Some info on shogun2 units.

[Swoosh So]

In Shogun 2, the Yari armed Ashigaru use 3.5 meter long Yari. The Yari Samurai use a shorter yari. Their game use is different.
The Yari Ashigaru can form spear walls and squares. They act as a "stinger road block" to cavalry and a speed bump to melee units.
The Yari Samurai are more of a disrupting shock force with anti-cavalry abilities.
We do have Katana Samurai for game diversity and they have uses as melee shock troops when formations are fully engaged.
Archer Samurai are not exceptional melee troops but have obvious uses. As we have said before we have gone for a strong stone-paper-scissors gameplay for Shogun 2.
There are a number of other units but I might get in trouble if talk about the details of those too soon

(Jamie Ferguson, Lead Designer Shogun 2)

[Sp00n]

Im hating the sound of it already, did Samurai form square formations? I've never seen it may be wrong though. Its already sounding like a balance nightmare with too many features to me.

[AggonyReborn]

I have been scanning the internet about this "Square" formation, and I cant find that they used it anywhere. Not any type at all! hmmmnn.. doesnt sound right??

[Prince Cobra]

I have been scanning the internet about this "Square" formation, and I cant find that they used it anywhere. Not any type at all! hmmmnn.. doesnt sound right??

Don't worry. I've found something like info (the source was not very exhaustive) and it was said that the ashigarus had different from the western type square formation at the time. But that's really a minor detail, I think/hope/. We are used to seeing some historical inaccuracies in games (it's normal since it's not 100 per cent RL).

Btw, we don't even know what kind of "square" the design leader means. In a way, squares of units (which depth depended on the player) existed in all the TW games so far. We will wait and see.

[Tomisama]

To use such long weapons effectively special training was needed, like European pikemen, ashigaru-spearmen could fight effectively only in tight formations. But unlike European pikemen ashigaru didn't fight in square formations, preferring less deep formations.http://www.smallsoldiers.ru/english/eredbox2.htm


Spearmen were equipped with the pike (nagae yari). This could be up to eighteen feet long. Japanese pikemen were trained to advance in a loose, fast-moving mass, halting to make a stand or charging forward as the situation demanded. This set them apart from the densely packed, bristling pike squares of contemporary europe.

Samurai Armies 1550 - 1615
Stephen Turnbull
Osprey, 1979
Warriors of Medieval Japan
Stephen Turnbull
Osprey, 2005Read more at Suite101: Ashigaru: Feudal Japanese Footsoldiers http://www.suite101.com/content/ashigaru-a183199#ixzz16ogxXbTX


Ashigaru spearmen were to fight in a coordinated formation with the points of their nagae yari moving together. The author then states that the spearmen should 'line up in one rank three shaku apart, not thrusting but at the ready in a large row to hit the enemy. When facing an attack by horsemen line up in one rank kneeling, lie spear down and wait. When contact is imminent lift up the spear head into the area of the horse's breast. When the point pierces the skin hold onto it! Whether you are cutting at men and horses, it may be that you will feel you are being forced to pull out the spear, and it is a general rule to stand fast to the bitter end and not throw into disorder the collaborative actions. After you have driven the enemy back, to pursue for about one cho is sufficient'.
Although the spearmen fought in coordinated units they never employed the rigid formations used by the famous Swiss pikemen, which for the battle of Fornovo in 1495 packed 3,000 pikemen into a unit covering an area of just sixty metres. Ashigaru spearmen liked slightly looser formations so that defence could quickly turn into offence. Some illustrations show spearmen forming a hedge behind the arquebusiers to protect them.http://www.taots.co.uk/content/view/16/27/

:bow:

[Gregoshi]

Those first two sources are at odds with each other. The first says they were only effective in tight formations while the second says they were trained to fight in loose formations unlike the Europeans. That leaves CA to make their choice in the matter and thus vulnerable to criticism about historical inaccuracies from formation camp not chosen. :laugh4:

[Swoosh So]

Dont care too much about how accurate the formations are tbh i just want an enjoyable battle.

[AggonyKing]

square formation? hmm me thinks that might be a little vauge :D

regardless, as long as the units are balanced. I think that is what we most want, balanced gameplay.

[Vladimir]

Perhaps they're looking for rectangle or rhombus formation.

Yes, it makes sense to have them in a square. This isn't NTW.

[Nelson]

"As we have said before we have gone for a strong stone-paper-scissors gameplay for Shogun 2."

I have never liked rock-paper-scissors unit design and hope that it turns out to be mostly talk. I want the units to behave as they did in reality. Proper formations, stats and behavior are very important to me. RPS oversimplifies and distorts. What are the first (and most popular) mods to appear every time? Mods that improve realism.

I suspect that the yari was in fact used in formations by the ashigaru and more loosely by samurai. Samurai would have chafed at being in formation. Ashigaru could be compelled. Since longer spears (pikes) are only practical in a formation, the samurai would have used shorter yari.

[Prince Cobra]

"As we have said before we have gone for a strong stone-paper-scissors gameplay for Shogun 2."

I have never liked rock-paper-scissors unit design and hope that it turns out to be mostly talk. I want the units to behave as they did in reality. Proper formations, stats and behavior are very important to me. RPS oversimplifies and distorts. What are the first (and most popular) mods to appear every time? Mods that improve realism.



Well, RPS system always gives tactical edge to the battlefield tactics. The decision to use sword units into the melee also seems logical. What's the problem with that? Do you mean that the units should be only teppo ashigaru, ashigaru, archers and some cavalry?

[TosaInu]

I have never liked rock-paper-scissors unit design and hope that it turns out to be mostly talk. I want the units to behave as they did in reality. Proper formations, stats and behavior are very important to me. RPS oversimplifies and distorts. What are the first (and most popular) mods to appear every time? Mods that improve realism.


Weapons have an edge over other ones in special situations and vice versa. A long spear indoor (low ceiling, narrow and some columns) or a short sword. How about an open field next? Feels realistic to me. Not that the strongest weapon in a situation should always wins, but it has an edge. This will have to be modeled somehow. I feel that's what RTW RPS tries to achieve.

Strong RPS can mean anything. It could mean strong RTW RPS, which basically means that a weapon is better than another in a given situation, but it could also mean that a certain weapon almost always beats a specific other one (no matter how, why or what).

[andrewt]

Well, RPS system always gives tactical edge to the battlefield tactics. The decision to use sword units into the melee also seems logical. What's the problem with that? Do you mean that the units should be only teppo ashigaru, ashigaru, archers and some cavalry?


Not always. Hard counters don't always make for better gameplay. Warcraft 3 and Starcraft 2 had more unit/armor types and more hard counters than Starcraft:Broodwar but the latter still has deeper strategy and tactics. I believe that counters should be based on how the units function, and not just because of some arbitrary bonuses against certain type of units.

Spears should get a bonus against cavalry. But sword units, for example, should be used because they are more manueverable than spear units, not because they have some arbitrary bonus when fighting spear units.

[Tomisama]

Those first two sources are at odds with each other. The first says they were only effective in tight formations while the second says they were trained to fight in loose formations unlike the Europeans. That leaves CA to make their choice in the matter and thus vulnerable to criticism about historical inaccuracies from formation camp not chosen. :laugh4:

The second and third quotes are from the chief advisor to CA about these details. :laugh4:

The first references his works.

And it is possible to have "tight formations" (a single rank can be tight), "trained to advance in a loose, fast-moving mass" (and still be permitted to move responding to a situation in a less rigid but still grouped fashion).

And this is exactly what artwork from the times shows us, a single line with flexability, but never more than three ranks deep in any depiction.


https://img135.imageshack.us/i/battlelanceprint.jpg/

The above mock battle shows the advantages of longer pikes. Note the three ranks of longer pikes (right) holding off a mob (not a formation) of short-shafters (left).

This was only a test :wink:

[Nelson]

Strong RPS can mean anything. It could mean strong RTW RPS, which basically means that a weapon is better than another in a given situation, but it could also mean that a certain weapon almost always beats a specific other one (no matter how, why or what).

I agree. This is why I am concerned about exactly what CA means by "strong RPS". When it reflects real weapon and tactical abilities such as a spear formation vs cavalry, it's OK by me no matter what CA calls it. But if it means that a unit is given a boost in an offense or defense stat in order to make it more useful than it was historically or to invent some sort of gamey “counter unit” then I am opposed. Sword units have no inherent advantage over spears as andrewt points out. Yet some people expect to see just that. Since spears have an edge over cav they want spears to have a corresponding weakness even if it is not supported by history. Remember the monks in Shogun? They had big attack and small defense. There was no basis for this in history but that’s what CA did. Then they turned around and said “Well, I guess we need a big defense unit too.” And we got the naginata unit. Totally bogus performance from both of them. These are the types of decisions I would rather not see. Why would a man with a naginata have better armor? And why would he be slower? He didn’t and he wasn’t. I know it just a game. But it’s about 16th century Japan. They should do it right or drop the pretense.


Well, RPS system always gives tactical edge to the battlefield tactics. The decision to use sword units into the melee also seems logical. What's the problem with that? Do you mean that the units should be only teppo ashigaru, ashigaru, archers and some cavalry?

If those tactics are historically correct then fine. If they are not then I have a big problem with the tactical game.
In answer to your question, my good Prince, certainly not. You left out the samurai! Samurai used any weapon they liked. Samurai units should therefore have a mix of weapons. Perhaps even a mix of mounted and dismounted troops. Games have for years convinced players that all armies were made up of units of soldiers with homogeneous weapon types. Like the phalanx or the maniple/cohort. But this was not always the case in every era in every army. Only in formations did mandatory weapon types make any sense. Among warrior cultures it was rare. Samurai seldom fought in formations. They undoubtedly fought with swords sometimes. And with naginata, bows and even guns plus a bunch of other weapons I can’t remember! What we know is that the yari was most popular by far during the Sengoku era. There need not be many different unit types with different stats.

The Japanese have reinactors. I wonder what they think.

I also believe we as gamers get too wrapped up over the weapons because weapons are how the units are defined. Weapons didn’t endow troops with mighty advantages over their opponents in many cases at all. Leadership, morale, training, timing and dumb luck were usually far more important. Oh, and numbers were important too.

[econ21]

I agree with Nelson about exagerating the role of weapon choices. The same issue arose with medieval knights - in reality, they could fight mounted, dismounted with swords/maces/axes or even as dismounted as anti-cavalry troops with (sometimes shortened) lances . But in MTW2, they had to be either cavalry units or sword units, with no anti-cavalry abilities. I guess we are just stuck with that design choice. Without it, you would have to find other reasons for players to use units other than knights or samurai, which ultimately would be to do with availability and cost. TW has made some progress on that - with limiting numbers of elite regiments in NTW and recuitable units per settlement in MTW2, but still not cracked it.

CA seems to being going firmly down the "balance" and "RPS" route following Lusted's work on MTW2: units are tweaked to have strengths and weaknesses, so that one unit type - knights, samurai, ships of the line - are not dominant. Like Nelson, I find that general approach arbitrary and would much rather they stuck to modelling reality. (The most egregious example is the naval rebalancing in ETW to give smaller ships longer range and greater accuracy, with Napoleonic light infantry having weak melee attack and defence being nearly as bad.) However, I can live with ashigaru having longer yari than samurai - as samurai would often be mounted, I can't see them hauling a long pike around. And a square formation for ashigaru sounds ok too - with a loose historical formation, I am sure they would have been able to form some kind of hedgehog/square formation to counter cavalry if threatened and given adequate warning. Allowing infantry to form square against cavalry adds a nice gameplay element (you have to do it in time but also to avoid it when under missile fire; it also allows a nice combined arms synergy between missiles and cavalry on the attack). It works pretty well in NTW - I've been surprised by the AI countering my charges with it and sometimes struggled to do it in time against the AI.

[Kagemusha]

Nice to see you after long time econ21!Wellcome to the Tea House!:bow:

[Tomisama]

There is some great in game analyses above, but also misinformation about the Samurai armies of the period, weapons specializations, and use of formations.

There was a time in the evolution of the Samurai culture when it was all about horse and bow (the individual Samurai), but during the period of the country at war, there were massive armies, specialized units, and precise tactics.

I would suggest Samurai Warfare by Dr. Steven Turnbull, for a greater understanding.

The only reason that I am sticking my nose in here is because of a pet peeve I have concerning the teppo units of the first Shogun. The three rotating ranks was based on the report of a single European observer’s surmising, and not on historical and proven archeological evidence.

[TosaInu]

Good points,

Pre- and early Sengoku era armies are quite different from (late) Sengoku armies. The game can do very interesting things with that. The first part would be mostly about mounted archers and 'small' scale battles, the later eras would see much more yaris/pikes and massive armies. But the old stuff is not gone. The bow would still be required to support during the lull of gunfire, yari/pike ashis would be used to protect guns/archers and samurai would be required to keep it together and fighting.

Now a noble samurai could get killed in battle by 'farmers' with a pointy stick, the idea about that changed and many to one pitches could be created.

I think todays hardware should be capable to support mixed units, and also allow for different and more realistic unit behaviour. Of course there were odd things in the older games, but I think the hardware was already on its toes. So, a simplified bonus system wasn't too bad then.

Hello econ21. Samurai could use long yaris too, like said: they used any weapon they pleased. But the really massive pikes (think 4,5 and 6 meters) were more the domain of the ashis.


Leadership, morale, training, timing and dumb luck were usually far more important. Oh, and numbers were important too.

Very true, and those things are, in lesser, sufficient or superfluous extent, modeled into the games too.

[Cecil XIX]

I basically agree with the opinion of Nelson et. all that more realism generally means more fun, although I do think we'd be pretty lucky if things are like they were in the first Shogun.

[Tomisama]

https://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k57/tomisama/Turnbull%20Notes/formations.jpg

The old game was not all that far off; and as the new game will be, was derived from experts in the study of the times.

(Text below from Samurai Armies 1550-1615 by Dr. Stephen Turnbull, picture above from Zarniwoop at TWC.)

https://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k57/tomisama/Turnbull%20Notes/009.jpghttps://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k57/tomisama/Turnbull%20Notes/010.jpghttps://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k57/tomisama/Turnbull%20Notes/011.jpghttps://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k57/tomisama/Turnbull%20Notes/012.jpg

[Prince Cobra]

Tomi-san, why do you think the CA won't include the formations in the game? Nothing from the information hints that, really. :inquisitive:

[Tomisama]

Tomi-san, why do you think the CA won't include the formations in the game? Nothing from the information hints that, really. :inquisitive:
I am sure they will.

My last post was just to reassure those here who were not certain as to whether the Samurai of the period used specialized weapons units and formation tactics, that they indeed did.

In fact the more you study these masters of the art of war, the more you will find that everything was carefully organized, and as possible faithfully recorded in high detail.

If you think about it, when your head rests in the balance, being correct in structure and form should not be left to chance...

[TosaInu]

Hello Tomisama,

I think there is something to discuss though and I think it's more about degrees of something than an absolute yes or no.

There's the discussion about units having different weapons.
There's the discussion about formations.

I think the latter discussion can branch out in several ways too. There's a difference between a formation for an entire army and a formation + special techniques on unitlevel. A Roman Testudo for example is a whole different story from 'simply' dividing a whole army into a center and wings.

Samurai indeed had special weapons, army deployments and even unit setups. Nobunaga had the 3 ranks of teppo, but also ashigaru units with huge pikes (I recall Toyotomi Hideyoshi argued in favour of that). But a samurai army is still very different from say a Roman or a Napoleonic one. It's less uniform and men brought more what they had (swords, yari, naginata in many flavours).