Printable View
Hey I am new to this game. I am having trouble in the battles. I cant seem to get the enemy to rush my center. I was wondering if you guys could give me some tips for battles. I have played RTW and M2TW and I am more used to them. But this game is awesome.
Well, in the campaign, most of the time yari samurai will be the backbone of your army, with archers being very important as well (essential on defense).
If the AI is defending they will usually sit tight and not rush you.
Yeah. Right now I have a Shimazu campaign. It is me, Uesugi, and Mori. Uesugi has half the map mori has like 2 or 3 provinces. I have all of kyusho and one province on the north and south. I have three full stacks full of muskets, archers, nodachi, yari samurai, and yari ashigura. all my cities are almost fully upgraded and I am getting money in pretty good. The year is 1567 and I am playing on normal. I am not using any cavalry for this campaign.
Hmm, a pity you don't have a bridge province, but you could try baiting them with a weak looking 12 unit army. 4 muskets, 2 yari sam, 6 no dachi should be able to wipe out an attacking mori army pretty easily. Just use the high ground to your advantage and shoot them down as they approach, they'll flee soon enough.
I have been doing that really well. I have trouble using musket units. and the enemy keeps on wanting to attack my flank with his entire army which is annoying.
Quote:
I have played RTW and M2TW and I am more used to them. But this game is awesome.
Welcome to the world of Shogun and samurai warfare:laugh4: If you're used to playing against the RTW-style AI, you will get a rude awakening here:dizzy2:Quote:
and the enemy keeps on wanting to attack my flank with his entire army which is annoying.
Look around for some of the topics here that discuss using teppo in detail. Also, take a look at some of the campaign AAR's. Many are full of tactics using guns............Quote:
I have trouble using musket units.
Yeah. Well I just beat a Shimazu campaign on normal so I guess I am getting better. I love defending but attacking is hard for me. I am more of a turtler. Yeah I have read a few really cool.
Attack is indeed harder than defence especially for players that play against the AI only (no multiplayer). Single Players tend to be reactionists by nature and their strategies revolve around defense that provides them with reaction time. Its really worth it to progressively try to complement one's play style by learning to play aggressively in the battlemap. Custom battles may help a lot here.
Yeah but the more I play the better I should get. That is how things get with me the more I do it the better I get. I am deciding on what clan to do next for shogun. I have a english campaign and I am doing really well on it.
Good - i would try the Hojo if i were you - they are a good clan for beginners imo.
I was thinking of them or takeda.
Takeda may be a bit premature, as they are split as you know. Hojo on the other hand have to turtle early on to consolidate their rich lands and then take on the uesugi (usually). In other words a perfect set up for a newer player.
That is of course not to say that you shouldn't go for it if you feel like it!
I will probably go for Hojo. I like how they can make castles cheaper.
Re Clans to play:
The Prima Strategy Guide lists the following difficultly levels for the Clans:
Mori ( Red ) : Medium
Shimazu ( Green ) : Easy
Imagawa ( Mid Blue ) : Medium
Oda ( Gold ) : Hard
Takeda ( Black ) : Medium
Hojo ( Purple ) : Medium
Uesugi ( Dark Blue ) : Hard
I have played and won ( @ Difficulty = Normal ) with : Mori, Imagawa, Takeda, Hojo & Uesugi.
I found Mori & Hojo the easier of the medium ones ( and Uesugi to be easier than Takeda ! ).
In my opinion, you should be happy with your playing standard before moving onto trying the "split" clans of Imagawa & Takeda.
Enjoy.
The AI does have a tendency to attack the flanks. It is best to compensate a little accordingly to allow for it. How you do it depends on your preferred formation & the units you tend to purchase.Quote:
Originally Posted by jedi121212
I tend to place Yari Cavalry on the flank once I can get them ( and in due course Heavy Cavalry ). Meanwhile I choose a formation that places missile units to the front and all across the frontage, with some support in the centre ( usually towards the rear). I place No-Dachi ( Warrior Monks in due course ), to the flanks and centrally in a third row. The second row is usually made up of Yari units as is any spare space in the third row. The outermost units in the third row are usually Yari units or the cavalry. This generally deals with most attacks by the AI.
Do you use the "Japanese " formations ( via the Taisho icon towards bottom left ) OR the "European " formations ( top right icon )? The AI tends to use the "European" ones ( as it is set to do so ).
I use the "Japanese" ones and "tinker" with them a little ( and "rarely" lots ). I find they give better options than the "European" ones , but each to his own taste.
When attacked in the flank by most of the enemy, you need to manoeuvre your unengaged units to attack the AI's Flank / Rear. The AI will often only use missile units to cover it's flank during these moves. Cavalry are good for dealing with these, but avoid enemy Yari units.
Teppo ( Arquebusiers / Muskets ), should be placed to the very front and centrally if you have one, center left and centre right if you have two. I tend to only get one or two per army as it rains too much in Japan when I have them ! If not already in a 2/3 deep line, adjust them to that.
Generally I click on each missile unit and deselect the "Fire at Will" order. Of course this means you have to choose each units targets through-out the game until you reset it/them again; this however is better than wasting arrows at long range and makes the Teppo fire more devastating when it starts. However, do not take too many casualties before giving your missile units targets and ALWAYS set your Archers to "open order" to minimise casualties. If you use the P ( Pause ) button regularly you can review all aspects of the battle including ordering movement, firing & charges, without missing the action!
Hope this helps.
I kinda use both.
I'm afraid the Prima guide is perhaps somewhat 'misguided'. I would definitely rate Uesugi as easier than Hojo and Imagawa are definitely harder than both. Personally I also find Mori quite easy.Quote:
Originally Posted by DEB8
It would be interesting to see players rate the factions in terms of difficulty.
:bow:
That's OK. Several people avoid the "Japanese" ones as they cannot get to grips with them. I started with them and find them more suitable than the "European" ones I have tried. I haven't mixed them up though so can't really comment on that.Quote:
Originally Posted by jedi121212
Japanese Armies = Japanese Formations. Makes sense to me.
I tend to use the "Birds" formation for most things except bridge provences, as it is the most flexable. I avoid the "Yoke" formation as the General is put forward & left and I don't like it there. At the rear is best for him IMHO. Arrowhead is the best attacking formation & Keyhole the best defensive one if outnumbered. The other two have their uses but I tend to use the Crane one more than the other.
If you like a formation use it regularly. It helps. You will learn which units suit which positions best in due course ( although the AI is usually OK at it. It will also help you to choose which units to train. I recommend choosing units to suit the formation you like over choosing a formation to suit the units you like. However, you can mix it up a little if you like.
I would point out that the difficulty level in playing a game depends as much on the strategy chosen as the clan. The book provides two to four strategy options dependant on the clan you play. How we ( as players ) perceive the difficulty level is based on how our chosen strategy works. The book presumably rates according to the clan only, taking ALL strategies into account.Quote:
Originally Posted by Asai Nagamasa
Personally, I would rate ( based on 1 game at each ):
Mori ( Red ) : Easy ( Easy to Medium dependent on Strategy )
Shimazu ( Green ) : N/A
Imagawa ( Mid Blue ) : Hard ( Medium to Hard dependent on Strategy )
Oda ( Gold ) : N/A
Takeda ( Black ) : Medium ( Medium to Hard dependent on Strategy )
Hojo ( Purple ) : Easy ( Easy to Medium dependent on Strategy )
Uesugi ( Dark Blue ) : Easy ( Easy to Hard dependent on Strategy )
Starting with the easiest, assuming you do the "ideal" strategy:
Hojo
Uesugi
Takeda
Shimazu
Imagawa
Oda
Mori
The takeda, hojo, and uesugi campaigns are the same after the first 5 years. If you start as takeda, you wipe out the hojo and then the uesugi. If you start as the hojo you take out the Uesugi. If you start as the uesugi you take out the hojo. Anyway you slice it you end up with a ton of money and a narrow front to attack.
Shimazu and imagawa are basically the same, conquer kyushu then expand.
Mori and Oda, whenever I played them I would conquer the center of the map, then get the urge to tech up for a couple decades. Then I would fight one battle with my muskets/heavy cavalry/honor 5 monks or whatever, get bored, and geisha the rest of the clans.
I think the only campaign I ever lost was as Oda, back on old shogun. I took the middle 10 or so provinces and sat and waited for the hojo horde. Got both a shimazu horde and a hojo horde, then shimazu got assassinated and left all his men to hojo. Then my daimyo got assassinated :shame:
Hmm. Off the top of my head, I'd say, from hardest to easiest and generally speaking:Quote:
Originally Posted by Asai Nagamasa
1. Oda
2. Imagawa
3. Mori
4. Takeda
5. Shimazu
6. Hojo
7. Uesugi
It depends a bit on the campaign and difficulty level being played too.
When i play STW now i do so with v1.12, although i have played 1.02 and 1.02 with altered stats quite a lot in the past.
I fully agree with Sasaki's list.
However, the Imagawa can be played differently than taking on Kyushu which is the safe choice ie, take out the Oda (or at least take Owari from them to secure that flank and get the income), and then take on the Takeda, then the Hojo, then the Uesugi. This route is far more risky but if it suceeds its usually shorter. It also depends on taking out factions by killing the daimyos before they can have heirs and this can be a double edged knife in 1.02 because of the re-emergences (that do not happen in 1.12).
A good illustration of this route can be seen in the Maltz warstories (obviously the one he plays Imagawa).
http://www.totalwar.org/hosted/maltz.../Imagawa01.htm
Btw extreme blitzing carries a risk element and it doesnt always work smoothly as in that campaign.
This can happen with all the other clans too in 1.02/MI because builds cost half the money and take half the time than the old version. As such you can turtle and become very rich from any part of the map, which wasn't possible with the old shogun because the money floating about and the build times were not permitting the player to build everything.Quote:
Originally posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Mori and Oda, whenever I played them I would conquer the center of the map, then get the urge to tech up for a couple decades. Then I would fight one battle with my muskets/heavy cavalry/honor 5 monks or whatever, get bored, and geisha the rest of the clans.
I'm impressed; i lost far more campaigns than one in the old STW and MI. Certainly one doesnt become most feared player for nothing!:sweatdrop:Quote:
Originally posted by Sasaki Kojiro
I think the only campaign I ever lost was as Oda, back on old shogun.
I would tend to agree with Sasaki's list. I might add that the starting date has an impact on difficulty, as well, with the 1580 campaign's (especially Oda's!!) being, in general, more difficult. Some of the historical campaigns will have you cursing at your computer screen, as well:laugh4:
I find the pre-made formations pretty useless. I just wish one could place units on the map as the attacker just like you can as defender. Perhaps it's just my style of play. I tend to use CA quite a bit and they are rarely at the front of any of the classic formations...which is where I want them. I also am a bit of a micro-manager so I use the 'draw-out' method a lot anyways.Quote:
Several people avoid the "Japanese" ones as they cannot get to grips with them. I started with them and find them more suitable than the "European" ones I have tried. I haven't mixed them up though so can't really comment on that.
I pretty much agree with Sasaki and Masamune as well, though with certain factions (Imagawa and Takeda spring to mind) it depends on whether you choose to consolidate your postion or try to hold both of your territories with the aim of eventually joining up.
When it comes to Imagawa you can take the easy approach of abandoning Honshu and concentrating on taking the whole of Kyushu, moving into Shikoku and then exapanding northwards through Honshu.
Then there is the more difficult approach of trying to hold both territories or the most difficult of abandoning Kyushu and concentrating on Honshu. This makes your campaign near enough as hard as the Oda one.
In general it's a similar situation for Takeda.
With respect to the formations, I've never used them as I have always found them to be messy. I tend to set up my own during battle.
:bow:
I ranked Imagawa second in difficulty because I don't usually opt to take the "traditional" route with them (or the Takeda, the other split clan) when playing the Sengoku campaign. I abandon Kyushu (after milking its three nice provinces for koku as long as I can) and consolidate in central Japan. Same with Takeda--I abandon the west in order to take the east. This tends to lead to a more interesting game, though it isn't the "ideal" strategy.
I prefer to steadily expand (but not "blitz"). I've found that this tends to counter the big pile of money, fancy infrastructures, and elite troops that tend to result in 1.0x if you turtle. Hence, the initially poor factions (Shimmies and Mori) are more challenging for me; often I cannot expand as quickly as I'd like with them unless I manage things just right and get a bit lucky with my harvests.
I'd say the clan "specials" affect difficulty too. Cheap archers or cheap cavalry from the get-go make playing the Uesugi or Takeda easy for me. On the other hand, the Mori monk bonus is great, but can't really be leveraged significantly until income level is raised significantly. The Imagawa shinobi bonus may seem insignificant, but against the rebel-infested Oda early in a game they can be used to great effect.
I would imagine unit size makes a difference too, but I have always played with 60-man units so I can't really compare that to larger unit games.
I don't use the canned formations either, preferring to set up my own.
I prefer to set up my own as well. but you cant set them up how you want when attacking so I have to pick which one I want then when the battle starts put them in formation how I want.
I thought abandoning the west for the east with the Takeda was the ideal srtategy? Not that the game isnt exciting of course.Quote:
Originally posted by Masamune
Same with Takeda--I abandon the west in order to take the east. This tends to lead to a more interesting game, though it isn't the "ideal" strategy.
Usually with Takeda, Shinano can be taken in turn 1 or 2 and Musashi in turn 4 or 5 (as long as it takes to bring everyone from the Hiroshima area).
Alternatively Musashi can be taken in turn 1.
Indeed. Try the 120 men size if you will. Generally speaking it makes battles more significant because every unit costs so much more (double) than the standard. Also it rewards long term planning more as it takes more money and time to rebuild armies or reinforce sectors that experience a crisis.Quote:
Originally posted by Masamune
I'd say the clan "specials" affect difficulty too. Cheap archers or cheap cavalry from the get-go make playing the Uesugi or Takeda easy for me. On the other hand, the Mori monk bonus is great, but can't really be leveraged significantly until income level is raised significantly.
I would imagine unit size makes a difference too, but I have always played with 60-man units so I can't really compare that to larger unit games.
In reality CA is balancing the campaign game for the largest unit sizes; if it did balance it for the default, the higher settings would make factions "starve", that is they wont have a large enough surplass to be on the offensive (you can affirm this by noticing that in the 60men size it is possible to have more stacks for a certain amount of land than for the same land at 120men size). The same happens in all TW games; they are all played as intended at the highest settings both in the campaign and the battlefield.
edit; by balancing is meant how much money on the whole they put in the campaign map and how much it costs to train and maintain units.
Right now in my hojo campaign I have taken out takeda, and took a rebel and a imaga province. The year is 1536.
Good timing--Shingen is born in '36 iirc. Always nice to take out the Takeda before then :yes:.
That's also something that I consider when judging difficulty. The clans receive differing numbers of differing strength taishos, at different points in the game depending on the scenario. +1 - +3 honor is rather significant. The Shimazu start mediocre but blossom in mid-game with four four-star generals. The Takeda and Uesugi benefit from six-star generals, respectively, Shingen in '36 and Kenshin in ... 46? The Uesugi get another in the late game (Date, early '80s). The Hojo however, get Ujiyasu early (a four-star) and then are stuck with three-star taishos at best. The Mori start with a five-star, but he's old and dies rather quickly. Imagawa starts with a four-star and his first heir is also a four-star, but other than that they only get one other four-star later in the game. The Oda get quite a few good generals, but spread out over the time line.
Of course you can always "farm" your high-star generals and bribe the good ronin taishos, but I think it's reasonable to say that the number of high-star generals a player has at his command has a significant impact on game difficulty, and some clans are more fortunate in the leadership department than others.
The second heir of Imagawa is Ieyasu (later Tokugawa in RL) that is a 6 star - as opposed with the incompetent son of Yoshimoto, Ujizane, who ended up his days as a noble in Kyoto, having lost his lands and clan after his father's defeat and death in the Battle of Okehazama, solely living out his days to their natural end due to the kindness of Ieyasu.Quote:
Originally posted by Masamune
Imagawa starts with a four-star and his first heir is also a four-star, but other than that they only get one other four-star later in the game.
Indeed - the clan with the best leadership is - as it was historically - the Takeda. There are however a few historical innacuracies, regarding generals that historically belonged or lead different clans to STW clans solely because of their geographical proximity/association; ie because their clan could not be represented they appear as part of the clan that occupies their territory.Quote:
...but I think it's reasonable to say that the number of high-star generals a player has at his command has a significant impact on game difficulty, and some clans are more fortunate in the leadership department than others.
For example Hiraga Genshin that appears as a general for the Takeda in 1530, was one of the Takeda rivals in Shinano and was defeated by a 15 year old Takeda Harunobu later to be known as Shingen. Other examples include Asakura clan leaders/generals apearing as Oda retainers or Satake leaders/generals appearing as Hojo(?) retainers etc.