Log in

View Full Version : STW so much tougher!



screwtype
09-23-2005, 06:31
There's been a lot of speculation here about whether or not the AI is tougher in the earlier TW games. Well, I've just spent the last couple of days playing STW again, and I don't know about the AI, but there's no doubt in my mind that the challenge in STW is MUCH tougher than it is for RTW.

So far in this STW campaign, I've fought a whole bunch of battles that have been won on a knife-edge - and taken some pretty high casualties to boot. As an example, here's a description of the last battle I fought.

The units involved were Yari Samurai (Samurai Spearmen, thenceforth abbreviated to YS), Yari Ashigaru (Peasant Spearmen, the weakest unit in Shogun, abbreviated to YA) and Archers (AR).

I've just been attacked in a river province by a large army of 1500. Because STW can only handle a 960 man army at one time, this means I will have to rout the first full army of 960 off the field and then deal with the other 500 or so as they enter it.

The battle begins. The enemy have four YS, four YA, seven AR in various states of repair, and a heavy cav unit (the enemy Daimyo or faction leader). I have five YS, one YA and four AR's, all with one honour bonus. I'm heavily outnumbered but this will be a bridge battle and experience tells me I have enough troops to repulse the enemy. The only question mark is what sort of honour bonuses the enemy Daimyo brings with him - honour is a major factor in STW.

I decide to emulate the AI's favourite tactic for defending a bridge. I withdraw my army just out of enemy bow range on my side of the bridge. This means he will have to attack over the bridge with no archer support while my archers can fire freely on his advancing units.

He begins by attacking with his four YS. Good - I want him to attack with his best units while my archers have plenty of ammo. My AR's hammer his units as they come across the bridge, and hammer them some more on my side. By the time they reach my own line of YS they are in really bad shape, and a quick attack routs them back across the bridge, where they suffer more missile casualties as they escape. They will not trouble me much more.

Now the enemy advances with his four units of YA, backed by the remnants of his YS and the Daimyo. This time it's his YA's turn to get torn to shreds with my missiles, but now the entire AI army is charging across the bridge, including his own archers. This is the decisive moment to advance with my own melee troops and stop the enemy breakout. My intact YS run toward the bridge but they get there a little late and the enemy has advanced further than I intended. No matter. I can contain the flanks by positioning my archers there while my YS kill the remnants of the enemy melee units.

It takes a little longer than I expected to break the enemy's melee units, but by this time I outnumber them so heavily the result is a foregone conclusion. Pretty soon the entire enemy is routing with the exception of the Daimyo who I have trapped on the bridge. Yippee! I manage to kill the Daimyo. That is going to reduce their morale by an even bigger margin.

Now I have to decide whether to chase them off the field or wait for them to regroup and return with reinforcements. I decide to chase them, because that way the reinforcements usually only arrive in dribs and drabs and one can deal with them piecemeal. But I don't chase quickly, just walk the troops, to try not to tire them out any more than necessary.

Okay the initial AI army has been routed off the field. But where are the AI reinforcements? Oh, here's a unit of YA advancing from the east. I quickly despatch him. Here's another one from the west, with a unit of archers in support. I quickly break them as well.

But by now my army is getting pretty tired with all this chasing, and still I haven't seen the bulk of the AI reinforcements. At last I locate them advancing in a group from the side of the river I started the battle from. It looks like two YS, two YA and one AR. I still have my five YS and four AR pretty much intact, so they shouldn't be a problem.

Oh wait, there's another lone unit of YA advancing from the east. My closest troops are the four AR, and I decide to use all four to ensure the appropriate outcome. So I charge with the four of them and the enemy YA immediately breaks and runs. What a wimp! I assign one AR to the job of chasing this unit off the field, and march the remaining three AR back to the main body of my army.

By this time I have arranged my five YS on the slope of a hill where they are in a strong position, with my three AR on the left flank. The enemy have two units of YS, two of YA and one archer. So I not only outnumber the enemy with my five YS, I also considerably outclass them. My units are by now very tired, but I've already routed three quarters of the enemy and killed his Daimyo. It shouldn't take much to get this last bunch on the run.

But now, something unexpected. A blinking white flag in the unit array. Who the heck is that? I double click on the blinking unit. It's the archers I sent to chase that cowardly unit of YA off the field. I can't believe this! Somehow those lousy peasants have regrouped and are now actually charging my archers! Heck, I didn't expect that!

I try to get the archers to run numerous times but they are caught and can't be extricated. I guess they're just too tired to run away. Will I try to rescue them with my other units of archers? The battle is happening a ways to the rear and by the time they get there the fight will probably be over anyhow. So I just hope those routing archers won't disturb the rest of my army.

By now the main body of the enemy has advanced to within a short distance of my mine. This should be over pretty quick anyhow. The enemy archer unit begins to shoot one of my YS, and I realize I can't wait for them to attack me on the hill. I'll have to take the attack to them. All the more so because yet one more enemy unit has appeared - a YS, advancing very cautiously on the left flank. May as well deal with the others before it gets here.

So here's the final troop disposition (enemy units in red):

_______________________________________AR
_________________________________________YS
____________________________________________YA.YS.YA
______________________________________________________YS
________________________________________YS__YS.YS.YS _____________________________________ AR.AR
YS(distant, stopped) _______________________AR










__________________(wavering)AR
___________________________YA


I attack with my three central YS. Three YS against two YA and one YS. YA cannot stand up to YS for long so I expect a quick rout. Better still, I managed to envelop both flanks of the three enemy units. And I'm attacking downhill. This should be over pretty quickly.

On the left flank, it's a bit tougher. My three AR are now wavering because of the enemy units on the flank and rear, and because that other archer unit has finally routed. So I can't use them to attack. Attacking with routing units always causes them to immediately rout. So they are effectively out of the battle for the moment. That leaves the one YS on the left flank, but he doesn't dare attack his opposing YS because he will no doubt be attacked on his flank by the enemy archer. But I still have my spare YS on the right flank, I was hoping not to commit him because he is my general - but those damned enemy YA just *won't* run! Now is the time.

I charge my general behind the other enemy units, straight toward the enemy archer unit. When it retreats, I will then charge it into the rear of the lone YS on the left flank, at the same time sandwiching it with my other uncommited YS. That should cause a quick rout, then I will use one YS to charge the rear of those blasted YA that just won't die!

I momentarily check another part of the battlefield. Then quickly return to see how my general's charge is going. Oh no! The general has somehow become engaged in the main fight with the three enemy units! I guess their flank must have just got tagged as they ran past.

Now I have to watch helplessly as the YS on the left flank advances together with the archer unit to attack my leftmost YS. But hell, on the right I've got four YS which by now have completely surrounding the two YA and one YS. Surely they must be about to break!

But somehow, they don't. And now my YS on the left is also wavering along with the archer units. I wait anxious seconds to see which side is going to break first. And, you guessed it. It's mine. The YS on the left breaks and then my whole army follows, routing straight through the enemy to be decimated as they run for home.

I had favourable ground, numerical and class superiority, and I'd routed three quarters of the enemy and killed their Daimyo. And still I managed to lose the battle.

I don't know about you guys, but I never have battles in RTW as challenging as this!

Kraxis
09-23-2005, 11:52
Nope, that is true...
One would think with the phalanx units that it should have been the other way round.

I can still remember those battles where my army ends up victorious but too depleted to be worth anything the next year when another attack from another faction comes.

Puzz3D
09-23-2005, 13:48
The RPS is stronger in STW than it is in RTW. The AI in both games is designed to make correct individual unit matchups, and that works better in the stronger RPS system of STW. The movement and combat is slower in STW, and that gives the player more time during the battle to issue individual unit orders which is consistent with what has to be done to play an RPS sytle game.

The inconsistency in RTW is that you don't have time to control all of your units, and the AI is less suited to the weaker RPS. So, you have an AI that breaks its formation without adequate tactical compensation, and the player can easily take advantage of that since securing correct individual matchups is not as important as flanking. The balance of these tactical aspects, which allowed flexible thinking in reaction to a changing situation to determine the outcome of a battle, was much better in STW than it is in RTW.

Kekvit Irae
09-23-2005, 13:59
I'm currently debating weither or not to move this to the STW subforum.
I'm currently thinking FOR moving it, as the majority of the post is related to STW.

Puzz3D
09-23-2005, 15:44
It's related to why the tactical AI in RTW doesn't work well. There is a fundamental design issue here, and I don't know how light can be shed on it without comparing RTW to the previous games in the series.

screwtype
09-23-2005, 16:49
Nope, that is true...
One would think with the phalanx units that it should have been the other way round.

I can still remember those battles where my army ends up victorious but too depleted to be worth anything the next year when another attack from another faction comes.

It's hard to go back to playing STW for a while without coming to the conclusion once again that RTW is a betrayal of the game system's promise. Yes, RTW should have been tougher and more complex than the previous titles, not easier and simpler!

The critical difference for me is that I still find STW fun to play, even after all these years. I can't see myself ever booting up RTW again. I just hope BI or the mods for it bring back some of the old magic.


The balance of these tactical aspects, which allowed flexible thinking in reaction to a changing situation to determine the outcome of a battle, was much better in STW than it is in RTW.

I don't know what you mean by "RPS", but I think you make some good points. The movement speeds and kill rates in RTW are so great that there is little time for tactics to develop. But I still think the AI is better in the older games.

As for balance, yes, going back to STW I've been impressed with just how finely balanced the game is. I've fought half a dozen battles in a row where half my units were blinking the white flag at some stage - yet in a few moments, and with some very careful maneouvres, I've been able to turn the tide and have the other side running a few seconds later.

In fact, it's that ebb and flow and turn of fortune that in some ways I miss most in the newer game. Battles in STW and MTW often have several different phases, in any one of which the tide of fortune can suddenly change (as in the battle described above). There's nothing like that in RTW, the whole thing is just over too quickly.

Kekvit Irae
09-23-2005, 16:54
The majority of the post is a battle-recount of STW. I would be more inclined to keep it here if it had both a battle-recount of RTW and STW, or amounts of STW alongside equal amounts of comparisons to RTW, but it doesnt on either account. 23 out of the 25 paragraphs have no mention of RTW, or even comparisons to RTW.

screwtype
09-23-2005, 17:01
But we all know what the playing experience is like in RTW. I'm just describing what a battle in one of the earlier titles is like so that those who haven't played one of them, or haven't done so for some time, can be reminded of what those battles were like and compare them to their current experience.

screwtype
09-23-2005, 17:09
OK, kekvitirae, what I'll try to do is list the things I experienced in the battle described above which I think could be usefully compared to the battles in RTW. That will hopefully steer the thread in the right direction.

I can't do this tonight though, it's very late in my part of the world and I'm too tired to get my head around it. It'll have to wait till tomorrow.

Puzz3D
09-23-2005, 17:58
RPS = Rock, Paper, Scissors

The strength of the RPS is determined by the magnitude of the anti-cav bonus.

In STW, the anti-cav bonus of spears is 400%.
In RTW, the anti-cav bonus of spears is 160%.

On top of that, spearmen who switch to their secondary weapon when horses jump into them loose their anti-cav bonus.

Kraxis
09-23-2005, 18:55
The majority of the post is a battle-recount of STW. I would be more inclined to keep it here if it had both a battle-recount of RTW and STW, or amounts of STW alongside equal amounts of comparisons to RTW, but it doesnt on either account. 23 out of the 25 paragraphs have no mention of RTW, or even comparisons to RTW.
But the intent of the post was to discuss the differences, as is going on at the moment. It would be quite wrong to move it as the soul of the thread belongs here.

The problem we see is simple. The account of the battle clearly shows a fundamental difference. Each unit can suffer flanking (and in this case a very serious flanking) easily for a good while, in RTW they can't unless they are some of the best units. The speed of killing is also very different (though STW was slightly faster than MTW). It also seems that the STW AI is more concerned with keeping a firm line rather than getting the perfect matchup (which can be quite bad actually), the reverse is true in RTW.

The result is that it is hard, in RTW, to get a comeback from a reverse or suffer a reverse when winning.

Orda Khan
09-24-2005, 00:07
The original post is quite true, there can be no argument with that. However, there are certain things that must be considered before we condemn, utterly, RTW and the subsequent expansion.

First and foremost we must remember that this is not feudal Japan and ancient battles were not the same.

Before I get bombarded with the familiar phalanx issues and the speed and the incompetant AI, I will add that none of us has seen BI yet, apart from a demo which was by no means a finished item.

Was MTW such a great step forward after STW? Not for me and I can still recall the complaints about a game which is now being heralded as an 'all time great'. There was an obvious bias towards European factions and the AI was not exactly efficient as it just never seemed to know how to use archers or crossbows.
In both games we were lumbered with static horse archers. The mere fact that horse archers are now mobile is a tremendous improvement over the previous titles and the 'so called' bug never affected my games. My HA fired on the move, I could see the arrows, so there was no animation flaw IMO. The last thing I would want is those silly HA that had to stop before they could fire and worse still, would only skirmish away from the unit they targetted. In RTW they skirmish away from enemy units whether targetted or not.

Yes, the AI was smarter ( or appeared to be ) in STW but if that is all people can come up with, why are there so few playing STW? Why did MTW become such a paragon?
And if RTW is so awful, why are we all still here?
If the game is that bad, play STW.

........Orda

antisocialmunky
09-24-2005, 01:52
If the game is that bad, play STW.

Personally, I'm going to get Sengoku Jidai for that. Duke John's simplification of the RPS system will help achieve some of that STW balance.

Puzz3D
09-24-2005, 13:19
If the game is that bad, play STW.
I can't get either STW or STW/MI campaign to run on WinXP without them crashing the operating system. The last time STW/MI crashed it damaged my task manager program. Now I have a broken operating system.

screwtype
09-24-2005, 20:08
Oh, I'm sorry to hear that Puzz. Since I installed my new mobo/CPU/RAM upgrade last weekend, I've been having an occasional CTD with STW and MTW that I didn't get before. They're not too frequent but CTD's can be very annoying all the same, especially when you've just spent a turn playing three big battles in a row and it CTD's right after you win the third one :furious3:

I had actually been considering upgrading to XP in hopes of getting rid of them, but you've put me off now :laugh4:

NodachiSam
09-25-2005, 00:19
Oh, I'm sorry to hear that Puzz. Since I installed my new mobo/CPU/RAM upgrade last weekend, I've been having an occasional CTD with STW and MTW that I didn't get before. They're not too frequent but CTD's can be very annoying all the same, especially when you've just spent a turn playing three big battles in a row and it CTD's right after you win the third one :furious3:

I had actually been considering upgrading to XP in hopes of getting rid of them, but you've put me off now :laugh4:


BTW STW has trouble with XP. In my game the advisor and emmisaries speak garbled gibberish in the throne room. :furious3:

OlafTheBrave
09-25-2005, 00:37
I dont have STW and cant comment on that. I do have MTW and have recently gone back to playing that as RTW has just lost its luster with me. I will readily admit that the tactical controls are a quantum leap forward in RTW as are truly functional Horse Archers. I also like the 3d strat map but am still uncertain as to how much it hampers the AI. However as has been pointed out nymerous times the battles in Rome are a joke. For me it isnt the speed. The walking speed of infantry seemed about right visually in Rome and always seemed slow in MTW to me. I find myself now playing MTW at 20% speed which gives marching Infantry a proper appearance in my mind. So I would not argue so much about the speed of the battles. I will say what I have noticed is the speed of what happens. Routing is much faster in RTW. In MTW any unit could be recovered if they were no longer threatened or tired to the point of their moral being tottaly blown anyway. Compare this with Rome where the only way to recover a unit is to get your general close and use his "special" ability which seems to rarely function. What that translates to is one you have broke a unit in Rome it is no longer of any concern. In MTW units would recover, reform, and regroup. This lead to an ebb and flow of battles where the balance of power can swing back and forth. I can recall only one or two battles that this has been the case for me in RTW and both times I was seriously outgunned and should have been crushed from the outset.

I also think the MTW AI does a much better job tactically. It will play about with you with manuever but theer will come a point where it will not yeild the high ground and that is that. I am sure we are all aware how that works in Rome. The MTW AI would change its line for better matchups but I have noticed it does this at a distance. It dosent decide at charge distance that unit A would really kick the dog snot out of unit B at the far end of the field of battle. Also I have noticed it is much better at its flanking attempts and its ability to focus its units on a point in your line to attempt and force a breakthrough.

Finaly what put me off the most wasn't the battles in Rome but the repettitivness of the campaigns. What I mean by this is that in every game the same countries become superpowers, the same countries get crushed, and the same countries sit and do nada. In MTW any country could come to dominate the map. Powers would rise and powers would fall. A great empire could arise and overextend itself and then crumble through civil war or military defest on a weak front.

Red Harvest
09-25-2005, 20:41
I was playing STW/MI a lot before the most recent hurricane. It is playing well on my XP system. I'm using onboard nVidia audio.

MTW/VI won't launch now...odd, because it worked before in XP...haven't had time to investigate what changed. Could be the video failing to launch.

screwtype
09-26-2005, 04:33
[Edit]

Butcher
09-26-2005, 13:12
Not once in RTW have I had one of those 'desperately scraping some routed units together into a thin line to try and hold back the enemy whilst the rest of your shattered army tries to reform behind it' games.
Pity.

HarunTaiwan
09-27-2005, 02:23
I do have to agree with Orda that in the RTW time period battles tended to be one sided and routs were common.

However, gameplay is also important, and especially in the tactical battles, where it is too fast. Should have made an arcade style button.