View Full Version : Shogun II Total War
masonkiller
07-10-2007, 06:20
Personally, I think Shogun is the best of the Total War series. I think they should do to Shogun what they did to Medieval. Make the game with some new features and better graphics.... I would buy it...
Just my opinion...
Seijitai
07-10-2007, 12:31
On my "top three best games" I ever played... With Monkey Island and Deus Ex... Ahhh, those were the days :2thumbsup:
By the way, as a shameless advertising, just look at my sig... :laugh4:
Shogun2 would get my hard earned dollars,
failing that Ran no Jidai will get my bandwwidth...
B.
Togakure
07-10-2007, 16:17
I both yearn for and fear "Shogun 2." I would definitely buy it. I would even pay more for it than I would normally pay for a game. If it was good, I would certainly spend way too much time playing it. I fear this, and of course, I fear that it would not stand up to its original. It would break my gaming heart to see the shibumi of Shogun replaced by a garish, commercialized new release. Because of this fear, I find myself thinking it would be better to let things be. I still play Shogun SP. I will play it for as long as it will run on the platform of the day. I consider it a personal treasure, my favorite computer game ever.
I both yearn for and fear "Shogun 2." I would definitely buy it. I would even pay more for it than I would normally pay for a game. If it was good, I would certainly spend way too much time playing it. I fear this, and of course, I fear that it would not stand up to its original. It would break my gaming heart to see the shibumi of Shogun replaced by a garish, commercialized new release. Because of this fear, I find myself thinking it would be better to let things be. I still play Shogun SP. I will play it for as long as it will run on the platform of the day. I consider it a personal treasure, my favorite computer game ever.
What he said. :yes:
STW is for me the best TW game, and one of the best games of all times. Its strong concept, the great and balanced gameplay and the in-depth unmatched atmosphere still give reason to TW fans to "ask" features/gameplay elements from that game to the new ones as well as in their modifications. With the brief exception of some features and fixes in MTW, CA never came up with a single original idea eversince STW as far as i can see.
Not that it'll make much difference anyway, but to answer the OP, i think that M2 is a waste of time as a game, being superficial, unchallenging with childish/populistic atmosphere, a rush fest on the battlefield and generally a poor gameplay and i sincerely won't bother at all if they "do the same" with a "new" Shogun.
Seijitai
07-11-2007, 07:24
I have the same opinion than Noir... With Shogun, I discovered the feudal japan... So that game really keep a place on my heart. Talking about a Shogun 2... Well, if it keep the nowadays "spirit" of M2, it will be without me...
there is, of course, the port of Shogun to the Medieval(1) engine under construction (follow my sig)
Akeichi Mitsuhide
07-12-2007, 15:45
Shogun brought me into Feudal Japan and the TW series. Dammn i want CA to do a remake like M2TW. Im gonna storm the main office of CA if they wont make Shogun II - Total War after Kingdoms.
I have the same opinion than Noir... With Shogun, I discovered the feudal japan... So that game really keep a place on my heart. Talking about a Shogun 2... Well, if it keep the nowadays "spirit" of M2, it will be without me...
When Ran no Jidai is released, you might pick up a multiplayer following because both STW and MTW have trouble running on new hardware and M2TW multiplayer has a serious lag issue.
Shieldmaiden
07-12-2007, 21:48
I'd love to see a STW2 - but it would never be able to recapture the magic and excitement of STW.
It would just be.. different. Perhaps it would be better to put a different spin on a Shogun 2, rather than try - and probably fail -to recapture the feel of the original.
Togakure
07-13-2007, 00:01
... Perhaps it would be better to put a different spin on a Shogun 2 ...
Personally I'd rather see them try something new and leave medieval Japan alone. Given their current approach, there are plenty of options that would reap greater financial rewards. They are merchants, after all.
IrishArmenian
07-20-2007, 05:53
I believe it must be done as a large community mod project, as it would be much better that way and everyone would definitley want to work on it!
Eufarius
07-20-2007, 07:08
Shogun brought me into Feudal Japan and the TW series. Dammn i want CA to do a remake like M2TW. Im gonna storm the main office of CA if they wont make Shogun II - Total War after Kingdoms.
if you want to help go to https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?p=1614654#post1614654
Kagemusha
07-21-2007, 11:44
When Ran no Jidai is released, you might pick up a multiplayer following because both STW and MTW have trouble running on new hardware and M2TW multiplayer has a serious lag issue.
There is a place open for a veteran MP player as stat creator/balancer in RNJ.:smash:
Personally, I think Shogun is the best of the Total War series. I think they should do to Shogun what they did to Medieval. Make the game with some new features and better graphics.... I would buy it...
Just my opinion...
I love the original Shogun Total War. A refurbished and improved version would definitely be on my "must buy" list.
Currently I'm waiting for the Ran no Jidai mod.
It should capture the atmosphere, before I could be really happy with it. However, some sort of addition to Shogun (1), with a few good options, such as trade, would be more than welcome. It doesn't need a big graphics overhaul as far as I'm concerned.
Robert the Kingmaker
09-01-2007, 12:11
I would prefer that CA moves on with something new. We are getting Empire but after that I wouldn't mind seeing a China or Modern Day Total War. Once that's finished, then they could go back to refurbishing classics. I just have a feeling that if CA were to touch Shogun again, many people would be disappointed with the results.
I would prefer that CA moves on with something new. We are getting Empire but after that I wouldn't mind seeing a China or Modern Day Total War. Once that's finished, then they could go back to refurbishing classics. I just have a feeling that if CA were to touch Shogun again, many people would be disappointed with the results.
A good point, at least your last sentence. I don't care much for 'new' Total War games after Rome and Medieval II (call me an old whiner if you must! :laugh4: ), but perhaps when they'd do a Shogun II, it'd feel right again.
Unfortunately any remake of STW would be based on the RTW/M2TW engine this would make it as much of a disaster as those two.
I wish they made this instead of Empires.
My dream is a far east Total War game that includes China, Korea, Mongolia, Japan, and the like. China has been slept on in the Total War series which sucks because for so long they were one of the most technologically advanced armies in the world.
They could do that and then something like Kingdoms where there are some smaller more focused campaigns. A Shogun:TW style campaign, maybe a Mongolia campaign where you play Genghis Khan uniting the nomads, some Three Kingdoms and warring states stuff.
I can dream...~:(
Unfortunately any remake of STW would be based on the RTW/M2TW engine this would make it as much of a disaster as those two.
While I admittedly share your skepticism as to how a Shogun sequel would turn out, I do feel compelled to disagree about whether it would be based on the Rome/Medieval 2 engine. Given that an entirely new engine has been developed for Empire TW, I would imagine that Shogun 2 would be based on that instead.
And of course this is assuming Shogun 2 is even the next game in the series after Empire -- something I rather doubt myself. Even if CA *is* eventually planning on remaking Shogun, I'd be fairly surprised if it turns out to be the title following Empire. In all likelihood, I'd say we have a wait of at least another 4 years, by which point CA will have (presumably) created their 4th-generation engine (Empire being the 3rd-generation engine).
On the other hand, the AI is supposedly going to be greatly improved in the newest engine, with the diplomatic and military decisions being handled by a single AI (instead of the first 4 titles where the diplomatic and military AI rarely seemed to be speak with each other at all). So who knows? :juggle2:
I somehow doubt that a new engine would reintroduce the old tactical battles and risk style map of the first two TW games. But we shall see I suppose.
Originally posted by Martok
On the other hand, the AI is supposedly going to be greatly improved in the newest engine, with the diplomatic and military decisions being handled by a single AI (instead of the first 4 titles where the diplomatic and military AI rarely seemed to be speak with each other at all).
Just a comment:
I had the impression that this was the case for only the two latest titles (RTW/M2), both from the interviews previews i read as well as my own experience; i mean in STW/MTW backstabbings have a certain logic behind them and they do not happen 1 turn after you make an allaince too often, as is much more frequently the case in RTW/M2. I might however be wrong.
As for ETW, my main reservation is that the TW AI so far couldn't properly handle shooters at all; i cannot imagine how it would do especially in an era where gunpowder dominates while also having to put development weight in the naval battles and in making the new engine... the idea for the game is good but i'm very little convinced regarding the implementation.
Noir
Nobunaga
09-06-2007, 13:29
On the other hand, the AI is supposedly going to be greatly improved in the newest engine, with the diplomatic and military decisions being handled by a single AI (instead of the first 4 titles where the diplomatic and military AI rarely seemed to be speak with each other at all).
This see this as only marketing hype, I really doubt that anything (except from graphics) gonna improve...
I somehow doubt that a new engine would reintroduce the old tactical battles and risk style map of the first two TW games. But we shall see I suppose.
Personally, I could handle a 3D map....if the AI could actually handle it properly. So long as the battles are truly tactical in nature, I would be okay with that. I know you doubt that such a combination is possible -- and frankly, so do I -- but I've decided I'm not automatically going to be pessimistic this time around. I'm still skeptical, but I retain a certain degree of hope (regardless of how foolish it may be to do so). ~;)
Just a comment:
I had the impression that this was the case for only the two latest titles (RTW/M2), both from the interviews previews i read as well as my own experience; i mean in STW/MTW backstabbings have a certain logic behind them and they do not happen 1 turn after you make an allaince too often, as is much more frequently the case in RTW/M2. I might however be wrong.
I think you're at least partially right about that. The military & diplomacy AI seemed to have done a bit better job of talking to each other in Shogun and MTW, but it still wasn't great. I would say it's really been a problem prevalent throughout the series thus far, and that it was simply that much worse in RTW & Medieval 2. That's just my impression, however -- I don't claim to be any more right than you. ~:)
Originally posted by Martok
..but I've decided I'm not automatically going to be pessimistic this time around. I'm still skeptical, but I retain a certain degree of hope (regardless of how foolish it may be to do so).
I take more the stance of an observer as frankly i have given up hope that CA may produce battles as rich and deep in tactics as in the first two games; i don't think that they can't do it, i realised that they don't care to do it. They go for breadth instead of depth to catch as many fish in the net as possible.
They market now the naval battles as the next big thing as if land battles in M2 were the pinnacle of balance and gameplay; you can see though that most people clearly don't care, neither find the fact that CA aims too high suspicious, despite the RTW and M2 releases, that were full of bugs imbalances and problems of all sorts.
Jawdropping peaked with a couple of screenshots and scarcely anyone mentions that developping sea battles (totally new) with entirely new land battles (shooters that the AI is weak to handle are the main infantry) as well as a new engine may be too much to be handled in two years while keeping quality high (doing testing, bug clearing as well as balancing).
CA in a sense is innocent; had RTW been ignored and slandered for its superficiality, arcadiness and unfinished state, they would have most likely turned back to a more "niche" quality archetype and sing a very different tune altogether. Now though, that RTW brought them fame & fortune ("the best strategy game ever", "100%" etc) they'll naturally keep on the same track.
From the recent interview with PCGamer:
"We've always wanted to do naval battles," says Mike Simpson, "but we've always wanted to do them properly - that's why we haven't tackled them in previous games. It's a big chunk. If you're going to do it, you have to do it really, really, really well."
Then he says:
"The cannonballs can damage the hull, they'll damage the panels they go through, they'll kill individual men, they also knock down masts, tear sails off... that obviously affects the manoeuvrability of your ships. You can tell your ships whether you want to aim at the sails or at the hull, or at the men on the decks."
You can aim cannonballs at the men? This is Mike Simpson's idea of doing naval battles really, really, really well?
Also in that interview he says:
"It's easy to design a complicated system. Hard to design an easy system that retains flavour"
The only complicated systems that are easy to design are ones that don't work properly. The problem with using an easy system, as he is apparently trying to do in Empire Total War, is that simplistic systems don't simulate complex physical processes very well. The elegance of the original STW battle engine is how well it simulates the battles with a moderately complex system.
Also in that interview James Russell, lead designer, says:
"We will have a fire button. It's a sort of override tool so you can time your shot when you want to. And timing is critical. Let off muskets too early, and you won't do enough damage. Let off your muskets too late in the face of a cavalry charge, and you've got every chance of being crushed by a flying dead horse."
Flying Dead Horses? :dizzy2:
BTW, I have news for James Russell and the new fire button feature. You can shoot when you want to in the original STW engine as well.
R'as al Ghul
09-07-2007, 12:41
BTW, I have news for James Russell and the new fire button feature. You can shoot when you want to in the original STW engine as well.
Psst. Don't tell anyone. They want to sell this new feature. :clown:
Btw, i recently had a look at the section "Tips & Tricks" at the .com.
There's such a section for all 4 titles.
If you take 5 minutes to go over there and compare the sections of STW and MTW, which are almost similar, to the sections of RTW and M2, you'll know all that's wrong with the series since MTW. At least from my point of view.
R'as
Originally posted by Puzz3D
Flying Dead Horses?
I missed that one. It's like the Beatles song in Seargent Pepper's:
"... it's getting better all the time..."
Originally posted by Puzz3D
BTW, I have news for James Russell and the new fire button feature. You can shoot when you want to in the original STW engine as well.
And in all the other games too... Endless the list of innovations in Empire as yet..
Ossie The Great
09-07-2007, 14:16
I would love a Shogun TW 2 all though i think the closest we will get to it is Ran No Jadai
You can shoot when you want to in the original STW engine as well.
A better implementation perhaps?
A better implementation of firing while moving would be nice too (at the moment mounted missiles fire what they think to be a target, not what the player wants to be the target).
Marcus Orentius
09-15-2007, 16:02
Since when could you shoot when you wanted in RTW?
@Nobunaga: Since they have a new engine to wrok on, I do reckon AI will improve. RTW and M2TW were equally as crap as each other because they were on the same engine.
I both yearn for and fear "Shogun 2." I would definitely buy it. I would even pay more for it than I would normally pay for a game. If it was good, I would certainly spend way too much time playing it. I fear this, and of course, I fear that it would not stand up to its original. It would break my gaming heart to see the shibumi of Shogun replaced by a garish, commercialized new release. Because of this fear, I find myself thinking it would be better to let things be. I still play Shogun SP. I will play it for as long as it will run on the platform of the day. I consider it a personal treasure, my favorite computer game ever.
Aaaah.. great post!! I must agree. :bow:
Not atm, but soon again I'll play Shogun sp now and then.. Still my no1 as well.
I must say, at times, I terribly miss the superb times I had playing shogun MP. Best MP community I was in, ever. Plus, the best game ever.. what could you ask more. Such a loss that this is really history now..:embarassed:
:bow:
Also in that interview James Russell, lead designer, says:
"We will have a fire button. It's a sort of override tool so you can time your shot when you want to. And timing is critical. Let off muskets too early, and you won't do enough damage. Let off your muskets too late in the face of a cavalry charge, and you've got every chance of being crushed by a flying dead horse."
Flying Dead Horses? :dizzy2:
BTW, I have news for James Russell and the new fire button feature. You can shoot when you want to in the original STW engine as well.
So true. :yes:
We must admit though, the dead horses in stw did not fly. ah well.. I like a bit realism anyway.
Hilarious post, Puzz. Good stuff. ~:) :bow:
Since when could you shoot when you wanted in RTW?
Hello Marcus Orentius,
I'm not sure about RTW, BI, Alexander or M2TW, played the old titles starting at STW much more.
It's not intuitive and maybe close to an exploit. But you could toggle the fire at will button for missileunits and they'll immediately fire (requires micromanagement and timing). You can't tell them what to fire, if you do that they'll start to reload (again).
What happens is that the unit is idle for some time (time required to reload ~30 seconds) and is pre-charged. When you toggle FAW, they aim and fire.
It would be nice if they improved the feature, just like the fire while moving (player can decide what is shot at while the unit moves or is pre-charged).
Originally posted by Marcus Orentius
Since when could you shoot when you wanted in RTW?
TosaInu answered the technicallity of that. As he says you keep the FAW button @off and at the appropriate time toggled it at on, then the selected unit(s) will fire at a range of your choosing a devastating volley.
I just wanted to add that this is very effective for massed archers (that can deal horrible casualties with concentrated fire into precious enemy units such as HC) and obvioulsy crossbows and guns; the latter can virtually rout anything on the spot most of the time.
Good sense of timing is needed to achieve results, however they are rewarding.
Apparently SP players are less tuned with that; in MP i've seen it used frequently and with skill.
RTW/BI/M2TW retained the FAW button and the player can still control/time his volleys if he wishes so.
Noir
Marcus Orentius
09-25-2007, 20:59
I'll try that when i get the chance, thanks.
Togakure
09-25-2007, 22:41
No more than two row deployment, skirmish off.
JP Vieira
09-25-2007, 22:42
naval campaigns...would love it
While your waiting for Shogun II, why not go retro and find and play a grreat ggame I have had on my hard drive for 15 years(!). It's a game called Sword of the Samurai and is your typical RPG/Strategy/Simulation game that Microprose came out with in the 90's - with Civilization being the best known one!
Sword of the Samurai has you playing a young Samurai with dreams of becoming Dyamo of Japan. It takes place over 300 years, so one of the things you have to do is get a wife and have sons - if you don't the game dies when you do! (Ring any bells?!) You have a large map you can travel over visiting other Samurai castles, meeting bandits for some real time pausable strategy and you have the diplomatic shenanigans that we all love in the TW series!
Of course, being a 15 year old game means you will get 256 VGA graphics and midi sounds, but the gameplay is superb and the tactical strategy engine was written by none other than Sid Meier!!
You'll probably find it cheap on ebay or even maybe on abandonware sites. Make a point to get the manual though, pdf or otherwise, as a) it's a good read, and b) it really helps with the nuances of the game!
redlunatic
11-12-2007, 13:32
I would honestly just like CA, SEGA SoldOut Software - anyone at this point to simply take note of all the glitches people have had with this game and fix it.
One patch - no more CTD, flickering then I am happy. As is - I have yet to play the game without glitches and CTD.
Also, they should add in one small faction - Tokugawa. My two cents though.
I would honestly just like CA, SEGA SoldOut Software - anyone at this point to simply take note of all the glitches people have had with this game and fix it.
One patch - no more CTD, flickering then I am happy. As is - I have yet to play the game without glitches and CTD.
Also, they should add in one small faction - Tokugawa. My two cents though.
I'll have to dig out my Shogun game and see how it runs on my PC, as I have upgraded twice since playing it! If it has glitches, it will because of our modern PC's and developers have rarely released a patch to deal with updated hardware! :)
I think the open-source/ development team path may be the way to go for STWII.
One of the developers from Mad Minute Games is doing something along these lines to create a multiplayer version of the Take Command series (the tactical game I'm playing instead of TW now).
Have a look a the website:
http://www.norbsoftware.com/Portal/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1
He's gathering useful modders and programmers and such to help him out and giving them a stake in the game. No deadlines at the moment.
It will be interesting to see how this pans out. Think of being able to change code for STWII as required.
I think the open-source/ development team path may be the way to go for STWII.
There is a definite market for such games for Linux also. Many Linux gamers don't al play FPS games out of choice, they do so because there's not really much else. SEGA/CA are never going to touch any market apart from Windows / DirectX / 10 years and up, because they are currently trying to hit the biggest markets and have ceased to innovate in gameplay terms so multi platform is out of the window start. We can only hope that some kind of TW open source clone project is started up (I would have called it "openWar" if that name had already not been taken by another project or something of that sort) - but it's unlikely.
Personally, I think Shogun is the best of the Total War series. I think they should do to Shogun what they did to Medieval. Make the game with some new features and better graphics.... I would buy it...
Just my opinion...
Exactly. But with out the Empire TW crap. Just Shogun upgraded to Med 2 TW level, without the whole online account crap. Just the good old, single player campaign and battles, and the old multiplayer options. Med 2 rocked! The formula was perfect, and they messed up by changing it for Empire TW. But Shogun was the best setting for TW, and they should honor the game that started it all!
Welcome to the .org dshodaw
Well this is an old thread. I suspect many have now given up on the notion of there ever being a Shogun II - I know I have. Though personally I don't really want a Shogun II as I know it would never be as good as the original.
:bow:
I'm sure they will do a Shogun II one day.
All I want is a gently massaged Shogun 1 - upgraded resolution and full compliance with modern operating systems.
Well this is an old thread. I suspect many have now given up on the notion of there ever being a Shogun II - I know I have. Though personally I don't really want a Shogun II as I know it would never be as good as the original.
:bow:
All I want is a gently massaged Shogun 1 - upgraded resolution and full compliance with modern operating systems.
Get the units properly balanced, eliminate fantasy/overpowered units (Geisha, Kensai, Battlefield Ninja, etc.), perhaps add a few more clans to the original seven, and *maybe* upgrade the visuals (if it's deemed absolutely necessary), and I'll be happy. Nothing else need be done IMHO. :bow:
Get the units properly balanced, eliminate fantasy/overpowered units (Geisha, Kensai, Battlefield Ninja, etc.), perhaps add a few more clans to the original seven, and *maybe* upgrade the visuals (if it's deemed absolutely necessary), and I'll be happy. Nothing else need be done IMHO. :bow:
Call me cynical, but I doubt very much that CA would ever do STW again. I also seriously do not believe that CA will ever do an asian based TW game of any kind again either. They are now fully aware that their current market is firmly routed in western European military history. Expect more Romans, Knights and Redcoats...
The closest you'll ever get is the Battles of Asia mod for RTW or the Ran no Jidai mod if it's ever finished. For now it's good old STW or the excellent Samurai Warlords mod for MTW.
:thumbsdown:
Oh, I have no illusions in that regard either; I long ago gave up any hope that CA would develop Shogun 2. I was merely stating what I'd personally like to see in this hypothetical sequel, regardless of the (im)possibility of it actually being made.
Truth be told, at this point, I honestly hope CA *never* does Shogun 2. Given the direction they've taken the series, I very much doubt we'd like the result anyway. Best to simply play the original when the mood strikes, and otherwise leave sleeping dogs lie. :sweatdrop:
Truth be told, at this point, I honestly hope CA *never* does Shogun 2. Given the direction they've taken the series, I very much doubt we'd like the result anyway. Best to simply play the original when the mood strikes, and otherwise leave sleeping dogs lie. :sweatdrop:
Agreed, on the same note, resurrecting MTW should have been a good move for the CA, but the end result was pretty shoddy (I've never seen a game so buggy and heavily patched either). The next game we have to look forward to is whatever is based on the current ETW incarnation of the TW game engine(s). They can't really come any further forward in time, so I assume they'll go backwards again? I'd place my bets on R2TW. Much more likely than any further sequels such as M3TW.
CA naturally seeks to satisfy the demand. They likely made M2TW because they felt they hadn't tapped the market completely after the first one, and with a new engine with RTW they must have felt they could drill even deeper into the reserves, as it were. I don't think we'll be seeing more of medieval Europe in a while, as the demand is more than sated for now. ETW is an attempt at reaching more audiences who might like the TW genre, and I shouldn't be surprised if their next attempt leans toward different cultures. A Chinese Total War game is, in my eyes, an inevitability if TW installments keep getting made. Perhaps something African, or Mesopotamian. I feel they will get around to Japan once more in the future, and they naturally will if they think there's a big enough market for it.
There is definitely room for improvement on STW - but not all that much, in my personal opinion. CA seem to throw in more and more micro-management for each game, though, which is a huge draw-back, in my eyes, for a game where the battles are the main selling point. In M2TW, each game year feels like it takes an actual year to finish; it's more tedious than anything. In STW, the pace on the campaign map felt just right, and the next battle was just right around the corner.
Another drawback with all the micro-management is that you get so caught up in that bit that you don't even want the battles anymore. It hasn't quite come to that point yet (for me, anyway), though M2 is the latest TW game I have and can't comment on Empire. But anyone who played X-COM knows what I'm talking about: at first you're thinking, "great, a ufo! Battle!" But after a while the research and base development become the interesting bits, and then it's "oh great, another ufo. Let's see if I can shoot it down over the ocean so I don't have to do the UFO assault."
If they do another Shogun, it should either be with a different focus (eg. strategy rather than tactics, but then it wouldn't be a TW game), or with different features (eg. a new way of imagining the tech tree, simplified campaign map etc.)
Oh, and get artists who can actually draw (as in on a piece of paper) swords. That kind of bugged me in STW, though the background illustrations did contribute a lot to atmosphere.
Good post Karl08. To which swords you refer to?
Sasaki Kojiro
11-06-2009, 20:42
I agree...the more they added to the strategy game the more it became an inferior EUII.
Medieval would have been great if it was the "The hundred years war". Rome if it was "rome vs carthage".
The game just doesn't work on a large scale--you aren't going to have "total war" for 400 years in which scotland takes over all of europe for some unknown reason.
Originally posted by Sasaki Kojiro
agree...the more they added to the strategy game the more it became an inferior EUII.
Medieval would have been great if it was the "The hundred years war". Rome if it was "rome vs carthage".
The game just doesn't work on a large scale--you aren't going to have "total war" for 400 years in which scotland takes over all of europe for some unknown reason.
Indeed, there were endless such scenarios in the medieval period (some of which were touched) The hundred year's war; The Reconquista; The Teutonic Wars; the Crusader Kingdom Wars; Byzantino-Turkish wars, SiculoNorman-Byzantine wars; Italian City States wars and much more such in antiquity.
The so-called Grand Campaigns are beyond historical plausibility, because they are indeed far from the scale set where the TotalWar model works best (that was designed around the campaign of Shogun by definition/necessity).
As Karl08 says tedium in the campaign map rose quickly as the series evolved, to the point that for ETW they had to simplify a lot in order to prevent the micromanaging details to be overwhelming since so much of the globe is included - on the other hand this feels wrong, because it ends up portraying France the same way Yamashiro was portrayed in STW.
CA simply scaled up or down the basic set-up of the STW campaign in order to make a game in a particular historical setting irrespective of how well this would feel and function. Its awkward at best and really bad for the gameplay.
Personally I think the franchise is too far gone to improve. A transition back to the risk style campaign map would be the first good move, though it would have fans of the new campaign map style up in arms...
To cut a long story short, it really doesn't matter to SEGA/CA what a few old time players think of the newer games. When a new TW title is a released, a whole new generation of potential customers has matured worldwide. At the end of the day magazine reviews and screenshots will do the selling.
Clearly SEGA/CA do not want hardcore gamers, they do not want MP and they certainly don't want modifications.
I quite honestly cannot ever see "S2TW" becoming a reality. The games have been clearly centred upon Europe since MTW with an emphasis on bigger maps and more units. S2TW would be a much smaller map and significantly less units.
Off topic posts have been split off to this thread. (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=123306).
:bow:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6dB9dF8RQ8
1:09 - 1:13
This is how I'd always seen the campaign map developing, aesthetically at least.
Nice, instead it developed into this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7CclVneVpw :laugh4:
Sasaki Kojiro
11-12-2009, 08:04
I really think the size of the map and the tech tree were the main problem with medieval. I started playing a campaign as the welsh in the viking campaign and it's working out very well. Without the giant map and the endless tech tree, the focus is on fighting and conquering.
Played about 45 turns (11 years shogun time). Just have the scots, picts, irish and vikings left (though they seem to have faded after I killed three of their heirs in one battle). One improvement over shogun is that I don't have a massively superior army yet (no monks or heavy cav type troops). Though that just might be because I don't know the tech tree :sweatdrop:
I really think the size of the map and the tech tree were the main problem with medieval. I started playing a campaign as the welsh in the viking campaign and it's working out very well. Without the giant map and the endless tech tree, the focus is on fighting and conquering.
Played about 45 turns (11 years shogun time). Just have the scots, picts, irish and vikings left (though they seem to have faded after I killed three of their heirs in one battle). One improvement over shogun is that I don't have a massively superior army yet (no monks or heavy cav type troops). Though that just might be because I don't know the tech tree :sweatdrop:
The Viking campaign is a better map with less redundant units, but the rosters are still very imbalanced and income is messed up due to the abbeys. The Vikings, Mercians, Northumbrians and Saxons get super vikings that can kill pretty much anything even when well outnumbered. Apart from that it's a good campaign and is well worth the effort modding - unlike the main campaign which isn't really worth it.
:bow:
Originally posted by Asai Nagamasa
The Vikings, Mercians, Northumbrians and Saxons get super vikings that can kill pretty much anything even when well outnumbered.
Yes, Saxons, Vikings and to a lesser extent the Mercians are too easy to play with due to the Huscarles they get. Way overpowered, especially the Viking ones as they act as Bodyguards and benefit from relative v'n'vs.
The Viking Invasion had more focus and was more balanced than the main game.
Certain game mechanics detract from the strategic purity of Shogun however, like the influence mechanic which is a killer for the AI. Often he attempts to conquer provinces however he retreats when he thinks that he cannot hold them; this in STW does not have any disadvantage, but do it enough times in MTW and it can land you with a civil war pretty easily. The AI does not seem to count the consequences of his actions in terms of influence.
Originally posted by Sasaki Kojiro
I really think the size of the map and the tech tree were the main problem with medieval.
I am not so sure about the size of teh map (it had about 30 more provinces - 1/3 approx. more - than STW iirc to accomodate more than double the factions in STW which sounds about right), but the tech tree was definitely a factor.
Basically all CA could do with that engine is to give out more buildings and dependencies between them as unlocking requirements, however the AI was not really fine-tuned in what buildings he needed to get the "useful" units of his roster.
At the same time he would spent fortunes on building up especially so for certain AI personalities (like Catholic_Trader that was assigned to the Italians predictably) neglecting to even build adequate garrisons in his provinces. The "complexity" served to give the impression of complexity to the player, and not to add depth to the game as CA was clearly indifferent as to how well the AI could use/cope with all these optons.
In this way he was acting basically as a piggy bank for the player who could benefit either by razing or by conquering and using his ex-build up provinces. Again the manual pillaging option acted as an AI exlpoit and one that CA was keen on, as it was even mentioned as a "strategy" in teh MTW manual.
In addition the long campaign and the weapon/armor/morale upgades forced CA to make late era units far more powerful than early era units, introducing redundancies because the early era units were not substituted, but left floating about as possible builds, and also making the playerVSAI stack composition difference even larger as teh AI was not really competent in getting the new units without tweaking/fine tuning with the rosters, the AI preferences and teh build requirements.
In that sense MTW is like an overweight cousin of STW - CA really stuffed the engine with a multitude of features to give "depth" in the campaign - however in reality all they added was complexity and little games within the game (that the AI can't cope with) that added value to the game for SP fans that liked a Civilazation type of SP game rather than an old school well thought out and strategically challenging board game which is what STW was.
CA made no effort to hide it as they often said that "players who dont want to play the battles can lpay the campaign only". This was the beginning of a long series of compromising moves and alteration of focus from an intense and dynamic conquest oriented game that had the battles at is core to an overbloated hybrid of TW and Civilisation that was won or lost on the campaign map.
The trend culminated with Rome that was almost a re-birth, and TW has never been the same since. Although they will call all this "broadening the appeal", "taking the next step", "improving across the board" etc in actuality what they did was sell-out in cold blood, as they moved where the (commercial) wind was blowing insted of forging a following by following their own rules, gameplay and aesthetically wise, that they had set with STW.
MTW has however a perfected battle engine, by 2.01 there was no (significant) bug left as far as i know, and all intended features are working as such.
Yes, Saxons, Vikings and to a lesser extent the Mercians are too easy to play with due to the Huscarles they get. Way overpowered, especially the Viking ones as they act as Bodyguards and benefit from relative v'n'vs.
The Mercians - in the sky blue? They are by far the easiest faction in the VI campaign. Stupendously easy in fact.
Certain game mechanics detract from the strategic purity of Shogun however, like the influence mechanic which is a killer for the AI. Often he attempts to conquer provinces however he retreats when he thinks that he cannot hold them; this in STW does not have any disadvantage, but do it enough times in MTW and it can land you with a civil war pretty easily. The AI does not seem to count the consequences of his actions in terms of influence.
The influence mechanic is what made me throw down MTW in disgust when I first bought it. The idea of fighting a battle winning a good tactical victory and then withdrawing but losing influence and the loyalty of generals for doing so is absurd. IMHO it was removed from RTW, because it would have been too difficult to get working correctly with the new campaign map design (many more non decisive battles being fought etc) and would have hit the AI hard.
I am not so sure about the size of teh map (it had about 30 more provinces - 1/3 approx. more - than STW iirc to accomodate more than double the factions in STW which sounds about right), but the tech tree was definitely a factor.
The pixel/province size of the map is not the issue, but more so the scale that the map seeks to represent. I don't see a problem with a bigger map and more provinces, the issue is when that map is a "world map" and those province become "countries".
The 1 year per turn is another game breaker - STW's 4 seasons per turn is the best model.
Personally I think, and though I know many will disagree, that it started to go wrong in the MI expansion. MI is enjoyable to play but some of the changes were unnecessary as were the "novelty" units such as Kensai and Battlefield Ninja... but it added many improvements also and removed a lot of annoyances. It seems to me though that MI gave us a small inlking of what was to come (retrospect is a fine thing).
If STW was re made on the latest generation TW engine it is my (very negative) feeling that due to deviation away from the original STW style campaign map and the MTW battles... well that it'd be a load of rubbish.
:thumbsdown:
-Edit: Another big exploit in MTW was the capturing of enemy troops thing. The AI could not execute on the battelfield so you were always offered your men back. The player on the other hand could choose to kill the AI's best captured units on the battlefield or ransom back all of his peasants etc, forcing him to pay for them and support them - thus not being able to train new ones. To make matters worse the AI cannot disband/destroy either. In a nutshell the features in MTW give the player new toys, but the AI is still playing the same game it was playing back in STW.
Orginally posted by Asai Nagamasa
The Mercians - in the sky blue? They are by far the easiest faction in the VI campaign. Stupendously easy in fact.
Easier than the Vikings? I'm glad i never gave them a try then. I based my assessment from their initial position that seems to be between the rock of the Saxons and the hard place of the Vikings, but then again, i can picture it; the Vikings raid the rebels in East Anglia and the Saxons are taken out in 10 turns = game over :2thumbsup:
I didn't confuse them with the Scotts (or was it the Picts) up north in their navy blue that are far more challenging, i meant them, the sky blue good old southern Mercians.
:bow:
The influence mechanic is what made me throw down MTW in disgust when I first bought it. The idea of fighting a battle winning a good tactical victory and then withdrawing but losing influence and the loyalty of generals for doing so is absurd. IMHO it was removed from RTW, because it would have been too difficult to get working correctly with the new campaign map design (many more non decisive battles being fought etc) and would have hit the AI hard.
Indeed. They actually re-introduced loaylty in BI (roman factions only), but i am absolutely certain that territories lost have no effect whatsoever on it.
The pixel/province size of the map is not the issue, but more so the scale that the map seeks to represent. I don't see a problem with a bigger map and more provinces, the issue is when that map is a "world map" and those province become "countries".
Agreed on the representation - its the wrong scale. However although implausible it doesnt hinder gameplay directly. Dont get me wrong, i dislike it too.
If STW was re made on the latest generation TW engine it is my (very negative) feeling that due to deviation away from the original STW style campaign map and the MTW battles... well that it'd be a load of rubbish.
I dont think that anyone who loves STW needs to worry - CA wont touch it again - they are most likely on to Rome2 as we speak which is the right commercial move.
Easier than the Vikings? I'm glad i never gave them a try then. I based my assessment from their initial position that seems to be between the rock of the Saxons and the hard place of the Vikings, but then again, i can picture it; the Vikings raid the rebels in East Anglia and the Saxons are taken out in 10 turns = game over :2thumbsup:
The Mercians are close enough to the Saxon as to place you in a position where you can a) curb their expansion and b) get to them before they start training huscarles. It's then simply a case of chewing your way north and crossing to ireland and you're done. The Vikings aren't really a threat if you get your navy up and running fast. With the richest lands on the map the Mercians have no trouble with this either.
I dont think that anyone who loves STW needs to worry - CA wont touch it again - they are most likely on to Rome2 as we speak which is the right commercial move.
Most likely.
:skull:
The thing amazed us in STW is the athmosphere.
Did you guys read the STW Html manual? ts not a game manual, its like a history book taking you to these ages. The guys created STW are knows everything about Sengoku Jidai age, made lots of researches, not as a job but as a fanatics.
I see the same spirit in MTW as well, but after RTW, things get changed, become professional which kills the spirit.
Only changing everyone's voices to English is a huge gap on TW spirit...
So there is a danger in creating S2TW, it would be like M2TW. I cant stand to see Samurai talking in English.
I seriously doubt it is ever going to happen, so don`t fret over it.
:bow:
G. Septimus
12-16-2009, 14:47
Well, I never played STW before, and maybe I never will. Cause my Likeness to the Samurai are gone, and Japan is too small to be a campaign. Japan is a Nation with unending Conflict. and has never had a unified Shogun (until the Meiji Restoration, where the emperor rules all)and when is there a Shogun, there is War
ReluctantSamurai
12-16-2009, 22:50
and Japan is too small to be a campaign.
Not sure what you mean by that.....compared to maps later in the TW series it may look like Japan's too small to conduct a campaign, but I welcome you to try it before passing such a verdict. I think you'll find that STW will give you all that you can handle and more............
Maybe I'll consider to bought it if it was relased, but I hope that Shogun will be modelled more like battle realms
I don't know if a new STW is the right thing to do. At the moment, I only have half a computer left which can actually play it, so mostly I rely on good memories from the game and the powerful Uesugi clan. Yet if they make a new one, it'll probably be in the same vein as RTW, MTW2 and ETW and that's just not my cup of tea (or sake). I just don't see that work, really.
This topic has age but I thought I'd add, for rome BOA (Battles of asia) received a campaign map from someone and they incorporated it with the mod, so its the japanese battles and campaign, pretty much shogun 2 in itself.
I really anticipated Ran no Jidai, but if they don't add a campaign map I can't see me downloading it.
The BOA mod is quite entertaining. I have it installed in my computer. I had lots of fun till it crashed. Probably random but I haven't tried it again. Though I prefer the campaign map of STW vs. BOA, perhaps just for the fond memories. The campaign map in BOA seems a little desolate, there is little going on outside of the cities. Old STW seemed to be alive with armies and field battles, not to mention sieges after a battle was won or lost.
The problem with the RTW engine is not just the poor battle AI, but also the attrocious campaign map AI and diplomacy. This also effects any mods or games based on RTW. The game consists mainly of either endless sieges or pointless field battles that have no real tactical value. In STW every battle was important as you were fighting for the province.
Personally I think that in order to be a success, a "Shogun 2" would have to be taken on by another developer that would be prepared to return to the risk style map of the earlier games.
:bow:
Kagemusha
04-28-2010, 18:18
To me the current totalwar engine is just not capable of challenging AI. If there would be a game that would combine the totalwar battle engine, with something aking to EU III strategic game.I would be in heaven. It is simple fact that ever since the strategy map turned into what RTW introduced.The AI has not been able to handle a coordinated attack or defence against the human player.
I agree. Too bad there isn't some way to 'tile' the current campaign map of TW games. So you don't move along those meandering lines but rather along certain tiles that could be countered by the player or ai similar to the provinces in STW and MTW. Just a vague and illinformed suggestion.
edit: Tiles being conducive to the map, ie. restricted by terrain. Impassible mountains, rivers, towns, forts, armies and other like obstacles. Perhaps even figure out a way to measure tile movement to allow for realistic army movments based on perhaps supplies, general or captain attributes and weather. These vague suggestions might make it more chess-like while maintaining the look and feel of the current, more expansive campaign maps.
To me the current totalwar engine is just not capable of challenging AI. If there would be a game that would combine the totalwar battle engine, with something aking to EU III strategic game.I would be in heaven. It is simple fact that ever since the strategy map turned into what RTW introduced.The AI has not been able to handle a coordinated attack or defence against the human player.
Precisely how it should have been, but CA went all "movement points". This was the worst decision as though in theory the map allows for unrestricted movement (well almost unrestricted if you count walking the giants along the roads as unrestricted), it introduces a whole new game that the AI cannot handle. With the risk map this was a whole layer of AI that the developer didn't actually have to worry about. in fact leaving the risk map in place and concentrating on the battles and diplomacy would have been a smarter move. Unfortunately CA went for what was essentially the "marketing approach".
I agree. Too bad there isn't some way to 'tile' the current campaign map of TW games. So you don't move along those meandering lines but rather along certain tiles that could be countered by the player or ai similar to the provinces in STW and MTW. Just a vague and illinformed suggestion.
I know what you mean, but in all honesty the AI still wouldn't be able to handle it. We've all seen those RTS basebuilding games, where the pixies are fighting the trolls? The trolls build away like mad, as do the pixies, until their infrastructure is in place, then they start training more trolls and better trolls with upgrades etc. Then once there are about 10 trolls standing around in the "muster area" in the troll base, the trolls all rush off to the pixie camp, kill the lot and raze it to the ground. It's a very simple AI, and unfortunately that's the sort of AI that is controlling army stacks (and ships) in RTW/M2TW. It builds an army and simply sends it off to besiege a nearby settlement. Same as the pixies and trolls - just turn based.
STW/MTW are different because an army stack makes one move (like chess) and a good balanced AI can make the most of that one move. It's simple enough for the AI to handle and the AI can decide there and then if it has a chance of taking province X instead of dumbly sending out hordes of fragmented armies on suicide missions that are easily isolated and picked off by the human player.
The only time I found RTW remotely challenging was when the campaign difficulty was ramped up and the AI mindlessly spams army stacks at you, non stop - but that's not the kind of "challenging" I like.
:bow:
Perhaps cities as the trigger to cause a province to go from one faction to another should be scrapped. I always did like the way in older TW's where the armies first met on the field and the loser would retreat to the nearest castle (or city?) to weather a siege and then the province was taken. The problem is that the AI doesn't know how to properly defend or attack. In the past it seemed to recognize in a bordering province, at least the size of the enemy army. It would then make its move and attack. On defense, it sometimes lacked, usually only mounting good defensive armies when in the beginning, with few provinces, in the end, with few provinces, or when it was quite large and generally only had one front to defend. It seemed not to dicern between wealthy valuable provinces and the poorer ones. Developing strange things in strange places even when it had the money. Though I ramble. As far as updating, perhaps provinces should be taken when armies are destroyed. Primarily on the field, and remnants can retreat to castles or such. If the army is taken on the field with no surviors, despite the city the province should be taken. Some rigid form of movement is necessary to allow the AI ease of movement. Paths must be in straigt lines no longer round about. The AI seems to think better in terms of mathematics versus philosophy. The reason for garrisons has always primarially to improve to a degree the chance of rebellion. Why does that army need to be in the city to accomplish this? The advanced diplomacy, build tree and the like should accomplish that. I think the AI need to forcebly be placed on the feild and stop hiding behind the walls. I am now at a loss, I'm not going to proof read this so I hope it makes some sense. Though ways to make new TW like the old is indeed an entertaining topic.
The reason for garrisons has always primarially to improve to a degree the chance of rebellion. Why does that army need to be in the city to accomplish this?
That's one of the fundamental flaws of the newer TW games. You can have a 1000 men traipsing around the province, but if they're not actually inside the walls of the settlement, the place can rebel and the enemy can walk into your lands unhindered and take up residence.
This, and may of the reasons above, is why I personally would not want to see an S2TW. CA will not go back to the risk map now as they would lose more sales by doing so. Most of the current consumerbase prefer the new map. I also don't think CA will do S2TW because it would be moving away from the "Europe and North American centric" setting of the latest games. There is also the fact that the map would be considered "too small" and factions too alike in terms of unit rosters, etc. (etc, etc, etc)
:bow:
I agree. The fact that STW is considered such a classic by many TW fans and the fact that many people haven't been as pleased by everything that followed MTW, especially the old-timers who have been playing since STW, STW2 would probably be very bad. Especially when compared to STW. Some would probably feel that they got a M2TW based in Japan. I've heared people talking about a far east TW that included Japan, China, Mongolia and Korea, but that, like you said, would move away from Europe, not to mention away from the gunpowder and naval battles that has been developing thru ETW to NTW (thru all the patches and onward). Hence, us purists can dream about STW2 but until some campaign map flaws and the poor way in which the AI reacts to them are somehow fixed and/or changed STW2 would probably be rather poorly received. That doesn't even touch upon all the complaints the battlefield AI has received. Though personally, I have never been too upset with that AI, though it does seem to get alittle confused from time to time. It can't seem to decide a strategy. It runs around seemeing planning a text book counter as the human player continually evolves it tactic to make the win. Hence, the AI runs around stupidly. My observation anyway, I tend not to be the best strategest either though.
ReluctantSamurai
05-07-2010, 15:52
I tend to think STWII will never be done, and perhaps, given recent trends, this is for the best. CA will want an era where they can use their naval AI, and feudal Japan/China doesn't have much to offer in that respect.
I rather like the RTW-style map, but I also understand the problems it creates for the AI. If one reads through some of the early playtesting done, a lot of the problems stem from pathfinding problems more than anything else. I also think that if the designers hadn't ignored one of the basic 'rules of engagement' for international diplomacy, some things could have been a little better. Imagine if any country in the world sends a military force traipsing through another country uninvited and that doesn't result in an ugly DOW? What were they thinking???
Much of the 'siege mentality' could have been avoided if some other basic 'rules of engagement' were observed. A minimum size force should have been required to siege a particular sized city....the larger the city, the larger the force required. And a port city will require it's port to be blockaded in order for the garrison to take losses. Otherwise a direct assault is required, as the garrison cannot be starved out.
I recall the first time I saw the Scipii siege Syracuse (a walled city) with a general, 2 Hastati, and 2 Velite, and take it by direct assault after 3 or 4 turns. Didn't anyone play-testing this find that just a bit too much bending of reality?
If a provinces resources had been put outside the city (like the farmlands), then a siege isn't necessary to cripple a province, and eventually the garrison will have to come and attempt to drive off the occupying army or continue to suffer the loss of resources.
As has been posted before, too much emphasis was placed on roads. Nearly all combat occurs on, or near roads which might be more true for modern warfare because of the need to supply large armies with ammo and fuel, but not for the live-off-the-land type of movement for that era.
One often overlooked change for the worse, IMHO, was the change to two seasons per calender year from four and the paying of taxes and income every turn instead of every year. Not only does this make the movement of armies highly unrealistic( for instance, it does not take 2-3 years to march an army from say, Mazaka to Pergamum), it allows for much too rapid building of infrastructure, as opposed to something more carefully planned if you get income once per year.
Anyways....I've rambled too long on a subject that is probably moot.......:embarassed:
I like and agree with all of your points, keep them coming if you have more! The game does move too quickly and the movement on the 3D maps tends to be unrealistic. More turns per year and building times depending on the complexity of building use and construction would definately be a plus. It seems that spaces between points on the map, mainly cities, are rather equal to one another despite distances perhaps represented in real life. Perhaps this is because the developers wanted a uniform map to fit the game and decreasing map distances make things more uniform and accessable. Perhaps fewer major cities or smaller less important cities are needed to conquer a region? In other words, conquer smaller cites in a large province where a large city is the focal point of conquering the province on the move to take said region. Not cities like in ETW and NTW where taking them only results in a financial hit, but rather strategic positions of both economic and military importance. Move times might seem shorter (or longer ?) but a more asymetical map might provide more realism to movement and region conquering. A different time scale would help development based on tax collection as well. Though I too ramble, hopfully this jumble of words makes some sense or provides some interest in which to read.
Kagemusha
05-07-2010, 23:40
I like and agree with all of your points, keep them coming if you have more! The game does move too quickly and the movement on the 3D maps tends to be unrealistic. More turns per year and building times depending on the complexity of building use and construction would definately be a plus. It seems that spaces between points on the map, mainly cities, are rather equal to one another despite distances perhaps represented in real life. Perhaps this is because the developers wanted a uniform map to fit the game and decreasing map distances make things more uniform and accessable. Perhaps fewer major cities or smaller less important cities are needed to conquer a region? In other words, conquer smaller cites in a large province where a large city is the focal point of conquering the province on the move to take said region. Not cities like in ETW and NTW where taking them only results in a financial hit, but rather strategic positions of both economic and military importance. Move times might seem shorter (or longer ?) but a more asymetical map might provide more realism to movement and region conquering. A different time scale would help development based on tax collection as well. Though I too ramble, hopfully this jumble of words makes some sense or provides some interest in which to read.
There is potential for such map in Sengoku period Japan. The provinces of STW in reality were made of sometimes more then 20 or so districts, which each usually consisted of atleast one or more Yamashiro´s. Ofcourse there were also provinces with only two or three districts.So a huge map could be done of feodal Japan if there would be an interest.
That would be great as long as the AI didn't camp in the cities and rather moved around with field armies for aggressive expansion like in STW. I enjoyed M2TW but the late campaign was full of auto resolves because I got tired of sieging citadels with full stack garrisons after awhile. It would be a shame if the magic of original STW fell to this low standard.
ReluctantSamurai
05-08-2010, 21:49
I like and agree with all of your points, keep them coming if you have more!
I have plenty of ideas for RTW, none of which actually matter, both because I lack the programming skills, and because some would require the game code.
They may not bear fruit but still provide for stimulating conversation!
ReluctantSamurai
05-20-2010, 19:26
Alright, to perhaps generate a little bit of discussion, I’ll put out a few of my ideas. And so as not to raise the eyebrows of the mods, my ideas will address a 3D-style map like RTW/M2TW as it might pertain to a Shogun II, rather than how it is handled in those games….so bear with. Also, some of these might have been implemented since RTW....I haven't played anything past that. M2TW was on my HD for about a week before I got rid of it. Won't buy ETW or NTW, but that's a whole different story.............
First order of business would be to restore the seasonal turns. This has the effect of making unit movement across the map more realistic. I would also restore the original concept of income from farming and taxes coming only at harvest time, but other commodities can present income during other seasons, as will be explained.
Next would be to observe some basic rules of engagement that were totally ignored in RTW and M2TW.
1. Any faction, player or AI, that moves an army into another, non-allied, faction’s territory, is immediately at war with that faction. In addition, the offending army must come to a stop and can then continue its’ movement next turn. This means no short-cuts or aimless wandering, and applies to armies that are forced to retreat from combat.
2. Any defending army that is attacked by an army with more mobility (and the AI is already keeping track of this in it’s movement calculations for units) cannot retreat and must fight. This puts a stop to those foolish scenes of a rebel army continually backing up two steps and forcing the AI-led army to keep attacking them ad-nausea. The exception might be where terrain such as forest, for instance, favors disengagement. In that case, a dice roll is made to see if the defenders can retreat.
3. All units, naval or land, must observe enemy or neutral Zones of Control. Any retreating unit that cannot avoid ZOC or obstacles like impassable mountains or rivers, is destroyed.
Provinces and Cities
1. Provincial resources are kept outside the city, so that an invading army can deprive a faction of those resources without having to besiege a city. For every turn an invading army occupies, there is a 16.5% loss of income from those resources. After 6 turns, the occupied province no longer provides those resources to its owner. The occupying army must be driven off to regain control of those resources again. Note that the resources are not reallocated to the invading faction, they are just rendered unavailable to the original owner. This type of system might go a long ways towards eliminating many of the annoying sieges that have occurred before because it isn’t necessary to take a provincial city to damage an opponent, and eventually the city garrison will have to come out and fight to regain the resources.
2. Certain sized cities require a minimum sized army to besiege. Small towns might require smaller forces than, say, a huge, walled city which might require 20 units or more to besiege. Any city with a port, must be taken by assault if the port is not blockaded, as the defending garrison cannot be starved out and they do not suffer attrition.
Traits
This is one pain in the butt, AFAIAK, for RTW, etc. For god’s sake how many gay, axe-bitten, abstemtious, hooting drunkards, with falling sickness, who are hiding from the world while they partake in their ‘flutters’, can a player have? Honestly, how many traits could you say defines a person? Surely not the extensive list of lecherous, corrupt, downright miserly bunch of crap laid out for us in these games. If I had to devise as system it might look something like this:
1. Upon coming of age, a family member will have 3-4 traits, depending on faction and heritage. A ‘type A’ or ‘type B’ personality that goes towards determining whether that member is more inclined to field generalship or city government. A player can certainly make whatever they will with a family member, but the initial inclinations will be easier to work with. Religious inclinations (or anti-) usually has a major influence in teens, as does attitude toward money and wealth. Are they more likely to blow their money on ‘wine, women, and song’ or save for future prospects? Attitudes towards women would also be a trait that often defines a teen. Will they make a good husband and more likely to settle and raise a family, or just the playboy type?
2. Other traits will be picked up, with time, and whether they be good/bad/neutral depends on the success’s or failure’s of that individual, up to a maximum of 8 traits.
3. Ancillaries should be able to be discarded, rather than have unwanted ones foisted upon the player. Nothing worse than having a city governor all set up to control and manage a high-growth populace only to have ‘Grain Merchant’ , “Overseer’ or even worse, both of those, forced into empty ancillary slots.
Open Market
Borrowing an idea from Paradox’s Hearts of Iron, and several other such games, trading between partners is done at an open market. Each year as grain, textiles, timber, ore, and other commodities are brought in, the player goes to a trading screen with trading partners to negotiate prices and set deliveries. The faction leader does the negotiation, so high influence is a must.
1. Roadbuilding and city walls require a great deal of stone, so quarries are important. Population growth will require grain for food, textiles for clothing, and wood and stone for housing, making farms, sheep herding, lumber, and stone necessary. Iron is necessary for creating weapons and making better armor, making iron mines critical for black-smithing. Ship-building will require timber for hulls and masts, and textile for sails.
2. Non-essential items like wines, glass, dyes, etc, can become more important as societies gain affluence.
3. Any province lacking particular resources can trade for them with trading partners, either overland, or port-to-port. Port-to-port trading will require both factions to have at least one fleet in existence.
4. An ally can be contracted to build paved roads or stone walls, if they have that capability, at an agreed upon price.
All these types of things might go a long ways to stop the spamming of useless or insidious fleets, for instance. Each fleet unit costs x-number of timber and y-number of textile to build. If you don’t have it, and can’t afford to trade for it, you, or an AI faction, goes without. Makes for more realistic development, and perhaps more fun, than the tedious bore that it currently is.
Get rid of those ersatz spies…..errrr…. I mean diplomats, and have a diplomacy screen like ETW. Of course if you like having enough sheets to outfit an entire fleet hanging around your capital……be my guest…..:laugh4:
Have an algorithm that determines what units an AI-led faction produces. Say a survey of how many cities (and of what size) a faction owns, how many ports are in existence, etc. Something to help prevent those idiotic situations where a faction is losing city after city for lack of ground forces, yet they continue to churn out one useless new fleet after another while their cities are defenseless.
Anyways…..a long ramble on a topic I’ve thought a lot about. Hope it’s non-specific enough to please the mods, and has something in it for discussion.:book:
Great ideas. Your rules of engagement have seem to have been met in ETW as far as I know but I haven't played NTW yet, I assume it's the same. Number 3 however, I don't beleive has. The AI has only retreated from a battle I initiated when he lost said battle and what was left of his army made its way to a safer place. I think it would often meander around unpassable object to a safe spot (often behind my lines into my lightly defended interior much to my dismay!).
Number 1 in provinces and cities is great. In ETW you can attack fiscal nodes and the like in his provice while he camps in the city, but they can just be repaired quite inexpensively while you move on to the next one. What they make him must be quite nill because he seldom sallies to remove you if you sit in one too long (so what's the point of staying there?). He does at times sally to rescue a school though. A 'degredation of control' meter might be nice, ie. hold the contryside and its infrastructure for awhile and take the provice and mabey the city without fighting? Mabey, that's dumb, but just something to mobilize the AI garrison. He would probably be quite content to lose all his money as long as the city was secure.
Number 2 could also vary turns until the city falls depending on army size as well. I don't quite understand what you mean by ports though.
Traits are good. ETW has toned down the number of traits per character as far as I know. I do agree that in RTW and M2TW there were way too many. They were also repetitive and sometimes contradictory as well. Why do all my assassins have 'catimites' following them around?
Open market sounds like a great idea. I love micromanagement and another screen to adjust the detail of the economy would be great. Diplomatic devices and the like being all that controls your economy seem to be a little bland. More micromanagement could possible provide a means in which to make more (or less) based on diplomatic deals and resorces than just a flat rate as controlled by the AI. Perhaps random events could affect finances much like they do in todays fiscal situations.
Number 1 is great. Make resorces more important (strategically and economically) such as to build and expand your empire. Though you might have to watch out for certain factions that don't like you hording materials you may need (like princesses in MTW). Though these resources might make good bartering material and good reasons to go to war. Resouces (in some situations) should be exhaustible.
Number 2, as a city grows more powerful so does some of its citizens become more wealthy making these commodities more valuable and desireable
Number 3, more micromanagement! Specifically tading with someone for items they need would seem to be more profitable than trading them for some items that they do not. Certain factions should be willing or unwilling depending on what the case may be to pay more for certain items. Especially if the populace his a high demand for them, or it is needed like a province that has no good stone and needs to build a wall.
Number 4, great idea! Nice specific way to help out an ally who is poor when he needs to defend himself from an aggressive mutual enemy. Or, overcharge an enemy, bankrupt someone you want to attack, etc. The possiblities of financial warfare are endless with this one.
AI definately need to learn to priorotize and become more efficiently aggressive. He also has to become more devious other than the attack an ally because you share a border routine. He should know how to combine all these methods, military, economic, naval, black arts methods by which to achieve victory conditions even if some would think it ahistorical. The game is TW, the meat and potatos is the combat.
I've always like the TW series. The battles in STW were great, but the diplomacy etc. was lacking. They have been attempting to solve these issues with more micromanagement and the like, better diplomacy, 3D map etc. Though some might complain that with the tediously slow and unimpressive improvement of these issues the battles have slowly started to pale when compared to STW. They should look back at what has worked in the past and stop trying to improve things that don't need it, or add things that are unneccesary or unready for release. A nice meld with these strategy games that lack 3D battles and the flavor of STW combat would make a perfect additon to the TW series in my opinion.
ReluctantSamurai
05-21-2010, 01:59
Your rules of engagement have seem to have been met in ETW as far as I know
As I said, I haven't, and won't play anything past RTW unless a better product is produced. As to ZOC, that's been a feature of nearly every wargame I've played since pushing markers around on an Avalon Hill board game.
He would probably be quite content to lose all his money as long as the city was secure.
Loss of provincial income could be tied to unrest. The more income a province loses to an occupying army, the more likely they are to rebel. If the garrison won't go out to fight voluntarily, the people will throw them out to do it.
I don't quite understand what you mean by ports though.
A garrison under siege in a port city takes no losses due to the siege unless the port is blockaded. There was a famous siege by Alexander the Great of the Persian city of Miletus on the Anatolian coast where much of the struggle consisted of Alexander trying to prevent supplies reaching the city by sea from arriving. That's the sort of thing I was referring to.
Perhaps random events could affect finances much like they do in today's fiscal situations.
Excellent idea. Not only poor harvests, but floods, earthquakes, plagues, and the like can affect local prices. Also the presence of rebel or brigand armies can affect the price for local commodities, not just the amount that gets delivered.
Nice specific way to help out an ally who is poor when he needs to defend himself from an aggressive mutual enemy. Or, overcharge an enemy, bankrupt someone you want to attack, etc. The possiblities of financial warfare are endless with this one.
People tend to forget that the major reason for the Japanese to go to war with the US in 1941 was the oil and scrap iron embargo along with the freezing of Japanese financial assets in June of that same year by FDR. And think of all the other examples down through history where financial warfare was just as viable as sending in the troops....
Anyway, I figured a few of those ideas might have come about since RTW, so that's good to hear.
I've never really tried the Civilization series, I'd miss the 3D battles of the TW series. That's what got me to but STW way back when in the first place. I saw it in one of those large warehouse stores once, (opted for Delta Force FPS over STW the week before :P), but I bought it, and my first siege was amazing. Watching my first wave of WMs suffer arrow casualties as the approached the gate, I was hooked from then on forward. The Diplomacy since M2TW has been greatly improved. Despite it's flaws, I spent many an entertaining hour managing my empire in ETW. We shouldn't count out CA just yet, I do believe they are making a concious effort to improve the game based on customer request (mods, steam, 'crappy' Battlefield AI :( ) . If they could take a few tips from Civ (without infringing) and perhaps simplify the battles more along the lines of STW, I think the next title might be something others are more satisfied with. Perhaps even you reluctant one :). I'm not trying to be a 'fan boy', but always was realatively satisfied with my purchase, and will probably invest in the next title. It's all about going back to the basics, improving where necessary and not reaching beyond what the game is capeable of. Some philisopichal mathematical coding would also be nice if their team of programmers were up to the task too! :D
ReluctantSamurai
05-25-2010, 16:36
Perhaps even you reluctant one :)
Probably not going to happen. M2TW is too much like RTW...some things better, some worse, but still the same stupid, passive AI. Too many bugs, even after 6 patches, with ETW, and, while I don't have a slouch for a gaming computer, I probably can't crank up all the video settings to max and take advantage of all the eye candy. And besides, I've just never had much interest in the military history of the era's ETW & NTW cover.
It's all about going back to the basics, improving where necessary and not reaching beyond what the game is capeable of.
Sadly, that's the part that makes me wish that they never do a Shogun II, because they will never figure out how to produce an AI that can handle the complexities of the newer maps. I know 'never' is probably too harsh but I figure that after nearly a half dozen tries at it since MTW (including all the expansions) they still haven't done it, judging by the comments I've read in the Parliment & NTW forums......
some things better, some worse, but still the same stupid, passive AI
The AI is a mathematical alogarithm, such formula can be tinkered with and improved over time. I am just not one of those who knows how to do it. But I have faith that it is possible.
while I don't have a slouch for a gaming computer, I probably can't crank up all the video settings to max and take advantage of all the eye candy.
The game is still quite beautiful at lower settings. The grass for example, is completely unnecessary.
And besides, I've just never had much interest in the military history of the era's ETW & NTW cover.
Understandable. I was never a fan of this age either. Naval battles provide some fun though. You can always just engage in melee as well. I'm not trying to sell you on the game or anything, as these two titles are now in the past.
You'll have to read up on the new title what ever that is and whenever it is to be released. I'm hoping it is an improvement. Though I've liked everything after RTW, excluding expansions and the fact that I don't own NTW. Oh well, reluctant one, I do agree with you that it would be a mighty tall order to improve upon the beauty and charm of STW and MTW.
ReluctantSamurai
05-25-2010, 22:29
The AI is a mathematical alogarithm
And so much more. It has to decide on a plan and then attempt to carry it out. In STW, with the Risk-style of map, things were relatively easy. There's X amount of money to raise troops, and Oda over there is looking pretty weak so that's where to send the troops. In the newer style of map, there are just too many things going on for the AI to cope. After watching the last dozen or so campaigns in RTW with FOW off, I'd say that at least 50% of the AI's moves are pointless.
I had a bunch of screenies to illustrate, but I somehow deleted them:dizzy2: Some were quite funny. First there's the "Outhouse Syndrome." A general comes out of a city, walks to his favorite 'watering hole', shakes one leg, then the other, zips it up, and heads back to the city. Brutii generals don't even have the decency to water their own countryside but go up the coast into Julii territory. Britannia's generals have the "Whorehouse Syndrome." Deva must have quite the bordello as every single one of Britannia's generals make their way there, multiple times. Then there's the "What the @#$% are we doing here? Syndrome." A few small stacks of a factions army get loaded on a boat and dumped on a foreign shore where they proceed to stand around for 50 years or more doing nothing. The most extreme case I ever saw was the Macedonians dumping off TWO generals and two half stacks near Nicomedia where they stood around for over 30 years (that's 60 turns, mind you). When Cyrene went Macendonian after throwing out an attempted occupation by the Egyptians, those stacks with the, by now old generals, headed for there.....by land. Walked all the way through Asia Minor, the Middle East, and the Nile Delta. By the time they hit Siwa, the Egyptians has already retaken it so they stood around Siwa for another 20 years. Meanwhile, Macedonia got overrun and the faction destroyed....those stacks went rebel and were promptly wiped out by the Eggies. Absolutely brilliant!!
Then there's the "HQ Orders Syndrome." A stack will head off on some kind of mission, only to turn back after a turn or two and end up right where they started. Naval units are notorious for this. They will sail right past an enemy faction fleet going to who knows where, and sail right back past them.....again.....without attacking, even if they outnumber the enemy more than 10 to 1. This just would not happen in STW. The AI goes for your throat even if it is constantly losing battles. You just know that if you beat off the first attack, the next one's going to be bigger, and the next one even bigger. It's relentless, like the Terminator, and won't ever stop until you kill it. And even then it can come back with the reappearance of a dead clan:laugh4:
I have others, but without the screenies, they just aren't as funny. One I will mention is the "Three Stooges Syndrome." This afflicts Seleucia. They always create three diplomats at the beginning of a campaign and the only thing they do is walk the road between Hatra and Damascus (until the Eggies take it) changing places with each other. There's always three of them, hence the name. But at least it's better than the lazy ass the Spanish hire, at the start. All he does is pace back and forth on the east side of Asturica........until he dies:no:
And if anybody's generals deserve the "Hiding From the World" trait, it's Carthage's generals. They spend more time sailing aimlessly around in fleets, or parked offshore from Carthage, it's a minor miracle when one of them, other than Hanno, gets to have more than one command star, or any, for that matter.
With STW, there is always the possibility of losing. With RTW and later, the outcome is not much in doubt although I'm well aware of the "Black Knight Syndrome" in ETW where the AI just has every country left DoW you when you start to dominate. Doesn't sound like much fun.......:embarassed:
My whole point is that the map presents choices probably numbering in the millions for an AI, on what to do, what units to move and where, what buildings to build, how high to set taxes, and a host of others. But it can be done.....I'm just not sure CA is the company to do it.
I play a WWII-based game called "The Operational Art of War" put out by Talonsoft. It's a collection of various battles and campaigns from WWII and the Korean War. Several of the campaigns are simply monumental, with thousands of units to maneuver on a map. It's not a 3D map, but just as complex, nonetheless....rivers, bridges, RR's, cities, farmland, roads of various kinds, and an extremely complex battle system. The Barbarossa campaign, for instance, the German invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941, is probably the biggest of the big. Over 1500 individual units, not counting reinforcements, on a map that spans from Poland to the Urals. And those 1500 units can be broken down into smaller units so that you literally have thousands of units on the map. Yet......
...at the higher difficulty settings, the AI will constantly kick your ass until you learn to play better. So it can be done....but I don't believe by CA. Just my 2cents, of course.
I agree with you the AI tends to wander about blindly with no real purpose at hand most of the time. I never really got into RTW but still play M2TW, and alot of the things you mentioned persist. The AI seems to take a few cities than stall, make alliances etc. Even if a war breaks out between two rival AI factions, there always seems to be a message a few turns later that there is a ceasefire. I've seen large stacks that could easily take a city and either sit around and do nothing, or siege, then call it off for no apparent reason. :/ My cities are occasionally attacked and I've put up good defenses, but the AI was never one to conduct a seige well. M2TW and I am sure RTW must be similar, is more an offensive game as played by the human. The AI will mostly mount defense as the player expands (occasionally not very good defenses), but little else. As you said in STW and MTW the AI could conduct both quite entertainingly, perhaps due to the simplicity of the strat map. I don't know why an AI that merely has to travel some distance inside than outside a province to take a city is so much harder to implement than moving from one province to another without the meandering track line. Perhaps the problem is due to the improved diplomacy model, where AI factions are more content to conduct trade in neutral or allied status. Isn't this what TW players have been asking for since STW? Improved diplomacy? Realistic countries never opted for global conquest and all out war. Save Rome, samurai clans, mogols, timurids, etc. Though even in M2TW, the horde factions will take a few cites than sit around doing nothing. At least in my experience. Great wiping out mongol stack after stack in a castle defense though. In ETW I did'nt find things too bad. On normal difficulty diplomacy wasn't to far fetched, AI factions would attack others and expand alittle (though some thought this was scripted). DoWs weren't too common in my game, I think this problem has to do with difficulty level. But I digress. I don't know what CA did with the old STW documents that were the guts of that game, but perhaps they should reference them and update them rather than starting from scratch every time and the future titles will be more reminicent of the classics. All very easy in theroy however.
Looks like this could become reality (post #17 onwards): https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?128244-Next-Total-War-game-to-be-revealed-at-E3-will-NOT-focus-on-gunpowder-era%28s%29
I read that. It would be interesting to see if the game was more like M2TW vs STW. Bland campaign map, endless seiges, confused and scizhophrenic AI. I am excited yet concerned, for the original was so pleasing. I don't mind steam, I am wondering why some don't. Oh well, probably be some time before it is released anyway, it's still early.
I read that. It would be interesting to see if the game was more like M2TW vs STW. Bland campaign map, endless seiges, confused and scizhophrenic AI. I am excited yet concerned, for the original was so pleasing.
It will probably make use of the gunpowder mechanics from ETW/NTW. I am half expecting a sort of Japanese "pike and musket" with none of the balance, tactical gameplay and atmosphere of the original. The focus will probably be on the visuals (as ever) while the gameplay and physics will be of the usual generic lifelessness.
CA started out with a Sengoku Jidai engine, which was adapted for MTW. It did not work as well for MTW (AI limitations). Rome was the beginning of the "one size fits all" engine of today. That engine is tarted up and given a new suit of clothes and what was Rome becomes, Medieval, then a botox and facelift and Empire becomes Napoleon becomes Shogun, etc...
I just hope (again) that this is the game to revive the genre.
I don't mind steam, I am wondering why some don't. Oh well, probably be some time before it is released anyway, it's still early.
One man's meat is another's poison.
:bow:
I just hope (again) that this is the game to revive the genre.
You never know. The new engine (if new) might be more adaptable to factions that are similar (culture, end goals, unit roster) than starkly different ones of latter titles. The expansive diplomacy models of ETW and NTW would also be interesting in S2TW, however we don't want dormant, docile AI clans.
You never know. The new engine (if new) might be more adaptable to factions that are similar (culture, end goals, unit roster) than starkly different ones of latter titles. The expansive diplomacy models of ETW and NTW would also be interesting in S2TW, however we don't want dormant, docile AI clans.
I suspect that the game will use the same engines as ETW/NTW? I haven't played either, but as far as I know the ETW/NTW battle engine is much the same as the M2TW one, with some extra bling. The campaign map is much the same as well but smoother and less tiled looking - to cut a long story short they're not "new engines" as such but improvements to RTW with lots of add on bits. The only really "new" part is the naval battles.
It is true that factions with very similar or identical rosters will be more easily managed by the AI to give a more balanced game. The NTW diplomacy, I'm also not familiar with, but from what I've read it's still not as good as it should be.
The NTW diplomacy, I'm also not familiar with, but from what I've read it's still not as good as it should be.
Time makes space for improvement. ETW and NTW faiing was the gunpowder tactics vs. the melee of older titles. A return to melee and a limited scope I think will be a good thing.
Time makes space for improvement. ETW and NTW faiing was the gunpowder tactics vs. the melee of older titles. A return to melee and a limited scope I think will be a good thing.
Indeed but they've had since RTW to sort out the diplomacy issues. They released the same broken diplomatic model in M2TW and then, after half admitting that diplomacy had been broken all along, claimed that it would all be fixed in ETW - from the screenshots and write ups I've seen of ETW, it clearly wasn't fixed and still isn't.
:bow:
ETWs isn't as bad (in my opinion) as many say. The problem lies in difficuly level. They want a tough strat and battle experince, but the coding also makes diplomacy more difficult as well. I don't know why they are connected, but my diplomacy/economy has always thrived on normal. This, in my opinion, seems to be the root of the problem.
Reality quite possibly soon.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/sega-planning-e3-shogun-2-reveal
:P
From Kotaku
http://kotaku.com/5549952/total-war-ditches-gunpowder-returns-to-japan
sassbarman
05-28-2010, 19:13
god i hope this is all true and that they do it justice.
It all hangs on the AIs (Diplomatic, Campaign, and Battle), but the style will also be truely important. The quality of the AI will determine how good of a game it is, but the style will play a huge role in determining how good a update it is to the original. The style of Shogun was not present in any subsequent title. The simple map (no 3D trees swaying, streams running, risk-style), the simple pieces, the music, the throne room, the mini movie clips for agent actions... Shogun was simple, and beautiful in its simplicity. It felt like how I imagine Japanese of that period would have designed it (if they had had the tech of course). That made it very special. CA had better be careful with this one.
sassbarman
05-29-2010, 19:38
well put servius
CA had better be careful with this one.
I have to agree with this one. STW, the game that it was and still is, was so brilliant and paved the way for a following of its successors. To tinker with STW is a bold move indeed, should it fail and be compared to RTW and everyting after, I shudder at the thought...
ReluctantSamurai
05-30-2010, 15:17
In the end, if CA doesn't do something to simplify the campaign map, or conversely, produce a better AI, then we will be presented with yet another disappointment. I'm not holding my breath...............................
edyzmedieval
06-02-2010, 01:51
I fear for this. It sounds like an incredible idea, but I'm almost 100% certain they will screw it up and make us cringe at the new interpretation of this amazing game.
2011, I'm looking forward. I am extremely curious about Shogun 2 after a couple of years of damn gunpowder.
edyzmedieval
06-02-2010, 21:26
Confirmed.
http://pc.ign.com/articles/109/1093664p1.html
Good news for us all then. ~:)
Terazawa
06-02-2010, 22:10
Now THAT it is some nice news =)
Been dreaming about a STW remake for 10 years.
Kagemusha
06-02-2010, 22:43
Finally.
edyzmedieval
06-02-2010, 22:59
This is definitely the TW game I will be waiting for.
sassbarman
06-03-2010, 00:50
When you consider everything, I think it's simply the best setting for a totalwar game, I can hardly wait!!!
AggonyDuck
06-03-2010, 01:35
Yup, I just hope the CA of today can do the first one justice.
Gregoshi
06-03-2010, 05:52
I'm very happy about this and am very encouraged by what was said in the article.
I'm not so hopeful... As ever there is much talk about visuals and sound effects, plus the mention of "hero characters" (expanding on the kensai of STW...). I had to laugh at the bit about recording the footstep sounds using authentic period footwear on different types of terrain. To me it's just typical CA - masses of time and budget spent on trimmings and useless aspects of the game, very little time spent on AI, gameplay and bug fixes.
:dizzy2:
Yup, I just hope the CA of today can do the first one justice.
They can help by giving us the online community chat we had in previous games but absent from Empire. Kinda kills MP for me.
edyzmedieval
06-03-2010, 10:35
I'm not so hopeful... As ever there is much talk about visuals and sound effects, plus the mention of "hero characters" (expanding on the kensai of STW...). I had to laugh at the bit about recording the footstep sounds using authentic period footwear on different types of terrain. To me it's just typical CA - masses of time and budget spent on trimmings and useless aspects of the game, very little time spent on AI, gameplay and bug fixes.
:dizzy2:
Right on the money.
But I still keep my hopes up. This is the last TW for me if they screw it up.
Tomisama
06-03-2010, 12:23
It is TRUE!!!
Shogun 2
http://shoguntotalwar.yuku.com/topic/71673
http://pc.ign.com/articles/109/1093664p1.html
gaelic cowboy
06-03-2010, 13:39
I just died an got reincarnated :wings:
Gregoshi
06-03-2010, 14:31
I have to admit I'm not that crazy about the hero units unless they do it just right - like giving morale/attack bonuses to nearby units (or something like that) rather than a one man killing machine. However, I liked the emphasis on simplification (might help the AI), immersion/atmosphere, the return of seasons(!!!), the return of Sun Tzu, etc. Lots of on battlefield units (56,000??!), sounds, graphics/art are all fine, but there has to be a good game to go along with it or it is nothing more than an interactive screen saver. I guess we'll have to stay tuned for more details.
I have to bang my head against the wall when reading some of the reactions to the announcement at the official forums in the link provided by Tomisama. I can understand not being thrilled about Japan (I've been there but the greatness of the game overrode that), but those that simply say "it's too small" I don't get. Conquering the whole map is the whole map regardless of the "size". "Too few units"? How many do you REALLY use when you play those TW games with hundreds? Oh well, that's their problem.
I'm excited and optimistic for the present.
I have to bang my head against the wall when reading some of the reactions to the announcement at the official forums in the link provided by Tomisama. I can understand not being thrilled about Japan (I've been there but the greatness of the game overrode that), but those that simply say "it's too small" I don't get. Conquering the whole map is the whole map regardless of the "size". "Too few units"? How many do you REALLY use when you play those TW games with hundreds? Oh well, that's their problem.
I've never understood such people either. Having a crapload of units and a huge map does not make it a good game - it's impossible to tell some people this though. When I bought Shogun back in 2000, I knew nothing about, and had 0 interest in, Japan, it's history or any kind of medieval/ancient warfare let alone Sengoku Jidai. I think that basically the type of player has changed over the years and many of these people want historical accuracy, a large number of factions and units over the tactical gameplay of the first two games.
It goes without saying that a lot of forumites here at the .org as well as over at the .commie and TWC were waiting for and expecting Rome2 (I was expecting Rome2 myself), so this is probably a big disappointment for them.
Fewer units made it the game it was, the multiplayer was more tactical in Shogun than it has been in any of the eras since (medieval 1 was close though), you knew the units better so more tactics had to be used to win games, I play Napoleon online from timeto time and its ok, but its generally just a turkey shoot with a few flanking attempts and skirmishers takeouts, I can recall so many different army types when playing Shogun you never knew really what you would face, people swapped alot.
The horses were very fast also so you had to be aware at all times.
A lot of the people moaning havnt even played the first game, lets just hope they can recreate and improve pon the first one, I hope the heroes arnt like those from warcraft 3 and please let there be online chat.
I hope the heroes arnt like those from warcraft 3
I never played warcraft, but I always liked the idea of Kensai. Production was a pain and perhaps unrealistic, but the idea of having them develop similar to the legendary swordsman event in the original STW is interesting. Hopefully the unit will have vulnerabilities; fatigue hampering combat effectivness, vulverable to arrow fire (not like diaymo units in STW, but more along the lines of an individual ND or the like), and perhaps even morale when overwhelmed or when his army has all but been defeated. Might add to traits and upgrades, etc. I think the hero unit sounds interesting, as long as they are kept human and don't become one man army reducing killing machines!
A lot of the people moaning havnt even played the first game
Probably a generalisation but there is some truth in it.
Many, though not all, of those complaining are interested in classical or gunpowder era, mainly European, history - in a nutshell the gameplay could be like RTW vanilla for some people and they wouldn't care so long as there were thousands of units, a huge map and about 30 factions all with anally historically accurate graphics and naming.
:2cents:
TBH I'm just uber excited its returning can't wait to roll out the Horse Archers and Warrior Monks again, that and it gives Swoosh a chance to be able to say she beat me at Shogun online :P
Let's just hope CA do a good job.
:bow:
Terazawa
06-03-2010, 16:40
Like Sp00n said, the major appeal of STW2 from a gameplay perspective, putting aside the awesomeness of the story setting, is the compact nature of unit selection. Having a dozen units instead of a hundred means that you have to do 'more with less' so to speak. Micromanagement and the minute details suddenly become more important and decisive to win a battle. People who played STW or MTW1 online know what i mean.
Of course there are other considerations like pace and morale settings, we have to see the demo:) Fast paced battle resolution made the STW formula work, as well as live chat foyer and a hell of a lot of RP between clans and players.
Tera
This is incredible news, i am excited and scared in (large amounts and) equal measures.
I hope that CA follow the path they outline in the IGN article to tight, minimalistic and meaningful strategic and tactical gameplay - with less on diplomacy per se - and lets be honest here, there is no reason for TW to become a paradox or a civilization game; its the ruthless comptetition in strategy and on the battlefield that makes the TW games worthwhile - with really good atmosphere and artwork as it befits to the original. I think that judging by the environments and vastly superior artwise battlefield graphics and presentation in Napoleon, it can be done.
I am however particularly happy because it means that the hundreds of posts of veteran mpers and spers that castigated CA's "the more, the merier" feature approach that drowned MTW, Rome, M2 and Empire in unecessary complexity, both on the battlefield and in the campaign map is abandoned at least for this release, and that a predictable (and the easy commercial route) Rome 2 is not what they've chosen. I feel that long posts and analyses by Puzz3D and other mpers as well as many spers including Asai Nagamasa, Martok and myself over the benefits of Shogun's gameplay are finally done justice - just by the fact that this is realised.
I will finally be able to say to myself that it wasn't for nothing writing all that up, and that it didn't mean nothing to them. Thanks for that CA.
:bow:
Forgot to mention that, although i haven't wasted my time reading the reactions at the com to the anouncement, i can imagine the tone and content that Gregoshi talks about, and i have to say that i am particularly pleased with STW2 being a reality for this reason. Too small? Too few units? Too little scope? Too few factions? Not interested in Japanese history/samurai? Well sorry guys... tough.. eat mustard :)
I can't count the times that sarcasm, ridiculing and even bullying happened on people that liked the first two games after RTW at the com in particular - that was double for STW due to the "unusual" setting. Its fanboys' turn to swallow some bitterness now. "Revenge is the dish that tastes best served cold". Thanks for that too CA :)
I have my fingers crossed for a "back to basics" approach, though I'm sure the campaign game will be as complex as ever. Battles should be an improvement anyway due to the simplified roster.
Indeed the smaller roster will make the battles more balanced - simply because they are more easy to balance practically and also because they match better the amount of variation in terms of unit roles the TW engine can provide (as experience has shown).
I think that, from my perspective the most important thing would be the relationship of the battlefield to the campaign game. In the original the player's campaign game performance cannot substitute for battlefield performance. Its the only probably TW game that it cannot be played and won easily only by autoresolving because of this. In addition it had a good proportion between how much time you needed to spend on the map and play the battles, unlike newer total wars that the vast majority of your time was spent on the camp map.
In addition, the battle pace, although quick (in resolution, and especially if you made the wrong match ups), was adequate enough not to make you feel that the action escapes your control (like in Rome), or diminish to a crawl (like in M2). The map sizes and the fatigue of the units were optimized to match each - while in MTW the maps were far larger than what fatigue rating units had, which resulted in very very long battles. These sometimes were interesting - but most of the time not.
The secret of STW was that it had a golden cut balance in all aspects and that all aspects blended together with a golden cut balance. Everything was meaninglful and purposeful - there were (mostly) no redundant features. I mean WMs are more popular than the naginata, but in all honesty the Naginata can work on the battlefield just as well as the WMs (in v1.12 anyway), and one can base his army's heavy infantry on them.
Lets hope that CA focuses on those key concepts, even if they do it partially they'll get a game that will be easily far better than anything they've put out, gameplay wise, since 2002.
:bow:
Kagemusha
06-03-2010, 22:48
I guess this thread could shipped to a new home.~;)
edyzmedieval
06-03-2010, 23:21
Still, from the perspective of a TW veteran, I am extremely happy with one point - it pushes the "unwanted casuals" away who were amazed by ETW and its shiny graphics, making CA head into a disaster zone.
Elitist, yes, but I want TW to go on for a long time with quality games.
I'm interested but guarded.
Going back to Shogun allows a smaller scope so hopefully they'll be able to make it actually work right.
I really hope they'll rework the campaign map. Lots of good gameplay was lost by the move away from the Risk style map. Stuff like the ability to safely withdraw in the face of a superior enemy.
NagaoKagetora
06-06-2010, 10:13
This is great news! STW was an outstanding and very immersive gaming experience imo and I hope they can capture that same essence/spirit of the Sengoku jidai.
Tony Furze
06-07-2010, 13:56
While cautiously pleased , I must admit my first reaction was "Oh no! Not again!" I haven't really spent much time with Total War after the demise of my MTW VI and disappointments with Rome Total War.
I just wish they - the developers, game makers- would choose some refreshing new directions to go in. It's beginning to feel like the movie scene: remakes of remakes.
By the way, Shogun Total War (I) is a cracking good game.
Jef Costello
06-08-2010, 13:09
I it's any good then this might be what pushes me into getting a new computer :)
I think that the original is an excellent game and basically I would like more of the same with a few new units, a bit more diplomacy, a couple of new units and a few tweaks to the AI.
The idea of Hero units is not a good one, although if they are as expensive and difficult to make as the Kensai then they might not be too unbalancing. I think a hero unit might be better if it was a development from battle skills rather than something you train. For example a five star general could become a hero unit, the costs and training could be to do with building some kind of temple. which would also place a limit on the number of heroes possible.
I'm interested but guarded.
That's me as well, although I think I'm more guarded than interested. My love for the original game notwithstanding, my experiences with Rome and Empire have left a very bad taste in my mouth, and I've all but lost faith in CA at this point.
Asai Nagamasa has already listed most of the reasons I'm skeptical about a Shogun sequel. In addition to the ones he's mentioned, I would also add that I'm really not thrilled with CA/Sega continuing to make their games Steam-exclusive. I've not had the greatest experience with Steam, plus I'm opposed to publishers who are greedy short-sighted dumb enough to sign *any* sort of exclusive deal with any DD service.
Don't get me wrong: I love the period, I like that CA is returning to a smaller "theater" (which they should've been doing all along IMO), and I like that it should be better balanced this time around. However, their track record the last 6 years doesn't leave me optimistic.
Tony Furze
06-12-2010, 13:26
Hi, Martok.
There are so many other "small theaters" of war pre- say 1800 which could have been chosen. This narrow focus and re-releasing what the modders have already covered is quite alarming. I'd like to see something actually creative from the "Creative" Assembly.
I'm excited about Shogun ll I really enjoyed Shogun and the time period. I just hope that Castles can be defened by the garrisoned troops and not just a waiting game inside until a hole is blown in the wall. If they make it like RTW then I think this will be a great TW Game.
There are so many other "small theaters" of war pre- say 1800 which could have been chosen. This narrow focus and re-releasing what the modders have already covered is quite alarming. I'd like to see something actually creative from the "Creative" Assembly.
I think CA are out of original ideas - which is hardly surprising.
I don't mind if CA comes out with settings that have already been covered. As long as the reused material is presented well, I will be pleased. It's all a matter of taste and preference. If they covered a setting that I found disinteresting, then I might have fewer good, optomistic things to say about the game. But that's just me. :)
*Bows*
Maybe I see you guys in Totomi soon!
Kansuke.
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
06-24-2010, 18:17
*Bows*
Maybe I see you guys in Totomi soon!
Kansuke.
Kansuke!!!!! You back!!!!!!
How you doing? I hope to see you to in Totomi!
:bow:
Togakure
06-24-2010, 18:25
*Bows*
Maybe I see you guys in Totomi soon!
Kansuke.
*bows back*
Toga says hello, and good to see you, Kansuke-san. Indeed, if this turns out well and I am able, I will gladly meet you on that field again.
Jochi Khan
06-24-2010, 23:51
*Bows*
Maybe I see you guys in Totomi soon!
Kansuke.
Welcome old friend. It has been a long time.
:bow:
Jochi
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.