PDA

View Full Version : Your favourite unit from STW and what new units would you like to see in S2TW?



Kagemusha
08-28-2010, 16:14
Hi! I was wondering what was the unit you most liked in STW and MI? Also any units that were absent from STW that you would like to see in S2TW?

If i had to pick up one unit from the original.It would have been Yari Samurai.While not the best maybe other then as foot anti cavalry unit, Yari samurai wasa good for many things as they could hold stronger units at bay for a bit, while also they could take a bit of arrows and musket fire before being decimated.

A unit that i think would be essential for S2TW would be Nagae Yari Ashigaru as the line unit. Difference being that the STW Ashigarus only had short spears, while the Nagae Yari Ashigaru long ones akin more to pikes. They were the mainstay of Japanese armies together with Yumi and teppo ashigaru´s specially during the latter part of the period, when the role of Ashigaru´s rose significantly.

Whats your take on this?

Shigemasa Oyamada
08-28-2010, 16:44
Well I haven't played Shogun Total War, but I'd go for Arquebusiers- no 16th century video game is complete without them!

Gregoshi
08-28-2010, 17:29
I'm with you Kage - yari samurai, the bread and butter of any army. Yari cav and heavy cav are nice, but I'm rather value-oriented, i.e, cheap, and their price tag makes me break out in cold sweat.

Tsar Alexsandr
08-28-2010, 18:23
I rather enjoyed the No-dachi samurai. But any cavalry unit is also very popular with me. Although the Naginata infantry were a lot of fun as well. I'd often employ Naginata infantry and No-dachi Samurai as my shock troops, the elite of the elite! : D

Although, I also developed a long standing fondness of the swift moving cavalry. And all of the cavalry units became favorites of mine. :D

Gregoshi
08-28-2010, 18:51
The No-dachi is a unit I really want to like, but they die too easily, at least in my hands. It seems that even when they are flanking, they come out a battered fragment of what they were. ~:(

Swoosh So
08-28-2010, 18:54
Yari cav and their gameplay mechanics all the way for me!

hoom
08-29-2010, 00:16
Nagnata Cavalry.
They gloriously sweep across the field leaving piles of bodies here and there.

Tera
08-29-2010, 01:26
I voted for Heavy Cavalry. Very expensive, but very powerful - I remember always using an HC as my general in MP battles. It beat everything except Yari Samurai, and even when outnumbered the unit held solid for a relatively long time.

Tsar Alexsandr
08-29-2010, 02:57
The No-Dachi swordsmen were certainly a unit with low defense. But I had a few battles where they came out pretty good. (And having inflicted a lot of losses.) But their were times where they wouldn't fare to well for sure. I used them a lot to fight in forests or lay in ambush. For that role they were superb.

Missiles were certainly a hazard for no-dachi swordsmen. I recall one time I defeated a unit of them with one of my gun units. I commanded the high ground, they got pretty close but my last volley took care of the no-dachi swordsmen. (Anybody remember the massive hill that the Uesugi had? That would be a no-dachi guy's worst nightmare.)

That being said, they were a highly favored unit of mine and I always kept some in my armies.

Monk
08-29-2010, 02:58
Isn't it obvious? ~D

Warrior Monks of course!

Togakure
08-29-2010, 10:03
Yumi Cav (Cavalry Archers) in SP; what should have been Yari Cavalry but ended up being Naginata Cavalry in 1.02 MP (fast medium cav with good morale). Once a player learns how to manage these well in real time they are so fun. Nothing like sowing confusion with fast units and then ramming from flank/behind when the enemy is all mixed up.

Since I can only choose one for the poll, I'll go with CA.

Kas
08-29-2010, 14:07
I like a nice balanced army...infantry core with cav on the flanks.

....and get bashed by all with more imagination:smiley2:

ReluctantSamurai
08-29-2010, 16:15
In the words of Ali: "Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee." The Cavalry Archer. That PITA that keeps coming back, and coming back, and coming back.....

Yesugey
08-29-2010, 16:33
Personally, I always train the units related with my clan: If i choose Shimazu, I train No-Dachi. If i choose Oda, I train Ashi & Muskets...

And I like every unit alot, when they characterizing their own clan.

But beyond these, I always train my heirs and generals as Yari Cavarly: I like their superb speed and scattering while chasing down rounting enemies. Sadly, scattering disappeared with Rome TW :( I was really like to hunt down deserters one by one...

So my vote is for Yari Cavalry.

As a second choice, (altough I hate high-tech units) I use "only-musket" armies, to represent today's battles.

I respect Yari Samurai army as well: it may be defeaed, but its never "weak" against any other recruit combination.

From Mongol Invasion, Mongol Light Cavalry is the strongest unit: these wild Mongol Horde scares the early ages samurai and make them rout even they would win with their long spears.

General Malaise
08-29-2010, 17:49
Let's see, as for my favorite unit, that was pretty circumstantial, largely depending on the faction I was playing as. Like others, I liked No-Dachi even though they were (a bit too) specialized because they fit the classic samurai image (even if it's an inaccurate, or rather anachronistic, image for this time period). Probably the best unit was the mongol horse archers, although I'm not sure if I'd really call them my favorite because they were too easy to use really.

As for units missing from the original that should/could be in the sequel:
Bow-wielding Ashigaru (think they got that though)
'Pike'-wielding Ashigaru (as mentioned above)
Taiho (sp?) Ashigaru (sometimes ship cannons were fired on the field)
Nagamaki samurai (could leave out, wasn't used much this time but would be neat)
Teppo Samurai (samurai used guns...)
Mounted Teppo Samurai (although debatable if on horseback, still nice from game angle)
Kanabo units (rare, but again interesting weapon, perhaps for sohei)
Bow-wielding sohei (many were famed for their archery skills)
Mounted sohei (they also rode horses too)

Martok
08-30-2010, 04:50
While, like many others, Yari Samurai generally formed the backbone of my armies, I've always been rather partial to Samurai Archers.

They have long range, decent morale for missile troops, and they're actually not too shabby as regular infantry (especially with an honor/equipment upgrade or two). As someone who generally prefers defending over attacking, SA have probably won me more victories and/or saved my butt more times than I can count. :yes:




The No-dachi is a unit I really want to like, but they die too easily, at least in my hands. It seems that even when they are flanking, they come out a battered fragment of what they were. ~:(
Well first of all, I've found that No-dachi should really be used almost exclusively for flanking in any case. About the only times I can trust them in a head-on charge is against foot units with poor melee stats (YA, SA, and possibly muskets/rifles)....and even then, it seems like their prospects are only iffy at best.

And when flanking with them, I try as much as possible to hit the enemy in the back, not the sides -- particularly if I'm going up against cavalry. Against regular infantry, attacking into their side should usually still produce satisfactory results.



All that being said, ND are almost always going to suffer at least some losses no matter what the situation is (due to their low armor/defense value). Even when flanking, I find that at least some attrition is almost inevitable.

Kocmoc
08-30-2010, 09:03
Horse Archer. The way you could use them gave a huge momentum in game, harras and push enemy. Its a lot easyer to use this, if not each unit can shoot ;)

Sp00n
08-30-2010, 21:53
I liked the Monks until they nerfed them but the Horse Archers were easily the best unit all round. If you didn't learn how to use them you were pretty much toast.

Tsar Alexsandr
08-31-2010, 05:30
I want to see Teppo Cavalry. Masamune Date employed them in his army at the last Battle of Osaka castle.

Perhaps for balance and accuracy though they should have a really high price and upkeep, and maybe a long series of buildings before you can train them. As they were rarely fielded in large numbers, and they were employed in the latter years of the Sengoku period.

Togakure
08-31-2010, 08:55
That would be interesting. CA can also limit them to a certain time period, like some units were limited to certain eras only in MTW. Limiting them to "late game" and requiring a considerable infrastructure to produce them would prevent them from being overly spammed in all but the most turtley of games (I made a new adjective!).

And it'd be more cav! Yay!!

Kocmoc
08-31-2010, 09:51
Since CA clearly stated that the focus will be MP, they cant make it complex. 3 Timezones, early, middle and late will cause problems.

Im pretty sure, that we gonna see a very "easy" game. One area, one amount of cash, one unitsize, no weather too choose and so on.


As long not every single unit can get a gun out it will be fine! :D


Koc

Monk
08-31-2010, 11:46
I think a single era works out fine as long as the infrastructure requirements make sense. A lot of the higher tech units could also be "hidden", like the No-dachi and gun troops from the first game (unrecruitable until after certain events). I know there's a lot of pressure on CA to innovate, but there's some really good ideas in that ten year old gem. I think they should use some! ~D

And to be prefectly truthful, the technology unlock events (legendary swordsmen, visitors from foreign lands, ect) added so much character to the campaign experience, it would be a treat to see their return.

Togakure
08-31-2010, 12:47
Though I used eras as an example, I wasn't implying they were necessary to use a date as a factor in when a troop type could be trained. A simple date restriction would be enough, say tied to an event in the campaign.

Even with an MP focus, there will be a campaign. My thinking of tying the availability of a particular unit type to a date is specific to an SP campaign. I disliked the effect of eras on MP in MTW. From my point of view, MP and SP can and should be approached as different animals with similarities, but no dependencies that detrimentally affect the game play or balance of either. I think this can be accomplished.

That being said, I agree that "as simple as possible" while still captivating is the way to go.

Sp00n
08-31-2010, 13:13
Since CA clearly stated that the focus will be MP, they cant make it complex. 3 Timezones, early, middle and late will cause problems.

Im pretty sure, that we gonna see a very "easy" game. One area, one amount of cash, one unitsize, no weather too choose and so on.


As long not every single unit can get a gun out it will be fine! :D


Koc

Its not really a gunpowder era, if you read the history of the period the guns were highly inaccurate and didnt have much of an effect on the battle unless the Samurai were forced into charging them head on or ambushed. Thankfully this is not NTW where the top 1v1s games nearly always consist of players moving backwards and forwards to try and gain a decent shooting advantage, if you did that in Shogun you'd be ripped a new flank.

Limited guns with bad accuracy please like we had before with terrible melee skills, just remove the shooting through hills.

Kocmoc
08-31-2010, 14:15
Its not really a gunpowder era, if you read the history of the period the guns were highly inaccurate and didnt have much of an effect on the battle unless the Samurai were forced into charging them head on or ambushed. Thankfully this is not NTW where the top 1v1s games nearly always consist of players moving backwards and forwards to try and gain a decent shooting advantage, if you did that in Shogun you'd be ripped a new flank.

Limited guns with bad accuracy please like we had before with terrible melee skills, just remove the shooting through hills.

Its was more kind of sarcasm toward the current NTW, my lack of english skills cause sometimes a bit confusion. Sorry for this.
Also about eras, i just spoke about MP, different timesteps in the campaign are highly needed, i doubt that CA will have any trouble creating a great campaign.

I remember endless discussions about MP and SP. In my opinion you have to strictly divide the both sides from each other and create 2 different unitstats.
Maybe even thin out the amount of units. Look at NTW, while some units might be used in SP, in MP they never get used.
I just have to look at the unplayed factions like russian or danes... The units work in SP, but not in MP.

It doesnt hurt, you jsut cant/wont play with these units/factions.

Either CA balance this units and give them different stats in MP or they just take it out and dont bring the factions.
Factions itself is one of the problems, why make it harder with giving factions different unit and some a stronger melee, while other stronger cav?
This makes maybe sense, if you look at it from a historical point of view, yes. If you want gameplay and balance, it becomes almost pointless.

There were no factions in STW, everyone could choose within all units. While in NTW, the factions vs each other has to balanced. Counter are needed, i just dont believe that a certain faction should counter another.
I think that in such a system the setup with the lowest counterpart will always be in favor. Keep it simple.

Sp00n
08-31-2010, 15:18
Mike I was'nt dissagreeing there, my view is the same with you on guns.

I agree :) keep it simple I mentioned this a while back in a previous post. The original was pretty well balanced, I'd be happy if they kept the same winning template and maybe just added a few more balanced units.

I don't like the gunpowder era that much tbh and personally I hope the muskets are as weak as possible in Shogun. A return to melee, arrows and decent flanking with strong Cav.

Yesugey
08-31-2010, 17:27
I just cant believe how many of you guys even like the Cavalry Archers... I hate them, I never train them.

* They can't bow while moving.
* It's so hard to move them quickly, because of lack of STW AI... (You know, you order to retreat, but the guys at the front comes to rear first, then the unit start moving, but before that enemy units arrive and kill some of them, then they decide to ignore my order and try to fight, and then everything falls apart and you get angry enough to shut the game down...)
* They cant fight against any infantry, their morale is extremely poor.
* And worse than all these; after few minutes of catch and run, they somehow decide to rout!.. (I think CA put this against the endless catch & run tactics, or against the exploit of time limit factor.)

After RTW, with move and hit ability, they become the ruler of the open field battles, ofcourse. But still... I just cant stand to see the Horse Archers as the most popular unit in this sacred Dojo!

Togakure
08-31-2010, 22:05
I just cant believe how many of you guys even like the Cavalry Archers... I hate them, I never train them.
...
Heh, well ... if you don't like them in SP then you certainly won't like them in MP. I think because they are difficult to master, many like them for the challenge. Some of my most frustrating MP losses were to players who were really good with their CA. What you describe about their behavior and control issues are true, but they can be overcome.

If you head over to the Wolves forum and look at the horse archer replays in the Downloads section (for MTW/VI, I think but the idea is the same in STW), you can see how deadly they can be when used well. CA are difficult to learn, and you have to adjust your tactics, but once you get that all down, they can be very effective and fun to use--and extremely frustrating to fight against if you don't know how to counter them! I think this is another reason why advanced players gravitate to them: beginners and intermediate players are used to playing in a particular way and don't know how to counter a CA-heavy army well. I certainly didn't. I wanted to wring Sasaki's neck after he trounced me about 10 times in a row using the techniques illustrated in the replays.

Sp00n
08-31-2010, 22:44
I just cant believe how many of you guys even like the Cavalry Archers... I hate them, I never train them.

* They can't bow while moving.
* It's so hard to move them quickly, because of lack of STW AI... (You know, you order to retreat, but the guys at the front comes to rear first, then the unit start moving, but before that enemy units arrive and kill some of them, then they decide to ignore my order and try to fight, and then everything falls apart and you get angry enough to shut the game down...)
* They cant fight against any infantry, their morale is extremely poor.
* And worse than all these; after few minutes of catch and run, they somehow decide to rout!.. (I think CA put this against the endless catch & run tactics, or against the exploit of time limit factor.)

After RTW, with move and hit ability, they become the ruler of the open field battles, ofcourse. But still... I just cant stand to see the Horse Archers as the most popular unit in this sacred Dojo!

They were great in MP but you had to master them in the right hands they were deadly, you obviously never played Magyarkhan online (the best cav Archer player in Shogun imo) I doubt you'd say they sucked had you done.

You could destroy your oponent with them if you knew what you were doing, Wolves do have some MTW replays like Toga said but Cav Archers were far more deadly in Shogun mainly due to a lot of the units having weak armor.

Magy has posted some of his old Shogun battles on Youtube so you can see Cav Archers destroying players online there.

Here's one sorry NC :)

https://www.youtube.com/user/Magyarkhan#p/a/u/1/8sA103nH3Ps

ReluctantSamurai
09-01-2010, 12:35
* They cant fight against any infantry, their morale is extremely poor.

Hmmm. Neither is true for the Cavalry archers that I use:inquisitive:

While you certainly don't want a head-on charge into spears, I will often use my CA to assist other cavalry in a flanking or back charge. Morale depends on a lot of factors, many of which you can control. I can't recall a time when my CA's simply broke and ran after playing catch-me-if-you-can with enemy cavalry......

caravel
09-01-2010, 12:48
It's what's known as the "benny hill code". If you order a unit to retreat away from a pursuing enemy too many times, they will suffer a morale penalty and rout. It's built in to the game and also happens in MTW.

Sp00n
09-01-2010, 13:05
It's what's known as the "benny hill code". If you order a unit to retreat away from a pursuing enemy too many times, they will suffer a morale penalty and rout. It's built in to the game and also happens in MTW.

Lol I've now got visions of them running with that Benny Hill Music playing.

Tsar Alexsandr
09-02-2010, 04:35
I think by "Late Era" we could just mean further down the trail of buildings. The final line of stables might offer you teppo horsemen. (And yeah, that'd add more cav, which is always a good thing! :D )

In 1600 around the time of Sekigahara Japan had gathered a lot of weapons. Including guns, a lot of guns, and cannon. So later in the game, (Not a era per se, but certainly later.)

Ugh, what's wrong with you CA. I want multiple eras, and the ability to play as any clan. XD

Seriously, the ability to play as only a few clans seems like a serious issue. What about Japanese players who want to play as the clan that controlled their province? Or were actually their ancestors? To have them in the game but un-playable just seems ridiculous to me. Hopefully it'll be modable.

spanakoryzo
09-04-2010, 17:08
Even though I'm at work right now I just had to get in and support my all-time favourite Naginata Samurai!As a predominantely defensive Uesugi player these guys formed the core of my armies and have proved their worth (though not as cost effective as yari samurai) over and over again.From all TW eras they still are my personal best!!!

Magyar Khan
09-06-2010, 23:30
i voted horsearchers.... :o) deadly weapon if used well.... in my signature u see a more less refined replay vs a CA employee in mtw/vi with a half cav archer army.....
shooting while moving would be a must but not with those silly graincircle moves as in rome..... the way they moved in stw and behaved in skirmish was very well done..... i am not in favor to make them very strong, for me they should be an elitist mp unit for the experienced player... the most cumberfull of the units to manage well... when it comes to shoot outs normal bowusers and muskets on a not rainy day should prevail over ha...

ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
09-07-2010, 20:12
Warrior Monks. I just love the aggressive side of them.

Magyar Khan
09-07-2010, 20:36
warrior monks fel so nicely prey to the horsearchers ammo... ;)

A Nerd
09-07-2010, 21:02
NDs for me. My red-shirted shock troops were a staple in all my armies! I prefered them to WMs actually. Honored up and under an experienced taisho, they were a force to be rekoned with! I just hated waiting for that darned legendary swordsman event!

ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
09-07-2010, 23:00
warrior monks fel so nicely prey to the horsearchers ammo... ;)

Why you being so mean to my WM,Magy!!

:laugh4:

Tempiic
09-17-2010, 11:36
No Dachi for me. While I do appreciate the art of horse archery very much, I am much more of a light infantry user (As in mobile, fragile and either shooty or punchy or both). Especially when they pack a heavy punch.

I really really would like to see something like the MTW 1 / VI Ottoman Infantry in S2TW. I just really really love my heavy hybrids.

Jochi Khan
09-17-2010, 19:55
Definately Horse Archers.




Hello Tempiic long time no see. :wink:

Tempiic
09-17-2010, 21:33
I heard some surprising news, so I had to check it out at a very reliable source ;)

But yes, it has been a long time Jochi, though it feels like yesterday.

LadyAnn
09-19-2010, 04:44
Kensai!
Just kidding. I like all units, I just hate Kensai and Battlefield Ninja. Laughing stock. The clowns of S:TW.
Annie
*waves at Tempi* :)

Magyar Khan
09-19-2010, 18:09
HooWl ladyann :)

i personally liked the kensai as a nice rpg touch and easy to identify u more with a sprite on the field..... gamewise they were goofy, esp the ninjas.... never seen a usefull role for them

Gregoshi
09-20-2010, 03:54
...esp the ninjas.... never seen...
:yes: :7ninja:

Tempiic
09-20-2010, 13:22
Hey hey annie dear :)

Swoosh So
09-20-2010, 14:35
I liked the yari cavalry, just thought it was a really well designed unit, fastest of all the units, excels vs cav, weak vs infantry.

Magyar Khan
09-20-2010, 16:20
yari yes esp charging downhill with that japanese warhorn.....

AMP
09-21-2010, 05:48
I can't vote cause I have no favorite. I enjoyed playing with all of them except one which was the battlefield ninja. So I could only vote on a poll that was lest favorite unit.

I never really got it's worth out of the cost of the battlefield ninja let alone more out of it.

As for a unit I'd like to see in STW2? Hmmm... maybe a unit of female samurai if their was such a thing in those times... I wouldn't know I'm not a history buff. :)

Swoosh So
09-25-2010, 07:56
See i knew u would come round amp :p Tomoe Gozen for female samurai hero in game :p wrong time period tho.
You could have female warriors that rise up if their town is attacked but not recruitable...
"Between the 12th and 19th centuries, many women of the samurai class learned how to handle the sword and the naginata (a blade on a long staff) primarily to defend themselves and their homes. In the event that their castle was overrun by enemy warriors, the women were expected to fight to the end and die with honor, weapons in hand."

Seriously tho ill be happy with daughters and geisha, As long as you have a woman in command its all good :)

NagaoKagetora
09-25-2010, 16:10
A flanking No Dachi is a thing of beauty.

Vanya
10-02-2010, 00:07
Gah!

Vanya, being in Texas and all, must admit He has an affinity for guns. The more the better. It doesn't matter if they "work" either--in those circumstances they make wonderful clubs with which any fool can beat their opponents into a pulp.

Vanya must always remember to not look down barrel when gun doesn't fire though. He has lost several fine, fresh donor heads by engaging in such innocent tomfoolery.

Gah!

Orda Khan
10-02-2010, 10:07
I see the list includes units introduced in MI and I remember Naginata cav becoming almost a cheaper alternative to Heavy cav, which was a shame. Loved the Cavalry Archers (weren't HA introduced with the Mongols and subsequent games?) Had my highest kills with a particular army set up that included 6 CA.
Regardless of this I would have to say Samurai Archers, simply because it was the best animation of any Total War. From the gleam of his helmet, the swords at his side, to the way he selected an arrow, drew the bow with arrow visible and released, with the bow springing forward to braced position again. Superb!! Zoom in and watch a line of SA pumping out the arrows, this animation sequence has never been matched.

RageStorm knew how to use Battlefield Ninjas.

Nelson
10-05-2010, 21:14
I would like to see a mixed infantry/cavalry unit.

In general, I want to see units that behave realistically. I don’t want units to have any artificial strengths or weaknesses. This includes endowing them with bogus advantages or disadvantages versus other units.

The stats for units should reflect what we know about Japanese warfare of the period. Stats should not be altered in order to make a unit more valuable than it may have been. There is no need to “balance” a unit that is powerful by gimping it against some certain “counter unit” if this cannot be substantiated by fact.

History does not get in the way. It shows the way.

Magyar Khan
10-06-2010, 13:19
for me counts....

gameplay > realisme

Nelson
10-06-2010, 14:33
for me counts....

gameplay > realisme

Fair enough. But what precisely do you mean?

Realistic units make for great game play. Why would they not? How exactly would realistic stats hinder game play? Have any examples?

Altering the units to have stats that are unreal would invalidate the historic setting. Why bother doing Sengoku Japan or Medieval Europe or Rome if the units are make believe?

Magyar Khan
10-06-2010, 17:07
well for example why would yaricav be slightly faster on horse than horsearchers... there is -i think- no real realistic reason for it.... but gamewise it suits the rock scissors paper mechanisme best.....

also with naginate infantry.... if needed its good to increase their defense a bit and lower their attackrate movementrate abit to have a solid defensive unit..... its what stw made good as well is the rock-scissor-paper..... best fighters like monks fell prey for arrows..... in medieval u had armour to prevent this....

AggonyGrudge
10-06-2010, 20:17
I loved the Ashigaru before the patch eliminated the effect of upgraded ashigaru's. In the past, known as The ASHIGARU RUSH!

Togakure
10-06-2010, 20:34
Not trying to be argumentative, just saying: the nature of a yari cavalry attack is a charge with a spear at full gallop; the nature of a horsed bowman's attack is different while shooting, necessarily a bit slower to draw, aim, loose, etc.. When a horsed bowman puts away his bow to run down routers with his sword, I wouldn't think there'd be much of a difference speed-wise. Same with travel not associated with an attack.

This being said, in S1TW the cavalry archers didn't shoot while moving. If they do shoot while moving in S2TW "realistically" I'd think their speed while shooting would be significantly less than a charging yari cavalry.

While I understand the points of view expressed, I am of the opinion that certain adjustments in stats may be necessary to assure effective game play (stats are just a matter of interpretation anyway ...). If historically accurate units lead to just a few from the collection being effective, and are used to the exclusion of most others in MP, then the pleasure of the MP experience will likely grow old within a couple of weeks for serious battle sim gamers. To a degree, this happened with M1TW because swords were way overpowered and spears had no effective use. I hope this doesn't happen!

I very much like the Samurai Warlords mod for VI, for example. Not a lot of units to choose from, but plenty to serve a variety of functions to keep the battles interesting and the potential strategies and tactics diverse. All useful in their own way. Balanced at valor zero so no upgrades are necessary and few are even practical because of excessive cost. This is the kind of thing I'd like to see in regard to MP units when S2TW is released.

Magyar Khan
10-06-2010, 23:27
so if i summarize it for u gameplay > historical realisme :o)

Togakure
10-06-2010, 23:50
so if i summarize it for u gameplay > historical realisme :o)
Yep, but CA can't read minds so I figure it might be good to articulate a bit. My problem is the "a bit" part. :-P

Nelson
10-07-2010, 04:43
Yep, but CA can't read minds so I figure it might be good to articulate a bit. My problem is the "a bit" part. :-P

Exactly, Togakure. None of us can read minds. And I have the same trouble with the "bit part"! But the topic is complex. I would much sooner discuss this in a pub with you guys and pints all around!

Merely saying “gameplay > realism” doesn’t say much at all. I want good game play. Who doesn’t? The question is “What constitutes ‘game play?’ ” For me, good game play has units that behave properly within the historic context of the game. If the setting is to be meaningful, the units ought to be correct. I can define what I want. What I can’t understand is why realistic units are unacceptable to anyone, especially MP players. Is it a desire for more variety than actually existed? Do you really want units with artificial strengths and weaknesses? And when you say “balance”, what is getting balanced? What is out of balance to begin with? Honestly, I don’t get it. In an online fight, if both sides take identical armies, won’t you have an even matchup every time? Won’t this let you determine who is the best or greatest or whatever? Are you looking for armies that are different but exactly equal somehow? If I was CA, I wouldn’t know what you’re asking for when you say “balance”. And I doubt that CA could ever satisfy all of you. Or even most of you. I hope they try by having separate MP unit stats different from those in the SP campaign but I don’t think that will happen. For the record, I don’t expect to get a perfectly realistic order of battle either. I’m just trying to make the case for limiting the foolishness (as I see it).

Having unit stats that approximate a unit’s historic capabilities are open to interpretation, surely. But inventing stats out of a desire to have a unit ability that did not exist makes no sense to me. Not in a series of games purporting to be grounded in history. It is a dictum of warfare that weapons determine tactics. A weapon appears, armies employ it for a while and ultimately settle upon the best way to use it. History provides us with knowledge of Japanese weapons and training. Ergo the proper realistic tactics can be discovered and used effectively if the units are correct. Units (weapons) came first. Then the tactics.

Some players here at the org apparently begin with a desire for particular tactics to prevail and then want to design unit stats to support these tactics, regardless of history. If an invented unit stat supports the chosen tactical paradigm and historical stats do not, real stats must yield. The ideal comes first. Could this be the elusive definition of "balance"? If so, this is backwards according to the above mentioned dictum.

This being a game and all, reality can be safely jettisoned. My point is that some (much?) of the MP community is willing to sacrifice the context and setting of the game in order to realize a very stylized, unreal battle contest game. Don’t call it a sim. In a simulation, realism trumps everything else. I do not endorse absolute realism in every sense. If I did I would want lines of supply and logistics in the campaign, which I do not. But I do endorse realistic units and combat. Besides, CA has always said the games are not simulations. (Pretty darn close though, I’m happy to say!)

This leads me to another question. Does the context and setting of the game matter very much to the MP community? Realism relates to context and setting in a big way. Gameplay, while critically important, need not. Gameplay in a tactical battle engine could have robots or wizards. Wouldn’t a fantasy or sci-fi setting be better? No concessions to reality required. The units could be totally artificial and there would be no “accurites” like me around to carp about it! :smile:

For me gameplay = historical realism

Orda Khan
10-07-2010, 17:46
Historically accurate units would never behave historically accurately, unless the player has thoroughly researched japanese warfare. The unit upgrade system may work in SP but I've never seen it bring anything meaningful to MP. On the contrary, it results in certain units becoming uber and then there are many units left redundant.
The rock paper scissors, which the MP community likes also falls foul because the upgraded unit no longer behaves as expected. This unit beats that unit approach feels similar to chess, giving the player a counter to a move. When upgrades are applied, that system has gone. So for rps to work properly upgrades should go.
Using identical armies should suggest tactics will decide the victor but this is debateable. The same units in the same situation will not always give the same result as anyone who has playtested will agree.
I'm all for realism, I've always preferred big 4v4 battles because the opposing armies are so much bigger and with seperate commanders, the battle plays out more realistically. There has to be some defining stat to determine which match up will win and I guess the rps is the easiest to both apply and understand (even if it's not historically accurate)

Togakure
10-07-2010, 21:27
Exactly, Togakure. None of us can read minds. And I have the same trouble with the "bit part"! But the topic is complex. I would much sooner discuss this in a pub with you guys and pints all around!

Merely saying “gameplay > realism” doesn’t say much at all. I want good game play. Who doesn’t? The question is “What constitutes ‘game play?’ ” For me, good game play has units that behave properly within the historic context of the game. If the setting is to be meaningful, the units ought to be correct. I can define what I want. What I can’t understand is why realistic units are unacceptable to anyone, especially MP players. Is it a desire for more variety than actually existed? Do you really want units with artificial strengths and weaknesses? And when you say “balance”, what is getting balanced? What is out of balance to begin with? Honestly, I don’t get it. In an online fight, if both sides take identical armies, won’t you have an even matchup every time? Won’t this let you determine who is the best or greatest or whatever? Are you looking for armies that are different but exactly equal somehow? If I was CA, I wouldn’t know what you’re asking for when you say “balance”. And I doubt that CA could ever satisfy all of you. Or even most of you. I hope they try by having separate MP unit stats different from those in the SP campaign but I don’t think that will happen. For the record, I don’t expect to get a perfectly realistic order of battle either. I’m just trying to make the case for limiting the foolishness (as I see it).

Having unit stats that approximate a unit’s historic capabilities are open to interpretation, surely. But inventing stats out of a desire to have a unit ability that did not exist makes no sense to me. Not in a series of games purporting to be grounded in history. It is a dictum of warfare that weapons determine tactics. A weapon appears, armies employ it for a while and ultimately settle upon the best way to use it. History provides us with knowledge of Japanese weapons and training. Ergo the proper realistic tactics can be discovered and used effectively if the units are correct. Units (weapons) came first. Then the tactics.

Some players here at the org apparently begin with a desire for particular tactics to prevail and then want to design unit stats to support these tactics, regardless of history. If an invented unit stat supports the chosen tactical paradigm and historical stats do not, real stats must yield. The ideal comes first. Could this be the elusive definition of "balance"? If so, this is backwards according to the above mentioned dictum.

This being a game and all, reality can be safely jettisoned. My point is that some (much?) of the MP community is willing to sacrifice the context and setting of the game in order to realize a very stylized, unreal battle contest game. Don’t call it a sim. In a simulation, realism trumps everything else. I do not endorse absolute realism in every sense. If I did I would want lines of supply and logistics in the campaign, which I do not. But I do endorse realistic units and combat. Besides, CA has always said the games are not simulations. (Pretty darn close though, I’m happy to say!)

This leads me to another question. Does the context and setting of the game matter very much to the MP community? Realism relates to context and setting in a big way. Gameplay, while critically important, need not. Gameplay in a tactical battle engine could have robots or wizards. Wouldn’t a fantasy or sci-fi setting be better? No concessions to reality required. The units could be totally artificial and there would be no “accurites” like me around to carp about it! :smile:

For me gameplay = historical realism

Historically accurate units would never behave historically accurately, unless the player has thoroughly researched japanese warfare. The unit upgrade system may work in SP but I've never seen it bring anything meaningful to MP. On the contrary, it results in certain units becoming uber and then there are many units left redundant.
The rock paper scissors, which the MP community likes also falls foul because the upgraded unit no longer behaves as expected. This unit beats that unit approach feels similar to chess, giving the player a counter to a move. When upgrades are applied, that system has gone. So for rps to work properly upgrades should go.
Using identical armies should suggest tactics will decide the victor but this is debateable. The same units in the same situation will not always give the same result as anyone who has playtested will agree.
I'm all for realism, I've always preferred big 4v4 battles because the opposing armies are so much bigger and with seperate commanders, the battle plays out more realistically. There has to be some defining stat to determine which match up will win and I guess the rps is the easiest to both apply and understand (even if it's not historically accurate)
Well-spoken, gentlemen. I'll take some time to describe my PoV:

What I can’t understand is why realistic units are unacceptable to anyone, especially MP players.
I don't think most "old-timer" MPers here have a problem with "realistic" units. I certainly want them to be as realistic as possible in S2TW. Not all MPers want the same things. Personally I think it's the younger players, newer to the TW series than those who played STW and MTW, who want a variety of entertaining units and wouldn't care if it came at the expense of historical realism. I read the opinions of these types at forums for other games, in Total War games threads in the "Other Games" sub-forums of those boards. But here, I think most do want "realistic" units. One problem of balance lies in what Orda Khan has described.

Is it a desire for more variety than actually existed?
Yes, I think with the newer, younger players who are used to this in the current game generation, they want to be thoroughly entertained and don't care as much about historical accuracy. I am not of this mindset, and I hazard to guess that not many here in these threads are. But we are a minority compared to the hordes out there who will buy and play this game, MP included.

Do you really want units with artificial strengths and weaknesses?
I don't. Is it the nature of Rock, Paper, Scissors and the idea that there needs to be a balance between the units, a counter for each etc., that seems artificial to you? This is indeed one of the big "game play" challenges for the developers. Some players enjoy exploiting the mechanics of the game, e.g. making armies of "super ashigaru" using the broken upgrade system of old, which defeat any other unit on the field. I certainly didn't. I avoided games that allowed ashigaru because I disliked this cheese so much. But some do get a kick out of this kind of play, as evidenced by what has been posted recently here and there. But I don't think the majority of MPers here, who played regularly for a long time, see this as a good thing. Some enjoyed it for a laugh because it was there, but I don't think the "serious" players necessarily "want" this. Of course, in competitions, there will be those without scruples who will use whatever technique they can to win. That's just human nature (and another issue altogether ... I digress).

And when you say “balance”, what is getting balanced?
Unit stats and unit costs, and with upgrades, the cost and effect of each upgrade type and level. The latter adds considerable complexity, and is compounded the more units there are to balance. In relation to each other, units have strengths and weaknesses. Historically (I am no historian, just trying to put it in the context in which you are focused), as you wrote, the weapon used led to tactics. This led to counter weapons, defenses, and tactics. Rinse, Repeat. The counter weapons/defenses/tactics that lasted were those that worked effectively against what they were designed to oppose. Hence, as I see it, having units that balance each other out (RPS) is a model that can be said to reflect the natural development of things. Aside from unit stats, there is unit cost. It's a tricky business, assuring that a unit's value on the battlefield parallel's its cost, and that any change in its value is reflected in a change in cost. My verdict: keep it simple. Fewer units. No upgrades. Design carefully and test the crap out of them so that both historical accuracy and effective game play are served. Get hands-on outside opinions of MP players with years of experience--and don't wait til the last minute, as what is learned may require significant changes and re-testing.

What is out of balance to begin with?
There are hordes of threads about this here, but you'll have to dig deep to find them. KocMoc and his friends could tell you a lot about the political mess that was STW WE/MI 1.02 beta. Yuuki (Puzz3D) and his friends could offer counterpoint if you can find them and get them to comment. The advent of the changes brought about by the Rome engine resulted in a cacaphony of strong opinions and a mass exodus of the "old skoolers" who were ultimately very unhappy with the results of the change. With that said, I'm going to leave this can of worms alone. Suffice it to say: in context of what I described above, a lot was out of balance, and there were some very different, very smart opinions on how that should be addressed.

Honestly, I don’t get it. In an online fight, if both sides take identical armies, won’t you have an even matchup every time? Won’t this let you determine who is the best or greatest or whatever? Are you looking for armies that are different but exactly equal somehow?
Variety is the spice of life, etc.. Who wants to play the same way with the same things over and over and over again? Some here have posted that they've played thousands, even tens of thousands, of games. Without wondrous variety, this would not likely be so because they'd have gotten bored and moved on. That being said, there is a manageable amount of variety and too much variety. Manageable means that despite the variety, battles are still fair and challenging ("balanced") despite different units, different tactics. When there is too much variety it is most likely (in my opinion) that exploits will appear because the developers can't effectively test all the combinations before release.

Lol, so finding balance is key, in many ways. Gotta run for a bit. I'll offer my two koku on the rest when I can.

Caliburn
10-09-2010, 09:52
I like Samurai Archers a lot. Especially in the beginning of a campaign, when there weren't many horses around, it took a bit of finesse to counter enemy archers with my own. They weren't pushovers in melee either, and could take those necessary few hits in melee as well. Later in the game they worked well in whittling down key enemy units. Yari Samurai and Samurai Archers were pretty affordable and very solid units.

Togakure
10-09-2010, 19:51
Moderators: it may be appropriate to split some of these posts out into a Gameplay vs. Historical Realism thread or some such.

***

Hey there, Nelson,

I wanted to ask about this:

"Some players here at the org apparently begin with a desire for particular tactics to prevail and then want to design unit stats to support these tactics, regardless of history. If an invented unit stat supports the chosen tactical paradigm and historical stats do not, real stats must yield. The ideal comes first. Could this be the elusive definition of "balance"? If so, this is backwards according to the above mentioned dictum."

I'm not sure I've seen what you describe here. Can you give specific examples of someone advocating this? It may be that I'm just not understanding what you mean. Shoosh has said she likes Yari Cav to be relatively weak against infantry, but strong as anti-cav. Is this the kind of thing you mean? I think there'd be a strong argument that what she wants is indeed historically accurate. Maybe you are thinking of some other comments? Honestly I can't recall anyone advocating what you describe, so I'm wondering if it's an interpretation issue (maybe on my part, heh).