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.

Odd, I "may not edit my posts". Hm. Anyway, just thought I'd add that the only "big" changes I'd like to see to STW would be improved sieges: as it is now we have four walls and an open gate, and that's not terribly exciting. The other thing is what I loved about MTW when I first played it, which I felt balanced things out rather nicely: different troop sizes for different troop types. It also makes sense that horses be in shorter supply than peasants.

And I agree: the geographical scale like that of Japan in STW is the optimal size for a TW-style game. It is absolutely unrealistic that every faction should be hell bent on conquering the whole map if the map is the size of Europe or thereabouts. Of course, I didn't mind in my MTW campaign when the Turks ended up controlling Northern Europe, Spain held Wallachia and nearby regions, France extended to Austria below the Turks, and the Byzantines were holed up in Portugal. Not the least bit realistic, but lots of fun. :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl08
Thank you.

---

Your're welcome.

:bow:

Quote:

---

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.

---

Right, dont be scared to get too technical; its always interesting.

Quote:

---

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.

---

They are indeed - the exaggeration of features in the erotic prints (for example the genitals) is to underline the fact that they become the emotional, physiological and psychological centre of the person(s) during sex.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Indeed - its too much to ask i think from the unit sprites although it could be certainly portrayed in the unit cards as you say.

PS I think the horter sword is called wakizashi - the longer is the familiar katana.

Generally speaking Shogun is quite respectful of the period - Stephen Turnbull - the British scholar expert on Sengoku Jidai was hired by CA as historical advisor. I think that the game was even praised for that from Japanese reviewers which is indicative of its quality in the area. Its as you say though not perfect.

Quote:

---

Odd, I "may not edit my posts". Hm.

---

Don't worry about this, its temporary; all members start out as "Junior" in order to help the moderators filter out spammers, trolls etc After a while (which can take a few days or a few weeks at the most) of participation, a moderator will grant you "Member" status that allows you to edit your posts and unlocks certain forums to you.

Quote:

---

Anyway, just thought I'd add that the only "big" changes I'd like to see to STW would be improved sieges: as it is now we have four walls and an open gate, and that's not terribly exciting.

---

I agree with you but i personally like them as simple as they are.

Quote:

---

The other thing is what I loved about MTW when I first played it, which I felt balanced things out rather nicely: different troop sizes for different troop types. It also makes sense that horses be in shorter supply than peasants.

---

Well yes MTW is balanced within reason, but Shogun is better in that department imho.

Quote:

---

And I agree: the geographical scale like that of Japan in STW is the optimal size for a TW-style game. It is absolutely unrealistic that every faction should be hell bent on conquering the whole map if the map is the size of Europe or thereabouts.

---

:yes:

Quote:

---

Of course, I didn't mind in my MTW campaign when the Turks ended up controlling Northern Europe, Spain held Wallachia and nearby regions, France extended to Austria below the Turks, and the Byzantines were holed up in Portugal. Not the least bit realistic, but lots of fun.

---

No doubt yes, but this gives rise to the ahistoric faction reapperances that personally bug me; the Egyptians reappearing in Scotland etc. They should have coded factions reappearing only in regions that have the same base religion imho. In Shogun where the feature originated from, any region was just as good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gollum

Indeed - its too much to ask i think from the unit sprites although it could be certainly portrayed in the unit cards as you say.

PS I think the horter sword is called wakizashi - the longer is the familiar katana.

---

Indeed, though katana simply means "sword". On the unit card of the samurai archer, however, he is wearing two long rather than long/short - and neither is in tachi mount.

Quote:

---

Generally speaking Shogun is quite respectful of the period - Stephen Turnbull - the British scholar expert on Sengoku Jidai was hired by CA as historical advisor. I think that the game was even praised for that from Japanese reviewers which is indicative of its quality in the area. Its as you say though not perfect.

---

Wow, I didn't realize they had consulted Turnbull. But that might explain why we do indeed see a realistic division of weapons on the battlefield: mainly spears and bows, with the katana being a secondary weapon.

Quote:

---

Don't worry about this, its temporary; all members start out as "Junior" in order to help the moderators filter out spammers, trolls etc After a while (which can take a few days or a few weeks at the most) of participation, a moderator will grant you "Member" status that allows you to edit your posts and unlocks certain forums to you.

---

Hmmm I registered in 2008. Though granted, after 7 posts I somehow forgot I had an account here. :embarassed: I only remembered it today when I once more brushed the dust off my Mori savegame.

Quote:

---

I agree with you but i personally like them as simple as they are.

---

Oh, I'm not asking much. Just an actual keep in there, so it doesn't look like a hastily erected palisade. Which could, perhaps, aid the defenders with a few sympathy arrows.

Quote:

---

Well yes MTW is balanced within reason, but Shogun is better in that department imho.

---

Personally I find that having every unit type at 60 makes everything look a bit too uniform, and I don't really like cavalry in such great numbers anyway. Cavalry units equal in size to infantry units were not common in Europe (except, perhaps, when heavy cavalry was all the rage), and even less so in Japan. Takeda Shingen was the first to use massed cavalry, not because nobody ever thought of it before, but because the cost of a large cavalry force quickly becomes prohibitive. And it somehow doesn't look right to me on the battlefield, either.

Quote:

---

No doubt yes, but this gives rise to the ahistoric faction reapperances that personally bug me; the Egyptians reappearing in Scotland etc. They should have coded factions reappearing only in regions that have the same base religion imho. In Shogun where the feature originated from, any region was just as good.

---

Defeated clans could reappear in Shogun? Wow, I had no idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gollum

Don't worry about this, its temporary; all members start out as "Junior" in order to help the moderators filter out spammers, trolls etc After a while (which can take a few days or a few weeks at the most) of participation, a moderator will grant you "Member" status that allows you to edit your posts and unlocks certain forums to you.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Karl08

Hmmm I registered in 2008. Though granted, after 7 posts I somehow forgot I had an account here. :embarassed: I only remembered it today when I once more brushed the dust off my Mori savegame.

---

Hello Karl08,

I will put in a request for your account to be upgraded now.

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Asai Nagamasa

Hello Karl08,

I will put in a request for your account to be upgraded now.

:bow:

---

Arigato gozaimasu :beam: :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl08
But that might explain why we do indeed see a realistic division of weapons on the battlefield: mainly spears and bows, with the katana being a secondary weapon.

---

Exactly. The first idea of the uninitiated to the period is to introduce "Samuari Swordsmen" as a unit, that is actually completely ahistorical; as you say the Yari and the Naginata were the weapons of choice for melee due to their longer reach.

Incidentaly they could perform stabbing as well as slashing moves (and the curvy blade of the Naginata was in order to facilitate those) with both of them and hence were in all respects superior to swords in large scale combat that involved unit cooperation and coordination. It was not uncommon for veteran units of Ashigaru spearmen to have accumulated a large number of kills of "famous" warriors whose fame disallowed to fight as part of a team - they were after individual combat and so predictably cut down by cloes knit cooperating units, particularly early during the era, that idealisation was competing still with practicality. Later on, practicality reigned supreme as the guiding testing principle for what worked and what not, rather than fame or status.

Katana's were indeed secondary weapons, while No-dachis were primary as depicted in the game due to their long reach.

Quote:

---

Oh, I'm not asking much. Just an actual keep in there, so it doesn't look like a hastily erected palisade. Which could, perhaps, aid the defenders with a few sympathy arrows.

---

Agreed castle layout could have been more sophisticated as it was in reality to accomodate zig-zag entrance corridors guarded by high groubd walls that could accomoate archers or gunners - these helped slow the enemy down in a zone that he could be shot if hemanaged to past the gate.

However to be fair, from a developer point of view, i dont think that the path finding of the TW AI wasraedy for such a move at that stage (nor is it today actually but that's again another story)

Quote:

---

Personally I find that having every unit type at 60 makes everything look a bit too uniform, and I don't really like cavalry in such great numbers anyway. Cavalry units equal in size to infantry units were not common in Europe (except, perhaps, when heavy cavalry was all the rage), and even less so in Japan. Takeda Shingen was the first to use massed cavalry, not because nobody ever thought of it before, but because the cost of a large cavalry force quickly becomes prohibitive. And it somehow doesn't look right to me on the battlefield, either.

---

I see, so you have a personal preference and a historical argument against the full size cavalry units.
However there is a third argument - that of play-balance; in the TW engine its far easier to balance the stats of units that have the same size because size impacts on the unit statistical strength - however the impact is hard to assess accurately because of frontage effect (how many men of your unit can be engaged at the same time) and because combat is not deterministic (setting the same match ups does not always gives the exact same result) in TW. As such its far easier to balance the game with all units being the same size.

As for the historical argument, it is possible to maintain the infantry/cavalry ratio in STW in historical values by fielding fewer cavalry units (as they are full size). This does not detract from gameplay neither does it produce a composition of forces that has a disadvantage in battle - actually in my experience its almost ideal for SP purposes, since spears are really effective in STW. In addition cavalry costs twice as much as normal samurai infantry to maintain (and ashigaru cost half) - so the costs do become prohibitive too - its not uncommon to go through the early - early/mid game without fielding cavalry and even if available to have one or two units in total. For the Takeda the situation is different because the recruitment cost and meintenance costs are 25% lower.

MTW is also nototrious for the number of overpowered and redundant units it contains. This comes as no surprise to anyone who is familiar with unt stats because it is clear from the effective range of the combat stats parameters (that is between -2 to 10/12 for defence, attack, morale parameters) that the range isnt that great to meaningfully accomodate 100+ units that appeared in MTW. It would produce either redundant/overpowered units or many units that were in effect duplicates ie same stats different skins. But that's another issue altogether.

By the way Shingen afaik, did not indeed invent the use of cavalry, but he seems to have invented the Yari Cavalry - that is fast melee oriented lancers for raids and charges on the enemy.

Quote:

---

Defeated clans could reappear in Shogun? Wow, I had no idea.

---

Yes they can but only if you have the Mongol Invasion or Warlord Edition. In the original "old" version of STW 1.0-1.12, they dont.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gollum

Exactly. The first idea of the uninitiated to the period is to introduce "Samuari Swordsmen" as a unit, that is actually completely ahistorical; as you say the Yari and the Naginata were the weapons of choice for melee due to their longer reach.

Incidentaly they could perform stabbing as well as slashing moves (and the curvy blade of the Naginata was in order to facilitate those) with both of them and hence were in all respects superior to swords in large scale combat that involved unit cooperation and coordination.

---

Well, yes to the yari in this respect, but the naginata is not really well suited for formation fighting as it takes too much space to wield fully. You can still use it in formation as a yari, but then you are better of with a yari, anyway. The naginata was a favoured weapon among samurai on foot in Heian, but then these samurai fought individually. After the Genpei wars, naginata became less popular on the battlefield as the samurai started fighting in formation.

But true, the naginata can be used to thrust, too. How well depends on curvature, as a curved blade on a stick is significantly harder to thrust with than an equally curved blade without the stick. Most naginata had relatively little curvature, though, and the ones with very deep saki-zori - such as you can see in certain unit cards in STW, actually - were not common.

This is a good depiction of Japanese formation fighting, by the way:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://img135.imageshack.us/img135/...lanceprint.jpg

It depicts a training fight between long and short spears. Note the samurai forming supporting ranks in the rear. Even though this is just a training fight, I think it is a good representation of battlefield practice as well: samurai backing up ashigaru in the rear, making them tow the line and keep them in the fight longer.

Quote:

---

Katana's were indeed secondary weapons, while No-dachis were primary as depicted in the game due to their long reach.

---

I can only speculate about this, but I assume the no-dachi (or rather O-tachi; no-dachi simply means "field sword") would be used in a similar way to European greatswords or the huge Zweihänder, to push aside pikes. Of course, in Europe Zweihänders were used with support from pollaxes, typically. I don't know if they did something similar in Japan. As for its capabilities in offense, it would be mainly suitable for targets with little or no armour.

Quote:

---

Agreed castle layout could have been more sophisticated as it was in reality to accomodate zig-zag entrance corridors guarded by high groubd walls that could accomoate archers or gunners - these helped slow the enemy down in a zone that he could be shot if hemanaged to past the gate.

However to be fair, from a developer point of view, i dont think that the path finding of the TW AI wasraedy for such a move at that stage (nor is it today actually but that's again another story)

---

Oh I agree, trying to reproduce the veritable maze of corridors in a TW-like game would only result in a mess. But I would very much like a keep within the walls that are present, much like we see in MTW. Basically just a big ol' box for decor, but if it could also shoot the odd arrow (again, as in MTW) I wouldn't mind.

Quote:

---

I see, so you have a personal preference and a historical argument against the full size cavalry units.
However there is a third argument - that of play-balance; in the TW engine its far easier to balance the stats of units that have the same size because size impacts on the unit statistical strength - however the impact is hard to assess accurately because of frontage effect (how many men of your unit can be engaged at the same time) and because combat is not deterministic (setting the same match ups does not always gives the exact same result) in TW. As such its far easier to balance the game with all units being the same size.

As for the historical argument, it is possible to maintain the infantry/cavalry ratio in STW in historical values by fielding fewer cavalry units (as they are full size). This does not detract from gameplay neither does it produce a composition of forces that has a disadvantage in battle - actually in my experience its almost ideal for SP purposes, since spears are really effective in STW. In addition cavalry costs twice as much as normal samurai infantry to maintain (and ashigaru cost half) - so the costs do become prohibitive too - its not uncommon to go through the early - early/mid game without fielding cavalry and even if available to have one or two units in total. For the Takeda the situation is different because the recruitment cost and meintenance costs are 25% lower.

---

Yes, but sohei, naginata and nodachi are right up their with cavalry as far as price tag is concerned. I'm not sure how well they compare in upkeep, but this is where the big difference ought to be seen, anyway.

Quote:

---

MTW is also nototrious for the number of overpowered and redundant units it contains. This comes as no surprise to anyone who is familiar with unt stats because it is clear from the effective range of the combat stats parameters (that is between -2 to 10/12 for defence, attack, morale parameters) that the range isnt that great to meaningfully accomodate 100+ units that appeared in MTW. It would produce either redundant/overpowered units or many units that were in effect duplicates ie same stats different skins. But that's another issue altogether.

---

I never found any MTW units to be redundant. There are some that I never use personally, but that's because of the tactics I pursue. Others might use and exclude different units. If by redundant you mean two or more units having identical stats, I chalk this down to flavour. Order foot soldiers and Italian infantry have the exact same stats, if memory serves, and for game purposes they might as well be the same unit. But variation is the spice of life, and it does help for immersion, at least for my part. My main issue with MTW (and possibly STW, I'm not that familiar with its inner workings) is that for valour and morale bonuses to work in the same way (1 extra point of either providing +1 to both attack and defence) feels wrong. But anyway, I've done a little bit of tweaking to most stats of most units in MTW, thanks to the very easy-to-use Gnome editor, getting a balance I'm comfortable with.

Ok, this is an excellent example of the usefulness of the edit-function. I intended to spoiler that image, but now that I see these boards lack that particular function, I would have liked to change my post to simply show the link to the image. Sorry for the inconvenience. :shame:

Quote:

---

Originallu posted by Karl08
I can only speculate about this, but I assume the no-dachi (or rather O-tachi; no-dachi simply means "field sword") would be used in a similar way to European greatswords or the huge Zweihänder, to push aside pikes. Of course, in Europe Zweihänders were used with support from pollaxes, typically.

---

Quite possibly so, although it could have many other uses too in the hands of a skilled swordsman apparently.

Quote:

---

Yes, but sohei, naginata and nodachi are right up their with cavalry as far as price tag is concerned. I'm not sure how well they compare in upkeep, but this is where the big difference ought to be seen, anyway.

---

Yes well, Nodachis are @350koku/60men, Naginata @450 (or400? can't remember)/60man unit and the warrior monk @500koku/60men which is the same money paid to recruit Yari cavalry and the Cavalry archer iirc.

All foot units cost 1koku/man/year to maintain other than ashigaru (yaris and gunners) that cost 0.5koku/man/year and cavalry that cost 2koku/man/year. This is because the koku is by definition the amount of rice to feed a man for a year. For cavalry the horse is also counted (as it should).

This makes cavalry quite a drain on maintenance resources as it was. Cavalry heavy armies are expensive and run the risk to underperform in forests, bridges and hilly terrain. In my view cavalry is very nicely represented in STW in all respects.

Quote:

---

I never found any MTW units to be redundant.

---

Really? To begin with there are the peasants - that are there as cheap garissons for the player; unfortunately the AI uses them as if they could fight but they can't. Urban militia quickly become redundant. Lithuanian cavalry due to their requirements. The two types of light horse archer the Turks get (vanilla horse archer is redundant for them). There are many other examples - too many to list here.

I would say that as the eras progress and the new powerful units become avilable the trend is more dominant. For example Chivalric men at arms and arbalesters are so far away from anything else in their class that make a large number of units redundant/obsolete - so much so in fact that they were the backbone of a typical multiplayer army for the most part.

Its not that you cannot use the redundant units in battle - its that you can play and win the game by completely ignoring their existence - something that doesn't happen all that much in STW.

Thanks for the analysis and the nice print.

:bow:

The Nodachi Samurai and Sohei (Monks) were added to the game for gameplay balance reasons.

Historically the Nodachi Samurai (not the same thing as the Odachi) were used for the same purpose as Naginta. From a gameplay perspective, history does not always work, which is why we have battlefield sword units in both STW and MTW. This ensures that the "swords beats spears beats cavalry beats swords" (RPS) system works as intended.

Despite this, Nodachi Samurai are certainly closer to reality, as "anti spear flankers", than the various sword units in MTW.

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Asai Nagamasa
The Nodachi Samurai and Sohei (Monks) were added to the game for gameplay balance reasons.

---

Would you care to explain your point master camelier?

According to "Secrets of the Samurai" by Oscar Ratti & Adele Westbrook, both appeared as distinct units and are hostorically accurate and important.

:bow:

PS Its also useful to note that for gameplay purposes STW "swords" ie Nodachi, Naginata, Warrior Monks, are not primarily anti-spear units but main line melee infantry, that is their main purpose is to engage the other side's main melee infantry; if now that is spears all the better!

Although theoretically in the RPS "cavalry beats swords", Naginata & WMonks will perform really well versus Yari cavalry and th cavalry Archer. Only Heavy Cavaly (and naginata cavalry if you play with MI/WE) has a chance to stop dedicated melee troops and often this with a good flank charge; only Nodachis (as the weaker swords) decicively lose to the light cavalry units in a "clean" match up (flat ground/no charge/front engagement).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gollum

Quite possibly so, although it could have many other uses too in the hands of a skilled swordsman apparently.

---

Yes, I've heard the "anti-horse" argument, for example, but a yari would be a better anti-horse weapon in all respects. Both cheaper and easier to make, easier to learn and better range, so I am a bit skeptical toward this particular claim. Though no doubt, it would be more of an "anti-horse" weapon than a normal sword.

Quote:

---

Yes well, Nodachis are @350koku/60men, Naginata @450 (or400? can't remember)/60man unit and the warrior monk @500koku/60men which is the same money paid to recruit Yari cavalry and the Cavalry archer iirc.

All foot units cost 1koku/man/year to maintain other than ashigaru (yaris and gunners) that cost 0.5koku/man/year and cavalry that cost 2koku/man/year. This is because the koku is by definition the amount of rice to feed a man for a year. For cavalry the horse is also counted (as it should).

This makes cavalry quite a drain on maintenance resources as it was. Cavalry heavy armies are expensive and run the risk to underperform in forests, bridges and hilly terrain. In my view cavalry is very nicely represented in STW in all respects.

---

Ah, thanks for the information. There is, however, one aspect which is not represented as it should: the game states that a castle can fit either X amount of cavalry or 2X amount of infantry, but I find that the game doesn't actually seem to make such a distinction. One infantry unit and one cavalry unit certainly has the exact same impact on how long the castle is expected to last the siege, and I know for sure that MTW does not care at all what sort of units you cram into castles. Though Medieval, too, claims that cavalry counts double.

Quote:

---

Really? To begin with there are the peasants - that are there as cheap garissons for the player; unfortunately the AI uses them as if they could fight but they can't. Urban militia quickly become redundant. Lithuanian cavalry due to their requirements. The two types of light horse archer the Turks get (vanilla horse archer is redundant for them). There are many other examples - too many to list here.

I would say that as the eras progress and the new powerful units become avilable the trend is more dominant. For example Chivalric men at arms and arbalesters are so far away from anything else in their class that make a large number of units redundant/obsolete - so much so in fact that they were the backbone of a typical multiplayer army for the most part.

---

Well, as you say, peasants make cheap garrison units, and in a newly conquered territory where you perhaps need to boost loyalty, they are invaluable (and, perhaps, the only units available). And while town militia certainly become redundant later on, I train rather a lot of them in the first years of Early. Regular spearmen also become somewhat redundant later on, but that does not diminish their importance early on. So I'm going to have to disagree that they are redundant to the game.

Quote:

---

Its not that you cannot use the redundant units in battle - its that you can play and win the game by completely ignoring their existence - something that doesn't happen all that much in STW.

---

Well, there is the ashigaru. Once you've got a steady flow of koku going, there is no need to recruit them anymore. So they are redundant in the same way as town militia in MTW, but I wouldn't use that word anyway.

There are also the teppo units - I've never quite gotten the hang of firearms in STW, and use them mainly as a curiosity and because it's historical. I still rely on the good old archers and cavalry archers.

Quote:

---

Thanks for the analysis and the nice print.

:bow:

---

My pleasure. And thank you for your input.
:bow:


Oh, and thank you, Asai Nagamasa, for editing my post above. Much appreciated.
(I'm used to just editing my posts if there are any discrepancies - I ought to use the preview function more often.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gollum

Would you care to explain your point master camelier?
Although theoretically in the RPS "cavalry beats swords", Naginata & WMonks will perform really well versus Yari cavalry and th cavalry Archer. Only Heavy Cavaly (and naginata cavalry if you play with MI/WE) has a chance to stop dedicated melee troops and often this with a good flank charge; only Nodachis (as the weaker swords) decicively lose to the light cavalry units in a "clean" match up (flat ground/no charge/front engagement).

---

I agree, though naginata is a polearm, not a sword (and I would think only fair to give them the "bonus attacking cavalry" that halberd units get, if adopted into MTW). I also agree on the naginata cavalry, and they decidedly feel overpowered to me. And cheaper, even, than yari cavalry. I almost feel guilty using them.

Almost. :smiley2:

Yes. The best troops by far in shogun were yari sam, samurai archers, naginata cavalry, and monks. The other were superflous really. I think it's mainly an AI problem though:

yari cav: the AI rarely brings cavalry
no-dachi: you are rarely short of money because the AI doesn't push you, so easier to go with monks
heavy cav: AI rarely has monks
cav archer: AI rarely has monks or no-dachi, and has trouble using it's archers effectively
naginata: sometimes good for a bridge assault, but the AI can be exploited by other means. Armored yari sam can substitute
ninja and kensai: just for fun units
guns: very powerful actually but I almost never end up getting them because they make it too easy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gollum

Would you care to explain your point master camelier?

According to "Secrets of the Samurai" by Oscar Ratti & Adele Westbrook, both appeared as distinct units and are hostorically accurate and important.

:bow:

---

Well gollum you're obviously better read on the subject than myself. Despite this I'm well aware that Nodachi and Sohei existed (I wasn't dismissing them as fantasy units), but as I understand it most clans did not field vast numbers of Sohei? Also Nodachi were not nearly as common as say Yari Ashigaru/Samurai?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gollum

PS Its also useful to note that for gameplay purposes STW "swords" ie Nodachi, Naginata, Warrior Monks, are not primarily anti-spear units but main line melee infantry, that is their main purpose is to engage the other side's main melee infantry; if now that is spears all the better!

---

That's how I see it as well yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gollum

Although theoretically in the RPS "cavalry beats swords", Naginata & WMonks will perform really well versus Yari cavalry and th cavalry Archer. Only Heavy Cavaly (and naginata cavalry if you play with MI/WE) has a chance to stop dedicated melee troops and often this with a good flank charge; only Nodachis (as the weaker swords) decicively lose to the light cavalry units in a "clean" match up (flat ground/no charge/front engagement).

---

Stating the obvious... RPS is the starting point, but it's a good one, other factors such as honour, terrain, morale, fatigue and superior stats quite obviously skew the battle results. i.e. a game where spears beat cavalry every single time would not be much fun...

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl08
Yes, I've heard the "anti-horse" argument

---

That's the only one i didnt meant. I agree with you - spears do the job far better.

Quote:

---

the game states that a castle can fit either X amount of cavalry or 2X amount of infantry, but I find that the game doesn't actually seem to make such a distinction. One infantry unit and one cavalry unit certainly has the exact same impact on how long the castle is expected to last the siege...

---

Well this is a space restriction - it affects the time the castle will fall indirectly : by letting you put less men inside the castle while it counts the horses for food/space. In this way half the amount of men the castle can take are allowed in if they are say all cavalry (and so make the garrison more vulnerable to asssaults) while they starve at the same rate as a full footmen garisson.

Quote:

---

Well, as you say, peasants make cheap garrison units, and in a newly conquered territory where you perhaps need to boost loyalty, they are invaluable (and, perhaps, the only units available). And while town militia certainly become redundant later on, I train rather a lot of them in the first years of Early. Regular spearmen also become somewhat redundant later on, but that does not diminish their importance early on.

---

Precisely, so just count how many units are made redundant in this way in MTW and how many in STW. You'll find that there are tens of MTW that you can do without but only one in STW the yari ashigaru.

Quote:

---

Well, there is the ashigaru. Once you've got a steady flow of koku going, there is no need to recruit them anymore. So they are redundant in the same way as town militia in MTW, but I wouldn't use that word anyway.

There are also the teppo units - I've never quite gotten the hang of firearms in STW, and use them mainly as a curiosity and because it's historical. I still rely on the good old archers and cavalry archers.

---

Yari ashigaru can still play a part in battles all the way to teh end of the campaign because their combat statistics are not as differen from high tech units as in MTW (compare early and late era infantry say). Their anticavalry role makes sure that they remain relevant in making up stacks up to the last years of teh campaign.

In MTW you actually get units that are a better version of the same statistically, which makes the previous obsolete - in addition as i mentioned, its well known that all you need is really swords/heavy cavalry(knights preferably)/arbalesters (after 1204). Such an army has huge advantages over any other MTW army composition unfortunately in all departments (firepower/melee strength/moblity/impact), unless you fight in desert terrain that makes less than 10% of MTW maps in vanilla. This was clear in MTW multiplayer were such armies dominated the field. Only aout 15 units were cost effective enough to be used in tournaments and regular mp in arid/lush/temperate maps.

As for the gun units, they are infact so powerful that certain players avoid to use them in STW SP, because the AI is unable to use them properly ie in a continuous wall, since he is using them in with skirmish on. If you turn skirmish off, put them in hold formation/hold position and deploy them in three ranks deep that enables them to use revolving ranks (and thus fire every 7seconds iirc instead of 21secs of reload), make a 3 or 4 gun units front and support them properly with melee units behind, spears at the flanks and cavalry behind at the ready to chase demoralised retreating enemies, they are devastating in attack and defence.

Particularly the musketeers in MI/WE are overly dominant and can oblitarate anything since they can also fire in the rain (although with a misfire penalty) and their missile stats were increased from the original game.

Quote:

---

I agree, though naginata is a polearm, not a sword (and I would think only fair to give them the "bonus attacking cavalry" that halberd units get, if adopted into MTW). I also agree on the naginata cavalry, and they decidedly feel overpowered to me. And cheaper, even, than yari cavalry. I almost feel guilty using them.

---

Notice that i used the word swords with " ", since it was used in the context of gameplay categories and not of what the weapons are in reality. I dont think that the polearms need an anticavalry bonus in STW because as mentioned they already fare well against cavalry due to the good stats of Naginata/WMonks that yield them.

Yes Naginata cavalry is overpowered and cheap for its stats. Its also making the Heavy Cavalry obsolete - however i play STW v1.12 - without the MI - that does not have it (it also lacks the kensai and the battlefield ninjas), so it isnt a problem in my games.

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Asai Nagamasa
... but as I understand it most clans did not field vast numbers of Sohei? Also Nodachi were not nearly as common as say Yari Ashigaru/Samurai?

---

Afaik, you are right about the Nodachi - however from what i have read (in the aformentioned book and in a few other ones including "The twelve men who made Japan" by Economics Prof. Sakaiya Taichi) it would seem the W.Monks were pretty numerous and common; they were particularly so in central Japan (that comprises the "Oda" area as well as Etchizen and Kaga) since their monasteries were in and around the centre of old powers that is the old capital of Nara (in Yamato during the Heien period) and later Kyoto.

They were particularly interested in resisting any potential unifier since they were essentially an independent power sect that yielded huge political, economical and military force at the time - not to mention their influence with the populace. As such they were naturally in a position of strength with a weak central authority.

When Oda Nobunaga took over Mino, Omi and Yanashiro, he tried to boost the economy by the equivalent of deregulation. This meant abolishing the various taxes that the imperial court, nobles and the buddhist monasteries were retrieving from merchandise and goods traveling through their lands. In this way he could buy goods cheaply at their production area and sell them at a high price where there was demand - the profits could afford him the professional ashigaru army he wanted. He even established the town of Gifu in Omi, strategically situated in the approaches to the capital and he personally invited merchants to settle in, while he gave various bonuses and allowances to encourage such moves. By the way the town still stands.

It was this move that brought Nobunaga in direct confrontation against the W.Monks and eventually forced him to massacre them and brake their power. It was clear to both sides that there was not enough space for both and one or the other would have to recede.

Apart from being an army in their own right (with their own units of missiles, melee and cavalry and even gunners), W.Monks often served as mercenaries in clan armies that supported their interests; this is what the discount bonus for the Mori clan is meant to represent - the Mori stood against Nobunaga's armies and W.Monks flooded their armies against him. The gossip was, that many ronins from defeated clans also became warrior monks in the period; it has been speculated that some may have had old scores to settle with the prospective unifier.

The other Sengoku Jidai Warlords were for the most part depended upon local land retainers/rulers and their underlings that were providing their own arms and armor and had to feed themselves and their compatriots while on campaign. This, generally disallowed them to fight when it was harvest time - typically all sides involved in a fight would abandon it in September and return to their villages for the harvest - otherwise they risked far more than losing a battle for their overlord.

Nobunaga, wanted an army that could fight any time - continuously if possible - his campaigns in Mino are indicative: he invaded unsuccesfully a number of times; he was repulsed everytime the retainers/farmers were in the field of battle, however he was winning when they withdrew to tend to their farms leaving tiny garissons to defend border forts. This allowed Nobunaga's troops to have odds as 2000:200 or even 2000:100 in sieges and so were victorious. However next spring the farmer/soldiers would come again to kick his professional ashigaru armies out and this happened quite a few times before Nobunaga finally took Mino as his own.

In SP gameplay terms both units are resource heavy to produce in terms of buildings required, and also the fact that "swords" are relatively vulnerable to cavalry (particularly the no-dachi), cost/effectiveness ratio and low build requirements make Yari Samurai perhaps the most useful/worthy and hence backbone unit in the game, as it should be.

Its true of course that a steamrolling player can produce whatever he wants after a point, particularly if he plays with the MI/WE that halves the building costs and build times, making easy to have multiple Temples and Sword Dojos - but in 1.12 things are far tighter and even more so in the early-mid game.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Yes. The best troops by far in shogun were yari sam, samurai archers, naginata cavalry, and monks. The other were superflous really. I think it's mainly an AI problem though:

yari cav: the AI rarely brings cavalry
no-dachi: you are rarely short of money because the AI doesn't push you, so easier to go with monks
heavy cav: AI rarely has monks
cav archer: AI rarely has monks or no-dachi, and has trouble using it's archers effectively
naginata: sometimes good for a bridge assault, but the AI can be exploited by other means. Armored yari sam can substitute
ninja and kensai: just for fun units
guns: very powerful actually but I almost never end up getting them because they make it too easy.

---

They are superfluous with MI that altered stats, lowered building prices and building times and made guns thrice more powerful almost. They were far better as they were intended in the original release.

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gollum

Apart from being an army in their own right (with their own units of missiles, melee and cavalry and even gunners), W.Monks often served as mercenaries in clan armies that supported their interests; this is what the discount bonus for the Mori clan is meant to represent - the Mori stood against Nobunaga's armies and W.Monks flooded their armies against him. The gossip was, that many ronins from defeated clans also became warrior monks in the period; it has been speculated that some may have had old scores to settle with the prospective unifier.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gollum

...they were particularly so in central Japan (that comprises the "Oda" area as well as Etchizen and Kaga) since their monasteries were in and around the centre of old powers that is the old capital of Nara (in Yamato during the Heien period) and later Kyoto.

---

That is how I had understood it, though this does not equate to the naginta wielding Monks in the game being freely available in every province. The Monks as bribable rebels, recruitable mercs or even as a separate faction would have been closer to historical - but probably not as good gameplay wise.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Asai Nagamasa
The Monks as bribable rebels, recruitable mercs or even as a separate faction would have been closer to historical - but probably not as good gameplay wise.

---

Indeed - it would also have required quite some extra amount of coding (the mercenaries part) that didn't appear as an effective choice for the TW AI until 3 releases later (RTW).

As it stands, the Daimyo that embraces Buddhism by building a temple pledges support to the cause of the Monks, and his religious commitment brings him in direct conflict with making a deal with the Portuguese and the jesuits. While this is not that much of a problem in MI/WE since the player can autopillage his own Temples, it is useful to remember that the original release afforded no such option and hence building a Buddhist temple and "siding" or "subsidising" the W.Monks was a major gameplay decision since it would bring about religious unrest in the case the player made the deal with the Portuguese.

In this way the two religious choices the game affords (going buddhist or christian) offer distinct strategic/tactical advantages to the player.

Quote:

---

...though this does not equate to the naginta wielding Monks in the game being freely available in every province.

---

Well yes, but then again it was not unrealistic for Daimyos to become patrons of religious sects and benefit from their influence, taechings, skills and devotion as did for example the original Hojo rulers (such as Hojo Tokimune) in the 12th/13th centuries when they introduced Zen Buddhism in Japan and made their capital Kamakura the spiritual centre of the country at the time.

Last but not least let me relate something that i discovered relatively recently; you may all have noticed that there is a shrine gate in the middle of the sea opposite Hiroshima (in Aki) with a series of (obviusly descriptive) kanji around it. For quite some time i had thought that this related to a sacred site in the mainland but due to map representation restrictions this was not possible to be portrayed there. However it turns out that i was wrong and that the temple implied is in fact in an island in the exact location shown. It is a famous Heien period Shinto shrine the Itsukushima Shrine with its floating gate, found in Miyajima Island:
http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e3401.html
http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e3450.html
http://images.google.co.uk/images?q=...N&hl=en&tab=wi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itsukushima_Shrine

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gollum

Last but not least let me relate something that i discovered relatively recently; you may all have noticed that there is a shrine gate in the middle of the sea opposite Hiroshima (in Aki) with a series of (obviusly descriptive) kanji around it. For quite some time i had thought that this related to a sacred site in the mainland but due to map representation restrictions this was not possible to be portrayed there. However it turns out that i was wrong and that the temple implied is in fact in an island in the exact location shown. It is a famous Heien period Shinto shrine the Itsukushima Shrine with its floating gate, found in Miyajima Island:
http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e3401.html
http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e3450.html
http://images.google.co.uk/images?q=...N&hl=en&tab=wi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itsukushima_Shrine

:bow:

---

:2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gollum

Well this is a space restriction - it affects the time the castle will fall indirectly : by letting you put less men inside the castle while it counts the horses for food/space. In this way half the amount of men the castle can take are allowed in if they are say all cavalry (and so make the garrison more vulnerable to asssaults) while they starve at the same rate as a full footmen garisson.

---

Yes, but that's what I'm saying: the game doesn't seem to distinguish between a whole company of heavy cavalry or a single kensai. That is certainly the impression I get from what I'm told on the campaign map. I had a citadel which "would not fall without a direct assault" when a full unit of yari samurai was garrisoned there. I added a cavalry unit, and then it "could mean years of waiting". I then placed a unit of battlefield ninja in the citadel, as lone garrison. "Would not fall without a direct assault". Then I added a kensai. "Could mean years of waiting". 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.

Quote:

---

Precisely, so just count how many units are made redundant in this way in MTW and how many in STW. You'll find that there are tens of MTW that you can do without but only one in STW the yari ashigaru.

In MTW you actually get units that are a better version of the same statistically, which makes the previous obsolete - in addition as i mentioned, its well known that all you need is really swords/heavy cavalry(knights preferably)/arbalesters (after 1204). Such an army has huge advantages over any other MTW army composition unfortunately in all departments (firepower/melee strength/moblity/impact), unless you fight in desert terrain that makes less than 10% of MTW maps in vanilla. This was clear in MTW multiplayer were such armies dominated the field. Only aout 15 units were cost effective enough to be used in tournaments and regular mp in arid/lush/temperate maps.

---

Yes, but I like the flavour. When you play civilization, knights eventually replace chariots, too. And tanks replace knights. Without units becoming obsolete or at least old fashioned, there is no sense of technological progress. This is why I like militia sergeants replacing town militia; feudal sergeants replacing spearmen; feudal knights replacing mounted sergeants and so on. But the transitions are very gradual: just because I have just built a spearmaker's workshop and can now produce feudal sergeants, for example, I will still keep training spearmen until I have workshops in sufficient numbers that I can produce the new units at an appreciable rate.

Though in some cases, such as the mounted sergeant and the hobilar, the former replaces the latter almost immediately as it has either equal or slightly better stats, and the cost difference is negligible. In such cases I have tweaked the stats a bit. In this particular case I added spearmaker as a requirement for mounted sergeants, and gave the hobilar a slight defence advantage over the mounted sergeant, while the mounted sergeant retains the charge advantage. This way the hobilar is not useless to those who can train them. I have made similar tweaks to several units.

Quote:

---

Yari ashigaru can still play a part in battles all the way to teh end of the campaign because their combat statistics are not as differen from high tech units as in MTW (compare early and late era infantry say). Their anticavalry role makes sure that they remain relevant in making up stacks up to the last years of teh campaign.

---

I find ashigaru much more vulnerable to missiles, and of course they turn and run much quicker. I definitely make different calculations on the battlefield depending on whether the spears are ashigaru or samurai. I think that is as it should be, though. I never use ashigaru for anything other than garrison, and after the first couple of years I never train them anymore, either. I still wouldn't want them gone from the game.

Quote:

---

As for the gun units, they are infact so powerful that certain players avoid to use them in STW SP, because the AI is unable to use them properly ie in a continuous wall, since he is using them in with skirmish on. If you turn skirmish off, put them in hold formation/hold position and deploy them in three ranks deep that enables them to use revolving ranks (and thus fire every 7seconds iirc instead of 21secs of reload), make a 3 or 4 gun units front and support them properly with melee units behind, spears at the flanks and cavalry behind at the ready to chase demoralised retreating enemies, they are devastating in attack and defence.

Particularly the musketeers in MI/WE are overly dominant and can oblitarate anything since they can also fire in the rain (although with a misfire penalty) and their missile stats were increased from the original game.

---

They can fire in rain? I'll have to have a closer look at them, then.

Quote:

---

Notice that i used the word swords with " ", since it was used in the context of gameplay categories and not of what the weapons are in reality. I dont think that the polearms need an anticavalry bonus in STW because as mentioned they already fare well against cavalry due to the good stats of Naginata/WMonks that yield them.

---

Ever since I first bought STW when it was brand new, I always hesitated using cavalry on naginata except in flanking/support, precisely because the naginata would be a good weapon against cavalry. And when I saw that they did indeed do well against cavalry, I assumed they were programmed with such bonuses.

Quote:

---

Yes Naginata cavalry is overpowered and cheap for its stats. Its also making the Heavy Cavalry obsolete - however i play STW v1.12 - without the MI - that does not have it (it also lacks the kensai and the battlefield ninjas), so it isnt a problem in my games.

:bow:

---

I never relied much on heavy cavalry in the first place, tell you the truth. The unit description gives you the sense that these are veritable tanks and can steamroll just about anyone, but after the initial charge they soon lose momentum and need to be supported by other units, just like everyone else. And because I never found their strengths to sufficiently offset their slowness, I always stuck on yari cavalry.


I might go back to playing STW sans MI myself, actually. My first reaction to MI was singularly positive, as I noticed construction times had been cut in half. It was really tedious to spend two years to build border forts in a province. But in retrospect, STW draws it out just nicely. With MI I feel like I've maxed out the buildings in a province in no time at all, whereas in vanilla STW I really looked forward to being able to train naginata or no-dachi.


:bow:

I have split this one from the Shogun II thread in order to keep that thread on topic.

:bow:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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.

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:

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:

I know you did, master camelier, i meant one of these days.

:bow:

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:

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:

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:

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.

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.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

IMHO shipping should have been abstracted. Fleets could have been something static that you actually built either in a coastal province or at sea. They would be there to defend the coast of that province from a coastal invasion. The invasions or movements themelves could have been handled differently as well. i.e. pick up the stack, drop it and see the chances of success, cost and time required. Lets suppose the voyage takes two seasons, the stack disappears and goes "in transit". You are then informed when it arrives with the stats on losses during the voyage etc. If the target province has a fleet based there, your chances of success would have been significantly lessened.

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:

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:

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.

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.