Shogun 2 Total War - confirmed

[gollum]

It also says that the katana cuts better. I never argued that european swords are lesser weapons - just that in sheer metal quality the japanese weapons are unmtched and they are. I made the point of weapon purpose already, so you say nothing new. You are just repeating your self and changing your words just as a good troll would ;)

[A Nerd]

You are just repeating your self and changing your words just as a good troll would ;)

Trolls are people too ya know..be nice!

[Vuk]

Well, your opinion is to be respected of course, but the Japanese were, are and always will be, a skilled people for whatever has to do with war. During the Sengoku period this trend was sharpened to new heights.

I understand the point about being confined to styles, however i would equally welcome a TW game during the Romance of the three kingdoms in China. I know very little about Korea - other than the fact that it was under the heavy shadow of China in the medieval era and later during the modern times under the heavy shadow of Japan. Its national martial art tae kwon do - is nearly a renaming of Okinawan karate that Korean immigrants brought from Japan pre WW2, but could not practice with a Japanese name due to the national issues against Japan in Korea - not exactly a great martial tradition when you compare it to Japan's.

As far as weapons are concerned, japanese swords - katanas - are the highest quality hand-to-hand weapons ever produced - metallographic analysis in the highest quality european swords (from Toledo) showed about 200,000 layers of iron/carbon in the steel alloy. The equivalent number for a katana is 1,500,000 - making it a killing tool that hasn't been repeated. Other Japanese blades for yaris (spears) and naginatas (halberds) were of comparable quality.

For me only a single "style" is not a problem especially now that i know a lot about this particular one - although again your assumption is misleading - Sengoku Daimyos were particularly imaginative when tactics and strategy were concerned and were keen inovators in many instances. It was also not a problem in the past when i knew nothing about japan, its history and its warring tradition.

Perhaps your opinion is based on a misunderstanding or lack of understanding - in that case S2 provides a great opportunity to sort this misunderstanding for you - you never know.

I am sorry, but I do not agree with you. First of all, you are wrong if you think that Taekwondo was their military tradition. They had Hwa Rang Do (see Hwarang), Subak, Taekkyeon, Shippalgi, Muye24gi, Gungdo, Seon Kwan Moo, Ssireum, etc at that time that they would have known. If you want an example of an early Korean warrior, check out the Hwarang of Silla.
Koreans wore advanced iron armour (article picture) and used swords well before the Japanese. In fact, the Japanese learned about swords only in the fourth century from Korea. You should note that not only does Korean armour give more defense, but their swords (straight swords) are optimized for defeating armour. The Japanese Katana was virtually useless against most any well armoured foe. It was made of excellent quality, but the design was inferior for fighting armoured foes, as its slashing cannot even break through ringmail. With that in mind, I would consider a heavier Chinese broadsword or a Korean longsword superior.
A lack of shields can be made up for by really good armour (as Parthian Cataphracts are proof of), but unfortunately for the Japanese their armour was not up to parr with other countries, so their lack of shields puts them at a serious disadvantage.
Also, (and this is something that is heavily debated I know) I believe that Chinese martial arts are superior to Japanese ones. This is of course something that I cannot source, but as I have practiced both, allow me to give my reasoning. Japanese martial arts (at least Karate and Judo, the only two which I have a good knowledge of) focus on power and speed. You have Karate which is a striking martial art, and Judo which is a grappling throwing martial art. Chinese martial arts on the other hand (as well as traditional Korean martial arts) focus more on unloading, redirecting, or turning energy, which means that it is not necessarily the fastest and most powerful who wins. Chinese martial arts have a broader focus usually, and cover everything from kicks, to punches, to elbows, to grappling, to ground fighting, etc. In my experience, Chinese martial arts are able to defeat karate-like martial arts because of their focus on sensitivity and redirecting and unloading energy, as well as maintaining structure. Of course that is highly contested, but I thought I would explain my reasoning.
Also, remember that the Japanese learnt almost all their martial technology from the Chinese or Koreans, which means that the Chinese and Koreans would have a much richer tradition and more time to develop their martial arts.
You are correct, I am not an expert on Japanese military tactics of the time, but from what I do know about them and Chinese and Korean military tactics and weapons, I think that the Japanese were seriously disadvantaged.
I definately do understand the interest in Japanese military and culture, I however also think that it appeals to a niche audience, and as I do not particularly care for it, I wish that they made a game that had more than just one culture.

[gollum]

Thanks for the interesting info on Korean martial arts - i'll check them out. As i said, i know little about Korea.

Now some info about the battle use of a katana. Katanas were side weapons and were not used in battle unless one's main weapon was out of use. Yaris and Naginata's were preffered and were used against armor with thrusts and cuts with good effect. In Japan during the Sengoku Jidai, only the Japanese quilted armor existed in wide use (Yoroi) and that was relatively light by continental standards. However it was of no import to develop heavier armor due to the widespread use of the arquebus during the period, that could pierce armor anyway.

The wide spread use of the katana actually was established during the Edo period - the period that followed the Sengoku Jidai - the 250 nearly years of the "great peace". This was because all "actual war" weapons like spears, halberds and pikes that have a long reach, are good against the weak points of armor with thrusts and cuts and can be used effectvelly by large units were not used - because there was no war.

In addition, the Japanese did indeed import nearly everyhting to their culture from other cultures. Their strength as a people has never been in inventing stuff but in developing and perfecting. Think all you want about the japanese martial arts - but there is no MMartist that would get into the ring without some sort of throwing and grappling technique syllabus at the ready, and apart from the european wrestling and the russian sambo, the two most developed arts that provide such techniques are jujutsu and judo.

During the japanese invasions of Korea, that took place at the closing stages of the Sengoku period, the Japanese had great success at land, and lost the invasion due to the sea battles (at which they really indeed sucked) and harassment of their logistical lines from the Sino-Korean navy. So - in practice they've proven not as disadvantaged in terms of tactics as you may have thought.

[Intranetusa]

It also says that the katana cuts better.

And it says quality European swords were more flexible and had more durable edges.

I never argued that european swords are lesser weapons
- just that in sheer metal quality the japanese weapons are unmtched and they are. I made the point of weapon purpose already, so you say nothing new.

Actually, you did. You said katanas are "far better."

Actually - katanas are really far better - there is a reason for the hype, and i can tell you that its not Hollywood based as you think

And you mentioned some statistics about how Japanese swords has more 7x more layers, which really doesn't mean squat in terms of quality and combat effectiveness.

As far as weapons are concerned, japanese swords - katanas - are the highest quality hand-to-hand weapons ever produced - metallographic analysis in the highest quality european swords (from Toledo) showed about 200,000 layers of iron/carbon in the steel alloy. The equivalent number for a katana is 1,500,000 - making it a killing tool that hasn't been repeated. Other Japanese blades for yaris (spears) and naginatas (halberds) were of comparable quality..

You are just repeating your self and changing your words just as a good troll would ;)

The only troll here is your own Japanese fanboy self worshiping the overrated katana and your mystical samurai that never existed. Sorry pal, but anime and movies will only get you so far.

[gollum]

"round and round it goes and where it stops nobody knows"...:)

[gollum]

So, you know all, and i'm a troll, feeding on manga and movies.

You haven't told us how old are you then, pal?

[Intranetusa]

During the japanese invasions of Korea, that took place at the closing stages of the Sengoku period, the Japanese had great success at land, and lost the invasion due to the sea battles (at which they really indeed sucked) and harassment of their logistical lines from the Sino-Korean navy. So - in practice they've proven not as disadvantaged in terms of tactics as you may have thought.

Japanese successes on land really doesn't say much about Japanese tactics because the Korean army was entirely ineffective. The Korean soldiers were poorly trained for close quarter combat, and were far outmatched by the Japanese army for most of the 1st invasion.

So just like the Japanese navy sucked, the Korean army sucked. When the Ming Empire intervened in the war with 40,000 troops, the Japanese faced a well trained and well equipped land army - and they started losing on land as well as the sea.

[Intranetusa]

So, you know all, and i'm a troll, right.

You sure sound like a troll. All you've been doing is perpetuating stereotypes of the fictional image of Japanese swords and samurai as portrayed by movies and Hollywood. And you don't bother answering any of my questions and call me a troll when I point out your Japan-o-fantasies are not grounded in reality.

You haven't told us how old are you then, pal?

Why? So you can use more ad homienm attacks?

You ask me for my age yet you haven't even given your own age. Isn't that a bit rude? And you haven't even bothered answering any of my earier questions either.

[Monk]

I find your lack of Total War discussion... disturbing. Let's keep things on track, shall we?

[pevergreen]

Don't make Tosa appoint a local moderator within a day.

ETW didnt need one for like 8 months.

[vartan]

At least CA is still churning something...better than nothing, won't you say?

[Thermal]

It's not that I dislike the Japanese setting. It's I dislike repetative stuff with no creativitiy. My main problem is they already made a Shogun game. Why make another?

As the first game, it was made on a 2D map with terrible graphics and not much appeal anymore. There are so many ways they can improve it, I'm glad they are.

You could say that about Medieval as well, but they redid that (even if some people still prefer the original), the first two games deserve the makeover, really.

[caravel]

it was made on a 2D map with terrible graphics

The game was released back in 2000 - "terrible graphics" by todays standards were "cutting edge" back then. You have to remember that most other RTS, TBS or RPG games were still on true 2D iso maps.

[Thermal]

The game was released back in 2000 - "terrible graphics" by todays standards were "cutting edge" back then. You have to remember that most other RTS, TBS or RPG games were still on true 2D iso maps.

I know they were "cutting edge" in 2000, however I was making a point for why the game should be remade, the graphics is one of them. I wasn't contesting that they weren't good at the time, but that they aren't now.

[pevergreen]

Some games from that age are timeless in the graphics, unfortunately, the battle map of MTW and STW is not.

[Lemur]

The game was released back in 2000 - "terrible graphics" by today's standards were "cutting edge" back then.

You know, they really were not. I was Googling some info about STW and I came across quite a few reviews from the time; they all ding STW for sub-standard graphics. I guess STW's 2D sprites weren't as pretty as, I dunno, Starcraft's 2D sprites.

And as long as we're getting nostalgic, let's not forget that STW came with a real, honest-to-goodness manual. That was actually worth reading. Sigh. When's the last time a game came with one of them?

[A Nerd]

STW battle graphics may have had some rough edges. But that was part of it's charm. You became used to them, perhaps even enjoyed them as the rest of the games virtues won you over. I play M2TW and ETW currently and enjoy them, but they come nowhere near the pleasure evoked by the poor graphics of STW when I boot that one up. It just goes to show you what a stark difference in terms of a games quality can be perceived when comparing graphics vs. gameplay.

[Intranetusa]

Cutting edge graphics from the same time frame would be something like Total Annihilation - true 3d (revolutionary since it came out around the same time as Starcraft):

[Kagemusha]

STW battle graphics may have had some rough edges. But that was part of it's charm. You became used to them, perhaps even enjoyed them as the rest of the games virtues won you over. I play M2TW and ETW currently and enjoy them, but they come nowhere near the pleasure evoked by the poor graphics of STW when I boot that one up. It just goes to show you what a stark difference in terms of a games quality can be perceived when comparing graphics vs. gameplay.

I guess that just tells what many game companies have forgotten. What matters is how good game as a game really is.Everything else is just icing on a cake.

[caravel]

You know, they really were not. I was Googling some info about STW and I came across quite a few reviews from the time; they all ding STW for sub-standard graphics. I guess STW's 2D sprites weren't as pretty as, I dunno, Starcraft's 2D sprites.

STWs 2D sprites were used on an open 3D battle map. When sprites are scaling up and down (i.e. when you go zooming in) they look pretty poor, unless they're multi framed high res. The best sprites were the MTW infantry sprites (cavalry sprites were the wrong scale and looked even worse than the STW sprites). In a nutshell you can't really compare a 2D RTS/TBS to a 3D STW, because at that time 3D was not as polished as it is now due to graphics card limitation of the time (i.e. Voodoo3, ATI Rage and Nvidia TNT2, etc).

[Sp00n]

The game was stunning graphically at the time, it had a huge wow factor whenever you booted it up. Technology moves on and I don't agree with the reviewers who said they wernt.

What was the closest comparision at the time? Age of Empires games? Civ games? they were all below Shoguns graphics standard.

It was also the age of 56k modems the joy.

[caravel]

Age of Empires games? Civ games? they were all below Shoguns graphics standard.

AoE and Civ were isometric games (i.e the same technology that ran Civ2, SimCity 2000 and many older DOS games), as were most RTS/TBS games of the time. Isometric games do not have any kind of scaling or 3D acceleration. This is why it's sensless to compare a game like STW with iso games like those, because such games are not OpenGL or Direct3D based anyway and were technologically well behond STW. The terrain detail in STW was quite complex for it's time and in big battles I remember my PC really starting to chug.

[Sp00n]

AoE and Civ were isometric games (i.e the same technology that ran Civ2, SimCity 2000 and many older DOS games), as were most RTS/TBS games of the time. Isometric games do not have any kind of scaling or 3D acceleration. This is why it's sensless to compare a game like STW with iso games like those, because such games are not OpenGL or Direct3D based anyway and were technologically well behond STW. The terrain detail in STW was quite complex for it's time and in big battles I remember my PC really starting to chug.

I was talking in terms of game type comparision :), yes my PC chugged also in large scale battles 2v2 upwards.

[caravel]

I was talking in terms of game type comparision :), yes my PC chugged also in large scale battles 2v2 upwards.

Yes I knew what you were saying, sorry I was just adding to it.

[AussieGiant]

ad hominem attacks are my specialty ;)

Ah Jesus, I like it when the old rat pack types get back together. It's a real throw back section here at the moment.

[andrewt]

Some games from that age are timeless in the graphics, unfortunately, the battle map of MTW and STW is not.

WHAT? You're telling me that 640X480 resolution doesn't look good on 25 inch monitors?

[Zim]

I never got to play the original STW. Can't wait to give this one a try.

...Although I may be cautious and wait long enough after release to read input here at the Org (If I can resist).

[pevergreen]

AoE and Civ were isometric games (i.e the same technology that ran Civ2, SimCity 2000 and many older DOS games), as were most RTS/TBS games of the time.

To the average punter though, AoE looked a lot better.

[edyzmedieval]

Wow, the announcement brought back some really OLD Orgahs... 2001 join date, wow.

I can only drink to that.