Personally, I think Shogun is the best of the Total War series. I think they should do to Shogun what they did to Medieval. Make the game with some new features and better graphics.... I would buy it...
Just my opinion...
Printable View
Personally, I think Shogun is the best of the Total War series. I think they should do to Shogun what they did to Medieval. Make the game with some new features and better graphics.... I would buy it...
Just my opinion...
On my "top three best games" I ever played... With Monkey Island and Deus Ex... Ahhh, those were the days :2thumbsup:
By the way, as a shameless advertising, just look at my sig... :laugh4:
Shogun2 would get my hard earned dollars,
failing that Ran no Jidai will get my bandwwidth...
B.
I both yearn for and fear "Shogun 2." I would definitely buy it. I would even pay more for it than I would normally pay for a game. If it was good, I would certainly spend way too much time playing it. I fear this, and of course, I fear that it would not stand up to its original. It would break my gaming heart to see the shibumi of Shogun replaced by a garish, commercialized new release. Because of this fear, I find myself thinking it would be better to let things be. I still play Shogun SP. I will play it for as long as it will run on the platform of the day. I consider it a personal treasure, my favorite computer game ever.
What he said. :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Masamune
STW is for me the best TW game, and one of the best games of all times. Its strong concept, the great and balanced gameplay and the in-depth unmatched atmosphere still give reason to TW fans to "ask" features/gameplay elements from that game to the new ones as well as in their modifications. With the brief exception of some features and fixes in MTW, CA never came up with a single original idea eversince STW as far as i can see.
Not that it'll make much difference anyway, but to answer the OP, i think that M2 is a waste of time as a game, being superficial, unchallenging with childish/populistic atmosphere, a rush fest on the battlefield and generally a poor gameplay and i sincerely won't bother at all if they "do the same" with a "new" Shogun.
I have the same opinion than Noir... With Shogun, I discovered the feudal japan... So that game really keep a place on my heart. Talking about a Shogun 2... Well, if it keep the nowadays "spirit" of M2, it will be without me...
there is, of course, the port of Shogun to the Medieval(1) engine under construction (follow my sig)
Shogun brought me into Feudal Japan and the TW series. Dammn i want CA to do a remake like M2TW. Im gonna storm the main office of CA if they wont make Shogun II - Total War after Kingdoms.
When Ran no Jidai is released, you might pick up a multiplayer following because both STW and MTW have trouble running on new hardware and M2TW multiplayer has a serious lag issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seijitai
I'd love to see a STW2 - but it would never be able to recapture the magic and excitement of STW.
It would just be.. different. Perhaps it would be better to put a different spin on a Shogun 2, rather than try - and probably fail -to recapture the feel of the original.
Personally I'd rather see them try something new and leave medieval Japan alone. Given their current approach, there are plenty of options that would reap greater financial rewards. They are merchants, after all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shieldmaiden
I believe it must be done as a large community mod project, as it would be much better that way and everyone would definitley want to work on it!
if you want to help go to https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...54#post1614654Quote:
Originally Posted by Akeichi Mitsuhide
There is a place open for a veteran MP player as stat creator/balancer in RNJ.:smash:Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
I love the original Shogun Total War. A refurbished and improved version would definitely be on my "must buy" list.Quote:
Originally Posted by masonkiller
Currently I'm waiting for the Ran no Jidai mod.
It should capture the atmosphere, before I could be really happy with it. However, some sort of addition to Shogun (1), with a few good options, such as trade, would be more than welcome. It doesn't need a big graphics overhaul as far as I'm concerned.
I would prefer that CA moves on with something new. We are getting Empire but after that I wouldn't mind seeing a China or Modern Day Total War. Once that's finished, then they could go back to refurbishing classics. I just have a feeling that if CA were to touch Shogun again, many people would be disappointed with the results.
A good point, at least your last sentence. I don't care much for 'new' Total War games after Rome and Medieval II (call me an old whiner if you must! :laugh4: ), but perhaps when they'd do a Shogun II, it'd feel right again.Quote:
Originally Posted by King Baxilix
Unfortunately any remake of STW would be based on the RTW/M2TW engine this would make it as much of a disaster as those two.
I wish they made this instead of Empires.
My dream is a far east Total War game that includes China, Korea, Mongolia, Japan, and the like. China has been slept on in the Total War series which sucks because for so long they were one of the most technologically advanced armies in the world.
They could do that and then something like Kingdoms where there are some smaller more focused campaigns. A Shogun:TW style campaign, maybe a Mongolia campaign where you play Genghis Khan uniting the nomads, some Three Kingdoms and warring states stuff.
I can dream...~:(
While I admittedly share your skepticism as to how a Shogun sequel would turn out, I do feel compelled to disagree about whether it would be based on the Rome/Medieval 2 engine. Given that an entirely new engine has been developed for Empire TW, I would imagine that Shogun 2 would be based on that instead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
And of course this is assuming Shogun 2 is even the next game in the series after Empire -- something I rather doubt myself. Even if CA *is* eventually planning on remaking Shogun, I'd be fairly surprised if it turns out to be the title following Empire. In all likelihood, I'd say we have a wait of at least another 4 years, by which point CA will have (presumably) created their 4th-generation engine (Empire being the 3rd-generation engine).
On the other hand, the AI is supposedly going to be greatly improved in the newest engine, with the diplomatic and military decisions being handled by a single AI (instead of the first 4 titles where the diplomatic and military AI rarely seemed to be speak with each other at all). So who knows? :juggle2:
I somehow doubt that a new engine would reintroduce the old tactical battles and risk style map of the first two TW games. But we shall see I suppose.
Just a comment:Quote:
Originally posted by Martok
On the other hand, the AI is supposedly going to be greatly improved in the newest engine, with the diplomatic and military decisions being handled by a single AI (instead of the first 4 titles where the diplomatic and military AI rarely seemed to be speak with each other at all).
I had the impression that this was the case for only the two latest titles (RTW/M2), both from the interviews previews i read as well as my own experience; i mean in STW/MTW backstabbings have a certain logic behind them and they do not happen 1 turn after you make an allaince too often, as is much more frequently the case in RTW/M2. I might however be wrong.
As for ETW, my main reservation is that the TW AI so far couldn't properly handle shooters at all; i cannot imagine how it would do especially in an era where gunpowder dominates while also having to put development weight in the naval battles and in making the new engine... the idea for the game is good but i'm very little convinced regarding the implementation.
Noir
Quote:
On the other hand, the AI is supposedly going to be greatly improved in the newest engine, with the diplomatic and military decisions being handled by a single AI (instead of the first 4 titles where the diplomatic and military AI rarely seemed to be speak with each other at all).
This see this as only marketing hype, I really doubt that anything (except from graphics) gonna improve...
Personally, I could handle a 3D map....if the AI could actually handle it properly. So long as the battles are truly tactical in nature, I would be okay with that. I know you doubt that such a combination is possible -- and frankly, so do I -- but I've decided I'm not automatically going to be pessimistic this time around. I'm still skeptical, but I retain a certain degree of hope (regardless of how foolish it may be to do so). ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
I think you're at least partially right about that. The military & diplomacy AI seemed to have done a bit better job of talking to each other in Shogun and MTW, but it still wasn't great. I would say it's really been a problem prevalent throughout the series thus far, and that it was simply that much worse in RTW & Medieval 2. That's just my impression, however -- I don't claim to be any more right than you. ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Noir
I take more the stance of an observer as frankly i have given up hope that CA may produce battles as rich and deep in tactics as in the first two games; i don't think that they can't do it, i realised that they don't care to do it. They go for breadth instead of depth to catch as many fish in the net as possible.Quote:
Originally posted by Martok
..but I've decided I'm not automatically going to be pessimistic this time around. I'm still skeptical, but I retain a certain degree of hope (regardless of how foolish it may be to do so).
They market now the naval battles as the next big thing as if land battles in M2 were the pinnacle of balance and gameplay; you can see though that most people clearly don't care, neither find the fact that CA aims too high suspicious, despite the RTW and M2 releases, that were full of bugs imbalances and problems of all sorts.
Jawdropping peaked with a couple of screenshots and scarcely anyone mentions that developping sea battles (totally new) with entirely new land battles (shooters that the AI is weak to handle are the main infantry) as well as a new engine may be too much to be handled in two years while keeping quality high (doing testing, bug clearing as well as balancing).
CA in a sense is innocent; had RTW been ignored and slandered for its superficiality, arcadiness and unfinished state, they would have most likely turned back to a more "niche" quality archetype and sing a very different tune altogether. Now though, that RTW brought them fame & fortune ("the best strategy game ever", "100%" etc) they'll naturally keep on the same track.
From the recent interview with PCGamer:
"We've always wanted to do naval battles," says Mike Simpson, "but we've always wanted to do them properly - that's why we haven't tackled them in previous games. It's a big chunk. If you're going to do it, you have to do it really, really, really well."
Then he says:
"The cannonballs can damage the hull, they'll damage the panels they go through, they'll kill individual men, they also knock down masts, tear sails off... that obviously affects the manoeuvrability of your ships. You can tell your ships whether you want to aim at the sails or at the hull, or at the men on the decks."
You can aim cannonballs at the men? This is Mike Simpson's idea of doing naval battles really, really, really well?
Also in that interview he says:
"It's easy to design a complicated system. Hard to design an easy system that retains flavour"
The only complicated systems that are easy to design are ones that don't work properly. The problem with using an easy system, as he is apparently trying to do in Empire Total War, is that simplistic systems don't simulate complex physical processes very well. The elegance of the original STW battle engine is how well it simulates the battles with a moderately complex system.
Also in that interview James Russell, lead designer, says:
"We will have a fire button. It's a sort of override tool so you can time your shot when you want to. And timing is critical. Let off muskets too early, and you won't do enough damage. Let off your muskets too late in the face of a cavalry charge, and you've got every chance of being crushed by a flying dead horse."
Flying Dead Horses? :dizzy2:
BTW, I have news for James Russell and the new fire button feature. You can shoot when you want to in the original STW engine as well.
Psst. Don't tell anyone. They want to sell this new feature. :clown:Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
Btw, i recently had a look at the section "Tips & Tricks" at the .com.
There's such a section for all 4 titles.
If you take 5 minutes to go over there and compare the sections of STW and MTW, which are almost similar, to the sections of RTW and M2, you'll know all that's wrong with the series since MTW. At least from my point of view.
R'as
I missed that one. It's like the Beatles song in Seargent Pepper's:Quote:
Originally posted by Puzz3D
Flying Dead Horses?
"... it's getting better all the time..."
And in all the other games too... Endless the list of innovations in Empire as yet..Quote:
Originally posted by Puzz3D
BTW, I have news for James Russell and the new fire button feature. You can shoot when you want to in the original STW engine as well.
I would love a Shogun TW 2 all though i think the closest we will get to it is Ran No Jadai
A better implementation perhaps?Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
A better implementation of firing while moving would be nice too (at the moment mounted missiles fire what they think to be a target, not what the player wants to be the target).
Since when could you shoot when you wanted in RTW?
@Nobunaga: Since they have a new engine to wrok on, I do reckon AI will improve. RTW and M2TW were equally as crap as each other because they were on the same engine.
Aaaah.. great post!! I must agree. :bow:Quote:
I both yearn for and fear "Shogun 2." I would definitely buy it. I would even pay more for it than I would normally pay for a game. If it was good, I would certainly spend way too much time playing it. I fear this, and of course, I fear that it would not stand up to its original. It would break my gaming heart to see the shibumi of Shogun replaced by a garish, commercialized new release. Because of this fear, I find myself thinking it would be better to let things be. I still play Shogun SP. I will play it for as long as it will run on the platform of the day. I consider it a personal treasure, my favorite computer game ever.
Not atm, but soon again I'll play Shogun sp now and then.. Still my no1 as well.
I must say, at times, I terribly miss the superb times I had playing shogun MP. Best MP community I was in, ever. Plus, the best game ever.. what could you ask more. Such a loss that this is really history now..:embarassed:
:bow:
So true. :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Puzz3D
We must admit though, the dead horses in stw did not fly. ah well.. I like a bit realism anyway.
Hilarious post, Puzz. Good stuff. ~:) :bow:
Hello Marcus Orentius,Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Orentius
I'm not sure about RTW, BI, Alexander or M2TW, played the old titles starting at STW much more.
It's not intuitive and maybe close to an exploit. But you could toggle the fire at will button for missileunits and they'll immediately fire (requires micromanagement and timing). You can't tell them what to fire, if you do that they'll start to reload (again).
What happens is that the unit is idle for some time (time required to reload ~30 seconds) and is pre-charged. When you toggle FAW, they aim and fire.
It would be nice if they improved the feature, just like the fire while moving (player can decide what is shot at while the unit moves or is pre-charged).
TosaInu answered the technicallity of that. As he says you keep the FAW button @off and at the appropriate time toggled it at on, then the selected unit(s) will fire at a range of your choosing a devastating volley.Quote:
Originally posted by Marcus Orentius
Since when could you shoot when you wanted in RTW?
I just wanted to add that this is very effective for massed archers (that can deal horrible casualties with concentrated fire into precious enemy units such as HC) and obvioulsy crossbows and guns; the latter can virtually rout anything on the spot most of the time.
Good sense of timing is needed to achieve results, however they are rewarding.
Apparently SP players are less tuned with that; in MP i've seen it used frequently and with skill.
RTW/BI/M2TW retained the FAW button and the player can still control/time his volleys if he wishes so.
Noir
I'll try that when i get the chance, thanks.
No more than two row deployment, skirmish off.
naval campaigns...would love it
While your waiting for Shogun II, why not go retro and find and play a grreat ggame I have had on my hard drive for 15 years(!). It's a game called Sword of the Samurai and is your typical RPG/Strategy/Simulation game that Microprose came out with in the 90's - with Civilization being the best known one!
Sword of the Samurai has you playing a young Samurai with dreams of becoming Dyamo of Japan. It takes place over 300 years, so one of the things you have to do is get a wife and have sons - if you don't the game dies when you do! (Ring any bells?!) You have a large map you can travel over visiting other Samurai castles, meeting bandits for some real time pausable strategy and you have the diplomatic shenanigans that we all love in the TW series!
Of course, being a 15 year old game means you will get 256 VGA graphics and midi sounds, but the gameplay is superb and the tactical strategy engine was written by none other than Sid Meier!!
You'll probably find it cheap on ebay or even maybe on abandonware sites. Make a point to get the manual though, pdf or otherwise, as a) it's a good read, and b) it really helps with the nuances of the game!
I would honestly just like CA, SEGA SoldOut Software - anyone at this point to simply take note of all the glitches people have had with this game and fix it.
One patch - no more CTD, flickering then I am happy. As is - I have yet to play the game without glitches and CTD.
Also, they should add in one small faction - Tokugawa. My two cents though.
I'll have to dig out my Shogun game and see how it runs on my PC, as I have upgraded twice since playing it! If it has glitches, it will because of our modern PC's and developers have rarely released a patch to deal with updated hardware! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by redlunatic
I think the open-source/ development team path may be the way to go for STWII.
One of the developers from Mad Minute Games is doing something along these lines to create a multiplayer version of the Take Command series (the tactical game I'm playing instead of TW now).
Have a look a the website:
http://www.norbsoftware.com/Portal/i...tpage&Itemid=1
He's gathering useful modders and programmers and such to help him out and giving them a stake in the game. No deadlines at the moment.
It will be interesting to see how this pans out. Think of being able to change code for STWII as required.
There is a definite market for such games for Linux also. Many Linux gamers don't al play FPS games out of choice, they do so because there's not really much else. SEGA/CA are never going to touch any market apart from Windows / DirectX / 10 years and up, because they are currently trying to hit the biggest markets and have ceased to innovate in gameplay terms so multi platform is out of the window start. We can only hope that some kind of TW open source clone project is started up (I would have called it "openWar" if that name had already not been taken by another project or something of that sort) - but it's unlikely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dunhill
Exactly. But with out the Empire TW crap. Just Shogun upgraded to Med 2 TW level, without the whole online account crap. Just the good old, single player campaign and battles, and the old multiplayer options. Med 2 rocked! The formula was perfect, and they messed up by changing it for Empire TW. But Shogun was the best setting for TW, and they should honor the game that started it all!Quote:
Originally Posted by masonkiller
Welcome to the .org dshodaw
Well this is an old thread. I suspect many have now given up on the notion of there ever being a Shogun II - I know I have. Though personally I don't really want a Shogun II as I know it would never be as good as the original.
:bow:
I'm sure they will do a Shogun II one day.
All I want is a gently massaged Shogun 1 - upgraded resolution and full compliance with modern operating systems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
Get the units properly balanced, eliminate fantasy/overpowered units (Geisha, Kensai, Battlefield Ninja, etc.), perhaps add a few more clans to the original seven, and *maybe* upgrade the visuals (if it's deemed absolutely necessary), and I'll be happy. Nothing else need be done IMHO. :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Wilbo
Call me cynical, but I doubt very much that CA would ever do STW again. I also seriously do not believe that CA will ever do an asian based TW game of any kind again either. They are now fully aware that their current market is firmly routed in western European military history. Expect more Romans, Knights and Redcoats...Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
The closest you'll ever get is the Battles of Asia mod for RTW or the Ran no Jidai mod if it's ever finished. For now it's good old STW or the excellent Samurai Warlords mod for MTW.
:thumbsdown:
Oh, I have no illusions in that regard either; I long ago gave up any hope that CA would develop Shogun 2. I was merely stating what I'd personally like to see in this hypothetical sequel, regardless of the (im)possibility of it actually being made.
Truth be told, at this point, I honestly hope CA *never* does Shogun 2. Given the direction they've taken the series, I very much doubt we'd like the result anyway. Best to simply play the original when the mood strikes, and otherwise leave sleeping dogs lie. :sweatdrop:
Agreed, on the same note, resurrecting MTW should have been a good move for the CA, but the end result was pretty shoddy (I've never seen a game so buggy and heavily patched either). The next game we have to look forward to is whatever is based on the current ETW incarnation of the TW game engine(s). They can't really come any further forward in time, so I assume they'll go backwards again? I'd place my bets on R2TW. Much more likely than any further sequels such as M3TW.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
CA naturally seeks to satisfy the demand. They likely made M2TW because they felt they hadn't tapped the market completely after the first one, and with a new engine with RTW they must have felt they could drill even deeper into the reserves, as it were. I don't think we'll be seeing more of medieval Europe in a while, as the demand is more than sated for now. ETW is an attempt at reaching more audiences who might like the TW genre, and I shouldn't be surprised if their next attempt leans toward different cultures. A Chinese Total War game is, in my eyes, an inevitability if TW installments keep getting made. Perhaps something African, or Mesopotamian. I feel they will get around to Japan once more in the future, and they naturally will if they think there's a big enough market for it.
There is definitely room for improvement on STW - but not all that much, in my personal opinion. CA seem to throw in more and more micro-management for each game, though, which is a huge draw-back, in my eyes, for a game where the battles are the main selling point. In M2TW, each game year feels like it takes an actual year to finish; it's more tedious than anything. In STW, the pace on the campaign map felt just right, and the next battle was just right around the corner.
Another drawback with all the micro-management is that you get so caught up in that bit that you don't even want the battles anymore. It hasn't quite come to that point yet (for me, anyway), though M2 is the latest TW game I have and can't comment on Empire. But anyone who played X-COM knows what I'm talking about: at first you're thinking, "great, a ufo! Battle!" But after a while the research and base development become the interesting bits, and then it's "oh great, another ufo. Let's see if I can shoot it down over the ocean so I don't have to do the UFO assault."
If they do another Shogun, it should either be with a different focus (eg. strategy rather than tactics, but then it wouldn't be a TW game), or with different features (eg. a new way of imagining the tech tree, simplified campaign map etc.)
Oh, and get artists who can actually draw (as in on a piece of paper) swords. That kind of bugged me in STW, though the background illustrations did contribute a lot to atmosphere.
Good post Karl08. To which swords you refer to?
I agree...the more they added to the strategy game the more it became an inferior EUII.
Medieval would have been great if it was the "The hundred years war". Rome if it was "rome vs carthage".
The game just doesn't work on a large scale--you aren't going to have "total war" for 400 years in which scotland takes over all of europe for some unknown reason.
Indeed, there were endless such scenarios in the medieval period (some of which were touched) The hundred year's war; The Reconquista; The Teutonic Wars; the Crusader Kingdom Wars; Byzantino-Turkish wars, SiculoNorman-Byzantine wars; Italian City States wars and much more such in antiquity.Quote:
Originally posted by Sasaki Kojiro
agree...the more they added to the strategy game the more it became an inferior EUII.
Medieval would have been great if it was the "The hundred years war". Rome if it was "rome vs carthage".
The game just doesn't work on a large scale--you aren't going to have "total war" for 400 years in which scotland takes over all of europe for some unknown reason.
The so-called Grand Campaigns are beyond historical plausibility, because they are indeed far from the scale set where the TotalWar model works best (that was designed around the campaign of Shogun by definition/necessity).
As Karl08 says tedium in the campaign map rose quickly as the series evolved, to the point that for ETW they had to simplify a lot in order to prevent the micromanaging details to be overwhelming since so much of the globe is included - on the other hand this feels wrong, because it ends up portraying France the same way Yamashiro was portrayed in STW.
CA simply scaled up or down the basic set-up of the STW campaign in order to make a game in a particular historical setting irrespective of how well this would feel and function. Its awkward at best and really bad for the gameplay.
Personally I think the franchise is too far gone to improve. A transition back to the risk style campaign map would be the first good move, though it would have fans of the new campaign map style up in arms...
To cut a long story short, it really doesn't matter to SEGA/CA what a few old time players think of the newer games. When a new TW title is a released, a whole new generation of potential customers has matured worldwide. At the end of the day magazine reviews and screenshots will do the selling.
Clearly SEGA/CA do not want hardcore gamers, they do not want MP and they certainly don't want modifications.
I quite honestly cannot ever see "S2TW" becoming a reality. The games have been clearly centred upon Europe since MTW with an emphasis on bigger maps and more units. S2TW would be a much smaller map and significantly less units.
Off topic posts have been split off to this thread..
:bow:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6dB9dF8RQ8
1:09 - 1:13
This is how I'd always seen the campaign map developing, aesthetically at least.
Nice, instead it developed into this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7CclVneVpw :laugh4:
I really think the size of the map and the tech tree were the main problem with medieval. I started playing a campaign as the welsh in the viking campaign and it's working out very well. Without the giant map and the endless tech tree, the focus is on fighting and conquering.
Played about 45 turns (11 years shogun time). Just have the scots, picts, irish and vikings left (though they seem to have faded after I killed three of their heirs in one battle). One improvement over shogun is that I don't have a massively superior army yet (no monks or heavy cav type troops). Though that just might be because I don't know the tech tree :sweatdrop:
The Viking campaign is a better map with less redundant units, but the rosters are still very imbalanced and income is messed up due to the abbeys. The Vikings, Mercians, Northumbrians and Saxons get super vikings that can kill pretty much anything even when well outnumbered. Apart from that it's a good campaign and is well worth the effort modding - unlike the main campaign which isn't really worth it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
:bow:
Yes, Saxons, Vikings and to a lesser extent the Mercians are too easy to play with due to the Huscarles they get. Way overpowered, especially the Viking ones as they act as Bodyguards and benefit from relative v'n'vs.Quote:
Originally posted by Asai Nagamasa
The Vikings, Mercians, Northumbrians and Saxons get super vikings that can kill pretty much anything even when well outnumbered.
The Viking Invasion had more focus and was more balanced than the main game.
Certain game mechanics detract from the strategic purity of Shogun however, like the influence mechanic which is a killer for the AI. Often he attempts to conquer provinces however he retreats when he thinks that he cannot hold them; this in STW does not have any disadvantage, but do it enough times in MTW and it can land you with a civil war pretty easily. The AI does not seem to count the consequences of his actions in terms of influence.
I am not so sure about the size of teh map (it had about 30 more provinces - 1/3 approx. more - than STW iirc to accomodate more than double the factions in STW which sounds about right), but the tech tree was definitely a factor.Quote:
Originally posted by Sasaki Kojiro
I really think the size of the map and the tech tree were the main problem with medieval.
Basically all CA could do with that engine is to give out more buildings and dependencies between them as unlocking requirements, however the AI was not really fine-tuned in what buildings he needed to get the "useful" units of his roster.
At the same time he would spent fortunes on building up especially so for certain AI personalities (like Catholic_Trader that was assigned to the Italians predictably) neglecting to even build adequate garrisons in his provinces. The "complexity" served to give the impression of complexity to the player, and not to add depth to the game as CA was clearly indifferent as to how well the AI could use/cope with all these optons.
In this way he was acting basically as a piggy bank for the player who could benefit either by razing or by conquering and using his ex-build up provinces. Again the manual pillaging option acted as an AI exlpoit and one that CA was keen on, as it was even mentioned as a "strategy" in teh MTW manual.
In addition the long campaign and the weapon/armor/morale upgades forced CA to make late era units far more powerful than early era units, introducing redundancies because the early era units were not substituted, but left floating about as possible builds, and also making the playerVSAI stack composition difference even larger as teh AI was not really competent in getting the new units without tweaking/fine tuning with the rosters, the AI preferences and teh build requirements.
In that sense MTW is like an overweight cousin of STW - CA really stuffed the engine with a multitude of features to give "depth" in the campaign - however in reality all they added was complexity and little games within the game (that the AI can't cope with) that added value to the game for SP fans that liked a Civilazation type of SP game rather than an old school well thought out and strategically challenging board game which is what STW was.
CA made no effort to hide it as they often said that "players who dont want to play the battles can lpay the campaign only". This was the beginning of a long series of compromising moves and alteration of focus from an intense and dynamic conquest oriented game that had the battles at is core to an overbloated hybrid of TW and Civilisation that was won or lost on the campaign map.
The trend culminated with Rome that was almost a re-birth, and TW has never been the same since. Although they will call all this "broadening the appeal", "taking the next step", "improving across the board" etc in actuality what they did was sell-out in cold blood, as they moved where the (commercial) wind was blowing insted of forging a following by following their own rules, gameplay and aesthetically wise, that they had set with STW.
MTW has however a perfected battle engine, by 2.01 there was no (significant) bug left as far as i know, and all intended features are working as such.
The Mercians - in the sky blue? They are by far the easiest faction in the VI campaign. Stupendously easy in fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by gollum
The influence mechanic is what made me throw down MTW in disgust when I first bought it. The idea of fighting a battle winning a good tactical victory and then withdrawing but losing influence and the loyalty of generals for doing so is absurd. IMHO it was removed from RTW, because it would have been too difficult to get working correctly with the new campaign map design (many more non decisive battles being fought etc) and would have hit the AI hard.Quote:
Originally Posted by gollum
The pixel/province size of the map is not the issue, but more so the scale that the map seeks to represent. I don't see a problem with a bigger map and more provinces, the issue is when that map is a "world map" and those province become "countries".Quote:
Originally Posted by gollum
The 1 year per turn is another game breaker - STW's 4 seasons per turn is the best model.
Personally I think, and though I know many will disagree, that it started to go wrong in the MI expansion. MI is enjoyable to play but some of the changes were unnecessary as were the "novelty" units such as Kensai and Battlefield Ninja... but it added many improvements also and removed a lot of annoyances. It seems to me though that MI gave us a small inlking of what was to come (retrospect is a fine thing).
If STW was re made on the latest generation TW engine it is my (very negative) feeling that due to deviation away from the original STW style campaign map and the MTW battles... well that it'd be a load of rubbish.
:thumbsdown:
-Edit: Another big exploit in MTW was the capturing of enemy troops thing. The AI could not execute on the battelfield so you were always offered your men back. The player on the other hand could choose to kill the AI's best captured units on the battlefield or ransom back all of his peasants etc, forcing him to pay for them and support them - thus not being able to train new ones. To make matters worse the AI cannot disband/destroy either. In a nutshell the features in MTW give the player new toys, but the AI is still playing the same game it was playing back in STW.
Easier than the Vikings? I'm glad i never gave them a try then. I based my assessment from their initial position that seems to be between the rock of the Saxons and the hard place of the Vikings, but then again, i can picture it; the Vikings raid the rebels in East Anglia and the Saxons are taken out in 10 turns = game over :2thumbsup:Quote:
Orginally posted by Asai Nagamasa
The Mercians - in the sky blue? They are by far the easiest faction in the VI campaign. Stupendously easy in fact.
I didn't confuse them with the Scotts (or was it the Picts) up north in their navy blue that are far more challenging, i meant them, the sky blue good old southern Mercians.
:bow:
Indeed. They actually re-introduced loaylty in BI (roman factions only), but i am absolutely certain that territories lost have no effect whatsoever on it.Quote:
The influence mechanic is what made me throw down MTW in disgust when I first bought it. The idea of fighting a battle winning a good tactical victory and then withdrawing but losing influence and the loyalty of generals for doing so is absurd. IMHO it was removed from RTW, because it would have been too difficult to get working correctly with the new campaign map design (many more non decisive battles being fought etc) and would have hit the AI hard.
Agreed on the representation - its the wrong scale. However although implausible it doesnt hinder gameplay directly. Dont get me wrong, i dislike it too.Quote:
The pixel/province size of the map is not the issue, but more so the scale that the map seeks to represent. I don't see a problem with a bigger map and more provinces, the issue is when that map is a "world map" and those province become "countries".
I dont think that anyone who loves STW needs to worry - CA wont touch it again - they are most likely on to Rome2 as we speak which is the right commercial move.Quote:
If STW was re made on the latest generation TW engine it is my (very negative) feeling that due to deviation away from the original STW style campaign map and the MTW battles... well that it'd be a load of rubbish.
The Mercians are close enough to the Saxon as to place you in a position where you can a) curb their expansion and b) get to them before they start training huscarles. It's then simply a case of chewing your way north and crossing to ireland and you're done. The Vikings aren't really a threat if you get your navy up and running fast. With the richest lands on the map the Mercians have no trouble with this either.Quote:
Originally Posted by gollum
Most likely.Quote:
Originally Posted by gollum
:skull:
The thing amazed us in STW is the athmosphere.
Did you guys read the STW Html manual? ts not a game manual, its like a history book taking you to these ages. The guys created STW are knows everything about Sengoku Jidai age, made lots of researches, not as a job but as a fanatics.
I see the same spirit in MTW as well, but after RTW, things get changed, become professional which kills the spirit.
Only changing everyone's voices to English is a huge gap on TW spirit...
So there is a danger in creating S2TW, it would be like M2TW. I cant stand to see Samurai talking in English.
I seriously doubt it is ever going to happen, so don`t fret over it.
:bow:
Well, I never played STW before, and maybe I never will. Cause my Likeness to the Samurai are gone, and Japan is too small to be a campaign. Japan is a Nation with unending Conflict. and has never had a unified Shogun (until the Meiji Restoration, where the emperor rules all)and when is there a Shogun, there is War
Not sure what you mean by that.....compared to maps later in the TW series it may look like Japan's too small to conduct a campaign, but I welcome you to try it before passing such a verdict. I think you'll find that STW will give you all that you can handle and more............Quote:
and Japan is too small to be a campaign.
Maybe I'll consider to bought it if it was relased, but I hope that Shogun will be modelled more like battle realms
I don't know if a new STW is the right thing to do. At the moment, I only have half a computer left which can actually play it, so mostly I rely on good memories from the game and the powerful Uesugi clan. Yet if they make a new one, it'll probably be in the same vein as RTW, MTW2 and ETW and that's just not my cup of tea (or sake). I just don't see that work, really.
This topic has age but I thought I'd add, for rome BOA (Battles of asia) received a campaign map from someone and they incorporated it with the mod, so its the japanese battles and campaign, pretty much shogun 2 in itself.
I really anticipated Ran no Jidai, but if they don't add a campaign map I can't see me downloading it.
The BOA mod is quite entertaining. I have it installed in my computer. I had lots of fun till it crashed. Probably random but I haven't tried it again. Though I prefer the campaign map of STW vs. BOA, perhaps just for the fond memories. The campaign map in BOA seems a little desolate, there is little going on outside of the cities. Old STW seemed to be alive with armies and field battles, not to mention sieges after a battle was won or lost.
The problem with the RTW engine is not just the poor battle AI, but also the attrocious campaign map AI and diplomacy. This also effects any mods or games based on RTW. The game consists mainly of either endless sieges or pointless field battles that have no real tactical value. In STW every battle was important as you were fighting for the province.
Personally I think that in order to be a success, a "Shogun 2" would have to be taken on by another developer that would be prepared to return to the risk style map of the earlier games.
:bow:
To me the current totalwar engine is just not capable of challenging AI. If there would be a game that would combine the totalwar battle engine, with something aking to EU III strategic game.I would be in heaven. It is simple fact that ever since the strategy map turned into what RTW introduced.The AI has not been able to handle a coordinated attack or defence against the human player.
I agree. Too bad there isn't some way to 'tile' the current campaign map of TW games. So you don't move along those meandering lines but rather along certain tiles that could be countered by the player or ai similar to the provinces in STW and MTW. Just a vague and illinformed suggestion.
edit: Tiles being conducive to the map, ie. restricted by terrain. Impassible mountains, rivers, towns, forts, armies and other like obstacles. Perhaps even figure out a way to measure tile movement to allow for realistic army movments based on perhaps supplies, general or captain attributes and weather. These vague suggestions might make it more chess-like while maintaining the look and feel of the current, more expansive campaign maps.
Precisely how it should have been, but CA went all "movement points". This was the worst decision as though in theory the map allows for unrestricted movement (well almost unrestricted if you count walking the giants along the roads as unrestricted), it introduces a whole new game that the AI cannot handle. With the risk map this was a whole layer of AI that the developer didn't actually have to worry about. in fact leaving the risk map in place and concentrating on the battles and diplomacy would have been a smarter move. Unfortunately CA went for what was essentially the "marketing approach".Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
I know what you mean, but in all honesty the AI still wouldn't be able to handle it. We've all seen those RTS basebuilding games, where the pixies are fighting the trolls? The trolls build away like mad, as do the pixies, until their infrastructure is in place, then they start training more trolls and better trolls with upgrades etc. Then once there are about 10 trolls standing around in the "muster area" in the troll base, the trolls all rush off to the pixie camp, kill the lot and raze it to the ground. It's a very simple AI, and unfortunately that's the sort of AI that is controlling army stacks (and ships) in RTW/M2TW. It builds an army and simply sends it off to besiege a nearby settlement. Same as the pixies and trolls - just turn based.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Nerd
STW/MTW are different because an army stack makes one move (like chess) and a good balanced AI can make the most of that one move. It's simple enough for the AI to handle and the AI can decide there and then if it has a chance of taking province X instead of dumbly sending out hordes of fragmented armies on suicide missions that are easily isolated and picked off by the human player.
The only time I found RTW remotely challenging was when the campaign difficulty was ramped up and the AI mindlessly spams army stacks at you, non stop - but that's not the kind of "challenging" I like.
:bow:
Perhaps cities as the trigger to cause a province to go from one faction to another should be scrapped. I always did like the way in older TW's where the armies first met on the field and the loser would retreat to the nearest castle (or city?) to weather a siege and then the province was taken. The problem is that the AI doesn't know how to properly defend or attack. In the past it seemed to recognize in a bordering province, at least the size of the enemy army. It would then make its move and attack. On defense, it sometimes lacked, usually only mounting good defensive armies when in the beginning, with few provinces, in the end, with few provinces, or when it was quite large and generally only had one front to defend. It seemed not to dicern between wealthy valuable provinces and the poorer ones. Developing strange things in strange places even when it had the money. Though I ramble. As far as updating, perhaps provinces should be taken when armies are destroyed. Primarily on the field, and remnants can retreat to castles or such. If the army is taken on the field with no surviors, despite the city the province should be taken. Some rigid form of movement is necessary to allow the AI ease of movement. Paths must be in straigt lines no longer round about. The AI seems to think better in terms of mathematics versus philosophy. The reason for garrisons has always primarially to improve to a degree the chance of rebellion. Why does that army need to be in the city to accomplish this? The advanced diplomacy, build tree and the like should accomplish that. I think the AI need to forcebly be placed on the feild and stop hiding behind the walls. I am now at a loss, I'm not going to proof read this so I hope it makes some sense. Though ways to make new TW like the old is indeed an entertaining topic.
That's one of the fundamental flaws of the newer TW games. You can have a 1000 men traipsing around the province, but if they're not actually inside the walls of the settlement, the place can rebel and the enemy can walk into your lands unhindered and take up residence.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Nerd
This, and may of the reasons above, is why I personally would not want to see an S2TW. CA will not go back to the risk map now as they would lose more sales by doing so. Most of the current consumerbase prefer the new map. I also don't think CA will do S2TW because it would be moving away from the "Europe and North American centric" setting of the latest games. There is also the fact that the map would be considered "too small" and factions too alike in terms of unit rosters, etc. (etc, etc, etc)
:bow:
I agree. The fact that STW is considered such a classic by many TW fans and the fact that many people haven't been as pleased by everything that followed MTW, especially the old-timers who have been playing since STW, STW2 would probably be very bad. Especially when compared to STW. Some would probably feel that they got a M2TW based in Japan. I've heared people talking about a far east TW that included Japan, China, Mongolia and Korea, but that, like you said, would move away from Europe, not to mention away from the gunpowder and naval battles that has been developing thru ETW to NTW (thru all the patches and onward). Hence, us purists can dream about STW2 but until some campaign map flaws and the poor way in which the AI reacts to them are somehow fixed and/or changed STW2 would probably be rather poorly received. That doesn't even touch upon all the complaints the battlefield AI has received. Though personally, I have never been too upset with that AI, though it does seem to get alittle confused from time to time. It can't seem to decide a strategy. It runs around seemeing planning a text book counter as the human player continually evolves it tactic to make the win. Hence, the AI runs around stupidly. My observation anyway, I tend not to be the best strategest either though.