Which Nations Are Best for Turtling?

[Agema]

There are definitely some nations who will be better than others at turtling. The obvious problem is a likely lower gold and gem income compared to someone who has expanded aggressively. Thus good turtling nations should probably have:

1) Cheap research mages - if you can get 1 research per 20 gold or less, that's great.
2) Lots of magic paths, either national, or from a rainbow pretender. You want to maximise gem income from your limited provinces.
3) High resource, low gold troops. Generally, more resources spent make units more combat effective for the gold cost, thus you need fewer and it saves on upkeep. Nations that can reanimate or summon allies are handy here.

A major determinant of the usefulness of turtling will be your strategy: you want good scales. A nation with +order, +growth, +magic can equal or better the development of a larger nation with bad scales. In particular, growth means your income keeps on improving, whereas turtling with death dominion is a recipe for disaster.

[AreaOfEffect]

A nation who's troops have high resources and low costs have to build up their army while at peace. That is terrible for turtling. Yet those with very low resource costs, like Hydras, can horde their income and pay for armies on the fly. It means that when you do build an army, it will be bigger then if you built one up during peace because you saved a lot of money on upkeep costs.

[Illuminated One]

@K

Well, your points are valid, however mostly so when you already have an advantage.
If you are making SCs only your enemy can make more this doesn't help you much. Same for research, only when you are going to have a good income already (or skull mentors), otherwise you just fall behind.
Chance is that early on is your best bet to fight a bloodless fight with/against the right nations (Hinnom vs. Ulm for instance).
Even if you loose 2000 gold but take provinces worth 500 gp per turn it pays off very early and you can then more than catch up on research.
And if you are turtling through this with a third nation if you wait until they catch up through income you haven't gained that much.

[Agema]

Originally Posted by AreaOfEffect

A nation who's troops have high resources and low costs have to build up their army while at peace. That is terrible for turtling. Yet those with very low resource costs, like Hydras, can horde their income and pay for armies on the fly. It means that when you do build an army, it will be bigger then if you built one up during peace because you saved a lot of money on upkeep costs.

True, but in my view very unsafe.

Without a substantial, standing military, the first thing an aggressor would consider would be to drop thugs/SCs or heavy unrest on all the fortresses. Thus he'd be facing a nation with no army and at least a few turns before he can build one. The turtler should be able to clear his fortresses and build an army eventually, but by then half his empire might be occupied.

[Sombre]

Your troops and mages don't necessarily have to make up their cost in gold return. They can also make it up in gold loss caused to the enemy. If they take 300 gold from the enemy and put it in your pocket, provided that enemy is really standing in the way of your victory, it's effectively a 600 gold gain.

[Squirrelloid]

That's only true if he's your only enemy, Sombre. Not a usual case. (its still only a 300g improvement relative to nations you didn't take the provinces from).

[Sombre]

He doesn't have to be your only opponent for you to /have/ to take him down. As long as he's actually in your way and you need to conquer him and some other opponent doesn't benefit from his gold losses, I think it works out as a better deal than just gaining 300 gold. After all no matter what you do you'll have to use whatever gold (or other resources) you get to eventually beat your opponents. While the 600 gold could be used on any of them, the truth is it will essentially be used on one of them (you research a key spell which is particularly good against one of your opponents, etc).