No excuse to not buy a classic.

[gollum]

Of all people, you as an mp player should know that if an option is available people will use it. My dream strategy game is one that the engine does not allow any exploits. Chess comes close as the only "exploit" is that someone has to move first. Actually chess as a turn based game has a saddle-point* by game theory - however the game is so complex that they cannot calculate if the sadle-point is white wins, draw or black wins (altough the last is unlikely).

*that is simply speaking there is an optimal play-counterplay result.

[Togakure]

Some very good points made above, some great ideas about how things could work better. Nice.

Personally, I think it's a game strength for a player to have options, rather than be forced to play a certain way in order to succeed. A player can abide by self-imposed restrictions if some of the new features aren't to taste. Not all changes can be overcome this way, but some can. Examples of restrictions that I often use are: no turtling, no use of ports by troops, no geishas, no unit seppuku, no chevauchee, and self-imposed building limits. This allows players to choose, to a degree, what kind of game they want, instead of their general strategy being pretty much dictated if they want a shot at victory.

The spending advantage that the AI clans have in original was a real put off for me. Yep, it created pressure from the get go and made it quite challenging, but every game was like this, and for me, it got old after a while (a long while, granted). The hordes that resulted in original, time and time again, were a big downer for me.

Reducing build time and cost was a big change. Personally, I like the faster pace and reduced costs, but recognize the impact on game play when a turtle/build/late-game explosion approach is employed. Some enjoy this, so I think it's a good change, but I prefer not to play this way--primarily because it affects army balance in battles. Honor and upgrade levels are all over the place, from base to ridiculously powerful. I manage this by limiting my infrastructure and constantly expanding. I don't really have much choice if I'm constantly pushing, taking calculated risks, and utilizing available resources to their limits. This kind of pace usually results in building only a few Large Castles and the buildings/troops they enable, except for perhaps a Fortress eventually in my home province. It also limits what the AI ends up building, to a degree. When playing like this, I very rarely see Geishas, or Kensai or Battlefield Ninja that weren't present at the beginning of the game, and rarely see many guns unless playing a later campaign. The option to turtle and build a lot is there for players who enjoy that style of game. But I can play my way too, and still have a good game. The game pleases a larger audience, which I think is a good thing. Heh, what bugs me is when a larger audience is targeted at the expense of a smaller base of devoted fans ... but that's another subject.

Taking advantage of spoils can be a good or bad thing depending on the campaign and clan being played. In the 1580 Tokugawa campaign for example, attempting to emulate the purported patience of Ieyasu, I wait a lot and play a much more "respond decisively to opportunities that present themselves" kind of game rather than my more typical steady expansion. Given the starting position, income is a big challenge. Playing this way against the strong, tech'd-up opposition present in this campaign requires judicious use of spoils income and careful diplomacy until sufficient expansion is achieved. It's one of my favorite, more challenging campaigns.

It's interesting that the considerable advantage of AI spending in original is sometimes viewed as a feature that makes the game better and more challenging, while being able to raid via port is often viewed as a "cheat." Having options is a good thing; if players don't like a feature, they can choose not to use it. The AI spending advantage cannot be changed and has a huge impact on the game. I think this is a far more serious issue. Being able to adjust AI spending levels (like in the Civ series) would be an improvement, providing players with a choice.

I have the original Shogun sitting right here, but haven't played it since getting WE that I can remember. Some of its characteristics described in recent posts are bringing back foggy memories of when I played original STW religiously from the time it was released to the time WE came out, in Total Rapture. I really should make it a point to play it again, to re-familiarize myself with its strengths and weaknesses.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The addition of the 1530, 1550, and 1580 campaigns is what makes WE shine. The rebels and ronin are pacifists in the original and in the sengoku campaign, and thus pushovers. In the period campaigns they will band together and attack you full force. When I go back to original shogun I also notice some missing features--shift to see how unhappy your provinces are, the greater ability to merge units, the ability to choose which troops you start with when you have a large army, reinforcements not coming in on one section of the map, the ability for ninja's to infiltrate a castle under seige. And of course the old version lacks the mongols, the historical campaigns, and the fun new units.

I think the people waxing on about how much more challenging the original shogun was are simply remembering back when they weren't as good at the game. Let's face it, an army of 7 h2 archers, 7 h2 yari samurai, and 2 h2 yari cavalry will wipe out multi stack AI armies every time, at 10-1 or 20-1 ratios no matter which version you are playing. The AI doesn't protect its general, doesn't use archers effectively, and doesn't build armies of quality troops. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.

[Puzz3D]

The AI doesn't protect its general, doesn't use archers effectively, and doesn't build armies of quality troops. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.

True. These are good excuses not to buy a classic. It's still the best AI that Creative Assembly has ever produced (excepting the tactical AI in MTW/VI which is better if you don't include artillery), and it's matched to the game features better in STW v1.12 than it is in Warlords Edition. The STW v1.12 campaign is harder because the AI doesn't have a limit on the amount of money it can spend. The AI cannot spend into deficit in Warlords Edition, but that doesn't mean the AI knows how to manage its money. It doesn't know how to manage its economy under this new condition. There were other features introduced in Warlords Edition that the AI doesn't handle such as disbanding units. Did you ever see the AI disband a unit? I haven't. On the tactical side, the guns which are 300% the firepower of the guns in STW v1.12 make shooting those "fish in a barrel" a lot easier.

It doesn't serve the player's interests to point them to an inferior version of the game by way of an official link to a commercial site selling the game when the better designed version is still available. Since when has the org made an official determination that Warlords Edition is the better version of the game?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

It doesn't serve the player's interests to point them to an inferior version of the game by way of an official link to a commercial site selling the game when the better designed version is still available. Since when has the org made an official determination that Warlords Edition is the better version of the game?

I like it better and I'm hardly going to censor all links to the WE to try and get people to buy the original. Don't take the "no excuse..." in the title too personally, we haven't decided to make the purchase mandatory for all orgah's. Not yet at least

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Here's a thread for debating whcih total war game you think is the best:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=112809

[Monk]

By "classic" I was referring to STW in general. Had i known it would have caused such a stir I would have never made the post in the first place. I was only attempting to highlight that people who have never played it, really shouldn't let the chance slip by since it's so cheap now days.

[caravel]

Well it's all a matter of comparisons? If WE was 100 times better than RTW then it must be a good game? right?

If you were exiled to a cave in the mountains for 10 years and could choose only one of these games with no mods and no internet:

1) STW/MI (WE)

2) RTW

3) M2TW

I'm pretty sure of what most of you (STW/MTW players) would go for.

[Togakure]

By "classic" I was referring to STW in general. Had i known it would have caused such a stir I would have never made the post in the first place. I was only attempting to highlight that people who have never played it, really shouldn't let the chance slip by since it's so cheap now days.

I don't think the results of your thread are negative. It led to a discussion; various viewpoints were put forward. Readers have perspectives and options. It's a good thing in my book.

Discussions tangent, and tangents can be very interesting, and revealing. Should thread discussions be linear, stick rigorously to subject, without deviation? There's a place for that I guess, but I often find that kind of discussion boring. But ... that's just me.

Why does it seem negative? Individuals will argue back and forth, defend their positions, sometimes allow themselves to be offended. Some take pleasure in being contentious for whatever reasons; others are simply contentious by nature, for whatever reasons. It isn't anyone's fault; it's just our nature. I enjoyed reading the various perspectives, and contemplating how those perspectives came to be in those who offered them. A good thing (to me, at least ).

[Puzz3D]

I don't think the results of your thread are negative.

You don't understand what happened today. The results are extremely negative.

Well it's all a matter of comparisons?

Apparently, I'm not going to be allowed to make comparisons.

[Togakure]

Ah, I see. Apparently I missed a significant development here. But I see a thread in the Throne Room. I'll redirect my attention there, and to MSN.

[TosaInu]

Hello,

The frontpage contained Amazon links to about every TW title ever published. Of course, there are re-releases and special editions and such and if every one had to be linked the list would be much much longer. However, STW, MI, WE, MTW, VI, RTW, BI, Alex, M2TW, Kingdoms and ETW were all listed including some special editions. It was a long list and part of the work on the frontpage was to clean the cluttering up a bit.

So, I changed the huge list on the frontpage to one link that loads a new page in the center that provides some sort of quick pick list (I recall STW alone has some 15 different blends). Picking collection boxes is easy and usually the most economic choice (STW Gold costs about $10, STW classic twice as much). As it also concerns the Dojo, I included the Amazon link here and added some others about books. The ETW forum has a link to buy ETW, the Monastery some about history books.

Adding links to other Amazon products including other TW titles/shipments can be done. It's not a top priority for me though. Firstly because there are many other things on the todo list. Secondly because once a user links in to Amazon he'll find other options. Thirdly because members can post here about cons and pros of versions. Afaik, installing MTW Gold is not the same as having MTW classic, some RTW shipments are patched already, I'm sure some prefer RTW 1.0 over anything else, meaning he needs another link. We're back at square one again and a huge list has to be added.

In no way do we/I support only one version or limit the choice to only one product: what you buy or not buy, what you play or not play is your choice. Voicing your opinion about products is fine, but grant each other some air. Some like STW 1.0, others like RTW 1.3, others look forward to ETW 1.0 or the expansionpack for that. Have fun.

[TosaInu]

Hello,

I think the main ones are covered now: http://www.totalwar.org/links/BuyTW.shtml The Platinum editions, limited editions and such are not included.