Realistic army composition revisited

[Scorpion]

Konnichi-wa, forumites (bows)

This is a short-time lurker´s first post, so bear with me (moderators:this some topics on the expansion set and historical accuracy, so if you must, move the post).

I would like to share my thoughts concerning the realistic composition of armies for multiplayer (and why not single-player-) games. I understand this issue has been beaten, but hopefully not yet to death http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

While I admit that I have had no experience with playing with 2 players/side (or even playing Shogun HTH yet, I´m awaiting for 1.13), I have tested my theories about the compositions of regular 16-unit games in single player custom battles. The unfortunate fact in these games that the cavalry will have to be limited to only 1 unit, but still, the games are very interesting and represent Sengoku period warfare better than a free-for all-game. It is assumed in these battles that arquebus technology is available, though the players can still choose to play in a game with no muskets (taking place at the beginning of the 16th century, for example), but the game will lose probably an important element.

Here are my suggested rules for 2-player games:
5000 koku
1) The army must include 12 units of ashigaru, up to 4 of which can be teppos (arquebusiers or musketeers, whichever period is chosen). The maximum honour of yari ashigaru is 2, and the maximum honour of teppo is 1.
2) The player can include up to 4 units of samurai infantry, at least one of which must be no-dachi, up to one can be naginata, and up to one can be archers.
3)One unit of cavalry is allowed
4)Warrior Monks and Yari Samurai are not allowed.
5)The taisho of the army must be in either a heavy cavalry or No-dachi unit, and it must be the highest honour-unit of the army-no other unit can have as much honour as it has (probably 5.)

These rules assume that the honour level of the ashigaru does not necessarily represent their honour and experience, rather, their numbers. Honour 0 ashigaru units "count as" normal, while in honour 1 units, each man could be considered to "count as" 2, and in honour 2 ashigaru units, each man "counts as" 3 men.
In addition, I assume that No-Dachi samurai are actually katana samurai, since the katana is the epitome of the samurai, but that does not matter rules-wise.
I always play with 120-man units, but I realize that not everyone´s computer can handle such a lot of men on the screen, so 100-man units are allowed too http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif (Ok, ok, 60-man units are possible, too.....If your or your opponent´s comp is Pentium I-level)

My suggestions for 4-player games (with two sides and two players per side) with
24 units/side. Again I have not tested my suggestions, they just "sound" right to me):
Player 1: (8 units) (6 if there´s simply not room for 8)
a) Can include up to 2 (up to one of each) units of cavalry(with heavy cavalry for the taisho or "daimyo"), up to 8 units of teppos and up to one unit of samurai archers.

Player 2
a)Must include at least 14 units of yari ashigaru
b)2 units of samurai infantry allowed, one of which must be the commander´s katana (no-dachi) unit. The other can be either a katana or naginata unit.

With this setup, a typical army could be:
Player 1)Heavy Cavalry, Yari Cavalry (an option to remove either and add a cav archer unit), 5 units of musketeers, 1 unit of samurai archers

Player 2) 14 ya, 1 n-d, 1 ng
Giving a ratio of 5 samurai vs 17 ashigaru units. I think this is quite balanced ( you can consider the ashigaru having twice or thrice their actual number making it more sengoku-ish and realistic) The ratio of ashigaru is 77,3 %, very appropriate for this game (though still far from the typical army) even without considering the ashis as 2 or 3 men/each.

If you absolutely MUST have warrior monks in the game, the rules are changed in these ways (reducing the emphasis on yari ashigaru but adding the wm unit and 1 cavalry unit in the process)
Player 1: Up to 3 units of cavalry (up to one of each), at least 4 and up to 8 units of teppo, up to 2 units of samurai archers (2 if you don´t take CA)
Player 2: 13 units of yari ashigaru, 2 samurai units as normal, up to one unit of warrior monks.

With this setup, a typical army could be:
Player 1:Hc (taisho), Yc, Ca, Mu, Mu, Mu, Mu, Sa.

Player 2:Nd (taisho), Ng, Wm, 13* YA

This army would have 7 "samurai" units (if you count the "unrealistic" WMs as samurai for these purposes,) and 17 ashigaru, with the samurai almost making up a third of the army. The ratio of the ashi is about 71%, of course a bit more if more teppo are chosen instead of cavalry or archers.

I am willing to test these rules online, perhaps to see if my suggestions work to create enjoyable and realistic games. E-mail me if you want to play (veteran taisho: bear in mind I may not be ready to face you just yet, but of course we can still test).


I really think that warrior monks should be dropped, as (I assume) they would wreak total havoc among the already frail yari ashigaru, with their super attack values and what's worse, mobile temples (causing mass routs of the ashis even easier, NOT fun, the game should not centre on one unrealistic and ahistoric (barring Ikko-Ikki etc, but still...) unit and on countering/avoiding it.

When the expansion set comes out, I believe we will have the option to use these rules in the long-awaited multi-player campaign.
I *think* that the expansion set will allow us to play multiplayer campaigns in either the sengoku period as normal, or what´s even more interesting, during the 13th (?) century mongol invasion.

The rules can and must be changed then to take the new units and historical period (no arquebusiers, more archers, more cavalry (perhaps), korean auxiliaries) and the odd ninjas and kensai (if they prove fun and appropriate for the period) into account.
Plus of course the 2 undisclosed units.

Of course, the mongol player will have an altogether different set of rules for choosing his army (lots of mongol cavalry, infantry(?)) and whatever else he may have at his disposal.

I believe that the mongol multiplayer campaign could be the best way of playing Shogun, since it will have 2 sides, the mongol and the japanese, with no rival AI daimyo to be bother the players (with their unrealistic armies etc, but granted they will still not have as able commanders as you are.

Of course, if you have more than 2 players wanting to play in a single grand campaign, the Sengoku period will truly come to life......the possibilities are truly..... I´m out of words http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

And of course we must remember that after the expansion set is released (with its editing tools), we will have mods to consider........

Do not be fooled by the marketing hype they are putting out every honour day, simply think about the original feature list.....and wait for spring http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

Best regards and good fortune on your battles,

Scorpion, aspiring Finnish Daimyo.

PS. Did I mention that I´d prefer not seeing the warrior monks on the Sengoku (and especially these historical) battlefields at all?

[ShadowKill]

You did alot of writing and a lot of thought but hmmm i find the idea pretty boring. I guess if you wanted to plat a historic fight that way just for one reson or another fine but i would never find a need to play anything like that. the unit in the game are fine by me. and damnit what is wrong with my monks http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
Fear not the sword to your front, but the blade at your back.

Clan Shades
Shades (http://www.geocities.com/shadesofshogun/index.html)

[Doragon_Ajidrik]

If you want a realistic battle then I guess you could go that route. Ashis rout real easily and that would make the game less fun to play with though.I dont want to start a battle and take my time putting my men into formation, only to watch 77% of them run away 5 minutes later

[Puzz3D]

Scorpion,

Check out Yamaga Shimazu's post, "The rules", in the Editing/Mods/Patches forum. He has been working and testing realistic army compositions for some time now. Sounds like you and he are on the same wavelength.

MizuYuuki ~~~
Clan Takiyama ~~~

[Anssi Hakkinen]

Possibly *the* best first post I've ever seen; good work, Scorpion-san! Nice to see a third Finn here, too. Link(Micke)San may start feeling outnumbered soon... http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

Basically I very much approve of the idea of using a "realistic" army. Just for the fun of it, ShadowKill-san: I think this is a better pastime than staging battles of the American Civil War using all-teppô armies. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif This discussion might also interest the patrons of the History & Cinema forum. A few points, though:

Why on Earth are Yari Samurai disallowed?! The spear was the most common weapon of the age and very characteristic of the mass battles of the Sengoku period (as opposed to the samurai fighting as individuals during the Heian and Kamakura periods). It was most definitely used by samurai as well as ashigaru: a proverb about the Chosokabe clan's samurai said they kept their spear always close to hand when working in the rice fields.

I don't really approve of using No-Dachi Samurai to approximate troops armed with just their basic katanas. After all, the No-Dachi are effective assault troops because they carry a bigger sword than the rest. I've always assumed the other samurai troops use their katanas in conjuction with their primary weapons, even though it isn't represented graphically: furthermore, Samurai Archers use katanas as their mainstay in close combat. I think ND are too effective against spear-armed ashigaru to accurately simulate samurai with basic swords.

A Kamakura period (Mongol invasion) army should have more Cav Archers (those were the standard for higher-ranking samurai), and possibly also more No-Dachi (*real* ND, that is). Korean Aux Infantry is for Mongols.

An alternative Ikkô-Ikki army might be fun, if a bit imbalanced: few samurai, even more Yari Ashigaru and a few (2-3?) WM as an elite corps.

I think I'll go to the History forum and make a link here, this deserves further discussion...

------------------
"Understood the Sword his meaning, / Understood the hero's question, / And it answered him as follows: / 'Wherefore at thy heart's desire / Should I not thy flesh devour, / And drink up thy blood so evil? / I who guiltless flesh have eaten, / Drank the blood of those who sinned not?'"
-The Kalevala, Poem XXXVI, verses 327-334

[Slyspy]

I like the idea of encouraging the use of ashigaru and discouraging the fielding of warrior monks. You should bear in mind that although you may consider ashigaru honour to reflect extra numbers the game engine does not, so ashigaru are still at a disadvantage and likely to run. Excluding yari smaurai seems odd, and counting nodachi troops as katana troops when other units use the katana without the huge attack bonus seems false.

As for unit sizes I prefer smaller units since this leaves more room for manoever, especially on smaller maps. Large units can sometimes take up too much space for flexible play.

I with you in hating overuse of warrior monks.

------------------
"Put 'em in blue coats, put 'em in red coats, the bastards will run all the same!"

[Scorpion]

Good points, Anssi.

I might have been seriously mistaken here in dropping the yari samurai altogether. I must have gotten the idea from one of Yamaga Shimazu´s posts (yes, I studied at least one of them before posting this)
Agreed, they should be added to the list of the possible samurai infantry units.

>>>After all, the No-Dachi are effective assault troops because they carry a bigger sword than the rest

>>>I think ND are too effective against spear-armed ashigaru to accurately simulate samurai with basic swords.(!)

No, no, and no (IMHO). Their value as assault troops represents their skill with swords, not the length of their blade.
Are you truly calling the katana, the soul of the samurai, the finest of weapons, a basic sword! Why did not the historical samurai carry No-dachis instead of katanas as their primary weapons? Because they didn´t, the katana is, in the hands of a skilled swordsman, potentially a better weapon than a No-Dachi.
Let me elaborate (all uninterested parties should skip the following http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

The samurai generally chose the length of their blade with a specific method, and it depended upon the length of the wielder.
They strived to have a blade at "optimum length" for them, as any less, and the wielder did not get enough leverage, and any more, and the blade became unmaneuverable.

The katana was the ultimate weapon, and the No-Dachi had a single purpose: to sacrifice speed and maneuverability (and thus defendability) for reach.

The issue with katanas is this: was it not a unit of katana-(and wakizashi-, though rarely at the same time)wielding that was the typical samurai unit?(although in real Sengoku warfare there were no "units" per se, I assume). I mean katanas without yaris or bows?
Isn´t it odd that this unit is not included?
I decided to assume that the No-Dachi should "count as" master samurai SWORDSmen, armed with either katanas or no-dachis. You must remember that the katana is not to be looked down on, it was and remains the finest type of sword, whose battlefield effectiveness was only contested by rapiers (and I assume a katana and rapier never met in a historical battlefield).

Samurai used the katana as a primary weapon instead of a no-dachi, as it usually was simply more effective. A longer blade does not necessarily a superior weapon create.

Put a unit of 100 katanamen vs. 100 no-dachi-men, (assuming their skills are about identical, and neither has any sort of other advantages), and the No-Dachi-wielders are going to get wiped out. That´s a fact.
Sure, they will cause a lot of casualties, but will lose. Undoubtedly.

So there is every reason to assume that No-dachis can be katanamen, or a mix of katanas and no-dachis.
There simply is no reason to say that a unit of samurai master swordsmen with katanas can not have the same combat value as a unit with No-Dachis. Granted, if there was a choice, maybe the katanamen would have a bit more armour and a bit lower attack value.

But as it is, the attack value of the No-Dachi assume that the samurai wielding them are master swordsmen regardless of the length of their blade, and should be equally powerful with either (the ND has more reach but is slower, while a kat is faster and better suited to defense, but both cause the same results when connecting with armour of flesh.......), and the attack value of the ND represents their superior swordsmanship with any swords(katanas are the norm, NDs much more rare).


Whew, that was a long-winded one. Sorry.
I guess everyone interested should have gotten my point http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif
Am I entirely mistaken here?

>>>Korean Aux Infantry is for Mongols

Whoops! Did I really say it was for the Japanese? We all know how good friends the Japanese and Korean were ! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif
I don´t know what came into me. I might have worded that part a bit.....unclearly.

>>>An alternative Ikkô-Ikki army might be fun, if a bit imbalanced: few samurai, even more Yari Ashigaru and a few (2-3?) WM as an elite corps.


Hmmm, how about:
At least 10 yari ashigaru
Up to 2 teppos
up to 1 samurai cavalry unit
Up to 1 samurai infantry unit
Up to 3 Warrior Monks

That could work, and still be playable and fun.


One thing about the issue of not having enough room for 120-man units (and 24 units for 2 vs 2) is: do like the generals of the Sengoku period!
Use the troops that you can not fit in well as reserves! Deploy them at the back and keep them there until truly needed. This creates longer, more interesting battles and using reserves has many advantages, one of which is that your routing front-line troops are much more likely to rally if there is a stable unit near them!

There are ways to reduce the amount and risk of ashigaru routing, and this is one of the most interesting points of these realistic games, as the Sengoku period Taisho faced this same problem!
They must be co-ordinated well, not tiring them in marching, and used in groups of several units, and supported by samurai. They are great for taking and holding flanks and bolstering the rear lines.
If charged at by No-Dachi (katana;P) samurai, they will rout very quickly unless proper support is available.
It is just another very fascinating type of game!

I realize that some of you will never even consider playing with such realistic armies, for you I have a set of rules that allows for more freedom in your armies while still maintaining a semblance of realism:
At least 6 yari ashigaru
At least 2 teppos
Up to one unit of warrior monks
Up to 3 units of cavalry
Up to 6 units of samurai infantry

Fair enough?


Oh, by the way ShadowKill, in case you waded to the end of the text here( I congratulate you), I did actually set up an all-teppo battle...... With 1920 musketeers per side.
That was exciting! All that thunder and smoke, the AI being obliterated! I must test it in H2H.

[Zen Blade]

Rather impressive posts Scorpion.... I hope you come to the history forum and discuss with FWSeal and others as to historical accuracy.

anyways.... After reading the posts, I have forgotten all of what I wanted to say, but I think a lot of what was written was VERY WELL reasoned.

However, 100 no-dachi vs 100 Katana....
now, I have never used such a real sword or anything... but I would point out that since the no-dachi was perhaps a bigger weapon on average, that it would have an increased advantage. Also, one slice of a no-dachi will kill just as much as one slice of a katana, thus the slowness of the no-dachi is perhaps not as much of a problem as it would be against a yari or even two yaris.

also, as for the monk force... if you think about the monks of Negoro and places in Kii, they had a good number of guns and the monk/religious forces in general had a good supply of guns and used them rather effectively... it's just that a horde of monks rushing head-first and being impaled with arrows is perhaps more exciting to talk about.

also, like you or someone else said... time period does matter. There is a reason why the shield never became too popular a weapon in Japanese warfare. I forget if we discussed it in the history forum or somewhere else, but I believe the answer that appeared most logical was the effectiveness of the archer and the cav archer in particular. My point being, that depending on the time, the % of archers in the force would definitely vary. Before Ashigaru became the backbone of many armies, I think bowmen would have constituted a large chunk of the force (with bowmen of course being equipped with swords for hand to hand combat)

Also, I think it is important to remember that although samurai and lords wished to win combat, many warriors and samurai also followed a strict personal code and many would be willing to turn down a superior weapon to use one with more honor or appeared more honorable...
This reminds me of a line in a house code (I believe by Hojo Soun) that basically states 1 plain sword kills just as many ppl as 1 fancy sword, but for the cost of the fancy sword you can get a lot more plain swords.

-Zen Blade

------------------
Zen Blade Asai
Red Devil
Last of the RSG

[Anssi Hakkinen]

Originally posted by Scorpion-san:
Quote Are you truly calling the katana, the soul of the samurai, the finest of weapons, a basic sword![/QUOTE]Well, it was a basic sword in the sense that every samurai was required to own one until the Meiji Restoration. As a gross approximation, maybe 70-80% of all the kills ever made in Japan were made with this weapon - it really is the basic solution for any samurai, but I don't mean that in any degoratory sense. Quite the opposite. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

Quote Why did not the historical samurai carry No-dachis instead of katanas as their primary weapons?[/QUOTE]Well, you're right: by examining my books I've got the impression that the no-dachi was mainly a Nambokuchô (War of the Courts, 14th century) period fashion fad. During that time, samurai infantry was becoming more and more common, slowly eclipsing the traditional mounted samurai. Infantry was able to wield larger and heavier swords than cavalry, so the swords of that age were a bit over the top in general...

Quote Because they didn´t, the katana is, in the hands of a skilled swordsman, potentially a better weapon than a No-Dachi.[/QUOTE]I submit: you and Zen_Blade-sama may duke it out, but I'm ready to yield to your superior knowledge. The only sword I've actually held was a low-quality Russian cavalry sabre, so...

However, I still think katana-armed troops should find it a little more difficult to engage spear-armed troops than No-Dachi Samurai do now. After all, the point of having a No-Dachi was its reach, and reach is very important when fighting someone wielding a polearm. Following the lines of your suggestion, maybe we could assign the ND better armor, set some general level for the armies' weapon quality and make the ND a level lower (perhaps Improved Weapons [+1] vs. a standard quality of Superior Weapons [+2] or something).

Quote You must remember that the katana is not to be looked down on, it was and remains the finest type of sword, whose battlefield effectiveness was only contested by rapiers (and I assume a katana and rapier never met in a historical battlefield).[/QUOTE]I'm certainly not one to look down to either katanas or their wielders: after all, it seems that the new Kensai unit in the expansion pack will use a katana to cut a swath through enemy armies. Also, I maintain that a Toledo rapier looks like a knitting needle next to any decent Japanese blade... http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

Quote Whoops! Did I really say it was for the Japanese? We all know how good friends the Japanese and Korean were ! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif[/QUOTE]Well, Hideyoshi assumed to enlist the Korean Kingdom's army as his vanguard for an invasion to China. Your idea is just as workable as his http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

Seriously, though, the expansion pack's new units present more opportunities for us interested in more historical games, as well. For example, that as-yet-unnamed unit that seems to be wielding a glaive (a real glaive, as opposed to the nagamaki used by the current Naginata units). Its existense might alter the careful balance we can now establish... But we really don't know anything about it yet.

(End of Part I)

[Anssi Hakkinen]

(Start of Part 2 - this will go down in my history as the Post That Simply Was Too Long! UBB choked on it! LOL http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif)

Quote Hmmm, how about:
At least 10 yari ashigaru
Up to 2 teppos
up to 1 samurai cavalry unit
Up to 1 samurai infantry unit
Up to 3 Warrior Monks

That could work, and still be playable and fun.[/QUOTE]I like that: I like that very much. Maybe we could forgo the cavalry unit for Samurai Archers for something. But I like it, as long as the Ikkô-Ikki player doesn't use his WMs to trick the opponent's ashigaru into routing... http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

Quote One thing about the issue of not having enough room for 120-man units (and 24 units for 2 vs 2) is: do like the generals of the Sengoku period![/QUOTE]The reserves suggestion is highly usable as well, because reserves bolstering front-line morale is already modelled to some extent in STW. Having two players play one army would be especially useful: one manages the battle itself, the other tends so the reserves and watches the flanks. Good.

Quote There are ways to reduce the amount and risk of ashigaru routing, and this is one of the most interesting points of these realistic games, as the Sengoku period Taisho faced this same problem![/QUOTE]I like this as well. Using ashigaru brings about more realistic casualty ratios, as armies really will rout after suffering crippling casualties, rather than have 10 man units wandering about in the enemy rear.

The next victim: Zen_Blade-sama: http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif
Quote Before Ashigaru became the backbone of many armies, I think bowmen would have constituted a large chunk of the force (with bowmen of course being equipped with swords for hand to hand combat)[/QUOTE]Bows were widely used in the Heian and Kamakura periods, when battles were mostly about mounted samurai (those battle platforms on horses) facing off against one another, but all this was changed by the spear. Its use in mass infantry formations was introduced by the Mongols, and the Japanese developed the concept throughout the 14th and 15th centuries before it reached fruitition in Sengoku-era Yari Ashigaru armies. This would have meant the downfall of the bow regardless of the introduction of firearms, as a mounted bushi of old cannot expect to drop 20 peasants with pointy sticks no matter how good he is with his yumi. Thus, cavalry archers quickly became redundant as mounted samurai switched to quicker weapons: spears of their own. Thus, Yari Cavalry.

Quote This reminds me of a line in a house code (I believe by Hojo Soun) that basically states 1 plain sword kills just as many ppl as 1 fancy sword, but for the cost of the fancy sword you can get a lot more plain swords.[/QUOTE]The proverb actually spoke of a hundred spears against one sword... Which, again, just goes to show the extent to which Yari Ashigaru ruled the Sengoku battlefield. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
"Understood the Sword his meaning, / Understood the hero's question, / And it answered him as follows: / 'Wherefore at thy heart's desire / Should I not thy flesh devour, / And drink up thy blood so evil? / I who guiltless flesh have eaten, / Drank the blood of those who sinned not?'"
-The Kalevala, Poem XXXVI, verses 327-334

[Zen Blade]

Anssi,

I am confused. Are you disagreeing with me, or providing the proof in favor of what I said? When you said "next victim" I expected a disagreement, but your comments are mostly concurring with mine. Did I misunderstand your comments?

also, the Hojo Soun comment had to do with swords and the house code of the Hojo. I believe there are some bits about it on FWSeal's site (Samurai Archives), but if not I must have read it in a book. I remember though that the quote dealt specifically with swords and the point was not in observation of the conditions on the field of battle, but rather the practicality of weapons and the proper use of them, and what was an acceptable pursuit and what was not.


As for knowledge in swords, mine is also not so great as although I have seen and held many swords (some real, others modern remakes), I have never used a REAL sword in combat and don't know the precise advantages and disadvantages.

-Zen Blade

------------------
Zen Blade Asai
Red Devil
Last of the RSG

[Scorpion]

Honorable Anssi-san:

>>>I submit: you and Zen_Blade-sama may duke it out, but I'm ready to yield to your superior knowledge. The only sword I've actually held was a low-quality Russian cavalry sabre, so...

Thank you. I have looked into this at www.swordforum.com (http://www.swordforum.com) (heartily recommended to everyone interested in swords) and various books.

Zen_Blade-san:

>>>I would point out that since the no-dachi was perhaps a bigger weapon on average, that it would have an increased advantage.

Sorry, but that simply is not the truth. Ask any martial artist who handles swords, and you will find out why a bigger weapon is not always better. There is a thing called balance, and if a sword is not perfectly balanced, it is not a perfect weapon. Add to that that the No-Dachi is much more heavy, and longer, making it unwieldy and much slower than a katana, thus overall an inferior weapon. The added length could be of advantage in some very special occasions, but generally, if you pit two "equal" kensai into a duel, one with a delicately balanced katana and one with a no-dachi, something special needs to happen in order for the no-dachi-wielder to win.

>>>Also, one slice of a no-dachi will kill just as much as one slice of a katana, thus the slowness of the no-dachi is perhaps not as much of a problem as it would be against a yari or even two yaris.

Funny, I was just about to say that one slice of a katana will kill just as easily as a slice of a no-dachi. All of the factors I have mentioned on No-Dachis, in addition to the katana being defensibly a much better weapon, contribute to the fact that it would very much be a problem for the No-Dachi wielder. As Anssi said, the ND was mostly a fashion fad, not a superior weapon design, or even equal.

>>>strict personal code and many would be willing to turn down a superior weapon to use one with more honor

Again you are thinking that the No-Dachi is a superior weapon. It isn´t. Period. And even if it was, this line of thinking is just too far off. The norm would be to use the best weapon, exactly as the samurai did, and carried katanas.

>>>This reminds me of a line in a house code (I believe by Hojo Soun) that basically states 1 plain sword kills just as many ppl as 1 fancy sword, but for the cost of the fancy sword you can get a lot more plain swords.

Sorry, but it did not work that way. A samurai was a noble, a warrior that the daimyo would have to hire from the province to fight for his cause. He would generally bring his own weapons and armour, bought with his own wealth. Naturally they were the best the samurai noble could afford.

You see, the relationship between a samurai and the bladesmith he has entrusted was usually not casual.
The samurai would commission the work to a bladesmith, and the bladesmith would strive to create the best possible sword for the samurai as possible, and naturally as every samurai had different wishes and dimensions, blades would have to be "custom-tailored" to be the optimal weapon for the samurai. Rarely, if at all, did a samurai just walk into a swordsmith´s and pick up a sword from "stock" (if there ever was one).

I ordered my first katana from an Swiss bladesmith (it is due to arrive next month!) last year, and even it was a lenghty transaction requiring long phone calls and several (at least a dozen sent by me) e-mails, and when he gets around to forging it, I suppose there will be many more!

My blade´s nagasa (blade length without sori (the curvature)) will be 33", but that is only because I´m so tall(204 cms), whilst the tsuka (handle) length is about 12".
The (slightly http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif shorter average height of the samurai meant that their blades were between 25-27", and they were at their finest when at the optimum length.

Maybe that may give you an inkling of how it must have been in historical Japan.

((end of part 1))

[Scorpion]

((And on it goes....))

>>>as for the monk force...they had a good number of guns....
Here I must submit to your superior knowledge. Agreed, the monk army may have more teppos, actually up to 4.

>>>Before Ashigaru became the backbone of many armies, I think bowmen would have constituted a large chunk of the force

Ok, this requires a new army list.....a pre-Sengoku period army list.

>>>I still think katana-armed troops should find it a little more difficult to engage spear-armed troops than No-Dachi Samurai do now

Do they get a bonus against cavalry now, like yari-armed troops? I was not aware of that. Actually, the horse was very vulnerable to a skilled foot samurai, the horseman primarily relying on the impetus of his charge, and even then the foot samurai has a chance to step aside and strike back, while the horseman does not. As soon as the horse stops, the horses become fair game for any infantrymen-even if they are warhorses trained to fight with their riders. There is enough evidence of this with the medieval knights of Europe......

So I see no point in reducing the effectiveness of the ND/kat unit against cavalry even if they use katanas instead of nd´s.

>>>Also, I maintain that a Toledo rapier looks like a knitting needle next to any decent Japanese blade...

Actually, as I said the rapier is the only sword to contest the katana for the title of the supreme sword (and overall duelling weapon).
The good people at Swordforum.com have discussed this topic several times, with the result being indecisive (again, assuming laboratory conditions here, and exactly "identical" skill levels for the combatants), but with the general opinion being that the rapier would simply be too fast for the katana-wielder to get in close (an expert rapier-fighter would never let the samurai close enough) enough to deliver the killing blow. But if the samurai somehow did, it would be all over.
However, if the samurai wielder were to wear full samurai armor, things would be a bit more complicated, with the balance shifting heavily towards the samurai.
The rapier-wielder, however, could never hope to wear enough armor to effectively protect himself against the finest cutting weapon of all time, used by a strong samurai in two hands (fighting with a kat and a wak at the same time like Musashi did would not be advantageous here.)

Getting OT here....... but while we´re at it, don´t you begin to understand why Musashi thought it would not be a challenge at all to kill a man with a katana (and a wakizashi) and switched to sharpened bokken at a certain point? With his skills, he did not consider it to be fair and honorable for him to defeat warriors in combat with a katana.

I think it´s time for me to devise several different lists that cover different time periods and different types of armies (such as the Ikko-Ikki.).
I will start with look into researching a book by Gen. Montgomery&co, "Warfare throughout the ages".
After that, I will post them in a new topic, in maybe a more appropriate forum of these boards, and it will be much more clear than these mammoth posts. It will just contain the lists, both for 2-player games and 4-player 24-unit(I guess there simply is not enough room and prolly not need for 32) games.
Although I´m not sure it would reach public interest on the historical forum....
Can I still post it here if it relates to the game only?

Now is the time for you to suggest different army types and periods for which to create army lists, that can be represented with the units in Shogun (proxying such as my considering the NDs as katanas is allowed, if the proxy unit looks and plays right).

So far we have:
1)Sengoku-period Daimyo army
2)Ikko-Ikki army
3)Heian/Kamakura period army
4)Teppo army (meaning the mostly-teppo armies used by some daimyos of the late Sengoku period)

5)?

[Zen Blade]

Scorpion,

I have never fought with either a No-dachi or a Katana and thus can not attest to the realistic relative advantages and disadvantages of each sword type.

However, I have fought using shinai's (basically woooden swords with a good amount of give). Now, one thing I learned while fighting with these weapons is that two fighters of equal ability, using their preferred swords... one using a "39" and another using a "34" or even a "36"

--note to ppl who may not know this terminology. these are relative lengths of the overall weapon... not in inches or centimeters, just relative lengths. With the 39 being heavier and a few inches longer than a 36 or 34. For example, most women use a 36 two handed while most guys use it one handed. However, just about anyone who uses a 39 (in my experience) uses it two-handed--

back to the topic... anyways... Given equal opponents, the fighter with the 39 wins more often than the fighter with the 36 and even more often over the fighter with the 34. One reason being relative range and another being the extra force in the strike that accompanies the sword with the bigger mass.

now, as I said before I have not fought with a real sword so I can't say exactly the relative balance and weight and such....
but in a non-prolonged combat I would have to give the advantage to the no-dachi. Note that I do not say in a long, prolonged fight as in a prolonged battle with many ashigaru and such, where the weight and slowness of the sword would have a greater effect.

Another point I would like to make is that a battle situation is much different than a dueling situation. In a dueling situation, the combatants can afford to wait and do other things. However, in a battle (with let's say 100 men per side) waiting is not much of an option once the two sides begin to face off and engage. Remember, Scorpion, by your own admission this is not a dueling situation... although the rapier may be great for dueling, I have never heard of it being used for mass combat (although I could very easily be wrong on this). And I would make a similar comparison with the katana, since the first strike by either the katana of the No-dachi would kill the opponent and the no-dachi (in my opinion) has a greater chance of landing the first blow.

-however, I should make it clear that I am not saying the no-dachi is necessarily a better weapon en masse. I would imagine it would take a lot more strength to wield the weapon effectively, and for the average person a katana probably would be a better weapon.

however, I do not have much heart to argue these points as few of us (including myself) have any true experience in fighting these with these types of weapons in actual battles. However, if you wish to discuss the relative merits of such weapons I am willing to give input, but I would be more of a listener, than a writer of fact.

damn it! this was a long post. hopefully someone can read through it in its entirety and tell me whether or not there are any spelling or grammar errors. : )

-Zen Blade

------------------
Zen Blade Asai
Red Devil
Last of the RSG

[Scorpion]

Zen-blade-san:

I do not have much to to argue this issue right now, but let me just say that wooden swords are totally unlike real swords. They are so light that weight and balance are not even considered an issue with them.

A rapier is a duellist's weapon, not very suitable for mass battles, whereas the katana excels on both battlefield and duelling roles.

If you are truly interested in this, I urge you to visit www.swordforum.com (http://www.swordforum.com) ´s general forum, and post it as a question there. If you don´t want to, I can post it for you and report the answers here. The people there are the best sword connoisseurs on the net.

The weapon that was the best became the norm for every samurai, and that was the katana.

Now I´m off to the library!

[Che]

In 'Croutching Tiger Hidden Dragon' one of the main characters uses a two handed sword against the antagonist who's using a one handed sword. The results are inconclusive =]

I'd expect that an expert in two handed sword combat would know how to fight perfectly well against a shorter sword, and it would all come down to skill and knowledge. The sword itself isn't going to win any battles; give me the longest sword in the world and I could lose against a dagger (or vice versa), if my opponent had any idea what s/he was doing

[Scorpion]

Ok, this is going way off-topic now, my main interest was the discussion of the historical army lists, but.......


Che-san,
How does your example out of the fictional story relate to the discussion at hand?
With how many hands do you think the katana was used ? http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

You assumed that an expert with two-handed swords could defeat someone with a single-handed sword. Well of course he can, but firstly, we were only comparing the merits of the individual weapons without considering the countless factors that would affect the battle´s outcome, skill of the wielder included (which would have been the main factor anyway).
Secondly, the katana was wielded two-handed just like the No-Dachi, and it was generally a much better weapon than the ND.
If you have doubts, I suggest you post your question over at www.swordforum.com (http://www.swordforum.com) .

And even if the katana was used single-handed, that would´ve meant that there is a wakizashi in the other.....and everyone can imagine how it would tip the scales and to whose favor.....

[Nelson]

Nice thread, men! A more realistic portrayal of 16th century Japanese combat is welcome.

I have a couple of ideas:

Consider an ashigaru unit in open order with a few yari cav in their midst, also in open order. The ratio might be 4 or 5 to 1. This would simulate a mounted samurai's retainers assisting their lord as he canters to one combat after the next. This composite unit would be grouped and used together at all times. Some of the foot troops could be yari samurai also. There is a Japanese name for this but I can't remember it.

A similar ratio of musketeers to archers in a group would also work because the two supported one another on occation. We have no ashigaru archers, however, though we should.

The yari was the dominant melee weapon of the Sengoku period for samurai and ashigaru alike, on foot or on horseback, with or without formations. For soldiers who didn't use shields the longer reach of yari over katana was decisive. IMO, nodachi, naginata and cav archers can add flavor to the historic mix but only in small doses. Monks really don't belong at all as portrayed in the game.



[This message has been edited by Nelson (edited 01-17-2001).]

[Vile]

Quote Originally posted by Anssi Hakkinen:
As a gross approximation, maybe 70-80% of all the kills ever made in Japan were made with this weapon[/QUOTE]

Talking about katana/tachi.
Actually I have this email by one historian (prof. Karl Friday) that has actual records of one battle casualties. I'll post it when I find it.
If my memory serves me correct, the most casualties were caused by arrows, the next by stones(!) and then yari wounds. Sword wounds are rather down on the list. I can't recall what era this record was from (propably before the extesive use of firearms), but like I said I'll post it here.

Btw. Katana means a sword tucked under your belt having the cutting edge upwards. I think that most armored bushi used tachi on the battlefield (which is usually a bit longer than katana) which is hung from the belt cutting edge downwards.
I also agree with Nelson about the yari being the dominant melee weapon with few scattered naginata, nodachi, nagamaki etc.

I've heard one person who has practised nagamakijutsu (nagamaki has a rather long tachi/sword blade with a long handle, as long as the blade) describe nagamaki techniques simple to be used to cut down holes in the enemy ranks (swing it baby, I mean just swing it from side to side ;) or to cut the legs of a horse (which could also be done with a nodachi).

[Slyspy]

Vile,
Where do the caualties from stones come from? Stone musket balls or slingshot perhaps. Did the Japanese use slings? Or perhaps a catapult of somekind. Or were they dropped from a castle wall during a siege? Please let us know which battle and when it was fought.


------------------
"Put 'em in blue coats, put 'em in red coats, the bastards will run all the same!"

[Vile]

Here is the whole quote by professor Karl Friday, (Univ. of Georgia, history dept.):

> First, this whole picture of Light Brigade style charges against gunners is
> dramatically overblown; there's a ton of new research coming out that shows
> that guns didn't dramatically alter the shape of Japanese warfare, they
> simply replaced the bow and arrow. An analysis that I was just looking at
> this morning, of documents reporting battlewounds, for example, shows that
> between 1500 and 1560, out of some 620 casualties described, 368 were arrow
> wounds, 124 were spear wounds, 96 were injuries from rocks (thrown by
> slings or by hand), 18 were sword wounds, 7 were combined arrow and spear
> wounds, 3 were combined arrow and sword wounds, 2 were combined rock and
> spear wounds, and 2 were combined rock and arrow wounds. Between 1563
> and 1600 (after the adoption of the gun) some 584 reported casualties break
> down as follows: there were 263 gunshot victims, 126 arrow victims, 99
> spear victims, 40 sword victims, 30 injured by rocks, and 26 injured by
> combinations of the above (including one poor SOB who was shot by both guns
> and arrows and stabbed by spears, and one who was speared, naginata-ed, and
> cut with a sword). In other words, long distance weapons (arrows and
> rocks) accounted for about 75% of the wounds received in the pre-gun era,
> and about 72 % (arrows + guns + rocks) during the gunpowder era. Which is
> to say that "traditional fighting" does not appear to have been heavily
> centered on close-quarters clashes of swords or even of spears, except in
> literary sources.

So I recalled a bit wrong. Obviously I was overwhelmed by the number of casualties made by rocks, but together arrows and spears (before 1560 and after that guns and spears) seemed to be the thing in Japanese warfare.
I think that somebody critized in that same thread the number of rock wounds, that some of the casualties caused by any blunt instrument (or falling from horseback etc.) could be counted as "rock wound". Then again, I think that at some point of the war it goes pretty brutal and you just hit/throw your enemy with anything at hand, and rocks are usually there for you in such an occasion :)

But in the conclusion, it really seems that ranged weapons were always the thing, although we have this image about the tachi or katana wielding noble samurai. And why wouldn't it be? Maybe the samurai waited until all of the arrows had been spent to the yari ashigaru (who, as it seems, formed the backbone of any major army, because they were more easily available than any elite samurai) and had their individual challenges after that (or vice versa). Well, I personally can not really be rated as an historian and I'm just having more or less educated guessing here..

And again we have to remember that most of our ideas about how an samurai should act and look like come from the Tokugawa era, or even late Tokugawa era, at what time these kind of large battles didn't occure.

On a personal note, I've found Karl Fridays comments and writings that I've read very convincing, as it seems that he has a very critical point of view (critical as in scientific) to anything he researches and seems very logical and objective in his researches.

[Anssi Hakkinen]

Yes, it does look convincing. That 70-80% was a really gross approximation.

However, my original words were "all the kills ever made in Japan", which includes not only the various wars, but also any skirmishes, Edo period duels and brigand fights, pirate raids, pre-Heian era battles against the ainu and so on... Especially during the Edo period the sword was the thing; guns (outlawed), spears ("weapons of war, not peacetime") and bows (obsolete) were very rarely used.

I was a bit baffled by the amount of rock wounds, too. Especially since I've ever heard of only one daimyô who equipped his ashigaru with slings. Despite the accuracy of his description, Prof. Friday seems to have a smallish sample; only 620 out of the tens if not hundreds of thousands that were killed in battle at the heat of the Sengoku Jidai. The rock wounds could be just a statistical anomaly: maybe Shikoku samurai were more diligent in describing their casualties than average? http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/confused.gif

------------------
"Go to the battlefield firmly confident of victory, and you will come home with no wounds whatsoever. Engage in combat fully determined to die and you will be alive; wish to survive in the battle and you will surely meet death."
- Uesugi Kenshin