Turtlers and Rushers?

[Agema]

It's balance, really, isn't it?

Your main resources are gold and mages. Gold that goes into troops can't go into mages and castles. Mages that are out fighting don't do research or site searching. But rushing = territory = money & gems = more mages and castles.

If you over-rush or over-turtle, either way you'll potentially get yourself into trouble by being overextended and underdeveloped, or being too economically small. Possibly you either want to expand at someone's expense by picking on the weak or allying, so you can grow with one hand and develop with the other. Alternatively, maybe go all-out against an opponent, and then consolidate your gains for a while, and switch between development and war.

[thejeff]

Turtling only works in the long run if you can clam (the other gem producers to a lesser extent).
Sure, getting in protracted wars too early is a big problem, but you need to keep expanding your economy. If you can clam, you can do that without actually taking more territory, since gems become the real resource later in the game. If you can't, you need to get more gems by taking territory, which means fighting other nations.

I think 'rush' is generally used to mean very early attacks, to take an opponent out while most are still in the indy expansion phase.
While "turtling" usually is used for a strategy of avoiding war, after the initial expansion, until the endgame.
Most strategies, whether more or less aggressive, lie in between.

[Sombre]

There's also the added factor that for some nations the simple upkeep of a war machine is a big problem - their battle mages are not their cost effective researchers etc

So if they have their war machine rolling it's best to keep using it - if it hasn't taken losses it's just sitting around eating upkeep.

[AreaOfEffect]

I'm willing to agree that the player is more important then the nation when it comes to play style. The nation is, more often then not, a tool for that person's style. If the nation does not facilitate that style, then, more often then not, that player will refrain from choosing that nation.

As for my style, I like high research and taking things one turn at a time. I'm always willing to end a war on the spot if the opponent gives me reason to. I determine that some times it is better to turtle while at other times I recognize the need to take aggressive action. For that reason I like it best when I can build a nation with options. I like my researchers to be competent battle casters. I hate nothing more then being tied to an aggressive rush strategy. It's one of the basic reasons why I will never triple bless ever again... unless I'm LA Ermor.

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by AreaOfEffect

I'm willing to agree that the player is more important then the nation when it comes to play style. The nation is, more often then not, a tool for that person's style. If the nation does not facilitate that style, then, more often then not, that player will refrain from choosing that nation.

As for my style, I like high research and taking things one turn at a time. I'm always willing to end a war on the spot if the opponent gives me reason to. I determine that some times it is better to turtle while at other times I recognize the need to take aggressive action. For that reason I like it best when I can build a nation with options. I like my researchers to be competent battle casters. I hate nothing more then being tied to an aggressive rush strategy. It's one of the basic reasons why I will never triple bless ever again... unless I'm LA Ermor.

Ooooh I love blesses!

I basically try to rush to choke points - and then progress from there.

[HoneyBadger]

I've tried a full on kamikazi with Sombre's Warhammer Ogres-and even though I individually ended up conquering just about every province and nation that I came across (I had something like 12 slave giants with my army), but I got so over-extended without having PD and defensive armies in place to provide good income, that it ended up a grueling grindfest by the lateish middle game, even on a very small map.

So if you have a lot of nations to play against, then it doesn't work so well, but only 1 or 2, and it can really work out great.

[Dragar]

It all depends on situation really, and its all about risk/reward and the cost of growth.

War is typically much more expensive than indie growth, so I will tend to avoid it, unless I am contesting land very early on with another nation.

To sit and not grow in land during the early stages I think is a bit suicidal, you will be outmatched by a decidedly larger opponent. I would only turtle if waiting for a key enabler, such as a specific spell critical to my strategy, or if any available war would likely cost me more than it would gain - in which case I'm in trouble as its guaranteed someone else on the map is going to be expanding.

[Zeldor]

Sun Tzu says:
"Thus one who excels at warfare first establishes himself in a position where he cannot be defeated while not losing any opportunity to defeat the enemy."

[Aezeal]

Well he can say what he want but that way he won't win Dominions 3 cus a position where you can't be defeated isn't that easy to obtain against much larger enemies in MP, they will catch up their research and then crush you.. ir just crush you right away

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by Aezeal

Well he can say what he want but that way he won't win Dominions 3 cus a position where you can't be defeated isn't that easy to obtain against much larger enemies in MP, they will catch up their research and then crush you.. ir just crush you right away

You miss the beautiful clarity of Sun Tzu.....

You see, he didn't say "delude yourself into thinking you cannot be defeated".