Why Turtle is not a good Strategy

First of all we need to know, What is Turtle?
Turtle is when a player is not making aggressive actions, instead of that he/she make only defence actions.

For example, in SupCom a T-2 PD creep is not a Turtle because he start moving his PD to the enemy base, but if he start to make shields, TMD, AA and stop advancing, it became a turtle.

Analysis this classic RTS map:

imagine that this is fight w/ a player that buy a lot of radar on his controled area.

you can see that a Not Turtle have more Map control, and metal
Turtle= 4x6= 24MPS
Not Turtle 6X6= 36MPS+ 3 Mexes nearby

The Turtle guy has no retreat route if get attacked, he has a good base but, the Not Turtle guy has a more strong Border and Intel.



I make this to say that TURTLE IS NOT A (good ) STRATEGY, when a lot of guy was talking the opposite

Rule of 10:

https://forums.uberent.com/threads/to-all-new-players-expand-expand-expand.52136/#post-796352

THX, I search only for Turtle not for Expand

A turtle doesn't necessarily sacrifice expansion. The idea behind a turtle is by defending so well that the enemy can't attack cost effectively at all. In order to sustain such an economy, sending out units to attack is a waste of time and investment because that isn't the goal a turtle wants to achieve.

The problem with a turtle is that it is a very slow way to win and that gives the enemy plenty of opportunity to counter you. Because your base is only as strong as it's weakest side, if the enemy manages to open up a crack in your defense, then it's unlikely you can win anymore.

Turtling is the best strategy at them minute unfortunately. Especially early game. Pds are too strong and too cheap.

yes this don't sacrifce expansion, but a smart enemy will throw bots to kill yours fabricators, before they can make defenses, and if is the Com there he would try to Snipe you.
aways there a Cost effectively, throw a EXP, an entire Army, Arty, bombers, nukes; and you have the Time factor.

at now, but probably when the game get launch, PDs will be more expensive.

.

Maybe, neutrino has backed up the current strength by saying that he wants people to be afraid of turrets when they see them.

This was in a cast and as has been the case before this does not mean it's written in stone.

Turtling is a lot easier on a small planet, but a lot harder on a globe.

well, this doesn't mean that it need to be weak, only expensive, like a T-1 PD in FA

I really want to push weapons that cost energy to fire, so that wile powerful and scary are balanced by the need for a strong power economy.

Contrary to other games, like supcom, turtling does not work at all in this game. Aside from the fact that we are now on spherical maps, there is no real upgrade to mexes in your base. in supcom, you could go from 2 mass income per mex to 27 income per mex. not the same here. Also, turtling by definition is pushing with defences to expand, which is near impossible here due to the amount of space between mexes.

Turtling in this game is a sure fire way to lose..

Turtling =! building one epic base and creating tons of other little base/mex espansions with no offensive units.

One the same not not defending your main base is another sure fire way to lose.. armies alone will not protect you and I like that.

Often mistaken for turtling, Porcing (springrts.com/wiki/Porcing) is a viable strat in most RTS games.
Kinda a turtle done right.

I never said that I found turtling a valid strategy, but then again I haven't seen anyone execute it properly.

i think it depends on what you call turtling. what the OP describes sounds more like hiding from your enemy.

You underestimate the awesomeness of Pelter creeping. The strength of the Pelter is one of the reasons why turtling loses in the current iteration of the game. An aggressive player attacks, the turtle trys to counter with turrets, but the attacker can assume there will be turrets and just build a Pelter slightly behind his front line and then Pelter creep all the way to Berlin (or beat the turtle to T2 because his aggressive move claimed superior map control and just Catapult snipe all his valuables).

The strength and cheapness of T1 turrets is ironically why turtling is a losing option. An aggressive player can very easily secure his gains against counterattack. In other games a super-fast landgrab can leave you overextended, but a player on the defensive faced with a laser tower and a pelter under construction at his front door won't have the resources to spare to raid your undefended flanks while the shells start raining down on his eco.

Steamroll is considered turtling or aggressive style?
(people call steamroll when you expand over the enemy using defensive structures only, such as pelters and catapults)

All the good players know turtling isn't a good strategy.

Hopefully this will convince some turtlers that they're playing ineffectively.

Turtling can be a good strategy, I don't do it like this though. I build mex, mex, power, factory, power x9 with my commander and immediately start producing bots. I send them in teams of 2 in each direction to build mex, and another team of two follows them and builds missile defense at each extractor. This is usually enough to wipe out small T1 armies. Once I get my economy rolling I have a squad of around 5-10 fabbers build a circle of missile defense around my base, and send out more teams to build additional missile defenses at the extractors. Around this time I am at T2 with a strong economy, start building nukes and advanced orbital satellite, Once I have radar up I can see exactly what they have and build my defenses around it, if they have land units I build a circle of long range artillery around my base, if they have air I build a stupid amount of missile towers, and if they are turtling and building nukes like I do I either beat them to it and nuke their nuke, or start building anti nuke. When it gets deadlocked with both of us having anti nukes up I send out bombers to wreck their resources and anti nuke, then finish them off.