View Full Version : Shogun 2 Total War - confirmed
edyzmedieval
06-02-2010, 21:23
http://pc.ign.com/articles/109/1093664p1.html
Enjoy the article and the screens.
All I can say is - HURRAAAHHH!!!
Reenk Roink
06-02-2010, 23:22
:2thumbsup: I can't wait for some more screenshots. :balloon2:
I too was hopeing for some in-game screenshots! The description given by the link makes it seem like this game will be a great step forward for TW and the genre. I hope STW2 isn't a resource hog though. My computer is fairly new and I would hope it would run the game reasonably well.
Shieldmaiden
06-02-2010, 23:35
CA, do not botch Shogun 2 by rushing it. Take your time and retain your honour! :inquisitive:
... and give me time to upgrade my PC.
pevergreen
06-03-2010, 00:51
Sounds like they stole a few ideas from Arthur the roleplaying wargame.
Gregoshi
06-03-2010, 05:23
Am I excited by what I read? YES I AM!!
Monsieur Alphonse
06-03-2010, 05:57
I hope this is true:
Add in support for up to 56,000 units in a single battle, and it's clear to see just how ambitious Shogun 2 really is.
seireikhaan
06-03-2010, 06:14
:coffeenews:
I've learned not to get my hopes up. As awesome as it would be for them to make a game that's actually fun to play, I'm not holding my breath. The fact that this is in the news so early after Empire/Napoleon does not give me good vibes.
One particularly novel development is the introduction of hero units. These are warriors who have perfected a fighting art and can carve their way through enemy armies without much trouble at all. Based on mythologized historical figures like the warrior monk Benkei, hero units are a nearly unstoppable force on the battlefield, capable of holding bridge crossings against entire armies, or smashing through a battle line to engage the enemy general. You can counter heroes with the right tactics, such as filling them full of arrows, or by having your own hero units engage them in duels.
:inquisitive:
Veho Nex
06-03-2010, 09:32
:inquisitive:
Second...
Well let's just pray that it can be modded - going by the last two titles in the series I'm not very hopeful...
Beefy187
06-03-2010, 09:57
Shogun :curtain:
Great news I just hope there's an online chat section like the old game. Can we partition early for an online chat room for MP.
:inquisitive:
Second...
According to this (http://shoguntotalwar.yuku.com/sreply/917044/t/First-look-of-Shogun-2-Total-War-.html):
Hero Units: - These are not one man armies that destroy everything that opposes them. These are highly ranked elite units, available at the top of the tech tree who exemplify a mastery of a given martial technique (E.g. sword fighting). They are able to take on other heroes, and are naturally very powerful against groups of enemies but are not invincible game-changers. These figures are also based on true historical accounts of great fighters who founded schools of combat, not myths that take on whole armies and win.
In many ways Shogun is a great opportunity to finally see something good. Few(er) units, similar factions, limited timeframe, etc; generally a much more focused and tight game, so that hopefully means more focus on the essence of the game: gameplay, AI, immersion. Of course if CA manages to botches up this time with an armada of bugs, terrible AI and supermen-samurai...
WRT to moddability: It would be so very nice, but chances are slim. However if the game itself is good, it can be forgiven. STW was not more moddable than NTW, it became a huge success due its sheer vanilla awesomeness (and novelty, I'll give you that, which is not really there any more after 6 iterations).
Furunculus
06-03-2010, 12:05
great setting - one worry: get the modding tools right this time CA!
gaelic cowboy
06-03-2010, 14:16
Hup ya boy ye Shogun Totalwar 2
Julius_Nepos
06-03-2010, 14:48
Well I'll be passing on S2TW, or rather, I wont be getting involved until its priced at about $10. The setting is just so very limited and its in a time and in a place in which I just have not even a passing interest. Don't get me wrong, I am in fact quite interested in the affairs of Central Asia and India, so I'm not strictly a fan of European history, but I never really got into the far East, and Shogun promises to be a small, detailed and focused venture that's just not for me. Oh and I'm not at all confident CA will reverse its apprehensions towards modding either, so there's that too.
Still, there's no reason NOT to give it a go once its been out for a year+ and has been fully patched and reduced in price to a reasonable level. I never got to play STW (I had Mac back then) so I wouldn't be opposed to trying out the new release. I am disappointed, but I'll live. Watching the development cycle of S2TW should be interesting whatever the final result will be.
The simple setting is what made the first one so great, it wasnt over complicated so was much easier to pick up and just play. Fewer units also made the multiplayer simpler and more prone for people to try out new things, online battles always seemed more fun to me in Shogun than any of the other eras since, there was a lot more scope of tactics you coulnt take masses of guns you had to think faster.
I'm extremely excited that they are returning to the Shogun era, I just hope they can do it the justice it deserves.
The simple setting is what made the first one so great, it wasnt over complicated so was much easier to pick up and just play
I agree. I hope this will suit the AI as well. The larger maps can be a little overwhelming at times.
I just hope they can do it the justice it deserves
I have fond memories of the orginal. Would like the same of this one as well.
Hero units? Boy I hope that they are not serious.
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
06-03-2010, 16:08
YAY!!!!!
About time. I hope they make the MP good on this like the original STW MP was. :clown:
I guess they will be similar to the Kensai(sp?) Sword Saints in Shogun- Total War. Doesn't sound too terrible to me
Ser Clegane
06-03-2010, 16:44
Welcome back, monkian - have not seen you for quite a while in this realm
:bow:
This is great news - Asai i can count at least 5-6 encouraging focal points in the article - the smaller rosters, the smaller setting, fewerfactions, the seasons, the focus on artwork, the return of the personal element (you are made to feel the daimyo), the RPS element in agent warfare (about time), the naval battles without the (non-existent) sailing mechanics, STW with proper sieges. Of all those you chose to mention the... negative one. It will be some sort of more personalised kesnai character i guess, nothing to worry about if you ask me.
The fact that CA went that way ie towards its roots and decided to cut off the feature exlposion/complexity fanboy concept is no less than a sort of victory for the many voices that praised the merrits of the original STW around which TW in general was conceived and designed. CA had the easy, commercially viable choice: Rome2 and passed by for the time being. I feel that this alone is to their credit, no matter how it turns out.
Thank you CA. To all you fanboys that Shogun, RPS gameplay, small rosters and samurai are not your cup of tea: tough :)
I enjoyed the original when it came out I can only hope the new one works out as it will be nice to play a Total War not set in Europe again heh.
I'm actually excited for this one. CA has been disappointing me ever since Rome but I'm looking forward to this one. Back to basics is what the series needed.
This is great news - Asai i can count at least 5-6 encouraging focal points in the article - the smaller rosters, the smaller setting, fewerfactions, the seasons, the focus on artwork, the return of the personal element (you are made to feel the daimyo), the RPS element in agent warfare (about time), the naval battles without the (non-existent) sailing mechanics, STW with proper sieges. Of all those you chose to mention the... negative one. It will be some sort of more personalised kesnai character i guess, nothing to worry about if you ask me.
The fact that CA went that way ie towards its roots and decided to cut off the feature exlposion/complexity fanboy concept is no less than a sort of victory for the many voices that praised the merrits of the original STW around which TW in general was conceived and designed. CA had the easy, commercially viable choice: Rome2 and passed by for the time being. I feel that this alone is to their credit, no matter how it turns out.
Thank you CA. To all you fanboys that Shogun, RPS gameplay, small rosters and samurai are not your cup of tea: tough :)
Well said. :wink:
Mailman653
06-03-2010, 23:48
I suspected that teaser trailer was TW related, I see I was right. I never played the original Shogun, only the demo and that was only a battle or two. Looks interesting although as someone mentioned earlier that ETW and NTW aren't as mod friendly as old TW games, I hope it's a trend that won't continue.
Thank you CA. To all you fanboys that Shogun, RPS gameplay, small rosters and samurai are not your cup of tea: tough :)
lol, we are the fanboys? ~;)
You know why they do not include Korea and China don't you? Because any of the kingdoms in Korea or China would have whooped the Japanese! ~;) Seriously, I am not a big fan of the Japanese military at this time. I don't like their weapons or their armour or their tactics. I don't like ninjas and I don't like Samurai. Throughout history the Chinese and Koreans had arguably far superior fighting styles, weapons, armour, and tactics.
I don't mean to start a huge debate here, but in my opinion, the Japanese military I honestly think was far behind most people of their time, whether in the West or the East. That is why I don't understand making a game including only them and no other options. (that has never been done with any other Total War game...for a reason) That kills support from a lot of the fanbase. If it was the Chinese mainland, Korean peninsular, and the islands of Japan I could understand it, because then if you are not interested in one military, culture, kingdom, etc, you have choices. With Shogun Total War, you are removing them.
Well, your opinion is to be respected of course, but the Japanese were, are and always will be, a skilled people for whatever has to do with war. During the Sengoku period this trend was sharpened to new heights.
I understand the point about being confined to styles, however i would equally welcome a TW game during the Romance of the three kingdoms in China. I know very little about Korea - other than the fact that it was under the heavy shadow of China in the medieval era and later during the modern times under the heavy shadow of Japan. Its national martial art tae kwon do - is nearly a renaming of Okinawan karate that Korean immigrants brought from Japan pre WW2, but could not practice with a Japanese name due to the national issues against Japan in Korea - not exactly a great martial tradition when you compare it to Japan's.
As far as weapons are concerned, japanese swords - katanas - are the highest quality hand-to-hand weapons ever produced - metallographic analysis in the highest quality european swords (from Toledo) showed about 200,000 layers of iron/carbon in the steel alloy. The equivalent number for a katana is 1,500,000 - making it a killing tool that hasn't been repeated. Other Japanese blades for yaris (spears) and naginatas (halberds) were of comparable quality.
For me only a single "style" is not a problem especially now that i know a lot about this particular one - although again your assumption is misleading - Sengoku Daimyos were particularly imaginative when tactics and strategy were concerned and were keen inovators in many instances. It was also not a problem in the past when i knew nothing about japan, its history and its warring tradition.
Perhaps your opinion is based on a misunderstanding or lack of understanding - in that case S2 provides a great opportunity to sort this misunderstanding for you - you never know.
Mailman653
06-04-2010, 01:04
It's cause China and Korea are coming in the expansion :mad:
Intranetusa
06-04-2010, 01:10
As far as weapons are concerned, japanese swords - katanas - are the highest quality hand-to-hand weapons ever produced - metallographic analysis in the highest quality european swords (from Toledo) showed about 200,000 layers of iron/carbon in the steel alloy. The equivalent number for a katana is 1,500,000 - making it a killing tool that hasn't been repeated. Other Japanese blades for yaris (spears) and naginatas (halberts) were of comparable quality.
For me only a single "style" is not a problem especially now that i know a lot about this particular one - although again your assumption is misleading - Sengoku Daimyos were particularly imaginative when tactics and strategy were concerned and were keen inovators in many instances. It was also not a problem in the past when i knew nothing about japan, its history and its warring tradition.
Perhaps your opinion is based on a misunderstanding or lack of understanding - in that case S2 provides a great opportunity to sort this misunderstanding for you - you never know.
Japanese katanas are great, but also greatly overrated. They are really no better than a quality European sword. Katanas weigh the same and have slightly better cutting ability (due to its curved shaped) when compared to a straight European sword.
And any cutting weapon, (ie katana) is totally useless against almost all forms of metal armor. And the katana was also a weapon of last resort for a battlefield samurai - their primary weapon was a bow/arrow, spear, naginata, etc
The forging styles of the katana came from China, transmitted through Korea. And nobody talks about the "quality" of Chinese or Korean swords even though quality swords from those states are basically the same or even superior compared to katanas. Katanas are made with quality because iron is scarce in Japan - whereas the average European sword can be made to be mediocre since iron was plentiful. All in all, katanas are great, but it's mostly hype.
PS - btw, 200,000 vs 1,500,000 folds is meaningless, because their cutting ability is virtually the same. Some quality European swords even have better edge geometry and superior sectional density when compared with a quality Japanese katana.
There is indeed potential for such an expansion, as historically Toyotomi Hideyoshi (the second of the japanese unifiers) decided to try to conquer Korea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_invasions_of_Korea_(1592%E2%80%931598)) with part of his samurai army.
Intranetusa, I can see why you are here, so i'll leave it at that :)
Have fun denying, demistfying and generally showing how much you dislike the japanese setting, since it would have been better to choose an 8th century Britain setting where swords are not overhyped etc etc
all yours ;)
Intranetusa
06-04-2010, 01:24
Intranetusa, I can see why you are here, so i'll leave it at that :)
Have fun denying, demistfying and generally showing how much you dislike the japanese setting, since it would have been better to choose an 8th century Britain setting where swords are not overhyped etc etc
all yours ;)
It's not that I dislike the Japanese setting. It's I dislike repetative stuff with no creativitiy. My main problem is they already made a Shogun game. Why make another? Why don't they branch out some to at least the rest of East Asia? Japan is an island. Making two games about Japanese Shogun is basically no different than making a TW game about 8th century England, and another about 11th century England - it's the same damn thing.
And my other problem is how the samurai has been elevated to mystical proportions. I commented on your post because in reality, katanas aren't much better than East Asian, European, or Middle Eastern swords. That's a common misconception that has been continually perpetuated by Hollywood and pop media...sorta like the damn lorica segmentata.
Actually - katanas are really far better - there is a reason for the hype, and i can tell you that its not Hollywood based as you think. The point is not to compare katanas with nuclear weapons - clearly katanas will lose - the point is the quality of the sword and its use in regards to the purpose it had to fulfil. many european weapons were designed to do blund damage, because they had no chance of piercing armor - they could though create an internal wound andhemorrage in the wearer by deforming the armor locally (maces etc). The philosophy is different because the conditions were different. In Japan plate metal armor was only reserved for the Daimyos themselves and this because of its ability to stop bullets.
During the feudal era bujutsu - the fighting arts were developed in Japan. These did indeed blend the practical and necessary with the natural and the beautiful - their offshoots: kenjutsu-fencing (and other weapon arts like archery, the art of thespear the art of the halberd), jujutsu and all its derivaties (judo, brazilian jujutsu, aikido) and karate and its prequels and sequels became amazingly popular worldwide for many good reasons: a) because they really work b) because they help one build character and learn self defence at the same time.
As far as the setting is concenred i can't do anything for it if you don;t like it - however i hope that you'll agree that others may like it and wish to enjoy it in its new forum without negations, denying, cynicism and the like.
:bow:
As far as the setting is concenred i can't do anything for it if you don;t like it - however i hope that you'll agree that others may like it and wish to enjoy it in its new forum without negations, denying, cynicism and the like.
You shouldn't argue. What's done is done. Sometimes critisisms provide for valuable opinion, could benefit discussion both positive and negative. :)
Intranetusa
06-04-2010, 01:49
Actually - katanas are really far better - there is a reason for the hype, and i can tell you that its not Hollywood based as you think. The point is not to compare katanas with nuclear weapons - clearly katanas will lose - the point is the quality of the sword and its use in regards to the purpose it had to fulfil. many european weapons were designed to do blund damage, because they had no chance of piercing armor - they could though create an internal wound andhemorrage in the wearer by deforming the armor locally (maces etc). The philosophy is different because the conditions were different. In Japan plate metal armor was only reserved for the Daimyos themselves and this because of its ability to stop bullets. During the feudal era bujutsu - the fighting arts were developed in Japan. These did indeed blend the practical and necessary with the natural and the beautiful - their offshoots: kenjutsu-fencing (and other weapon arts like archery, the art of thespear the art of the halberd), jujutsu and all its derivaties (judo, brazilian jujutsu, aikido) and karate and its prequels and sequels became amazingly popular worldwide for many good reasons: a) because they really work b) because they help one build character and learn self defence at the same time. As far as the setting is concenred i can't do anything for it if you don;t like it - however i hope that you'll agree that others may like it and wish to enjoy it in its new forum without negations, denying, cynicism and the like.
:bow:
I'm not comparing katanas with nuclear weapons. I'm comparing katanas with other swords. Other swords =/= nuclear weapons. Yes, there were plenty of European weapons that was meant to defeat armor through blunt force, but I'm talking about European swords.
High quality European swords are just as good as a katana. And you still haven't given any reason why katanas are better than good quality European swords.
Europe, China, and Korea has plenty of sword based martial arts. Karate actually comes from Okinawa and is a blend of Southern Chinese martial arts with Native Okinawan arts. Sword/weapon based martial arts are not something unique to Japan.
And your discussion about martial arts has nothing to do with your argument that katanas are superior to quality European swords.
All I'm saying is the katana is a good sword, but it's vastly overrated by pop culture and Hollywood. A good European sword or a good Chinese sword is equal to a good katana.
Sometimes they provide valuable opinion, yes. Other times they simply restate the frustration of the critic over and over.
Choosing the same setting twice means little creativity, so M2TW or Rome 2 that will eventually be made, also show little creativity. However, other than the research - they are completely different games. Even the engines although related are not the same and different work will have to be made on mechanics, balancing, the AI, not to mention artwork etc.
However when you dislike the setting, CA are lazy, metallographic analysis pointless and Samurai Hollywood overhyped, period. So yes, maybe i shoudn't argue ;)
Intranetusa, if i may ask: how old are you?
Intranetusa
06-04-2010, 01:56
Choosing the same setting twice means little creativity, so M2TW or Rome 2 that will eventually be made, also show little creativity.
Rome Total War has different factions such as Romans, Gauls, Brits, Persians, Egyptians, etc
Medieval Total War has different factions such as the Germans, French, Italian states, Turks, Saracens, etc
Shogun has the same factions - Japanese #1, Japanese #2, and Japanese #3. Shogun TW has nowhere near the diversity of RTW or MTW.
Considering the fact that some scholars don't even use the word "Japanese Warring States" because they were all a single state, and were all just warring clans of a single faction - it's evident there is not nearly enough diversity if they just focus on solely Japan.
Like I said before, Shogun 1 and 2 is basically making an England 8th century TW game, and then making an England 11th century TW game.
-----------
And again, to address the sword issue:
I'm not comparing katanas with nuclear weapons. I'm comparing katanas with other swords. Other swords =/= nuclear weapons. Yes, there were plenty of European weapons that was meant to defeat armor through blunt force, but I'm talking about European swords.
High quality European swords are just as good as a katana. And you still haven't given any reason why katanas are better than good quality European swords.
Europe, China, and Korea has plenty of sword based martial arts. Karate actually comes from Okinawa and is a blend of Southern Chinese martial arts with Native Okinawan arts. Sword/weapon based martial arts are not something unique to Japan.
And your discussion about martial arts has nothing to do with your argument that katanas are superior to quality European swords.
All I'm saying is the katana is a good sword, but it's vastly overrated by pop culture and Hollywood. A good European sword is equal to a good katana.
Too bad for you then, and too good for me :)
Pitty you won't enjoy this :) - you'll have to wait 2 long years until the next title... until then you can be our resident troll: fine by me :)
Intranetusa
06-04-2010, 02:08
until then you can be our resident troll: fine by me :)
As expected, you have been unable to answer even a single one of my questions.
You are unable to defend your Romanticized view of the katana being a godlike sword, or the samurai being mystical undefeatable warriors.
And you haven't even addressed my argument that Shogun:TW is not nearly as diverse as RTW or MTW in terms of factions and creativity.
All you've done is resort to petty ad hominem attacks.
ad hominem attacks are my specialty ;)
Intranetusa
06-04-2010, 02:12
ad hominem attacks are my specialty ;)
Ok. :D
I hope CA at least makes the the AI decent, then I will still buy it and wait for mods that might add new land like the rest of East Asia...
I hope CA at least makes the the AI decent, then I will still buy it and wait for mods that might add new land like the rest of East Asia...
Agreed. I would like it moddable of course...expansion pack and not just mods of the rest of asia would be nice too! Everybody loves those Mongols!:juggle2:
Gregoshi
06-04-2010, 02:17
Like I said before, Shogun 1 and 2 is basically making an England 8th century TW game, and then making an England 11th century TW game.
Not really. STW and S2TW are separated by 10 years of technology improvements and 8 additional games/expansion worth of experience and game engine improvements. STW being the first laid the foundation, but so much more can be done with the setting now that were undreamed of back then. The hope is to apply the new without ruining the good of the original. They appear to recognize that in the article. I can only hope the final product is a nice blend of the new and the original.
BTW, diversity doesn't make a game good. Neither does sameness. Great graphics and realistic sounds don't either. The game has to be fun to play and everything else is icing on the cake.
Gregoshi
06-04-2010, 02:22
You are unable to defend your Romanticized view of the katana being a godlike sword, or the samurai being mystical undefeatable warriors.
To be fair, your counter to gollum's argument on the katana was no better. He said/he said. No links or references from either of you. It's a draw. On to the next point gentlemen. :bow:
Intranetusa
06-04-2010, 02:24
Agreed. I would like it moddable of course...expansion pack and not just mods of the rest of asia would be nice too! Everybody loves those Mongols!:juggle2:
Mongol General: Hao! Dai ye! We won again! This is good, but what is best in life?
Mongol: The open steppe, fleet horse, falcons at your wrist, and the wind in your hair.
Mongol General: Wrong! Conan! What is best in life?
Conan: To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.
Mongol General: That is good! That is good.
Mongols pwn everybody... :laugh4:
BTW, diversity doesn't make a game good. Neither does sameness. Great graphics and realistic sounds don't either. The game has to be fun to play and everything else is icing on the cake.
Perhaps. If they make a dramatic leap in gameplay, it might be worth it. (mainly creating a battle AI that doesn't suck - ie. charging their cavalry general into your line of spearmen in the first 5 minutes, or a campaign AI that also doesn't suck - ie. a bankrupt faction 1/10 your size breaking their alliance and attacking your full stack elites with 5 units of levies)
If the gameplay-AI isn't given a huge overhaul, playing and fighting the same Japanese factions over and over again isn't exactly my cup of tea... :/
Originally posted by Intratenusa
I hope CA at least makes the the AI decent, then I will still buy it and wait for mods that might add new land like the rest of East Asia...
You could even mod in 8th century Britain :laugh4:
Intranetusa
06-04-2010, 02:27
To be fair, your counter to gollum's argument on the katana was no better. He said/he said. No links or references from either of you. It's a draw. On to the next point gentlemen. :bow:
Well, his argument was that katanas are much better than good Euro swords. My argument was basically that, no, they are not much better.
He is the one making a statement. So the burden of proof mainly falls on him - he needs to prove that katanas are better than quality European swords in the first place.
You could even mod in 8th century Britain
With Samurai however.
All arguments aside, this has turned into quite an interesting thread! :sweatdrop:
Intranetusa
06-04-2010, 02:31
You could even mod in 8th century Britain :laugh4:
Nah, 8th century Britain isn't much better than 15th century Japan. In fact, I'd say it's probably even more boring. :laugh4:
I'd prefer a truly diverse and expansive empire - ie. Byzantines, Muslim Caliphate, or the Tang.
Gregoshi
06-04-2010, 02:34
He is the one making a statement. So the burden of proof mainly falls on him - he needs to prove that katanas are better than quality European swords in the first place.
:laugh4: And you would be right if you just ask for sources. However, you made your own statement and thus shouldered the burden of proof with him. Very sporting of you. :bow:
This is but one of many links:
http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm
Reproducing from the part The Samurai's sword:
"As a sword, the Japanese katana is unmatched in its sharpness and cutting power."
I gave up on the "argument" as "dont feed the troll" is a maxim i hold to, once i realise one behaves as such
:bow:
edit: not to mention that those who throw "arguments" because they don't really know what they are talking about but do so for a war of impressions, aren't all that sportive at all.
Gregoshi
06-04-2010, 02:43
You just can't take things too serious. We are talking about a game - not even that - a game announcement. :shrug:
Intranetusa
06-04-2010, 02:45
This is but one of many links:
http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm
Reproducing from the part The Samurai's sword:
"As a sword, the Japanese katana is unmatched in its sharpness and cutting power."
I gave up on the "argument" as "dont feed the troll" is a maxim i hold to, once i realise one behaves as such
:bow:
edit: not to mention that those who throw "arguments" because they don't really know what they are talking about but do so for a war of impressions, aren't all that sportive at all.
From the same link, just further down the page:
"[katana] is not quite the "ultimate sword" some of its ardent admirers occasionally build it up as. The katana's exceptionally hard edge was prone to chipping and needed frequent re-polishing and its blade could break or bend the same as any other sword might (...and no, they won't slice through cars or chop into concrete pillars either). It was not designed to take a great deal of abuse, and is not as resilient in flexibility nor intended to directly oppose soft or hard armors as some forms of Medieval swords had to be. "
:bow:
Only that you are saying this to the wrong guy Gregoshi:)
Again you are making a war of impressions. I talked about the exact same thing just before. Nothing is "ultimate" against everything - but it can be ultimate in its role and category.For a sword such a role is cuting. And a metallographic analysis shows jst that: the quality of themetal that translates directly into sharpness and cuting power. You said that katanas cut the same as european swords but the point of the text (and other similar texts) is that katana is a far better quality weapon for its class and purpose, as far as cuting is concerned.
However the point is that you are making a war of impressions - and who wouldn't at this stage if you have taken it so far. So lets just let it be becaues in all probability you are some very young person, and this sort of behaviour and stance is as forgivable as unworthy.
Throwing the ball to the others and feeling clever with that (whle you have no clue yourself), picking up points of disagreement and create an argument that fits ours etc is trolling - so: be my guest and troll all you want ;)
Ah, what a lively bunch. Warring clans are forming already...to arms men, to arms!
Intranetusa
06-04-2010, 02:48
This is but one of many links:
http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm
Reproducing from the part The Samurai's sword:
"As a sword, the Japanese katana is unmatched in its sharpness and cutting power."
I gave up on the "argument" as "dont feed the troll" is a maxim i hold to, once i realise one behaves as such
:bow:
edit: not to mention that those who throw "arguments" because they don't really know what they are talking about but do so for a war of impressions, aren't all that sportive at all.
Another paragraph from the same link:
"Surprisingly, the longsword or greatsword is arguably a more complex weapon that the katana. Though there were single-edge versions, it generally has two edges that can be used, as well as a versatile crossguard and pommel permitting a variety of specialized techniques....
"...Knightly blades could be excellent swords, but are often denigrated merely as crude hunks of iron while samurai swords are venerated and exalted sometimes to the point of absurdity by collectors and enthusiasts (something the Japanese themselves do not discourage). Bad films and poorly trained martial artists reinforce this myth. The bottom line is that Medieval swords were indeed well-made, light, agile fighting weapons equally capable of delivering dismembering cuts or cleaving deep into body cavities. They were far from the clumsy, heavy things they're often portrayed as in popular media and far, far more than a mere "club with edges."Interestingly, the weight of katanas compared to longswords is very close with each on average being less than 4 pounds. "
Your own source says that the katana is exaggerated by movies while European swords are underrated.
It also says that the katana cuts better. I never argued that european swords are lesser weapons - just that in sheer metal quality the japanese weapons are unmtched and they are. I made the point of weapon purpose already, so you say nothing new. You are just repeating your self and changing your words just as a good troll would ;)
You are just repeating your self and changing your words just as a good troll would ;)
Trolls are people too ya know..be nice!
Well, your opinion is to be respected of course, but the Japanese were, are and always will be, a skilled people for whatever has to do with war. During the Sengoku period this trend was sharpened to new heights.
I understand the point about being confined to styles, however i would equally welcome a TW game during the Romance of the three kingdoms in China. I know very little about Korea - other than the fact that it was under the heavy shadow of China in the medieval era and later during the modern times under the heavy shadow of Japan. Its national martial art tae kwon do - is nearly a renaming of Okinawan karate that Korean immigrants brought from Japan pre WW2, but could not practice with a Japanese name due to the national issues against Japan in Korea - not exactly a great martial tradition when you compare it to Japan's.
As far as weapons are concerned, japanese swords - katanas - are the highest quality hand-to-hand weapons ever produced - metallographic analysis in the highest quality european swords (from Toledo) showed about 200,000 layers of iron/carbon in the steel alloy. The equivalent number for a katana is 1,500,000 - making it a killing tool that hasn't been repeated. Other Japanese blades for yaris (spears) and naginatas (halberds) were of comparable quality.
For me only a single "style" is not a problem especially now that i know a lot about this particular one - although again your assumption is misleading - Sengoku Daimyos were particularly imaginative when tactics and strategy were concerned and were keen inovators in many instances. It was also not a problem in the past when i knew nothing about japan, its history and its warring tradition.
Perhaps your opinion is based on a misunderstanding or lack of understanding - in that case S2 provides a great opportunity to sort this misunderstanding for you - you never know.
I am sorry, but I do not agree with you. First of all, you are wrong if you think that Taekwondo was their military tradition. They had Hwa Rang Do (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwa_Rang_Do) (see Hwarang (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwarang)), Subak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subak), Taekkyeon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taekkyeon), Shippalgi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shippalgi), Muye24gi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muye24gi), Gungdo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gungdo), Seon Kwan Moo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seon-Kwan-Moo), Ssireum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ssireum), etc at that time that they would have known. If you want an example of an early Korean warrior, check out the Hwarang (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwarang) of Silla.
Koreans wore advanced iron armour (article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_armour) picture (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/Pressapochista8.jpg)) and used swords (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_sword) well before the Japanese. In fact, the Japanese learned about swords only in the fourth century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenjutsu) from Korea. You should note that not only does Korean armour give more defense, but their swords (straight swords) are optimized for defeating armour. The Japanese Katana was virtually useless against most any well armoured foe. It was made of excellent quality, but the design was inferior for fighting armoured foes, as its slashing cannot even break through ringmail. With that in mind, I would consider a heavier Chinese broadsword or a Korean longsword superior.
A lack of shields can be made up for by really good armour (as Parthian Cataphracts are proof of), but unfortunately for the Japanese their armour was not up to parr with other countries, so their lack of shields puts them at a serious disadvantage.
Also, (and this is something that is heavily debated I know) I believe that Chinese martial arts are superior to Japanese ones. This is of course something that I cannot source, but as I have practiced both, allow me to give my reasoning. Japanese martial arts (at least Karate and Judo, the only two which I have a good knowledge of) focus on power and speed. You have Karate which is a striking martial art, and Judo which is a grappling throwing martial art. Chinese martial arts on the other hand (as well as traditional Korean martial arts) focus more on unloading, redirecting, or turning energy, which means that it is not necessarily the fastest and most powerful who wins. Chinese martial arts have a broader focus usually, and cover everything from kicks, to punches, to elbows, to grappling, to ground fighting, etc. In my experience, Chinese martial arts are able to defeat karate-like martial arts because of their focus on sensitivity and redirecting and unloading energy, as well as maintaining structure. Of course that is highly contested, but I thought I would explain my reasoning.
Also, remember that the Japanese learnt almost all their martial technology from the Chinese or Koreans, which means that the Chinese and Koreans would have a much richer tradition and more time to develop their martial arts.
You are correct, I am not an expert on Japanese military tactics of the time, but from what I do know about them and Chinese and Korean military tactics and weapons, I think that the Japanese were seriously disadvantaged.
I definately do understand the interest in Japanese military and culture, I however also think that it appeals to a niche audience, and as I do not particularly care for it, I wish that they made a game that had more than just one culture.
Thanks for the interesting info on Korean martial arts - i'll check them out. As i said, i know little about Korea.
Now some info about the battle use of a katana. Katanas were side weapons and were not used in battle unless one's main weapon was out of use. Yaris and Naginata's were preffered and were used against armor with thrusts and cuts with good effect. In Japan during the Sengoku Jidai, only the Japanese quilted armor existed in wide use (Yoroi) and that was relatively light by continental standards. However it was of no import to develop heavier armor due to the widespread use of the arquebus during the period, that could pierce armor anyway.
The wide spread use of the katana actually was established during the Edo period - the period that followed the Sengoku Jidai - the 250 nearly years of the "great peace". This was because all "actual war" weapons like spears, halberds and pikes that have a long reach, are good against the weak points of armor with thrusts and cuts and can be used effectvelly by large units were not used - because there was no war.
In addition, the Japanese did indeed import nearly everyhting to their culture from other cultures. Their strength as a people has never been in inventing stuff but in developing and perfecting. Think all you want about the japanese martial arts - but there is no MMartist that would get into the ring without some sort of throwing and grappling technique syllabus at the ready, and apart from the european wrestling and the russian sambo, the two most developed arts that provide such techniques are jujutsu and judo.
During the japanese invasions of Korea, that took place at the closing stages of the Sengoku period, the Japanese had great success at land, and lost the invasion due to the sea battles (at which they really indeed sucked) and harassment of their logistical lines from the Sino-Korean navy. So - in practice they've proven not as disadvantaged in terms of tactics as you may have thought.
Intranetusa
06-04-2010, 04:52
It also says that the katana cuts better.
And it says quality European swords were more flexible and had more durable edges.
I never argued that european swords are lesser weapons
- just that in sheer metal quality the japanese weapons are unmtched and they are. I made the point of weapon purpose already, so you say nothing new.
Actually, you did. You said katanas are "far better."
Actually - katanas are really far better - there is a reason for the hype, and i can tell you that its not Hollywood based as you think
And you mentioned some statistics about how Japanese swords has more 7x more layers, which really doesn't mean squat in terms of quality and combat effectiveness.
As far as weapons are concerned, japanese swords - katanas - are the highest quality hand-to-hand weapons ever produced - metallographic analysis in the highest quality european swords (from Toledo) showed about 200,000 layers of iron/carbon in the steel alloy. The equivalent number for a katana is 1,500,000 - making it a killing tool that hasn't been repeated. Other Japanese blades for yaris (spears) and naginatas (halberds) were of comparable quality..
You are just repeating your self and changing your words just as a good troll would ;)
The only troll here is your own Japanese fanboy self worshiping the overrated katana and your mystical samurai that never existed. Sorry pal, but anime and movies will only get you so far.
"round and round it goes and where it stops nobody knows"...:)
So, you know all, and i'm a troll, feeding on manga and movies.
You haven't told us how old are you then, pal?
Intranetusa
06-04-2010, 05:00
During the japanese invasions of Korea, that took place at the closing stages of the Sengoku period, the Japanese had great success at land, and lost the invasion due to the sea battles (at which they really indeed sucked) and harassment of their logistical lines from the Sino-Korean navy. So - in practice they've proven not as disadvantaged in terms of tactics as you may have thought.
Japanese successes on land really doesn't say much about Japanese tactics because the Korean army was entirely ineffective. The Korean soldiers were poorly trained for close quarter combat, and were far outmatched by the Japanese army for most of the 1st invasion.
So just like the Japanese navy sucked, the Korean army sucked. When the Ming Empire intervened in the war with 40,000 troops, the Japanese faced a well trained and well equipped land army - and they started losing on land as well as the sea.
Intranetusa
06-04-2010, 05:02
So, you know all, and i'm a troll, right.
You sure sound like a troll. All you've been doing is perpetuating stereotypes of the fictional image of Japanese swords and samurai as portrayed by movies and Hollywood. And you don't bother answering any of my questions and call me a troll when I point out your Japan-o-fantasies are not grounded in reality.
You haven't told us how old are you then, pal?
Why? So you can use more ad homienm attacks?
You ask me for my age yet you haven't even given your own age. Isn't that a bit rude? And you haven't even bothered answering any of my earier questions either.
I find your lack of Total War discussion... disturbing. Let's keep things on track, shall we?
pevergreen
06-04-2010, 06:52
Don't make Tosa appoint a local moderator within a day. :rolleyes:
ETW didnt need one for like 8 months.
At least CA is still churning something...better than nothing, won't you say?
It's not that I dislike the Japanese setting. It's I dislike repetative stuff with no creativitiy. My main problem is they already made a Shogun game. Why make another?
As the first game, it was made on a 2D map with terrible graphics and not much appeal anymore. There are so many ways they can improve it, I'm glad they are.
You could say that about Medieval as well, but they redid that (even if some people still prefer the original), the first two games deserve the makeover, really.
it was made on a 2D map with terrible graphics
The game was released back in 2000 - "terrible graphics" by todays standards were "cutting edge" back then. You have to remember that most other RTS, TBS or RPG games were still on true 2D iso maps.
The game was released back in 2000 - "terrible graphics" by todays standards were "cutting edge" back then. You have to remember that most other RTS, TBS or RPG games were still on true 2D iso maps.
I know they were "cutting edge" in 2000, however I was making a point for why the game should be remade, the graphics is one of them. I wasn't contesting that they weren't good at the time, but that they aren't now.
pevergreen
06-04-2010, 13:36
Some games from that age are timeless in the graphics, unfortunately, the battle map of MTW and STW is not.
The game was released back in 2000 - "terrible graphics" by today's standards were "cutting edge" back then.
You know, they really were not. I was Googling some info about STW and I came across quite a few reviews from the time; they all ding STW for sub-standard graphics. I guess STW's 2D sprites weren't as pretty as, I dunno, Starcraft's 2D sprites.
And as long as we're getting nostalgic, let's not forget that STW came with a real, honest-to-goodness manual (http://www.scribd.com/doc/32210680/Shogun-Total-War-manual). That was actually worth reading. Sigh. When's the last time a game came with one of them?
STW battle graphics may have had some rough edges. But that was part of it's charm. You became used to them, perhaps even enjoyed them as the rest of the games virtues won you over. I play M2TW and ETW currently and enjoy them, but they come nowhere near the pleasure evoked by the poor graphics of STW when I boot that one up. It just goes to show you what a stark difference in terms of a games quality can be perceived when comparing graphics vs. gameplay.
Intranetusa
06-04-2010, 15:41
Cutting edge graphics from the same time frame would be something like Total Annihilation - true 3d (revolutionary since it came out around the same time as Starcraft):
http://media.giantbomb.com/uploads/0/1210/254264-1_super.jpg
http://www.macgamezone.com/images/tests/totalannihilation/01.jpg
Kagemusha
06-04-2010, 15:41
STW battle graphics may have had some rough edges. But that was part of it's charm. You became used to them, perhaps even enjoyed them as the rest of the games virtues won you over. I play M2TW and ETW currently and enjoy them, but they come nowhere near the pleasure evoked by the poor graphics of STW when I boot that one up. It just goes to show you what a stark difference in terms of a games quality can be perceived when comparing graphics vs. gameplay.
I guess that just tells what many game companies have forgotten. What matters is how good game as a game really is.Everything else is just icing on a cake.
You know, they really were not. I was Googling some info about STW and I came across quite a few reviews from the time; they all ding STW for sub-standard graphics. I guess STW's 2D sprites weren't as pretty as, I dunno, Starcraft's 2D sprites.
STWs 2D sprites were used on an open 3D battle map. When sprites are scaling up and down (i.e. when you go zooming in) they look pretty poor, unless they're multi framed high res. The best sprites were the MTW infantry sprites (cavalry sprites were the wrong scale and looked even worse than the STW sprites). In a nutshell you can't really compare a 2D RTS/TBS to a 3D STW, because at that time 3D was not as polished as it is now due to graphics card limitation of the time (i.e. Voodoo3, ATI Rage and Nvidia TNT2, etc).
The game was stunning graphically at the time, it had a huge wow factor whenever you booted it up. Technology moves on and I don't agree with the reviewers who said they wernt.
What was the closest comparision at the time? Age of Empires games? Civ games? they were all below Shoguns graphics standard.
It was also the age of 56k modems the joy.
Age of Empires games? Civ games? they were all below Shoguns graphics standard.
AoE and Civ were isometric games (i.e the same technology that ran Civ2, SimCity 2000 and many older DOS games), as were most RTS/TBS games of the time. Isometric games do not have any kind of scaling or 3D acceleration. This is why it's sensless to compare a game like STW with iso games like those, because such games are not OpenGL or Direct3D based anyway and were technologically well behond STW. The terrain detail in STW was quite complex for it's time and in big battles I remember my PC really starting to chug.
AoE and Civ were isometric games (i.e the same technology that ran Civ2, SimCity 2000 and many older DOS games), as were most RTS/TBS games of the time. Isometric games do not have any kind of scaling or 3D acceleration. This is why it's sensless to compare a game like STW with iso games like those, because such games are not OpenGL or Direct3D based anyway and were technologically well behond STW. The terrain detail in STW was quite complex for it's time and in big battles I remember my PC really starting to chug.
I was talking in terms of game type comparision :), yes my PC chugged also in large scale battles 2v2 upwards.
I was talking in terms of game type comparision :), yes my PC chugged also in large scale battles 2v2 upwards.
Yes I knew what you were saying, sorry I was just adding to it.
:bow:
AussieGiant
06-04-2010, 21:21
ad hominem attacks are my specialty ;)
Ah Jesus, I like it when the old rat pack types get back together. It's a real throw back section here at the moment.
Some games from that age are timeless in the graphics, unfortunately, the battle map of MTW and STW is not.
WHAT? You're telling me that 640X480 resolution doesn't look good on 25 inch monitors?
I never got to play the original STW. Can't wait to give this one a try.
...Although I may be cautious and wait long enough after release to read input here at the Org (If I can resist).
pevergreen
06-06-2010, 01:50
AoE and Civ were isometric games (i.e the same technology that ran Civ2, SimCity 2000 and many older DOS games), as were most RTS/TBS games of the time.
To the average punter though, AoE looked a lot better.
edyzmedieval
06-06-2010, 02:45
Wow, the announcement brought back some really OLD Orgahs... 2001 join date, wow.
I can only drink to that. ~:cheers:
Yoshitsune
06-06-2010, 18:46
Well it's about time! The original STW was great but the engine is now way outdated and the Far East is long overdue a revisit.
However I would hope for a bit more than just the original 16th Century setting with eight clans. I'd personally love a "long campaign" that starts around the 12th Century (Horse & Bow Heroes!) and progresses taking in potential Mongol, Chinese and Korean rivals as well as tactical and weapon developments.
My two yen...(from another "oldie"(ish))
Muneyoshi
06-06-2010, 23:21
Am I excited by what I read? YES I AM!!
This. Sweet jesus I am beyond excited at this point, as long as they don't mess it up, will be quite fantastic. Always thought Medieval Japan had far more appeal than Rome, Medieval Europe, etc.
Forward Observer
06-07-2010, 05:31
It would be nice if they could get Jeff Van Dyke back to do the music for Shogun 2. He composed all the Total War music for Shogun up through Med 2 and was originally listed as the music director for Empire, but evidently he and Creative parted ways before he composed anything----and personally I think Empire suffered for it. To me the music in Empire was simply lack luster with very little variation. The new additional music for Napoleon was quite a bit better---what there was of it.
The music of Shogun was a huge factor in the over all immersion of the game and will be hard to duplicate.
I'm looking forward to it although I wanted something with more artillery. I just love those big guns.
Monsieur Alphonse
06-07-2010, 05:39
Well he is. Jeff Van Dyke is doing the music for S2TW according to this thread: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?128600-Jeff-Van-Dyke-is-doing-the-music-for-Shogun-2&p=2502461
Forward Observer
06-07-2010, 06:39
Well he is. Jeff Van Dyke is doing the music for S2TW according to this thread: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?128600-Jeff-Van-Dyke-is-doing-the-music-for-Shogun-2&p=2502461
If true, that is very good news.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.