTW is dumb, its the same here.

[Mithrane]

- You would have to better define "best development decisions" in this context. Even then, I disagree that a larger nation = better development decisions. WHICH cities you own and HOW you grow them are far more important than how many you own. Turtle =/= capture NO territories. It merely emphasises(sp?) the holding of a region and minimizing aggressive actions, number of enemies, and protracted wars.

- It can be better in the long run. I will take Byzantium as my example. At the start, take "Greece". Expand to the castle bordering Hungary. Avoid the village with a D, as it will cause a war with Venice within a few turns. Secure a few coastal regions in the Black Sea and in modern Turkey. Now focus all of your efforts on getting good relations with Hungary, Venice, and the Seljuk Sultans (Turkey). Move all of your forces to 4 main locations. 1.) The castle bordering Hungary. 2.) The castle in southern Greece. 3.) Constantinople / Nicea (Milita troops only) 4.) The island SW of Turkey (you should have taken this by the time you set up your turtle). Put a navy near the holy land and 2 small navies in the Greek islands and blocking your straight.

From here, build. Do everything you can to get your neighbors to be at war with someone else. Bribe the hell out of them. Bribes cost less / turn than aggressive armies. Further, if you keep high relations, global and allied, you will get many of the "gifts" from your "people" for doing well. Keep your towns happy. Build build build.

Eventually, you will see that one of your allies is going to be a problem. At this time, build a large army for the singular purpose of taking them out in less than 3 turns. Use diplomacy to get everyone at war with them. End your alliance / treaties. Occupy what you capture. Only hold that which will be helpful to you AND will not cause a war with another faction.

Playing in this manner, you expand more slowly than an aggressive faction, but you do not have the money sink of constantly holding defensive AND aggressive armies. Further, you should have a large enough region when you start to turtle that you will not lack for a city / castle for each important tech-route. Your income MIGHT be smaller, but your expenditure is significantly smaller. Your army is smaller, but so are the forces you face and the need for an army. You are not distracted by war, and thus can focus on growing cities / castles faster, thus avoiding the "wait period" when a region has done all of its research, but can't expand to the next level because of population size. Even more, with this focus on population from the get-go, one's economy is actually significantly larger / city than one who has neglected these things for the more imediately required military buildings.

More cities = more money, yes. If they are all equal. A defensive player has better cities for income than an aggressive player. Throw in a small attack for key cities (such as the Nile Delta or Holy Land for Byzantium), and, though significantly smaller in number, total income for the faction will be higher, and their profits will be, as well, due to fewer military troops.

[Romanichine]

A defensive player has better cities for income than an aggressive player.

This is false, and I can prove it.

Let's say a defensive player (Player D) with the Byzantines and has 6 cities after 20 turns, and an aggressive player (Player A) has 10, including the same six owned by Player D. Player A can then mimic the same build pattern than player D: same buildings in the same cities at the same time. And the other four cities? He's not building anything in it.

Would you agree that Player A has the economy to make the same builds? I hope so, he has four more cities and he's using them to pay for any costs that Player D does not have (bigger army mostly).

Who has the best position then? It must be Player A. He has the same developed cities, but he has four more and a bigger army.

Even if Player A decided to focus on military buildings instead of economic ones, it does not make his economy worse. In this game, economic buildings are roughly +10% of a type of income. So if you can build two economic buildings while I am diverted by war, you will have cities worth 1.2 times mine. That's not enough to justify a defensive strategy.

Everything else you said: Diplomacy, war a faction and bring everyone else to attack it, capture what you occupy, focus on population, get a rich city in the Holy Land etc.. All this, an aggressive player can also do. It's not unique to turtlers, and so, have no weight in this debate.

[leseras]

This is false, and I can prove it.

Let's say a defensive player (Player D) with the Byzantines and has 6 cities after 20 turns, and an aggressive player (Player A) has 10, including the same six owned by Player D. Player A can then mimic the same build pattern than player D: same buildings in the same cities at the same time. And the other four cities? He's not building anything in it.

Would you agree that Player A has the economy to make the same builds? I hope so, he has four more cities and he's using them to pay for any costs that Player D does not have (bigger army mostly).

Who has the best position then? It must be Player A. He has the same developed cities, but he has four more and a bigger army.

Even if Player A decided to focus on military buildings instead of economic ones, it does not make his economy worse. In this game, economic buildings are roughly +10% of a type of income. So if you can build two economic buildings while I am diverted by war, you will have cities worth 1.2 times mine. That's not enough to justify a defensive strategy.

Everything else you said: Diplomacy, war a faction and bring everyone else to attack it, capture what you occupy, focus on population, get a rich city in the Holy Land etc.. All this, an aggressive player can also do. It's not unique to turtlers, and so, have no weight in this debate.

Alright relax...aggression is good. But defensive is good once in awhile too. I mean by being way too aggressive I had wars with three factions and the pope almost crusaded me. Its good both ways. Depends on circumstances.

[Mithrane]

Here's the very point by point break down of my argument. Please realize this is not saying in ALL cases that this will happen. Please realize this does not state that there is never a need for aggressive strategies.

A.)
1- Aggressive strategies require more troops on the field at any one time than defensive ones.
2- Aggressive strategies have a higher attrition rate, thus requiring replacement of troops more frequently than defensive strategies.
.:- Thus, Aggressive strategies have a higher total cost and higher cost per turn for their military than defensive strategies.

B.)
1- Defensive strategies are not burdened by the need of X troop type for their conquests and "keeping up with the Joneses".
.:- Thus, Defensive strategies can focus on growth of population and economy more-so than aggressive strategies.

C.)
1- A+B -> Defensive strategies have cities and castles which grow faster
.:- Defensive strategies give access to higher technologies faster in "normal" cities / castles (note - "normal" does not include the odd city / castle which starts the game very far along

D.)
1- B+C -> Defensive strategies lead to higher potential base income per city/castle

E.)
1- A+D -> Defensive strategies lead to higher profit per city / castle

F.)
1- E+A -> Defensive strategies CAN lead to higher total profit. (Note - A sufficiently efficient aggressive strategy can and will out-pace the income of the defensive strategy with the same "home land", if the aggressive strategy "bites off more than they can chew" or overextends themselves, though, their income will fall sharply, while their expenses will expand just as sharply. Just as in a real "Blitz", if you out-pace your supplies, your momentum will falter, and you will be open to a counter attack which can be devistating)




Simply put, to hold those extra cities / castles requires more troops. And to hold off the many enemies you are making by capturing them requires more troops still. These can be paid for, imediately, by sacking, crusades, etc. However, it is very common and easy for one's expenditures to grow faster than one's new income with an aggressive strategy. Thus, eventually, it is quite possible to gain a negative income.

With a defensive strategy, one rarely has a negative income, and never allows their expenditures to grow unexpectedly.

It should be noted, by the by, that some factions do amazingly well with purely aggressive strategies. This is maily a factor of their location. For example... the Novgorods / Russians in any version of the game will have a HUGE difficulty growing a solid defensive income / base from the villages of the steppes. Thus, they must expand constantly. Their initial income is from a few well-built cities and that which they take by sword. Their focus on horse archers helps them with this tactic.

Other factions, such as the Italians, can gain much much more from trade and merchants. Thus, they will want to avoid too many wars with their neighbors. Thankfully, their neighbors are rich, and can be sacked to fund a more aggressive strategy.

Part of why I love the Byzantine Empire... You get the best of both worlds and can dictate your strategy by where you expand.

[Romanichine]

er... Nice post!

I thought my last one, with the copycat strategy, should have been enough to convince you but apparently it's not. It is obvious that blitzing is a superior strategy, something that I believe is widely known by good M2TW players, so much that they limit themselves on how to use it. Is is obvious but I don't know how to push this further, maybe I just can't convince you.

Thus I don't see any incentive to pursue this, and it was also not the OP intention to start such a debate, so I'll leave it to this.

[Turtle Hammer]

While I do like consolidating to an extent(though never so far as to be a turtle), I think some factions actually require expansion to be economicly feasible. Scotland and Russia come to mind. I've found switching from one style to the other works best. Blitzing a short way, then consolidating for a while.

Also, one thing I sometimes find useful is having a full stack raiding. If you take some cities you have no intention of keeping in the near future, you can sack them, sell everything in them and keep moving allowingit to revolt or be recaptured but essentialy back at square one. This can draw an enemy's attention from your borders allowing you to "turtle" while still making a spot of money and ensuring you're not out-teched later in the game. I did this as the Moors first, because although I needed to take France down I didn't "want" it, I wanted Africa and the middle east. Moors in Marsaillesfelt "out of character" I guess.

[Mithrane]

The issue I have with sending raiding parties out when playing defensively, namely turtling, is mainly economically based, but also diplomatically.

First, if you make a large enough force to successfully raid, this will cost you money, both to build it AND to keep it. It is possible to get a net profit out of it, especially if you can catch some rich cities poorly defended. However, since nearly all rich cities will be held by the AI, this leads to the second issue.

If you raid, you will make enemies. The more enemies you make, the more you have to defend against. The more you have to defend against, the more you need to spend on defending. The more time you spend defending, the less time you spend making a profit and building new buildings. Thus, you end up with a likely net loss from all the enemies you make raiding.

For these reasons, I tend to avoid raiding when playing the turtle. Now, there are times where I am sufficiently ahead of the AI and have a well defended position and I actually WANT to invite them to attack me. In these situations, I will raid to my heart's content. Burn, pillage, etc etc. I've even been known to wage war against all of Christendom as England, letting all of Europe go on crusades against me and earning tons of experience from defending against them. Then, I launch a series of pointed attacks while they rebuild their armies. In this way, I keep them from having the forces to make another attack, and pick them apart at my liesure.

[andrey27]

so many answers to read. so i just skip'em.
i think turtling is not really cool. firstly there isn't really good naturally defended area in the map(England have shores to get armies from. Spain maybe is the best you just have to deal with Portugal and noob Moors but so far away from Europe). secondly turns are too valuable in this game. you should get advantage all of them. my suggestion is keep your rep high as much as you can, and you are all protected. it is valid even if you have your cities and castles unconnected and far away from each other. like i do with Venice atm. I am trustworthy and no country really dares to declare war against me. I have almost 30 regions and they have literally no connection with each other(i have italy area and middle east: Byzantine and Hungary seperates these.) sometimes portugal and sometimes spain attacks my island castles like ajaccio and shore city genoa. but in the next turn they are begging for ceasefire. i return them asking with tons of florins. so my point is you do not really have to turtle when rep has this much power over other countries. but i should warn you. before that give me a feedback. =))