Historical basis for STW etc (split from the Shogun II Thread)

[Karl08]

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.

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.

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. I only remembered it today when I once more brushed the dust off my Mori savegame.

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.

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.

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.

[caravel]

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. 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.

[Karl08]

Hello Karl08,

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

Arigato gozaimasu

[gollum]

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.

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)

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.

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.

[Karl08]

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: 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Karl08]

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.

[gollum]

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.

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.

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.