Shogun II Total War

I tend to think STWII will never be done, and perhaps, given recent trends, this is for the best. CA will want an era where they can use their naval AI, and feudal Japan/China doesn't have much to offer in that respect.

I rather like the RTW-style map, but I also understand the problems it creates for the AI. If one reads through some of the early playtesting done, a lot of the problems stem from pathfinding problems more than anything else. I also think that if the designers hadn't ignored one of the basic 'rules of engagement' for international diplomacy, some things could have been a little better. Imagine if any country in the world sends a military force traipsing through another country uninvited and that doesn't result in an ugly DOW? What were they thinking???

Much of the 'siege mentality' could have been avoided if some other basic 'rules of engagement' were observed. A minimum size force should have been required to siege a particular sized city....the larger the city, the larger the force required. And a port city will require it's port to be blockaded in order for the garrison to take losses. Otherwise a direct assault is required, as the garrison cannot be starved out.

I recall the first time I saw the Scipii siege Syracuse (a walled city) with a general, 2 Hastati, and 2 Velite, and take it by direct assault after 3 or 4 turns. Didn't anyone play-testing this find that just a bit too much bending of reality?

If a provinces resources had been put outside the city (like the farmlands), then a siege isn't necessary to cripple a province, and eventually the garrison will have to come and attempt to drive off the occupying army or continue to suffer the loss of resources.

As has been posted before, too much emphasis was placed on roads. Nearly all combat occurs on, or near roads which might be more true for modern warfare because of the need to supply large armies with ammo and fuel, but not for the live-off-the-land type of movement for that era.

One often overlooked change for the worse, IMHO, was the change to two seasons per calender year from four and the paying of taxes and income every turn instead of every year. Not only does this make the movement of armies highly unrealistic( for instance, it does not take 2-3 years to march an army from say, Mazaka to Pergamum), it allows for much too rapid building of infrastructure, as opposed to something more carefully planned if you get income once per year.

Anyways....I've rambled too long on a subject that is probably moot.......:embarassed:

I like and agree with all of your points, keep them coming if you have more! The game does move too quickly and the movement on the 3D maps tends to be unrealistic. More turns per year and building times depending on the complexity of building use and construction would definately be a plus. It seems that spaces between points on the map, mainly cities, are rather equal to one another despite distances perhaps represented in real life. Perhaps this is because the developers wanted a uniform map to fit the game and decreasing map distances make things more uniform and accessable. Perhaps fewer major cities or smaller less important cities are needed to conquer a region? In other words, conquer smaller cites in a large province where a large city is the focal point of conquering the province on the move to take said region. Not cities like in ETW and NTW where taking them only results in a financial hit, but rather strategic positions of both economic and military importance. Move times might seem shorter (or longer ?) but a more asymetical map might provide more realism to movement and region conquering. A different time scale would help development based on tax collection as well. Though I too ramble, hopfully this jumble of words makes some sense or provides some interest in which to read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Nerd

I like and agree with all of your points, keep them coming if you have more! The game does move too quickly and the movement on the 3D maps tends to be unrealistic. More turns per year and building times depending on the complexity of building use and construction would definately be a plus. It seems that spaces between points on the map, mainly cities, are rather equal to one another despite distances perhaps represented in real life. Perhaps this is because the developers wanted a uniform map to fit the game and decreasing map distances make things more uniform and accessable. Perhaps fewer major cities or smaller less important cities are needed to conquer a region? In other words, conquer smaller cites in a large province where a large city is the focal point of conquering the province on the move to take said region. Not cities like in ETW and NTW where taking them only results in a financial hit, but rather strategic positions of both economic and military importance. Move times might seem shorter (or longer ?) but a more asymetical map might provide more realism to movement and region conquering. A different time scale would help development based on tax collection as well. Though I too ramble, hopfully this jumble of words makes some sense or provides some interest in which to read.

---

There is potential for such map in Sengoku period Japan. The provinces of STW in reality were made of sometimes more then 20 or so districts, which each usually consisted of atleast one or more Yamashiro´s. Ofcourse there were also provinces with only two or three districts.So a huge map could be done of feodal Japan if there would be an interest.

That would be great as long as the AI didn't camp in the cities and rather moved around with field armies for aggressive expansion like in STW. I enjoyed M2TW but the late campaign was full of auto resolves because I got tired of sieging citadels with full stack garrisons after awhile. It would be a shame if the magic of original STW fell to this low standard.

Quote:

---

I like and agree with all of your points, keep them coming if you have more!

---

I have plenty of ideas for RTW, none of which actually matter, both because I lack the programming skills, and because some would require the game code.

They may not bear fruit but still provide for stimulating conversation!

Alright, to perhaps generate a little bit of discussion, I’ll put out a few of my ideas. And so as not to raise the eyebrows of the mods, my ideas will address a 3D-style map like RTW/M2TW as it might pertain to a Shogun II, rather than how it is handled in those games….so bear with. Also, some of these might have been implemented since RTW....I haven't played anything past that. M2TW was on my HD for about a week before I got rid of it. Won't buy ETW or NTW, but that's a whole different story.............

First order of business would be to restore the seasonal turns. This has the effect of making unit movement across the map more realistic. I would also restore the original concept of income from farming and taxes coming only at harvest time, but other commodities can present income during other seasons, as will be explained.

Next would be to observe some basic rules of engagement that were totally ignored in RTW and M2TW.

1. Any faction, player or AI, that moves an army into another, non-allied, faction’s territory, is immediately at war with that faction. In addition, the offending army must come to a stop and can then continue its’ movement next turn. This means no short-cuts or aimless wandering, and applies to armies that are forced to retreat from combat.

2. Any defending army that is attacked by an army with more mobility (and the AI is already keeping track of this in it’s movement calculations for units) cannot retreat and must fight. This puts a stop to those foolish scenes of a rebel army continually backing up two steps and forcing the AI-led army to keep attacking them ad-nausea. The exception might be where terrain such as forest, for instance, favors disengagement. In that case, a dice roll is made to see if the defenders can retreat.

3. All units, naval or land, must observe enemy or neutral Zones of Control. Any retreating unit that cannot avoid ZOC or obstacles like impassable mountains or rivers, is destroyed.

Provinces and Cities

1. Provincial resources are kept outside the city, so that an invading army can deprive a faction of those resources without having to besiege a city. For every turn an invading army occupies, there is a 16.5% loss of income from those resources. After 6 turns, the occupied province no longer provides those resources to its owner. The occupying army must be driven off to regain control of those resources again. Note that the resources are not reallocated to the invading faction, they are just rendered unavailable to the original owner. This type of system might go a long ways towards eliminating many of the annoying sieges that have occurred before because it isn’t necessary to take a provincial city to damage an opponent, and eventually the city garrison will have to come out and fight to regain the resources.

2. Certain sized cities require a minimum sized army to besiege. Small towns might require smaller forces than, say, a huge, walled city which might require 20 units or more to besiege. Any city with a port, must be taken by assault if the port is not blockaded, as the defending garrison cannot be starved out and they do not suffer attrition.

Traits

This is one pain in the butt, AFAIAK, for RTW, etc. For god’s sake how many gay, axe-bitten, abstemtious, hooting drunkards, with falling sickness, who are hiding from the world while they partake in their ‘flutters’, can a player have? Honestly, how many traits could you say defines a person? Surely not the extensive list of lecherous, corrupt, downright miserly bunch of crap laid out for us in these games. If I had to devise as system it might look something like this:

1. Upon coming of age, a family member will have 3-4 traits, depending on faction and heritage. A ‘type A’ or ‘type B’ personality that goes towards determining whether that member is more inclined to field generalship or city government. A player can certainly make whatever they will with a family member, but the initial inclinations will be easier to work with. Religious inclinations (or anti-) usually has a major influence in teens, as does attitude toward money and wealth. Are they more likely to blow their money on ‘wine, women, and song’ or save for future prospects? Attitudes towards women would also be a trait that often defines a teen. Will they make a good husband and more likely to settle and raise a family, or just the playboy type?

2. Other traits will be picked up, with time, and whether they be good/bad/neutral depends on the success’s or failure’s of that individual, up to a maximum of 8 traits.

3. Ancillaries should be able to be discarded, rather than have unwanted ones foisted upon the player. Nothing worse than having a city governor all set up to control and manage a high-growth populace only to have ‘Grain Merchant’ , “Overseer’ or even worse, both of those, forced into empty ancillary slots.

Open Market

Borrowing an idea from Paradox’s Hearts of Iron, and several other such games, trading between partners is done at an open market. Each year as grain, textiles, timber, ore, and other commodities are brought in, the player goes to a trading screen with trading partners to negotiate prices and set deliveries. The faction leader does the negotiation, so high influence is a must.

1. Roadbuilding and city walls require a great deal of stone, so quarries are important. Population growth will require grain for food, textiles for clothing, and wood and stone for housing, making farms, sheep herding, lumber, and stone necessary. Iron is necessary for creating weapons and making better armor, making iron mines critical for black-smithing. Ship-building will require timber for hulls and masts, and textile for sails.

2. Non-essential items like wines, glass, dyes, etc, can become more important as societies gain affluence.

3. Any province lacking particular resources can trade for them with trading partners, either overland, or port-to-port. Port-to-port trading will require both factions to have at least one fleet in existence.

4. An ally can be contracted to build paved roads or stone walls, if they have that capability, at an agreed upon price.

All these types of things might go a long ways to stop the spamming of useless or insidious fleets, for instance. Each fleet unit costs x-number of timber and y-number of textile to build. If you don’t have it, and can’t afford to trade for it, you, or an AI faction, goes without. Makes for more realistic development, and perhaps more fun, than the tedious bore that it currently is.

Get rid of those ersatz spies…..errrr…. I mean diplomats, and have a diplomacy screen like ETW. Of course if you like having enough sheets to outfit an entire fleet hanging around your capital……be my guest…..:laugh4:

Have an algorithm that determines what units an AI-led faction produces. Say a survey of how many cities (and of what size) a faction owns, how many ports are in existence, etc. Something to help prevent those idiotic situations where a faction is losing city after city for lack of ground forces, yet they continue to churn out one useless new fleet after another while their cities are defenseless.

Anyways…..a long ramble on a topic I’ve thought a lot about. Hope it’s non-specific enough to please the mods, and has something in it for discussion.:book:

Great ideas. Your rules of engagement have seem to have been met in ETW as far as I know but I haven't played NTW yet, I assume it's the same. Number 3 however, I don't beleive has. The AI has only retreated from a battle I initiated when he lost said battle and what was left of his army made its way to a safer place. I think it would often meander around unpassable object to a safe spot (often behind my lines into my lightly defended interior much to my dismay!).

Number 1 in provinces and cities is great. In ETW you can attack fiscal nodes and the like in his provice while he camps in the city, but they can just be repaired quite inexpensively while you move on to the next one. What they make him must be quite nill because he seldom sallies to remove you if you sit in one too long (so what's the point of staying there?). He does at times sally to rescue a school though. A 'degredation of control' meter might be nice, ie. hold the contryside and its infrastructure for awhile and take the provice and mabey the city without fighting? Mabey, that's dumb, but just something to mobilize the AI garrison. He would probably be quite content to lose all his money as long as the city was secure.
Number 2 could also vary turns until the city falls depending on army size as well. I don't quite understand what you mean by ports though.

Traits are good. ETW has toned down the number of traits per character as far as I know. I do agree that in RTW and M2TW there were way too many. They were also repetitive and sometimes contradictory as well. Why do all my assassins have 'catimites' following them around?

Open market sounds like a great idea. I love micromanagement and another screen to adjust the detail of the economy would be great. Diplomatic devices and the like being all that controls your economy seem to be a little bland. More micromanagement could possible provide a means in which to make more (or less) based on diplomatic deals and resorces than just a flat rate as controlled by the AI. Perhaps random events could affect finances much like they do in todays fiscal situations.
Number 1 is great. Make resorces more important (strategically and economically) such as to build and expand your empire. Though you might have to watch out for certain factions that don't like you hording materials you may need (like princesses in MTW). Though these resources might make good bartering material and good reasons to go to war. Resouces (in some situations) should be exhaustible.
Number 2, as a city grows more powerful so does some of its citizens become more wealthy making these commodities more valuable and desireable
Number 3, more micromanagement! Specifically tading with someone for items they need would seem to be more profitable than trading them for some items that they do not. Certain factions should be willing or unwilling depending on what the case may be to pay more for certain items. Especially if the populace his a high demand for them, or it is needed like a province that has no good stone and needs to build a wall.
Number 4, great idea! Nice specific way to help out an ally who is poor when he needs to defend himself from an aggressive mutual enemy. Or, overcharge an enemy, bankrupt someone you want to attack, etc. The possiblities of financial warfare are endless with this one.
AI definately need to learn to priorotize and become more efficiently aggressive. He also has to become more devious other than the attack an ally because you share a border routine. He should know how to combine all these methods, military, economic, naval, black arts methods by which to achieve victory conditions even if some would think it ahistorical. The game is TW, the meat and potatos is the combat.
I've always like the TW series. The battles in STW were great, but the diplomacy etc. was lacking. They have been attempting to solve these issues with more micromanagement and the like, better diplomacy, 3D map etc. Though some might complain that with the tediously slow and unimpressive improvement of these issues the battles have slowly started to pale when compared to STW. They should look back at what has worked in the past and stop trying to improve things that don't need it, or add things that are unneccesary or unready for release. A nice meld with these strategy games that lack 3D battles and the flavor of STW combat would make a perfect additon to the TW series in my opinion.

Quote:

---

Your rules of engagement have seem to have been met in ETW as far as I know

---

As I said, I haven't, and won't play anything past RTW unless a better product is produced. As to ZOC, that's been a feature of nearly every wargame I've played since pushing markers around on an Avalon Hill board game.

Quote:

---

He would probably be quite content to lose all his money as long as the city was secure.

---

Loss of provincial income could be tied to unrest. The more income a province loses to an occupying army, the more likely they are to rebel. If the garrison won't go out to fight voluntarily, the people will throw them out to do it.

Quote:

---

I don't quite understand what you mean by ports though.

---

A garrison under siege in a port city takes no losses due to the siege unless the port is blockaded. There was a famous siege by Alexander the Great of the Persian city of Miletus on the Anatolian coast where much of the struggle consisted of Alexander trying to prevent supplies reaching the city by sea from arriving. That's the sort of thing I was referring to.

Quote:

---

Perhaps random events could affect finances much like they do in today's fiscal situations.

---

Excellent idea. Not only poor harvests, but floods, earthquakes, plagues, and the like can affect local prices. Also the presence of rebel or brigand armies can affect the price for local commodities, not just the amount that gets delivered.

Quote:

---

Nice specific way to help out an ally who is poor when he needs to defend himself from an aggressive mutual enemy. Or, overcharge an enemy, bankrupt someone you want to attack, etc. The possiblities of financial warfare are endless with this one.

---

People tend to forget that the major reason for the Japanese to go to war with the US in 1941 was the oil and scrap iron embargo along with the freezing of Japanese financial assets in June of that same year by FDR. And think of all the other examples down through history where financial warfare was just as viable as sending in the troops....

Anyway, I figured a few of those ideas might have come about since RTW, so that's good to hear.

I've never really tried the Civilization series, I'd miss the 3D battles of the TW series. That's what got me to but STW way back when in the first place. I saw it in one of those large warehouse stores once, (opted for Delta Force FPS over STW the week before :P), but I bought it, and my first siege was amazing. Watching my first wave of WMs suffer arrow casualties as the approached the gate, I was hooked from then on forward. The Diplomacy since M2TW has been greatly improved. Despite it's flaws, I spent many an entertaining hour managing my empire in ETW. We shouldn't count out CA just yet, I do believe they are making a concious effort to improve the game based on customer request (mods, steam, 'crappy' Battlefield AI :( ) . If they could take a few tips from Civ (without infringing) and perhaps simplify the battles more along the lines of STW, I think the next title might be something others are more satisfied with. Perhaps even you reluctant one :). I'm not trying to be a 'fan boy', but always was realatively satisfied with my purchase, and will probably invest in the next title. It's all about going back to the basics, improving where necessary and not reaching beyond what the game is capeable of. Some philisopichal mathematical coding would also be nice if their team of programmers were up to the task too! :D

Quote:

---

Perhaps even you reluctant one :)

---

Probably not going to happen. M2TW is too much like RTW...some things better, some worse, but still the same stupid, passive AI. Too many bugs, even after 6 patches, with ETW, and, while I don't have a slouch for a gaming computer, I probably can't crank up all the video settings to max and take advantage of all the eye candy. And besides, I've just never had much interest in the military history of the era's ETW & NTW cover.

Quote:

---

It's all about going back to the basics, improving where necessary and not reaching beyond what the game is capeable of.

---

Sadly, that's the part that makes me wish that they never do a Shogun II, because they will never figure out how to produce an AI that can handle the complexities of the newer maps. I know 'never' is probably too harsh but I figure that after nearly a half dozen tries at it since MTW (including all the expansions) they still haven't done it, judging by the comments I've read in the Parliment & NTW forums......

Quote:

---

some things better, some worse, but still the same stupid, passive AI

---

The AI is a mathematical alogarithm, such formula can be tinkered with and improved over time. I am just not one of those who knows how to do it. But I have faith that it is possible.

Quote:

---

while I don't have a slouch for a gaming computer, I probably can't crank up all the video settings to max and take advantage of all the eye candy.

---

The game is still quite beautiful at lower settings. The grass for example, is completely unnecessary.

Quote:

---

And besides, I've just never had much interest in the military history of the era's ETW & NTW cover.

---

Understandable. I was never a fan of this age either. Naval battles provide some fun though. You can always just engage in melee as well. I'm not trying to sell you on the game or anything, as these two titles are now in the past.

You'll have to read up on the new title what ever that is and whenever it is to be released. I'm hoping it is an improvement. Though I've liked everything after RTW, excluding expansions and the fact that I don't own NTW. Oh well, reluctant one, I do agree with you that it would be a mighty tall order to improve upon the beauty and charm of STW and MTW.

Quote:

---

The AI is a mathematical alogarithm

---

And so much more. It has to decide on a plan and then attempt to carry it out. In STW, with the Risk-style of map, things were relatively easy. There's X amount of money to raise troops, and Oda over there is looking pretty weak so that's where to send the troops. In the newer style of map, there are just too many things going on for the AI to cope. After watching the last dozen or so campaigns in RTW with FOW off, I'd say that at least 50% of the AI's moves are pointless.

I had a bunch of screenies to illustrate, but I somehow deleted them:dizzy2: Some were quite funny. First there's the "Outhouse Syndrome." A general comes out of a city, walks to his favorite 'watering hole', shakes one leg, then the other, zips it up, and heads back to the city. Brutii generals don't even have the decency to water their own countryside but go up the coast into Julii territory. Britannia's generals have the "Whorehouse Syndrome." Deva must have quite the bordello as every single one of Britannia's generals make their way there, multiple times. Then there's the "What the @#$% are we doing here? Syndrome." A few small stacks of a factions army get loaded on a boat and dumped on a foreign shore where they proceed to stand around for 50 years or more doing nothing. The most extreme case I ever saw was the Macedonians dumping off TWO generals and two half stacks near Nicomedia where they stood around for over 30 years (that's 60 turns, mind you). When Cyrene went Macendonian after throwing out an attempted occupation by the Egyptians, those stacks with the, by now old generals, headed for there.....by land. Walked all the way through Asia Minor, the Middle East, and the Nile Delta. By the time they hit Siwa, the Egyptians has already retaken it so they stood around Siwa for another 20 years. Meanwhile, Macedonia got overrun and the faction destroyed....those stacks went rebel and were promptly wiped out by the Eggies. Absolutely brilliant!!

Then there's the "HQ Orders Syndrome." A stack will head off on some kind of mission, only to turn back after a turn or two and end up right where they started. Naval units are notorious for this. They will sail right past an enemy faction fleet going to who knows where, and sail right back past them.....again.....without attacking, even if they outnumber the enemy more than 10 to 1. This just would not happen in STW. The AI goes for your throat even if it is constantly losing battles. You just know that if you beat off the first attack, the next one's going to be bigger, and the next one even bigger. It's relentless, like the Terminator, and won't ever stop until you kill it. And even then it can come back with the reappearance of a dead clan:laugh4:

I have others, but without the screenies, they just aren't as funny. One I will mention is the "Three Stooges Syndrome." This afflicts Seleucia. They always create three diplomats at the beginning of a campaign and the only thing they do is walk the road between Hatra and Damascus (until the Eggies take it) changing places with each other. There's always three of them, hence the name. But at least it's better than the lazy ass the Spanish hire, at the start. All he does is pace back and forth on the east side of Asturica........until he dies:no:

And if anybody's generals deserve the "Hiding From the World" trait, it's Carthage's generals. They spend more time sailing aimlessly around in fleets, or parked offshore from Carthage, it's a minor miracle when one of them, other than Hanno, gets to have more than one command star, or any, for that matter.

With STW, there is always the possibility of losing. With RTW and later, the outcome is not much in doubt although I'm well aware of the "Black Knight Syndrome" in ETW where the AI just has every country left DoW you when you start to dominate. Doesn't sound like much fun.......:embarassed:

My whole point is that the map presents choices probably numbering in the millions for an AI, on what to do, what units to move and where, what buildings to build, how high to set taxes, and a host of others. But it can be done.....I'm just not sure CA is the company to do it.

I play a WWII-based game called "The Operational Art of War" put out by Talonsoft. It's a collection of various battles and campaigns from WWII and the Korean War. Several of the campaigns are simply monumental, with thousands of units to maneuver on a map. It's not a 3D map, but just as complex, nonetheless....rivers, bridges, RR's, cities, farmland, roads of various kinds, and an extremely complex battle system. The Barbarossa campaign, for instance, the German invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941, is probably the biggest of the big. Over 1500 individual units, not counting reinforcements, on a map that spans from Poland to the Urals. And those 1500 units can be broken down into smaller units so that you literally have thousands of units on the map. Yet......

...at the higher difficulty settings, the AI will constantly kick your ass until you learn to play better. So it can be done....but I don't believe by CA. Just my 2cents, of course.

I agree with you the AI tends to wander about blindly with no real purpose at hand most of the time. I never really got into RTW but still play M2TW, and alot of the things you mentioned persist. The AI seems to take a few cities than stall, make alliances etc. Even if a war breaks out between two rival AI factions, there always seems to be a message a few turns later that there is a ceasefire. I've seen large stacks that could easily take a city and either sit around and do nothing, or siege, then call it off for no apparent reason. :/ My cities are occasionally attacked and I've put up good defenses, but the AI was never one to conduct a seige well. M2TW and I am sure RTW must be similar, is more an offensive game as played by the human. The AI will mostly mount defense as the player expands (occasionally not very good defenses), but little else. As you said in STW and MTW the AI could conduct both quite entertainingly, perhaps due to the simplicity of the strat map. I don't know why an AI that merely has to travel some distance inside than outside a province to take a city is so much harder to implement than moving from one province to another without the meandering track line. Perhaps the problem is due to the improved diplomacy model, where AI factions are more content to conduct trade in neutral or allied status. Isn't this what TW players have been asking for since STW? Improved diplomacy? Realistic countries never opted for global conquest and all out war. Save Rome, samurai clans, mogols, timurids, etc. Though even in M2TW, the horde factions will take a few cites than sit around doing nothing. At least in my experience. Great wiping out mongol stack after stack in a castle defense though. In ETW I did'nt find things too bad. On normal difficulty diplomacy wasn't to far fetched, AI factions would attack others and expand alittle (though some thought this was scripted). DoWs weren't too common in my game, I think this problem has to do with difficulty level. But I digress. I don't know what CA did with the old STW documents that were the guts of that game, but perhaps they should reference them and update them rather than starting from scratch every time and the future titles will be more reminicent of the classics. All very easy in theroy however.

Looks like this could become reality (post #17 onwards): https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...der-era%28s%29

I read that. It would be interesting to see if the game was more like M2TW vs STW. Bland campaign map, endless seiges, confused and scizhophrenic AI. I am excited yet concerned, for the original was so pleasing. I don't mind steam, I am wondering why some don't. Oh well, probably be some time before it is released anyway, it's still early.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Nerd

I read that. It would be interesting to see if the game was more like M2TW vs STW. Bland campaign map, endless seiges, confused and scizhophrenic AI. I am excited yet concerned, for the original was so pleasing.

---

It will probably make use of the gunpowder mechanics from ETW/NTW. I am half expecting a sort of Japanese "pike and musket" with none of the balance, tactical gameplay and atmosphere of the original. The focus will probably be on the visuals (as ever) while the gameplay and physics will be of the usual generic lifelessness.

CA started out with a Sengoku Jidai engine, which was adapted for MTW. It did not work as well for MTW (AI limitations). Rome was the beginning of the "one size fits all" engine of today. That engine is tarted up and given a new suit of clothes and what was Rome becomes, Medieval, then a botox and facelift and Empire becomes Napoleon becomes Shogun, etc...

I just hope (again) that this is the game to revive the genre.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Nerd

I don't mind steam, I am wondering why some don't. Oh well, probably be some time before it is released anyway, it's still early.

---

One man's meat is another's poison.

:bow:

Quote:

---

I just hope (again) that this is the game to revive the genre.

---

You never know. The new engine (if new) might be more adaptable to factions that are similar (culture, end goals, unit roster) than starkly different ones of latter titles. The expansive diplomacy models of ETW and NTW would also be interesting in S2TW, however we don't want dormant, docile AI clans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Nerd

You never know. The new engine (if new) might be more adaptable to factions that are similar (culture, end goals, unit roster) than starkly different ones of latter titles. The expansive diplomacy models of ETW and NTW would also be interesting in S2TW, however we don't want dormant, docile AI clans.

---

I suspect that the game will use the same engines as ETW/NTW? I haven't played either, but as far as I know the ETW/NTW battle engine is much the same as the M2TW one, with some extra bling. The campaign map is much the same as well but smoother and less tiled looking - to cut a long story short they're not "new engines" as such but improvements to RTW with lots of add on bits. The only really "new" part is the naval battles.

It is true that factions with very similar or identical rosters will be more easily managed by the AI to give a more balanced game. The NTW diplomacy, I'm also not familiar with, but from what I've read it's still not as good as it should be.

Quote:

---

The NTW diplomacy, I'm also not familiar with, but from what I've read it's still not as good as it should be.

---

Time makes space for improvement. ETW and NTW faiing was the gunpowder tactics vs. the melee of older titles. A return to melee and a limited scope I think will be a good thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Nerd

Time makes space for improvement. ETW and NTW faiing was the gunpowder tactics vs. the melee of older titles. A return to melee and a limited scope I think will be a good thing.

---

Indeed but they've had since RTW to sort out the diplomacy issues. They released the same broken diplomatic model in M2TW and then, after half admitting that diplomacy had been broken all along, claimed that it would all be fixed in ETW - from the screenshots and write ups I've seen of ETW, it clearly wasn't fixed and still isn't.

:bow:

ETWs isn't as bad (in my opinion) as many say. The problem lies in difficuly level. They want a tough strat and battle experince, but the coding also makes diplomacy more difficult as well. I don't know why they are connected, but my diplomacy/economy has always thrived on normal. This, in my opinion, seems to be the root of the problem.

Reality quite possibly soon.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/se...hogun-2-reveal

:P

From Kotaku
http://kotaku.com/5549952/total-war-...turns-to-japan

god i hope this is all true and that they do it justice.

It all hangs on the AIs (Diplomatic, Campaign, and Battle), but the style will also be truely important. The quality of the AI will determine how good of a game it is, but the style will play a huge role in determining how good a update it is to the original. The style of Shogun was not present in any subsequent title. The simple map (no 3D trees swaying, streams running, risk-style), the simple pieces, the music, the throne room, the mini movie clips for agent actions... Shogun was simple, and beautiful in its simplicity. It felt like how I imagine Japanese of that period would have designed it (if they had had the tech of course). That made it very special. CA had better be careful with this one.

well put servius

Quote:

---

CA had better be careful with this one.

---

I have to agree with this one. STW, the game that it was and still is, was so brilliant and paved the way for a following of its successors. To tinker with STW is a bold move indeed, should it fail and be compared to RTW and everyting after, I shudder at the thought...

In the end, if CA doesn't do something to simplify the campaign map, or conversely, produce a better AI, then we will be presented with yet another disappointment. I'm not holding my breath...............................

I fear for this. It sounds like an incredible idea, but I'm almost 100% certain they will screw it up and make us cringe at the new interpretation of this amazing game.

2011, I'm looking forward. I am extremely curious about Shogun 2 after a couple of years of damn gunpowder.

Confirmed.

http://pc.ign.com/articles/109/1093664p1.html

Good news for us all then. ~:)

Now THAT it is some nice news =)

Been dreaming about a STW remake for 10 years.

Finally.

This is definitely the TW game I will be waiting for.

When you consider everything, I think it's simply the best setting for a totalwar game, I can hardly wait!!!

Yup, I just hope the CA of today can do the first one justice.

I'm very happy about this and am very encouraged by what was said in the article.

I'm not so hopeful... As ever there is much talk about visuals and sound effects, plus the mention of "hero characters" (expanding on the kensai of STW...). I had to laugh at the bit about recording the footstep sounds using authentic period footwear on different types of terrain. To me it's just typical CA - masses of time and budget spent on trimmings and useless aspects of the game, very little time spent on AI, gameplay and bug fixes.

:dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AggonyDuck

Yup, I just hope the CA of today can do the first one justice.

---

They can help by giving us the online community chat we had in previous games but absent from Empire. Kinda kills MP for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Asai Nagamasa

I'm not so hopeful... As ever there is much talk about visuals and sound effects, plus the mention of "hero characters" (expanding on the kensai of STW...). I had to laugh at the bit about recording the footstep sounds using authentic period footwear on different types of terrain. To me it's just typical CA - masses of time and budget spent on trimmings and useless aspects of the game, very little time spent on AI, gameplay and bug fixes.

:dizzy2:

---

Right on the money.

But I still keep my hopes up. This is the last TW for me if they screw it up.

It is TRUE!!!

Shogun 2

http://shoguntotalwar.yuku.com/topic/71673

http://pc.ign.com/articles/109/1093664p1.html

I just died an got reincarnated :wings:

I have to admit I'm not that crazy about the hero units unless they do it just right - like giving morale/attack bonuses to nearby units (or something like that) rather than a one man killing machine. However, I liked the emphasis on simplification (might help the AI), immersion/atmosphere, the return of seasons(!!!), the return of Sun Tzu, etc. Lots of on battlefield units (56,000??!), sounds, graphics/art are all fine, but there has to be a good game to go along with it or it is nothing more than an interactive screen saver. I guess we'll have to stay tuned for more details.

I have to bang my head against the wall when reading some of the reactions to the announcement at the official forums in the link provided by Tomisama. I can understand not being thrilled about Japan (I've been there but the greatness of the game overrode that), but those that simply say "it's too small" I don't get. Conquering the whole map is the whole map regardless of the "size". "Too few units"? How many do you REALLY use when you play those TW games with hundreds? Oh well, that's their problem.

I'm excited and optimistic for the present.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregoshi

I have to bang my head against the wall when reading some of the reactions to the announcement at the official forums in the link provided by Tomisama. I can understand not being thrilled about Japan (I've been there but the greatness of the game overrode that), but those that simply say "it's too small" I don't get. Conquering the whole map is the whole map regardless of the "size". "Too few units"? How many do you REALLY use when you play those TW games with hundreds? Oh well, that's their problem.

---

I've never understood such people either. Having a crapload of units and a huge map does not make it a good game - it's impossible to tell some people this though. When I bought Shogun back in 2000, I knew nothing about, and had 0 interest in, Japan, it's history or any kind of medieval/ancient warfare let alone Sengoku Jidai. I think that basically the type of player has changed over the years and many of these people want historical accuracy, a large number of factions and units over the tactical gameplay of the first two games.

It goes without saying that a lot of forumites here at the .org as well as over at the .commie and TWC were waiting for and expecting Rome2 (I was expecting Rome2 myself), so this is probably a big disappointment for them.

Fewer units made it the game it was, the multiplayer was more tactical in Shogun than it has been in any of the eras since (medieval 1 was close though), you knew the units better so more tactics had to be used to win games, I play Napoleon online from timeto time and its ok, but its generally just a turkey shoot with a few flanking attempts and skirmishers takeouts, I can recall so many different army types when playing Shogun you never knew really what you would face, people swapped alot.
The horses were very fast also so you had to be aware at all times.
A lot of the people moaning havnt even played the first game, lets just hope they can recreate and improve pon the first one, I hope the heroes arnt like those from warcraft 3 and please let there be online chat.

Quote:

---

I hope the heroes arnt like those from warcraft 3

---

I never played warcraft, but I always liked the idea of Kensai. Production was a pain and perhaps unrealistic, but the idea of having them develop similar to the legendary swordsman event in the original STW is interesting. Hopefully the unit will have vulnerabilities; fatigue hampering combat effectivness, vulverable to arrow fire (not like diaymo units in STW, but more along the lines of an individual ND or the like), and perhaps even morale when overwhelmed or when his army has all but been defeated. Might add to traits and upgrades, etc. I think the hero unit sounds interesting, as long as they are kept human and don't become one man army reducing killing machines!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sp00n

A lot of the people moaning havnt even played the first game

---

Probably a generalisation but there is some truth in it.

Many, though not all, of those complaining are interested in classical or gunpowder era, mainly European, history - in a nutshell the gameplay could be like RTW vanilla for some people and they wouldn't care so long as there were thousands of units, a huge map and about 30 factions all with anally historically accurate graphics and naming.

:2cents:

TBH I'm just uber excited its returning can't wait to roll out the Horse Archers and Warrior Monks again, that and it gives Swoosh a chance to be able to say she beat me at Shogun online :P

Let's just hope CA do a good job.

:bow:

Like Sp00n said, the major appeal of STW2 from a gameplay perspective, putting aside the awesomeness of the story setting, is the compact nature of unit selection. Having a dozen units instead of a hundred means that you have to do 'more with less' so to speak. Micromanagement and the minute details suddenly become more important and decisive to win a battle. People who played STW or MTW1 online know what i mean.

Of course there are other considerations like pace and morale settings, we have to see the demo:) Fast paced battle resolution made the STW formula work, as well as live chat foyer and a hell of a lot of RP between clans and players.

Tera

This is incredible news, i am excited and scared in (large amounts and) equal measures.

I hope that CA follow the path they outline in the IGN article to tight, minimalistic and meaningful strategic and tactical gameplay - with less on diplomacy per se - and lets be honest here, there is no reason for TW to become a paradox or a civilization game; its the ruthless comptetition in strategy and on the battlefield that makes the TW games worthwhile - with really good atmosphere and artwork as it befits to the original. I think that judging by the environments and vastly superior artwise battlefield graphics and presentation in Napoleon, it can be done.

I am however particularly happy because it means that the hundreds of posts of veteran mpers and spers that castigated CA's "the more, the merier" feature approach that drowned MTW, Rome, M2 and Empire in unecessary complexity, both on the battlefield and in the campaign map is abandoned at least for this release, and that a predictable (and the easy commercial route) Rome 2 is not what they've chosen. I feel that long posts and analyses by Puzz3D and other mpers as well as many spers including Asai Nagamasa, Martok and myself over the benefits of Shogun's gameplay are finally done justice - just by the fact that this is realised.

I will finally be able to say to myself that it wasn't for nothing writing all that up, and that it didn't mean nothing to them. Thanks for that CA.

:bow:

Forgot to mention that, although i haven't wasted my time reading the reactions at the com to the anouncement, i can imagine the tone and content that Gregoshi talks about, and i have to say that i am particularly pleased with STW2 being a reality for this reason. Too small? Too few units? Too little scope? Too few factions? Not interested in Japanese history/samurai? Well sorry guys... tough.. eat mustard :)

I can't count the times that sarcasm, ridiculing and even bullying happened on people that liked the first two games after RTW at the com in particular - that was double for STW due to the "unusual" setting. Its fanboys' turn to swallow some bitterness now. "Revenge is the dish that tastes best served cold". Thanks for that too CA :)

I have my fingers crossed for a "back to basics" approach, though I'm sure the campaign game will be as complex as ever. Battles should be an improvement anyway due to the simplified roster.

Indeed the smaller roster will make the battles more balanced - simply because they are more easy to balance practically and also because they match better the amount of variation in terms of unit roles the TW engine can provide (as experience has shown).

I think that, from my perspective the most important thing would be the relationship of the battlefield to the campaign game. In the original the player's campaign game performance cannot substitute for battlefield performance. Its the only probably TW game that it cannot be played and won easily only by autoresolving because of this. In addition it had a good proportion between how much time you needed to spend on the map and play the battles, unlike newer total wars that the vast majority of your time was spent on the camp map.

In addition, the battle pace, although quick (in resolution, and especially if you made the wrong match ups), was adequate enough not to make you feel that the action escapes your control (like in Rome), or diminish to a crawl (like in M2). The map sizes and the fatigue of the units were optimized to match each - while in MTW the maps were far larger than what fatigue rating units had, which resulted in very very long battles. These sometimes were interesting - but most of the time not.

The secret of STW was that it had a golden cut balance in all aspects and that all aspects blended together with a golden cut balance. Everything was meaninglful and purposeful - there were (mostly) no redundant features. I mean WMs are more popular than the naginata, but in all honesty the Naginata can work on the battlefield just as well as the WMs (in v1.12 anyway), and one can base his army's heavy infantry on them.

Lets hope that CA focuses on those key concepts, even if they do it partially they'll get a game that will be easily far better than anything they've put out, gameplay wise, since 2002.

:bow:

I guess this thread could shipped to a new home.~;)

Still, from the perspective of a TW veteran, I am extremely happy with one point - it pushes the "unwanted casuals" away who were amazed by ETW and its shiny graphics, making CA head into a disaster zone.

Elitist, yes, but I want TW to go on for a long time with quality games.

I'm interested but guarded.

Going back to Shogun allows a smaller scope so hopefully they'll be able to make it actually work right.
I really hope they'll rework the campaign map. Lots of good gameplay was lost by the move away from the Risk style map. Stuff like the ability to safely withdraw in the face of a superior enemy.

This is great news! STW was an outstanding and very immersive gaming experience imo and I hope they can capture that same essence/spirit of the Sengoku jidai.

While cautiously pleased , I must admit my first reaction was "Oh no! Not again!" I haven't really spent much time with Total War after the demise of my MTW VI and disappointments with Rome Total War.

I just wish they - the developers, game makers- would choose some refreshing new directions to go in. It's beginning to feel like the movie scene: remakes of remakes.

By the way, Shogun Total War (I) is a cracking good game.

I it's any good then this might be what pushes me into getting a new computer :)
I think that the original is an excellent game and basically I would like more of the same with a few new units, a bit more diplomacy, a couple of new units and a few tweaks to the AI.
The idea of Hero units is not a good one, although if they are as expensive and difficult to make as the Kensai then they might not be too unbalancing. I think a hero unit might be better if it was a development from battle skills rather than something you train. For example a five star general could become a hero unit, the costs and training could be to do with building some kind of temple. which would also place a limit on the number of heroes possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hoom

I'm interested but guarded.

---

That's me as well, although I think I'm more guarded than interested. My love for the original game notwithstanding, my experiences with Rome and Empire have left a very bad taste in my mouth, and I've all but lost faith in CA at this point.

Asai Nagamasa has already listed most of the reasons I'm skeptical about a Shogun sequel. In addition to the ones he's mentioned, I would also add that I'm really not thrilled with CA/Sega continuing to make their games Steam-exclusive. I've not had the greatest experience with Steam, plus I'm opposed to publishers who are greedy short-sighted dumb enough to sign *any* sort of exclusive deal with any DD service.


Don't get me wrong: I love the period, I like that CA is returning to a smaller "theater" (which they should've been doing all along IMO), and I like that it should be better balanced this time around. However, their track record the last 6 years doesn't leave me optimistic.

Hi, Martok.

There are so many other "small theaters" of war pre- say 1800 which could have been chosen. This narrow focus and re-releasing what the modders have already covered is quite alarming. I'd like to see something actually creative from the "Creative" Assembly.

I'm excited about Shogun ll I really enjoyed Shogun and the time period. I just hope that Castles can be defened by the garrisoned troops and not just a waiting game inside until a hole is blown in the wall. If they make it like RTW then I think this will be a great TW Game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tony Furze

There are so many other "small theaters" of war pre- say 1800 which could have been chosen. This narrow focus and re-releasing what the modders have already covered is quite alarming. I'd like to see something actually creative from the "Creative" Assembly.

---

I think CA are out of original ideas - which is hardly surprising.

I don't mind if CA comes out with settings that have already been covered. As long as the reused material is presented well, I will be pleased. It's all a matter of taste and preference. If they covered a setting that I found disinteresting, then I might have fewer good, optomistic things to say about the game. But that's just me. :)

*Bows*

Maybe I see you guys in Totomi soon!

Kansuke.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kansuke

*Bows*

Maybe I see you guys in Totomi soon!

Kansuke.

---

Kansuke!!!!! You back!!!!!!

How you doing? I hope to see you to in Totomi!


:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kansuke

*Bows*

Maybe I see you guys in Totomi soon!

Kansuke.

---

*bows back*

Toga says hello, and good to see you, Kansuke-san. Indeed, if this turns out well and I am able, I will gladly meet you on that field again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kansuke

*Bows*

Maybe I see you guys in Totomi soon!

Kansuke.

---

Welcome old friend. It has been a long time.

:bow:

Jochi