Shogun vs Shogun 2

[edyzmedieval]

Question is simple, which one do you prefer?

My answer - Shogun Total War. Why? Immersion. Atmosphere. Strategy map - playing chess on the map feels more like a strategy game based on rock paper scissors rather than 3D. AI as well, the computer effectively manages the terrain.

2D battles. This might seem strange but the whole backwardness of the game engine manages to recreate some of the authenticity and art of the Sengoku Jidai era.

EDIT.

I just want to mention that I'm enjoying S2TW greatly. I'm having a serious blast even on low settings and that I'm really appreciating the work done by CA. Epic game, but I still prefer STW.

:bow:

[Liberator]

Uah accidently clicked on Shogun..

But I definitely prefer Shogun 2;
Some years ago, I actually wanted to start playing Shogun again. But in the first battle, it felt like I could count the pixel.

[Naughtius Maximus]

I haven't played the campaign yet, just wading thru the encyclopedia and looking at the tutorials.

From what I see, though, is that the diplomatic and economic models are light years away from Shogun.

[Zarky]

For me it's Shogun 2 because of the 3D map, not because it's eye-candy, but because it gives you the option to choose your own battles more than Shogun ever could.
Also trade & diplomacy, I'm big fan of both as long as they work properly.

[xploring]

Probably,
for campaign: Shogun 2
battle: Shogun.

[crpcarrot]

too early to be deninite but at the moment i love them both. STW2 is definitely as hard as STW.

[Jpf]

Going by the Shogun 2 demo, I will probably like it more.
However, full game won't work for me atm due to crashing constantly so put 'Not Sure'

[Kocmoc]

The campaign in S2 i like a lot more, graphics matter. You have a lot more things to do.

Now Im not the usual SP, I mostly play MP. In MP the graphics are less important for me, some things are rather annoying than any helpful.
Unitmens got smaller and its a lot harder to keep a good overview on the battlefield.
Clouds are many times dont let you see whats going on and you have to scroll in, seabattles looking great, but do i need it?

I rather had a good tactical gameplay with the seabattles instead of the eye candy. The fights are boring mostly and have very little tactical gamepaly involved.
Especially the imbalances are a pain in your ass, try the gunboats on seafights....

The tactical gameplay is a lot worser in S2 than in STW, its a lot more about the general and when using the rally ability, than movement, outflank, good maneuver, good timing. The flanking and rearing penalties are pretty low, which makes you clash many times just frontal into each other.
S2 also favors a certain setup (at least in 10k games) and the only real momentum i see is, cav try to charge your missles.
There is very little melee movement at all. The fatigue has more effect on moral than a rearattack or flank!

In STW you had a very wide range of possible setups. You could go heavy melee, heavy cav, many missles, balanced setups. You could rush, play aggressive, play defensive.
The ground has some real effect and the battles had many momentums, not just the cav like today.

It will take too long to get every detail out here, but thats a small overview at least.


I like S2, its good and it has potential. Many people will like it the first few months. The balancing issues will be shown in 4-6 months first, it will take time.
But at some point people will see (maybe many like it) how limited it is. The biggest problem is, that you cant overweight one side and rush in to rout something quick.
Units hold too long, this will evaluate a new "tactic", im using it already and many other will follow. It is not good to get many units in the fight at once, armies rout not while outnumbered, they rout because they are tired or the general is dead/not around.

This leaves just one option out, you win over fatigue more enemy units, while yours are not fighting or less fighting and stay fresh. Unless someone got a lot more missles left....

So its something like this, i use 2 ashi for this, i have them on 9 defence, spread em max in range of my general and just block the attacker.
In most cases more than 2 units get stuck there and fight my 2 ashis, which hold quite some time with 9 defense. It isnt my intention to win there, just to hold long enough to tire my enemy out. In fights vs average people i see up to 8 units get stuck in there. I now have my guns behind, shot in the masses and the rest of my units just protect flanks if needed, else they stay fresh.

At some point you either go in vs fatigued enemy units or just let the ashis rout. Its all about fatigue, the general and who got some missles left.

[Daveybaby]

S2 purely by dint of the fact that i cant get S1 to work on my PC any more.

In reality i think (a) it's far too early to tell, and (b) each will do some things better than the other.

IMO S2 seems to be the first TW game to get the non-risk style of map right - the AI has finally learned to deal with it, the province development is interesting, and there isnt too much micromanagement. Diplomacy is also the best we've yet seen in a TW game. However, as others have said, i suspect the battles will never quite match those in S1 (rose tinted glasses maybe, havent played S1 for a loooong time).

[Jambo]

There's definitely some rose-tinted glasses thrown in with some Shogun nostalgia when it comes to the original title. People are (perhaps conveniently?) forgetting that the original Shogun had some fairly significant balance issues itself! I should know, I relentlessly tested balance on that damned flat map for so long that I lost sight of actually playing it for fun. Does no one remember the armies of super ashis all pumped up to honour 9 blitzing through everything else?

Still, it was good and its MP far surpassed TW titles to follow. I have a feeling that Shogun 2 will surpass it in time, but like others have said, it's too early to tell and it is in need of a patch of two to fix issues.

[Obake]

Does no one remember the armies of super ashis all pumped up to honour 9 blitzing through everything else?

I'm sure that AMP does at the very least Doc since he's the one that mastered it! I also remember all of the balancing issues we ran into after Mongol Invasion was released. We had asked CA for more choices, they gave us Honor upgrades, Armor upgrades and Weapons upgrades. NO doubt there are a lot of ros colored glasses around, but still, STW provided the best balance in MP of any TW game, and the most fluidity in options...

[TosaInu]

From what I've seen in the demo and heard from some who already play TWS2, I think TWS2 will be better than STW. My copy hasn't arrived yet though, so I don't know for sure yet.

I remember the issues, bugs and shortcomings in STW and also those in MI. STW wasn't the best for MP either. Small maps, red zones, horrendous lag for no reason, flawed upgrade system, broken charge, Benny Hill, code, drops to name a few. Yet, still good for hours of fun.

[edyzmedieval]

S2TW is amazing, I will say that, because I am really enjoying it. Perhaps I'm wearing rose tinted glasses and that I'm probably overlooking Shogun's numerous problems but I still enjoy it more for some reason.

[therother]

As a proud owner of said rose-tinted glasses, I look back at STW very fondly. I must admit though, when I looked for a classic TW fix over the years, I fire up MTW:VI as often as not. So STW isn't my favourite TW based on gameplay alone.

STW2 does look very nice on my 26" WUXGA (1920×1200) screen at max detail, the immersion is great (loving the old music especially), although I'm a bit bored of the cut scenes already (seem to have seen them all). There are more options for strategy, there are more tools for those of us who enjoy micromanagement, but it hasn't stood the test of time yet: things are still new. The real test will be in a few months time: am I still playing? So overall, has to still be STW for me, although I'm hopeful STW2 after a patch or two will match or exceed STW.

[Kurando]

For what it's worth, STW2 has k-man's thumbs up.

I have been pleasantly surprised by the AI, and the turn based strategy is very well though out. I haven't tried any naval battles yet, but all signs point to a really really good addition to the TW series.

Certainly worth $49.95

[Ed TW]

I couldn't agree with you more. Although the game is good the 3D map is rather clumsy to navigate.

[Krasturak]

Krast not vote: no "Gah!" option in poll.

Still, it is an interesting question: which version is better?

Krast must find out.

[edyzmedieval]

Krast not vote: no "Gah!" option in poll.

Still, it is an interesting question: which version is better?

Krast must find out.

Welcome back to the Org Krasturak. :bow:

Certainly worth the money, please enjoy.

[econ21]

I am loving STW2 so far, but still on my first proper campaign so it is early days. (I also loved my first Julii campaign in RTW).

STW was a very innovative and characterful game, but I voted STW2 as it seems to keep most of the good things of the first game and add-in more features.


STW2 pros

The campaign map. As someone who likes historical wargames and is bored to death by chess, the 3D map is so much more to my taste than the Risk style one. The main problem with the 3D map in some earlier TW games was that the AI did not seem to cope with the extra freedom, but it's doing ok in STW2 so far. My vague memory of STW was that the strategic AI cheated like crazy (reacting to your moves rather than being genuinely simultaneous), which was annoying. And I loathed the bridge province bottlenecks.

Agents and general's skill trees are nice improvements in STW2 - the first time agents in TW have felt so useful and fun. The research tree also gives meaningful and interesting choices.

I'm also enjoying the naval battles (I liked them in ETW too).

Diplomacy seems decent. I feel I have more freedom over who to fight and where to fight than in STW.

Realm divide is a wonderful way of keeping the mid to late game challenging. Although to be honest, I found it challenging in STW too - but this was usually getting ground down by the Hojo horde.


STW2 cons

Too many sieges. I would rather field battles were the norm. It's like RTW in this respect and probably a result of the high number of provinces relative to the map size. It may well be realistic (it would be for Medieval Europe), but I just enjoy field battles more. And the AI is much better at field battles than sieges.

Combat is too fast - both move speed and kill rates. Again, like RTW in this respect. M2TW felt slower, at least the kill rates. The pacing of RTW and MTW battles was perfect, imo - I am not sure why it had to be speeded up.

[Azi Tohak]

The original was terrific, but this is a very worthy descendant that takes full (maybe too full!) advantage of new computer power. I prefer S2.

[Leptomeninges]

STW2 pros[/i]

The campaign map. As someone who likes historical wargames and is bored to death by chess, the 3D map is so much more to my taste than the Risk style one. The main problem with the 3D map in some earlier TW games was that the AI did not seem to cope with the extra freedom, but it's doing ok in STW2 so far. My vague memory of STW was that the strategic AI cheated like crazy (reacting to your moves rather than being genuinely simultaneous), which was annoying. And I loathed the bridge province bottlenecks.

The campaign AI is good, but it has some holes. I'm not talking about anything silly like units getting stuck (looking at you CivV). But it's not hard to bait the AI into making fairly bad decisions on the campaign map. Outside of defending archers focusing on a single wall, I haven't noticed many holes in the skirmish AI. Which is odd because I'd personally think the skirmish AI would be more challenging. But there are definitely some holes in the campaign AI that I'm exploiting in my Uesugi VH/VH game.

[econ21]

The campaign AI is good, but it has some holes.

I won't inquire, because if I know them, I guess I will exploit them.

I have noticed it seems strangely keen on siege assaults when the odds are almost even - much better to starve you out, I would reckon. (Although I was impressed in my latest campaign when I plonked a full stack on a frontline city and the AI started to starve it out with three adjacent, mutually supporting stacks. Good job my general is a night fighter.)

[Azi Tohak]

Having just beaten my first campaign, yes, I much prefer S2 to S. This game is terrific! Now to try a different clan before I get into the game on hard.

[Ituralde]

It has to be Shogun 2 Total War.

The main reason is the fact that the Shogun 2 demo wasn't so hard that I robbed myself from buying the full game and thus missed out on the very first installation of Total War! True story!

[Rothe]

Even though Shogun 1 will remain a "classic" game with fond memories, if I have to pick what to play right now (2011), I will pick Shogun 2.

Shogun 1 made a big impression at the time because it was (for me) the first of its kind in combining RTS and turn based strategy, along with historical information etc.

Now, the shogun 2 makes a less of a splash in the market and in my mind, but the improvements over shogun 1 are still major in my opinion. The campaign is nicer. The graphics are nicer, I like the tech and economy etc. etc. more than I would in Shogun 1 if I were to run it now.

If you ask me after 10 years which game made a bigger impression, I would probably still say STW 1. If you ask me what I want to play right then, I would say STW 3 ;)

[Leptomeninges]

I won't inquire, because if I know them, I guess I will exploit them.

I have noticed it seems strangely keen on siege assaults when the odds are almost even - much better to starve you out, I would reckon. (Although I was impressed in my latest campaign when I plonked a full stack on a frontline city and the AI started to starve it out with three adjacent, mutually supporting stacks. Good job my general is a night fighter.)

Well, I don't know that it's any black secret. And you'll notice it yourself soon enough. Bottom line is that it's not hard to bait the defending AI to leave a castle to attack a weak stack while you then grab their castle with a stronger stack. It may feel confident to do this because it still outnumbers your forces (combining both your stacks by as much as a 2:1 ratio in the province) but the AI doesn't seem to properly recognize the strength of defensive positions like castles or river crossings either where I can get truly insane results. I beat armies that I can't kill in the open field by baiting them out of their castle and then winning the assult when they subsequently attack.

[Azi Tohak]

Shogun 1 made a big impression at the time because it was (for me) the first of its kind in combining RTS and turn based strategy, along with historical information etc.

I agree. I was delighted when I found out that instead of the ridiculous click-fests of RTS, where units run about and kill and die as robots, the charming little men in STW would get scared or angry and behave accordingly. Combine that with a personal favorite historical niche, I loved STW. 2 just makes everything better!

[Azi Tohak]

D'oh! Double post.

[Poulp']

Shogun 1, for all the reason stated by OP.

It shall remain STW as long as AI can't cope with 3D strategic map.

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

Shogun 1 was by far the best strategy game and it was good,the only downside?

Graphics.

Shogun2 re improved the game and bought to a outstanding leval.

[edyzmedieval]

All of this S2TW playing made me want to play STW again, so I gratefully took my original CDs and slotted them inside the drive. Hopefully tonight I shall have epic battles of Oda Ashigaru against Mori Warrior Monks.

:bow:

[Cu'Roi]

i find the graphics in shogun 2 are better than in shogun 1

[Graphic]

Shogun 2.

I loved Shogun. I'm quite nostalgic about it and it was a revolution in its time. But now its simply too old. Very little depth. I do miss the FMV diplomacy, though.

[Prodigal]

2 for me, STW opened my eye's to what strategy games should be like, & in so doing pretty much ruined 95% of the stuff I was playing at the time. Course that was then, & this is now.

Due to wanting to simply play STW2 I'd ignored graphic problems like lack of roads, rivers and borders on the campaign map, sorted that last weekend & came very close to licking my monitor it looks so freaking delicious. Pretty much everything I've not liked in the more recent TW's seems to be either fixed, or just out right improved.

Now if they would only made an RTW2....

[East East Wild]

Shogun 2 all the way. When I first play shogun 10 years back. I was really really excited. It was really a break thru for tactical real time battles and you can execute realistic formation we read in historical books. We can do that now too in Shogun better then we can do it back in RTW and MTW2.

Problem with Shogun though...everytime I won and routed the enemy, they would murdered massacred my army just by fleeing thru them....:daisy: is that!

[Yesugey]

Shogun 2 is an excellent game, covers every aspects of all the other TW games combines, plus lots of magnificent features. The tech tree, diplomacy, graphics.. It's a masterpiece, %99 of what would you expect from a TW game.

But I pick Shogun I, because it has the awesome long-term battle scenes, which the games after RTW has not. Units usually either run away or lose after few seconds of melee, and flanking doesn't matter at all. I truly miss the long battles from old STW which you can't know who is going to win until the last minute, or you win by rallying your routing troops.

[hernethehunter]

I like both for being good games. The Risk style campaign map holds up very well in Shogun 1 giving decisive battles. The deceptive simplicity of the campaign compared to later titles in the series still gives a good game. Those decisive battles are enjoyable. Shogun 2 is a worthy sequel.

[ReluctantSamurai]

But I pick Shogun I, because it has the awesome long-term battle scenes, which the games after RTW has not. Units usually either run away or lose after few seconds of melee, and flanking doesn't matter at all. I truly miss the long battles from old STW which you can't know who is going to win until the last minute, or you win by rallying your routing troops.

This! Epic battles that could sometimes last 1 1/2 to 2 hours realtime...maneuver, tactics, one side winning---now losing...weather that actually affected tactics on the battlefield...a chess match. And yes, I love playing chess, so graphics not so important if game play is superior.

S2 has its improvements over S1, for sure, but I've never gotten quite as excited playing S2. So my vote for the One-That-Started-It-All....:bow:

[wooly_mammoth]

This! Epic battles that could sometimes last 1 1/2 to 2 hours realtime...maneuver, tactics, one side winning---now losing...weather that actually affected tactics on the battlefield...

Why did battles last so long and how could the fortunes change so much? (I guess they can change in the newer titles in the series with some devious cavalry tactics, but that's about it). How did weather affect the battle? (in rtw, rain definitely makes ranged units & siege gear less effective, extreme weather makes units tire faster, but that's about it; some people claim night battles also reduce effectiveness of ranged units, but I did not notice it).

[easytarget]

Routine false dilemma in my opinion, that said, I did want to drop in nonetheless and give a big round of applause to Yesugey for his 4 year old necro, impressive.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Why did battles last so long and how could the fortunes change so much?

Not every battle was like that...just the epic ones. Kill rates were much, much lower...unlike RTW where battles could often be over in 10-15 minutes. Reinforcements did not arrive on the battlefield all at once. On normal unit size, you got a max of 960 men...more if an ally participated. When facing down 4 or 5000, you would see 4-6 waves and each wave would take time to assemble (if you were defending) or jump immediately into battle (if you were the attacker).

Fortunes could change depending on when a particular Daimyo arrived on the battlefield (Daimyo's were not necessarily in the first wave). An elite general like Kenshin or Shingen could tip the scales dramatically if the outcome was in doubt. The onset of bad weather in the middle of the battle could change things for better or worse. Thunder storms in Shogun were THUNDER STORMS, not the drizzly mist you got in RTW. If you can play the game on your rig, fire up the historical Battle of Okehazama. Now that's a thunderstorm. The arrival of fog could change fortunes depending on whether you were attacker or defender.

As defender, you could afford to get "trappy" because the AI played like it didn't know where your troops were (even though it has to in reality) and sent mounted troops to locate you... often separating its forces. Likewise, as the attacker, you had to do the same kind of search. Dense fog was the absolute best weather to assault a bridge. You could lure the AI into moving too close to the bridge, thereby bringing its troops into range of your arrows or guns. You could bum-rush Ashi across and slip your better troops in behind if the AI was too far away to see you right away.


in rtw, rain definitely makes ranged units & siege gear less effective, extreme weather makes units tire faster

All I can say is play one in bad weather, then the other. There is a noticeable difference, and not just the graphics.


I did want to drop in nonetheless and give a big round of applause to Yesugey for his 4 year old necro, impressive.

Other than the Backroom, the org isn't exactly a hot bed of discussion these days, so....:creep:


Routine false dilemma in my opinion

Meaning.....~:confused:

[Yesugey]

Not every battle was like that...just the epic ones. Kill rates were much, much lower...unlike RTW where battles could often be over in 10-15 minutes. Reinforcements did not arrive on the battlefield all at once. On normal unit size, you got a max of 960 men...more if an ally participated. When facing down 4 or 5000, you would see 4-6 waves and each wave would take time to assemble (if you were defending) or jump immediately into battle (if you were the attacker).



Even without 4000-5000 troop numbers and reinforcements, it was still quite hard to understand who is going to win the melee. Your troops wavers.. Then stops.. Then again.. Your front collapses at some of the flanks.. And sometimes you actually win a battle by rallying your troops. That almost never happens in games later tham RTW.



The onset of bad weather in the middle of the battle could change things for better or worse. Thunder storms in Shogun were THUNDER STORMS, not the drizzly mist you got in RTW. If you can play the game on your rig, fire up the historical Battle of Okehazama. Now that's a thunderstorm. The arrival of fog could change fortunes depending on whether you were attacker or defender.


Ah, I also noticed the Thunder Storms last time I played! You cant see what's ahead of you from the mist, the rain is like hell.. And the sound of the thunder... Shogun TW has actually a dark soul as a game, not colorful like other TW games. Insanely bloody Ninja movies are also an evidence.

[Vanya]

Gah!

Vanya has pondered this question for many moons. But alas, the smell of gunpowder has distracted Him of late. Vanya shall endeavor to contemplate the deeper questions buried under the veneer of this intrinsic question while meditating on the mountaintop after His mornin' raids.

Gah!

[edyzmedieval]

Ah, Vanya, welcome back. Please contemplate further and let us know of your findings.

:bow:

[Cash]

I purchased Shogun 2 when it first came out. My favorite of all the TW games. I have played the games since the first Shogun game.

[edyzmedieval]

Go for it, Cash. I played almost 300 hours of S2TW, I think I quite like it. :sweatdrop: