Help.

[ReluctantSamurai]

I would tend to agree with Sasaki's list. I might add that the starting date has an impact on difficulty, as well, with the 1580 campaign's (especially Oda's!!) being, in general, more difficult. Some of the historical campaigns will have you cursing at your computer screen, as well

Several people avoid the "Japanese" ones as they cannot get to grips with them. I started with them and find them more suitable than the "European" ones I have tried. I haven't mixed them up though so can't really comment on that.

I find the pre-made formations pretty useless. I just wish one could place units on the map as the attacker just like you can as defender. Perhaps it's just my style of play. I tend to use CA quite a bit and they are rarely at the front of any of the classic formations...which is where I want them. I also am a bit of a micro-manager so I use the 'draw-out' method a lot anyways.

[caravel]

I pretty much agree with Sasaki and Masamune as well, though with certain factions (Imagawa and Takeda spring to mind) it depends on whether you choose to consolidate your postion or try to hold both of your territories with the aim of eventually joining up.

When it comes to Imagawa you can take the easy approach of abandoning Honshu and concentrating on taking the whole of Kyushu, moving into Shikoku and then exapanding northwards through Honshu.

Then there is the more difficult approach of trying to hold both territories or the most difficult of abandoning Kyushu and concentrating on Honshu. This makes your campaign near enough as hard as the Oda one.

In general it's a similar situation for Takeda.

With respect to the formations, I've never used them as I have always found them to be messy. I tend to set up my own during battle.

[Togakure]

I ranked Imagawa second in difficulty because I don't usually opt to take the "traditional" route with them (or the Takeda, the other split clan) when playing the Sengoku campaign. I abandon Kyushu (after milking its three nice provinces for koku as long as I can) and consolidate in central Japan. Same with Takeda--I abandon the west in order to take the east. This tends to lead to a more interesting game, though it isn't the "ideal" strategy.

I prefer to steadily expand (but not "blitz"). I've found that this tends to counter the big pile of money, fancy infrastructures, and elite troops that tend to result in 1.0x if you turtle. Hence, the initially poor factions (Shimmies and Mori) are more challenging for me; often I cannot expand as quickly as I'd like with them unless I manage things just right and get a bit lucky with my harvests.

I'd say the clan "specials" affect difficulty too. Cheap archers or cheap cavalry from the get-go make playing the Uesugi or Takeda easy for me. On the other hand, the Mori monk bonus is great, but can't really be leveraged significantly until income level is raised significantly. The Imagawa shinobi bonus may seem insignificant, but against the rebel-infested Oda early in a game they can be used to great effect.

I would imagine unit size makes a difference too, but I have always played with 60-man units so I can't really compare that to larger unit games.

I don't use the canned formations either, preferring to set up my own.

[jedi121212]

I prefer to set up my own as well. but you cant set them up how you want when attacking so I have to pick which one I want then when the battle starts put them in formation how I want.

[DEB8]

I prefer to set up my own as well. but you cant set them up how you want when attacking so I have to pick which one I want then when the battle starts put them in formation how I want.

That's ok, particularly when attacking. They are a guide only.
See earlier post/s for more detail.

[jedi121212]

I took out Uesugi and took a few more provinces. I had a few rebels attack with a good sized army where my daimyo is but I repealed with with my 3 high honor YS and one SA

[DEB8]

Your progress looks good. But beware of Oda's progress!

[gollum]

Originally posted by Masamune
Same with Takeda--I abandon the west in order to take the east. This tends to lead to a more interesting game, though it isn't the "ideal" strategy.

I thought abandoning the west for the east with the Takeda was the ideal srtategy? Not that the game isnt exciting of course.

Usually with Takeda, Shinano can be taken in turn 1 or 2 and Musashi in turn 4 or 5 (as long as it takes to bring everyone from the Hiroshima area).

Alternatively Musashi can be taken in turn 1.

Originally posted by Masamune
I'd say the clan "specials" affect difficulty too. Cheap archers or cheap cavalry from the get-go make playing the Uesugi or Takeda easy for me. On the other hand, the Mori monk bonus is great, but can't really be leveraged significantly until income level is raised significantly.

I would imagine unit size makes a difference too, but I have always played with 60-man units so I can't really compare that to larger unit games.

Indeed. Try the 120 men size if you will. Generally speaking it makes battles more significant because every unit costs so much more (double) than the standard. Also it rewards long term planning more as it takes more money and time to rebuild armies or reinforce sectors that experience a crisis.

In reality CA is balancing the campaign game for the largest unit sizes; if it did balance it for the default, the higher settings would make factions "starve", that is they wont have a large enough surplass to be on the offensive (you can affirm this by noticing that in the 60men size it is possible to have more stacks for a certain amount of land than for the same land at 120men size). The same happens in all TW games; they are all played as intended at the highest settings both in the campaign and the battlefield.

edit; by balancing is meant how much money on the whole they put in the campaign map and how much it costs to train and maintain units.

[jedi121212]

Right now in my hojo campaign I have taken out takeda, and took a rebel and a imaga province. The year is 1536.

[Togakure]

Good timing--Shingen is born in '36 iirc. Always nice to take out the Takeda before then .

That's also something that I consider when judging difficulty. The clans receive differing numbers of differing strength taishos, at different points in the game depending on the scenario. +1 - +3 honor is rather significant. The Shimazu start mediocre but blossom in mid-game with four four-star generals. The Takeda and Uesugi benefit from six-star generals, respectively, Shingen in '36 and Kenshin in ... 46? The Uesugi get another in the late game (Date, early '80s). The Hojo however, get Ujiyasu early (a four-star) and then are stuck with three-star taishos at best. The Mori start with a five-star, but he's old and dies rather quickly. Imagawa starts with a four-star and his first heir is also a four-star, but other than that they only get one other four-star later in the game. The Oda get quite a few good generals, but spread out over the time line.

Of course you can always "farm" your high-star generals and bribe the good ronin taishos, but I think it's reasonable to say that the number of high-star generals a player has at his command has a significant impact on game difficulty, and some clans are more fortunate in the leadership department than others.

[gollum]

Originally posted by Masamune
Imagawa starts with a four-star and his first heir is also a four-star, but other than that they only get one other four-star later in the game.

The second heir of Imagawa is Ieyasu (later Tokugawa in RL) that is a 6 star - as opposed with the incompetent son of Yoshimoto, Ujizane, who ended up his days as a noble in Kyoto, having lost his lands and clan after his father's defeat and death in the Battle of Okehazama, solely living out his days to their natural end due to the kindness of Ieyasu.

...but I think it's reasonable to say that the number of high-star generals a player has at his command has a significant impact on game difficulty, and some clans are more fortunate in the leadership department than others.

Indeed - the clan with the best leadership is - as it was historically - the Takeda. There are however a few historical innacuracies, regarding generals that historically belonged or lead different clans to STW clans solely because of their geographical proximity/association; ie because their clan could not be represented they appear as part of the clan that occupies their territory.

For example Hiraga Genshin that appears as a general for the Takeda in 1530, was one of the Takeda rivals in Shinano and was defeated by a 15 year old Takeda Harunobu later to be known as Shingen. Other examples include Asakura clan leaders/generals apearing as Oda retainers or Satake leaders/generals appearing as Hojo(?) retainers etc.

[DEB8]

With respect to the formations, I've never used them as I have always found them to be messy. I tend to set up my own during battle.

And so you/anyone should, as I stated in the last post. I always use them as a starting point. It speeds things up a little, especially when attacking.

[DEB8]

I find the pre-made formations pretty useless. I just wish one could place units on the map as the attacker just like you can as defender. Perhaps it's just my style of play. I tend to use CA quite a bit and they are rarely at the front of any of the classic formations...which is where I want them. I also am a bit of a micro-manager so I use the 'draw-out' method a lot anyways.

I always use the "Japanese" ones, but only as a starting basis for the final result. Sometimes I tinker a little and sometimes a lot depending on where the AI puts them and what I have available. One should rarely accept the initial AI set up, as the AI does not seem to consider all the factors that I like to take into consideration ( such as Armour/Weapon type & Weapon level ). Yari / Archer Cavalry are even placed as Foot in some formations and I never accept that. I do this when attacking OR defending. I will always waste a small amount of battle time ( minimised with the Pause Key ), to re-position my troops when attacking. I feel you MUST be happy with your formation line up for ANY battle.

I only tend to use 1 or 2 Cavalry Archers ( unless playing against the Mongols ). With 1, it's a scout for attacks, and a chaser when the enemy routs. With 2, I skirmish on the flanks and support any charges by the other Cavalry I always have; and use as chasers again. Each to his own.