Is this the worst out of the Total War series?

[Mouzafphaerre]

.

Is this the worst out of the Total War series?

Somebody's trying to get himself lynched.
.

[Tony Furze]

What would happen if you asked that same question on all the other forums-for RTW, M2TW, for instance? Given the small number of clientele who visit this one...

Maybe I ll don a Caravellian/Henry V cloaking disguise and try it out...

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
Well, my MiNO sucks thread received about 70% approval at the Citadel. But that's maybe 'coz they were afraid of me.
.

[LittleGrizzly]

This game (STW/MI) swallowed more hours of my life than any other game has ever managed thats why it is the Best in the total war series

[Spongie]

Playing my first MTW campaign after hammering through STW over a dozen times, and I have to say that the strategic map on MTW is a bit of a slog. Having to micromanage each province means I'm spending an age on each turn (don't want to automanage them, that's not the point of the game) and there's always that temptation to hold off initiating a battle because you hope to get better units with which to outclass your neighbours enemies.

STW's risk-style campaign map is certainly relatively limited, but the battles seem more accessible and, because of the shorter timespan, there's less of an arms race. To put it another way, yari and archer samurai are still central to my battleplans even at the endgame in STW; I don't find myself using basic spearmen, basic archers and urban militia in High period MTW when I can churn out billmen, Swiss halberdiers and longbowmen.

Also, nothing beats charging an all-cavalry army at an all-archer-samurai army, as seems to reside in Bizen a lot when the AI owns the place

[Wasp]

However,Shogun is quite serious fun. I get quite irate and emotional and every man counts. You really feel bad about losing soldiers,so you try to preserve units. There s no real such thing as a "junk unit".

Except for those bloody peasants

[Martok]

Except for those bloody peasants

Actually, I find that even Yari Ashigaru can be very useful in the right circumstances. Aside from the time-honored tactic of using them to soak up arrow/ballistics damage, they're also suprisingly good in a number of defensive situations -- you just need to position & utilize them correctly.

As one example, I've honoured up many YA as the Hojo, just by having them defend against Clan Takeda's repeated invasions of Musashi. They've often handled the bridge defense by themselves, not even needing the aid my Yari Samurai (who always stand ready to back them up).

[Roller]

Thanks. I will try everything! :D With Rome at last.. tried the demo, they run like they are on steroids..

[Togakure]

See if you can dig up some of the replays Sasaki Kojiro posted some time ago that illustrated how Yari Ashigaru can be used with devastating effect--even against the monks of Ise and Yamashiro in the early game of an Oda campaign.

[TosaInu]

(Is there a mod that reduces the number of units?)

Hello Tony Furze,

I don't recall it was released, as it was easy to make. Since it is easy I can throw something up pretty quick.

I used a customised stat that lowered the number of all samurai units and increased the number of ashigaru (except guns). The YA were made weaker per man to compensate, as a unit they were tougher, morale permitting.

That's the size of units, if you mean reduce the amount of units, no you can't do that with STW. You can't add or remove units, the only thing you can do is make a unit worthless, tweak the purchase files and hope you won't see too much of it.

Yari ashigaru can be quite useful (in MP they were a big pain). They have drawbacks, but larger benefits.

Pro:
-Cheap to produce, Oda even has a discount iirc.
-They tech up in the same way like the tough units like warrior monks, for free, 'free' or cheaper. The YA is the unit that benefits most from upgrading. A province in Shikoku trains H1 from the start iirc.
-Have a combat modifier (total 8 pts.) vs cavalry and can void frontal charges (good vs both cavalry and no- dachi).

Cons:
-Low morale, but that improves when they level up.
-They are ashigaru and thus very sensitive to see routing friends (it sometimes even looks like routing enemies are too much for them). When one runs, there's a fair chance that everything runs.

It's very important to have some good samurai around to avoid a mass rout and you'll probably have to regroup a few times. Just selecting all units and charge usually fails (you need superashis, H7+ & upgrades, for that).


I usually start building YA, more YA and some archers. Add a couple yari samurai to avoid a mass rout. Being on track of upgrading the YA, buy some naginata infantry for even more staying power.

Add yari cavalry (also uses same yari dojo and a new cavalry dojo) to kill enemy routers, attack enemy projectile units and to hammer the back when the spear/naginata anvil holds the front.

Already having both the archery- and cavalry dojo, buy some horse archers (nice unit).

It's ok to build a no-dachi or monk when you've captured enemy infrastructure, but I usually don't invest too much on these expensive targets.
By now there should be a good income though, by being conservative on military hardware, ports, mines and farmupgrades can be purchased.

Go Dutch and buy muskets.

Train shinobis to keep your province happy and ninjas to protect your daimyo/heir.

Conquer the rest of Japan.

[Drisos]

With Rome at last.. tried the demo, they run like they are on steroids..

Ah yes, it's crappy. The actual fighting takes only a few seconds in Rome... In Shogun the battles are far longer, far more intresting, far more balanced. In battles, Shogun is MUCH better then Rome, IMHO.

I do enjoy the new aspect of the campaign in Rome though, and the better graphics... but, the atmosphere in rome is nothing compared to shogun, at least for me. Playing a Shogun campaign get me to imagine begin really a part of it... Rome is just a video game for me. It has some nice new stuff in the campaign.. that's all improvement there is, for me.

In addition to Tosa's post: Oda train Ashigaru for 75 koku. they get the 25% discount on the upkeep as well. The region in Shikoku to train honour+1 ashi's was Tosa, iirc. hehe, same name :P And I do recall a second region exisiting somewhere where ashi's had honour+1, but I can't recall which.

[Wasp]

Owari has the Ashigaru bonus (Oda starting province) and the most south of the provinces on the small ronin island get the bonus as well.

[Martok]

Yep, Owari and Tosa on Shikoku Island are the 2 provinces that give a +1 bonus to YA trained there (although I always forget about Tosa).

The region in Shikoku to train honour+1 ashi's was Tosa, iirc. hehe, same name :P.

You know what's sad? I'd honestly never made that connection until now -- I always thought he'd taken his name from one of Korusawa's films.

[Drisos]

Hehehe, I stumbled on another possible explanation of the name. You'll never guess where. In a book on dogs.

Look for 'Tosa Inu' in google pictures.

[TosaInu]

I registered at WestWood to play Red Alert online late '90's. Many nicks were taken, that's an understatement, and I didn't want a random string. Then I took TosaInu. Yes, it's because of the dog.

[LittleGrizzly]

I had always assumed it was the japanese province and Inu was japanese as well.... intresting to now

[TosaInu]

It is Japanese LittleGrizzly: inu is Japanese for dog, tosainu is dog from the tosa province.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Not having MTW or any of its variants, I can only compare STW to RTW.

The initial attraction to RTW was quite good, for me. I liked the complexity, loved watching my elephants or cataphracts send warriors flying, or watching as my onagers and archers burned a village to the ground, but............

.....after the newness wore off, I began to grow increasingly irritated with the tediousness of managing cities (yes, I know there's automanage, but I rarely agree with "what's-her-name's" recommended builds as far as timing is concerned)....the absolute stupidity of the naval battles (you have to surround an opposing fleet on ALL eight sides to sink it outright even if you have an overwhelming power/number superiority)......the very predictable tactical maps (either you have a height advantage or you don't and on most maps there's no way to out-maneuvre the position)......the absurd degree to which traits are carried (very nice idea.....but waaaaay overdone!)........and I'm only getting started


When I started noticing things like archers firing for THREE MORE ROUNDS after being ordered to cease-fire (one actually has to move them after giving that order to get them to stop right away).....or some of the totally absurd units like Naked Fanatics, Fire Pigs, Screeching Women, etc...........or the fact that the British Chariot Archer (basically a donkey cart with wheels) could out-run my barbarian light cavalry in a heavy snowstorm......


.......and a whole multitude of very irritating "stuff", I figured it was time to play something else. When the whole strategic aspect became tedious and boring, that left very little else besides the close-ups to keep me playing because the tactical aspect was terrible.......in STW it gave me great pleasure to set up an ambush with inferior forces and pull off a victory......in RTW I got to do.........................................well that never happened in several dozen campaigns ......in STW with some hard work, a little planning, and risky deployment, there's almost always a way to outmaneuvre an opponent........in RTW, either you have positional advantage or you don't and there's little to no room for maneuvre (especially in the desert).

To make a loooooooong story short, while STW may be simple in terms of the strategical map, it is far more satisfying to out-think a much better AI than RTW's, and win it on the battlefield (which is why I never used geisha).


As the song goes: "The thrill is gone........................................."

[Martok]

Well said, ReluctantSamurai.

[Wasp]

Glad you saw the light, ReluctantSamurai

[caravel]

The "absolute stupidity of the naval battles" has always been my biggest gripe with RTW. Instead of navies controlling areas of sea as they do in MTW, they are effectively transports that can blockade and attack the enemy transports but nothing else. Due to this and their limited range, they confer no strategic advantage as they do in MTW. The MTW system was far from perfect but with improvement it could have been a good system. Implimenting some pathetic RTS thing was not the answer.

[R'as al Ghul]

Here's an image of TosaInu in full armour on the Samurai Warlords battlefield:

[Puzz3D]

Here's an image of TosaInu in full armour on the Samurai Warlords battlefield:

Well the dog had his day on Sunday when he pulled of a victory against 3 remaining opponents who all had cavalry and couldn't finish him off.

[R'as al Ghul]

Well the dog had his day on Sunday when he pulled of a victory against 3 remaining opponents who all had cavalry and couldn't finish him off.

Indeed!
Must've been the new nickname.

[ReluctantSamurai]

"The "absolute stupidity of the naval battles" has always been my biggest gripe with RTW. Instead of navies controlling areas of sea as they do in MTW, they are effectively transports that can blockade and attack the enemy transports but nothing else. Due to this and their limited range, they confer no strategic advantage......"

___________________________________________________________________

I most wholeheartedly agree. That is THE single most annoying feature in the game, for me (although the overuse/abuse of family traits is a close second) Also, when you blockade a port, and your enemy builds a ship within the confines of your blockade, that fleet should be destroyed if it cannot break your blockade (either alone or with outside help). After all, isn't that what a blockade does? Nothing in....nothing out

That and the fact that a fleeing enemy fleet can totally ignore your zones of control (often fleeing right past several fleets) and end up right where it wanted to go in the first place (especially when carrying invasion troops)

[caravel]

I most wholeheartedly agree. That is THE single most annoying feature in the game, for me (although the overuse/abuse of family traits is a close second) Also, when you blockade a port, and your enemy builds a ship within the confines of your blockade, that fleet should be destroyed if it cannot break your blockade (either alone or with outside help). After all, isn't that what a blockade does? Nothing in....nothing out

The flaw there is having the port tile that is inside a walled dock. Ships should simply issue straight out on to the open sea as they did in MTW, the reason they don't is to allow them to form into groups, as the AI is poor at doing this (both on land at at sea in fact). I find that my multiple ship fleets are usually taking on enemy single ship ones. The majority of multi ship AI controlled fleets are rebel pirate fleets and these are spawned as is.

That and the fact that a fleeing enemy fleet can totally ignore your zones of control (often fleeing right past several fleets) and end up right where it wanted to go in the first place (especially when carrying invasion troops)

I dislike the "naval pinball" game that ensues every turn. A lone enemy ship "bounces" off about three or four of my fleets until it is sunk or somehow manages to survive.

The gross error is that shipping lacks zones of control. In trying to appeal to the RTS market anything risk-like was done away with to the detriment of the game itself. The ships demind me of Warcraft II, I keep expecting them to grind onto the beach and a band of orcs to jump out. This kind of micromanagement is not needed in a TW game.

It would be far more effective if your shipping took control of a region according to defined sea zones and were then classed as controlling it. This is better than having one big sea area. Controlling certain seas could then give powers over the merchant shipping passing through (whether by taxing, allowing safe passage, sinking or by piracy as desired). Armies should be able to board a friendly fleet for transportation if they are in an adjoining coastal province to the sea zone where the ships are located, there should no need to actually micromanage the ship ashore to do this.

Agents should not have to use the navy at all but should move by the merchant shipping. That is to say that right clicking an agent to an overseas destination should cause him to first walk to the nearest port. If the port is friendly, allied or neutral he will board a ship (basically by entering the port the agent becomes a small ship), if it is an enemy port he will board but you will be warned of the risk involved (this will depend on the agent type, spies and assassins (stow-aways/enlisting as crew etc) most at risk, diplomats at risk from mysteriously falling over board). Once the agent becomes a ship he heads for his destination and cannot become an agent again until he gets there, how long this takes depends on the distance. Most journeys should only take about 2 turns. Once he arrives at his destination port the agent alights (ceases to be a ship and becomes an agent again) and then continues with remaining movement points to advance towards his destination on foot. Clear as mud?

[Wasp]

Sounds like a much better way of doing it, caraval.

[Shieldmaiden]

I just noticed this thread...

Shogun was my very first TW. For me, its the purest - the essence of TW. I can't describe why. It had it.

Later TW's are more complex - but to get down to the core of TW and why it is TW, play Shogun.

[Togakure]

I just noticed this thread...

Shogun was my very first TW. For me, its the purest - the essence of TW. I can't describe why. It had it.

Later TW's are more complex - but to get down to the core of TW and why it is TW, play Shogun.

Shibumi.

[ReluctantSamurai]

"Ships should simply issue straight out on to the open sea as they did in MTW, the reason they don't is to allow them to form into groups, as the AI is poor at doing this"
____________________________________________________________________

My gameplay experience was a bit different than that.....fleets tended to be quite large after about 250BC, especially the Roman ones. My counter was to have large fleets as well, which I would break into smaller ones as time went on.
____________________________________________________________________

"I find that my multiple ship fleets are usually taking on enemy single ship ones."
____________________________________________________________________

This would become the case for me much later in a campaign, although if playing a non-Roman faction, and you let their fleets go unharrassed, you will still be looking at large-scale battles even as late as 200-175 BC.

____________________________________________________________________
"The ships demind me of Warcraft II, I keep expecting them to grind onto the beach and a band of orcs to jump out. This kind of micromanagement is not needed in a TW game."
_____________________________________________________________________



__________________________________________________________________

"It would be far more effective if your shipping took control of a region according to defined sea zones and were then classed as controlling it. This is better than having one big sea area. Controlling certain seas could then give powers over the merchant shipping passing through (whether by taxing, allowing safe passage, sinking or by piracy as desired). Armies should be able to board a friendly fleet for transportation if they are in an adjoining coastal province to the sea zone where the ships are located, there should no need to actually micromanage the ship ashore to do this."
___________________________________________________________________

Wholeheartedly agree