Re: Historical basis for STW etc (split from the Shogun II Thread)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
gollum
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:
I have given it a go, I used to play it non from when STW was released until I got MI.
:bow:
Re: Historical basis for STW etc (split from the Shogun II Thread)
I know you did, master camelier, i meant one of these days.
:bow:
Re: Historical basis for STW etc (split from the Shogun II Thread)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Asai Nagamasa
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.
There's something wrong with being able to disband units?
Anyway, I hardly ever use that function in MTW except for mercenary units. Obsolete units still make great garrison units and deterrants, as well as crusade fodder should a crusade insist on passing through my provinces.
:bow:
Re: Historical basis for STW etc (split from the Shogun II Thread)
Disbanding units from a certain perspective is an exploit because the AI can't do the same. Similar arguments can be made for manual pillaging.
:bow:
Re: Historical basis for STW etc (split from the Shogun II Thread)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
gollum
Disbanding units from a certain perspective is an exploit because the AI can't do the same. Similar arguments can be made for manual pillaging.
:bow:
It can't? Well, that's a bit silly. Anyway, I can't think why you would want to, anyway, other than to cut upkeep costs (and perhaps to tidy the board). In MTW this isn't really an issue, as you can quickly make hoards of gold from trade, although just one contested sea region can wreak havoc on the economy. Upkeep costs of units are very low in MTW, too, quite unlike RTW and in particular M2TW, where upkeep becomes - and remains - a serious concern. Which makes it more realistic, perhaps.
:bow:
Re: Historical basis for STW etc (split from the Shogun II Thread)
Quote:
originallyposted by Karl08
I can't think why you would want to, anyway, other than to cut upkeep costs...
That's one of the reasons; then the player can "make way" financially speaking to invest in the economy and hence outnumber eventually the AI armies. The other is making way for new units, that is upkeep costs allow you a certain number of units; once you get say Naginata afer building YariSam and Archers and Ashigaru all the while, you may want to disband a few and make way for a few naginata without danger that you go in the red.
The AI can't do either of these manoaevres so he is stuck with the units that he had produced in the early game in terms of numbers and tech. This is why the AI is benefited when the game is dynamic and campaign losses abound - he naturally gets a chance to build the new units and upgrade his economic infrastructure in those periods that he has received losses as then cash is liberated.
Version 1.12 does not allow manual pillaging or disbanding to the player and this makes quite a bit of a difference in the campaign game imo.
Also if you want the maximum effect of the maintenance costs try a campaign with huge unit sizes- even in RTW and M2TW the campaign works best at these settings - this is in all probability what CA is balancing it for as otherwise not enough men for invasion would have been available for the AI factions.
Re: Historical basis for STW etc (split from the Shogun II Thread)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Karl08
It can't? Well, that's a bit silly. Anyway, I can't think why you would want to, anyway, other than to cut upkeep costs (and perhaps to tidy the board). In MTW this isn't really an issue, as you can quickly make hoards of gold from trade, although just one contested sea region can wreak havoc on the economy. Upkeep costs of units are very low in MTW, too, quite unlike RTW and in particular M2TW, where upkeep becomes - and remains - a serious concern. Which makes it more realistic, perhaps.
:bow:
Upkeep costs in MTW are actually around about correct. The main issue is that trade income unrealistically inflates the player's treasury size. The AI is hopelessly inept at trading and using fleets in general. It does not deploy fleets with any strategy, it simply spams them into the sea. It's common to see AI fleets of 16 ships in the high/late era, all in the same sea region - with no ships elsewhere. Ships are only really effective if they are trading or protecting your coasts from invasion. They only do this effectively if they are in continous chains from port to port. The AI cannot manage to do this either as it has no system for deploying fleets.
If the AI invades a province by sea; i.e. if the Almohads invade Ireland, this is not by design. It ocurrs because the AI views a province that has been linked up by ships and a port in exactly the same way it views an adjacent province. The AI will react instinctively for that particular turn - with no forward planning - and will see only a rebel province and easy pickings. The following turn the line of ships that allowed the invasion may not exist because the faction has moved it's ships around at random.
Trade is also imbalanced in that many provinces do not have trade goods and the token inland trade goods are actually useless.
STW has a much simpler trading mechanic that has set values, does not depend on such randomness and every coastal province can produce a trade income which cannot be exploited by the player as easily. IMHO the STW trading mechanic is better because it is simpler and does not involve micromanaging ships. It can also deliver a huge income if you convert to christianity early, accept both the Portuguese and Dutch and build all of the churches, cathedral and trading posts.
RTW's trading/shipping was not an improvement as trade depends entirely on the hopelessly broken diplomacy, involves even more micromanagement and is nasty and RTS-like. In RTW ships serve only to break blockades and transport units manually (instead of the old fashioned port jumping). The ship combat is tiresome, ridiculous and easily exploited (if you find the patience to micromange the ships for the duration of a campaign). CA simply added too many layers to the campaign game in later TW games.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
gollum
Version 1.12 does not allow manual pillaging or disbanding to the player and this makes quite a bit of a difference in the campaign game imo.
This works in MI 1.02 as well - just don't click. :sweatdrop:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
gollum
Also if you want the maximum effect of the maintenance costs try a campaign with huge unit sizes- even in RTW and M2TW the campaign works best at these settings - this is in all probability what CA is balancing it for as otherwise not enough men for invasion would have been available for the AI factions.
I always play on huge units, though lately I've been trying the default as that is what everyone else is playing. I'm not sure why everyone plays on the default size as the larger units are preferable IMHO. They also take 2 seasons to train.
:bow:
Re: Historical basis for STW etc (split from the Shogun II Thread)
AI naval deployment is not as random Asai Nagamasa makes imho, but nontheless "random" enough and the problems he is describing are indeed there. A considerable improvement can be observed for how the AI treats his naval affairs for certain AI personalities. In particular, the defensive_catholic, defensive_orthodox and defensive_muslim do rather better. The biggest problem is the catholic_trader and the catholic_naval_expansionist that make the AI go berserk with ships. They become a financial burden that literally chokes teh AI factions because they -again- can't disband unlike the player.
Trading goods are indeed overpriced and too much profit can be made of them, halving them gives better results. Inland trading goods are also useless so you can make the port being the requirement to build anything beyond level1 trader as otherwise it isn't worth it and the AI wastes money building the higher traders in provinces that give him peanuts in return.
I used to play in 60 man units, but actually the campaign game and battlefield SP game are very much better with 120 men units because the overall money available in themap is balanced for that. So for the last few years i play huge units and i will continue to do so.
Quote:
Originally posted by Asai Nagamasa
This works in MI 1.02 as well - just don't click.
For many players (not myself) this sort of advice is inconsequential. CA added the feature as it indended it to be used, and it is also mentioned in the MTW manual as a viable "strategy". They advise the player to let teh AI build up and then invade to pillage - the chevauche tactics. This was in the days of v1.0 that invasions between AI factions would also result in autopillaging and hence hurt AI development immeasurably in the long run. This in turn widened the gap between the lpayer and the AI in terms of economic infrastructure and tech level of units. In the end CA introduced the "cheat" that invasoins between AI factions do not result in autopillaging - only between AI and player. This is why teh AI factiosn have the infrastructure they have in 2.01/VI
:bow:
Re: Historical basis for STW etc (split from the Shogun II Thread)
You get epic battles with 120 man size, but I the maps don't seem to be designed for it. Often there will be a woods or hill or ridge that only a 60 man unit army will fit on. Besides, I like my daimyo unit to take names.
Also, the 120 man armies take a long time to move around.
Re: Historical basis for STW etc (split from the Shogun II Thread)
The STW maps are indeed somewhat small (especially some of them) but ok for 1v1 especially in the largest of these. I agree that it can be a problem for 2v2 and upwards though.
In MTW the maps are considerably larger so the 120 men units work just fine in all maps and with all set ups.
