Historical basis for STW etc (split from the Shogun II Thread)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
gollum
Good post Karl08. To which swords you refer to?
Thank you. I am referring to pretty much all the swords in the background art (good example: the one in the message you get when your security forces have caught and killed an enemy ninja). Sorry if I get a bit technical, but the profile taper is wrong, and there is no yokote in the kissaki (the line which is horizontal in this picture). To be fair, you don't always see a yokote in traditional scrolls or woodblocks, but you often do when you see swords up close (such as this one). Or you see something like this, where at least you see where the yokote is supposed to be. The yokote basically separates the curve of the sword itself and the curve of the tip.
Anyway, Japanese artists tend to be sticklers for detail, and though there may be an exaggeration of features (take Japanese erotic art, for example), I have yet to see them get the basic shapes wrong.
Oh, and the unit profile pic of the mounted archer is wearing two katana on his right side, and the yumi he uses is not the characteristic asymmetrical Japanese longbow. I don't actually know to what extent symmetrical bows were used, but I have not been able to spot a single asymmetrical one in STW. :no:
These are by no means serious flaws, but I would be even more pleased with the game if they could get such details right.
Re: Historical basis for STW etc (split from the Shogun II Thread)
Quote:
Originally posted by Karl08
I'm not sure how it actually works, but the prognosis given me on the campaign map certainly does not count anything but units, and doesn't care how many men are within that unit, nor what kind of unit it is. I've tried a number of combinations.
Well it doesnt count the type of unit but it does count how many men are in.
The system is like so: the closer you are to the full capacity of the fort/castle the shorter the garrison will last. In this sense you can think of it as a "density" ratio of (actual garrison)/(maximum garrison). The closer the ratio to 1, the shorter their resources will last - the closer to 0 the longer.
Quote:
Yes, but I like the flavour.
Indeed flavour was the aim, and it succeded - most fans prefer flavour and it played a great part in helping MTW sell more. I however prefer solid gameplay, and am far less interested in variety. STW's 12ish units were more than enough for me.
:bow:
Re: Historical basis for STW etc (split from the Shogun II Thread)
There is nothing actually wrong with having clone units as such - that is units like Chivalric Sergeants, Order Foot Soldiers, Italian Infantry etc. This gives "flavour" so long as all units cost the same. It would be pointless to give the Italians both, but again if the support and initial training costs are the same it's not a real issue. The issue is where certain units cost more for no particular reason, without actually having better stats, or where better units are available too early/easily while inferior units are still around, being used by other factions.
A good example of this are the units brought into the main campaign by the Viking Invasion expansion. Most notably, the Viking units - which definitely weren't needed, the eastern javelin units and the Fyrdmen which are a Feudal Sergeants clone. The most notable of course is still peasants and the mass of irritating siege equipment (i.e. ballistas) that the AI builds. The STW/MTW AI trains what you give it and even with improvements to the unit training influences "junk units" still appear in even the best mods.
The only solution IMHO is to give factions a set roster for each of the three eras. Catholic factions should be balanced so that each has a small advantage (i.e. the english have longbows, so should not have Chivalric Knights and up, the French stay as they are minus the pavise arbs/crossbows, the Italians have the pavise crossbows but lack something else etc, etc.). Subtle differences like this would have made for a well balanced and challenging game - as it is MTW is a very unblanced game. This is apparent when you compare the heavy inf./cav rosters vs the light/missile based rosters. When it comes to auto-calced battles (which is what all AI vs AI battles are), missiles are not factored in autocalc so factions like the Turks always come off worse from such encounters.
This is where STW wins hands down. It does have the balanced rosters and none of the above is relevant. Every faction has the same units and thus every battle should be reasonably even. If MTW had the same balance as STW, it would be the best TW game by far.
-Edit:
Congratulations on promotion to member Karl08
:bow:
Re: Historical basis for STW etc (split from the Shogun II Thread)
Good post Asai Nagamasa,
i wouldnt have a problem about the "upgraded duplicates" as long as the latest versions were subsituting the older ones - however in vanilla they all stay there, and this prompts the AI to often choose the cheaper ones (as he usually does) that have just become obsolete. The rosters should have indeed been crafted specifically per faction/per era. In general MTW suffers a lot from the lack of optimisation; its unfortunate that most mods tried to "redesign" the game, an approach that while commendable always runs into the pre-made design decisions that manifest as hardcoded limitations. What MTW really needed was an in detail optimisation of the vanilla game, to make it shine. I think that the PoM achieved a lot towards that direction.
:bow:
Re: Historical basis for STW etc (split from the Shogun II Thread)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
gollum
Well it doesnt count the type of unit but it does count how many men are in.
The system is like so: the closer you are to the full capacity of the fort/castle the shorter the garrison will last. In this sense you can think of it as a "density" ratio of (actual garrison)/(maximum garrison). The closer the ratio to 1, the shorter their resources will last - the closer to 0 the longer.
I know this is how it's supposed to work, but are you sure that's how it actually is? Because the game certainly does not distinguish between my 60-men yari cavalry unit and my 1-man kensai unit when giving me the estimate of how long a garrison will last. Granted, the kensai is bigger than most, but unless he has a particularly ferocious appetite, I don't understand the game's logic here. I think I know what's going on, though: the game probably counts in percentages, ie. a 100% BFN (12 men) counts the same as 100% heavy cavalry (60 men (and horses)). 50% BFN (6 men) = 50% heavy cavalry (30 men (and horses)). They might've gotten away with this in original Shogun, where there were no special sized units. But even so they should distinguish between infantry and cavalry, esepcially when they explicitly say that they do. But in reality don't. :inquisitive:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Asai Nagamasa
Congratulations on promotion to member Karl08
W00t! :2thumbsup:
:bow:
Re: Historical basis for STW etc (split from the Shogun II Thread)
Hello Karl08,
i have absolutely no clue how the Kensai and teh BNs are counted for siege attrition purposes. However for all other units i am pretty certain that the game works the way i'd described it.
I dont play MI/WE anymore, but original STW (the "old" version) with 1.12 patch that fixes the routing infinite charge and a few other bugs and glitches. In that version there are no Kensais, no BNs and no Naginata cavalry as i think you already know.
:bow:
Re: Historical basis for STW etc (split from the Shogun II Thread)
I still play MI, because I can't get on with some of the old UI annoyances in STW 1.12. Info parchments that open and stay open are my no. 1 hatred among other things (seems petty I know but it is extremely irritating once you've become used to how they work in MI). Also because the AI gets infinite koku, you often find yourself facing one absolutely huge "horde" towards the end of the game (i.e. the Hojo). If it wasn't for those few points I could happily play the original STW as I was never that impressed with the Mongol Invasion campaign anyway.
MI has a few things that you can abuse such as disband/destroy, but I never use though in STW. Strangely I find myself using disband a lot in MTW, getting rid of obsolete units. This actually ruined the game IMHO.
Re: Historical basis for STW etc (split from the Shogun II Thread)
The Horde is a paper tiger; it gives about 6 or 7 hard defensive battles and then the Hojo in person comes and you kill him and that's it. In any case it is a problem only if your rate of expansion will finish the game past 1560 and only for the south western clans. You can have a go at the Hojo if you are the takeda, useugi and even imagawa.
In 1.12 i play relentlessly aggressively that gives really really exciting campaigns. This does not mean that everything hangs in thin air, but that you take calculated risks. Its a lot of fun because resources are scant. If you choose the "long way" ie turtle you can go straight away for the Geisha, just to make sure you have something against teh Hojo geishas.
The UI nuance becomes secondary once you play for a bit - its annoying but a matter of habit.
Just give it a go sometime if willing and able, and imo you won't regret it.
:bow: