Castle Sieges

[A Nerd]

Any Idea how these will be played out. I have no knowlede of such structures of the time or how they were seiged but if they are an improvement from the bore fests of M2TW I will be pleased. Would they use ladders to scale the walls, ninja grapling hooks ala ETW (ha ha), spapping, siege equipment (?) or some other method I am unfamiliar with? Would just a plain gate rush like in STW be applicable? I recall in a preview that said castles were multi-tiered or something along those lines...what is that and how could it be applied gameplay wise? Some tactic involved in a siege might make them more enjoyable if they, dare I say, become redundant or if they are akin to what we have already seen before. Hopefully, they are unique and as fun as the field battles were in the original STW. I know nothing on the issue so hopefully some informed conversation could result to perk my interest and wet my pallate!

[Monk]

Really hope that sieges are downplayed.

Not because they aren't epic or fun but because RTW and M2TW both seemed like all you ever did was fight sieges. I liked ETW's idea of giving you more space to move around and, potentially, have much more room to play with - but more often then not this simply led to an AI holding up in the city because it was too afraid to lose it, or opening itself to be out-maneuvered and lose the province regardless.

[hoom]

Looking forward to see what they do with these.
Japanese castles are very cool looking & they tend to be very formidable in the absence of heavy siege weapons, but rather susceptible to fire...

I actually think that something like M2TW style but without cannons/trebuchets ie mostly just using ladders would work pretty well for Japanese type castles.
Would prefer to have an actually functional Keep though.

[O'Hea]

My understanding is that the Japanese didn't use much artillery until the development of lightweight cannon. Most sieges the defenders were simply waited out, although sorties were common. They certainly had the technology to build elaborate siege engines, but I don't know of any important examples of them being used.

[A Nerd]

Sieges are inevitable, I just hope that they are not overdone. I actually used to enjoy the sieges in the original STW despite how primative they were and the fact that it was always a gate rush. Sieges were a nice combination of field victory and destruction of the defending army at a final stand. Very satisfying province capture if I remember correctly. I was just hoping the new sieges were more than climbing the walls over and over again as you gained access to what ever trigger was to be taking the castle. Whether it be killing all the defenders and/or taking the center. I must agree though, if on the strat map all the AI does is camp there for fear of losing the provinces the expansionist pleasure which is the root of TW will fail. Despite any uniqueness that is applied to them, sieges will become increasingly boring over time and any novelty applied to the new and improved castles/sieges will wane thus blunting this potential revolution in the TW series, hence, in my opinion, leading to a sad dissapointment of what potentially could have been a reviving triumph. If you want nothing but sieges, play some older titles. I just want a nice mix, that is all.

[Kagemusha]

Any Idea how these will be played out. I have no knowlede of such structures of the time or how they were seiged but if they are an improvement from the bore fests of M2TW I will be pleased. Would they use ladders to scale the walls, ninja grapling hooks ala ETW (ha ha), spapping, siege equipment (?) or some other method I am unfamiliar with? Would just a plain gate rush like in STW be applicable? I recall in a preview that said castles were multi-tiered or something along those lines...what is that and how could it be applied gameplay wise? Some tactic involved in a siege might make them more enjoyable if they, dare I say, become redundant or if they are akin to what we have already seen before. Hopefully, they are unique and as fun as the field battles were in the original STW. I know nothing on the issue so hopefully some informed conversation could result to perk my interest and wet my pallate!

Here are couple examples of Japanese castles:



And



The first one is a Yamashiro or mountaintop castle , while the second one is a Hirashiro or flatland castle which became more usual during the later part of the Sengoku period. Third basic type was a Hirayamashiro, which was a Hilltop castle in middle of flatlands.

The Yamashiro was the traditional form of Japanese castle. It was built on a hill or several adjacent hills, where the high ground and nature itself was the key factor for defense. Japanese castles were based on Maru´s or baileys. These were either forming circles inside each other like adjacent circles like we can see in the first picture. This allowed that instead of one, the defender had many opportunities defeating the attacker. Usually there were three baileys in japanese castle, but the large ones could have more.

These baileys were called San no maru or outer Bailey. Ni no maru or midle Bailey and Honmaru or inner/central bailey.
When we look at the first picture.We can see that the san no Maru is the area that is protected by a simple stockade on the lower hill. During the early part of the period most Yamashiros only had stockades and wooden walls as defences.
Ni no Maru has the larger gate and is protected by plastered walls on the higher hill. Plastered walls were better protection for fire and they were used from very early on, still it would seem that most of the time wooden walls were used instead, maybe because of the construction costs and more available material for construction.
Honmaru that hosts the Tenshu or main tower is located on the highest hill. Tenshu is usually the first thing that pops up in peoples mind when talking about Japanese castles. Still though during most of the Sengoku Jidai period castles didnt have these large main towers. It is suggested that Oda Nobunaga was first to build a large stone based Tenshu in his Azuchi castle in 1570. So only after that the iconographic picture we have from Japanese castles today became reality.

In the second picture we have a flatland castle which used as its main protection moats and plastered and stone walls and towers. As you can see from the picture. The Maru´s or baileys are separated by moats and only tiny chokepoints connect them to each other. In this layout we have the normal three baileys and a fourth additional. These were called sōguruwa and a large castle could have plenty of them. So in a flat land castle the enemy had to conquer, several of "islands" in order to get to the Honmaru that held the Tenshu, storage rooms and other viable resources of the defender. Also many time taking one Maru would only mean that the attacker would come under a crossfire from two or more others.

Ofcourse these two are just basic examples of a Yamashiro and Hirashiro, while many castles were combination of the two and used methods of defense from both types.

I hope this helps a bit for the basic concepts of a Japanese castle.

[Reenk Roink]

The previews have made a big deal about the new castle sieges and the improved AI that comes with it, so I've got some hope, but I too hated the siegefest that was Rome and Medieval II. Nothing worse than making a grand army to attack another faction with delusions of a epic open field battle to decide the fate only to end up using that army to push away several 2 unit armies into a city and then siege it. The battle then just becomes a jumbled mess.

I would like to see a siege here and there, as it would be cool to keep small sieging armies to take cities while your main army wins on the field, but let's not overdo it like before.

Another thing was that in Rome, the walls were either these twig pallisades or these behemoth stone towers, both highly unrealistic. M2TW did better at this, but the already poor pathfinding went to hell there...

[A Nerd]

Yeah, thanks, that cleared things up alot. A nice combination of siege, field, and bridge battle. Looks like taking one of those would be fun to both attack and defend!

edit:

The previews have made a big deal about the new castle sieges and the improved AI that comes with it, so I've got some hope, but I too hated the siegefest that was Rome and Medieval II. Nothing worse than making a grand army to attack another faction with delusions of a epic open field battle to decide the fate only to end up using that army to push away several 2 unit armies into a city and then siege it. The battle then just becomes a jumbled mess.

Agreed. This has to end.

[Kagemusha]

The previews have made a big deal about the new castle sieges and the improved AI that comes with it, so I've got some hope, but I too hated the siegefest that was Rome and Medieval II. Nothing worse than making a grand army to attack another faction with delusions of a epic open field battle to decide the fate only to end up using that army to push away several 2 unit armies into a city and then siege it. The battle then just becomes a jumbled mess.

I would like to see a siege here and there, as it would be cool to keep small sieging armies to take cities while your main army wins on the field, but let's not overdo it like before.

Another thing was that in Rome, the walls were either these twig pallisades or these behemoth stone towers, both highly unrealistic. M2TW did better at this, but the already poor pathfinding went to hell there...

I am sorry to say this Reenk, but if CA is going for historical accuracy, the sieges were essential part of warfare in Sengoku period Japan and most warfare consisted of sieges and counter sieges. Usual pattern for warfare between two Clans was that the agressor would besige one of the defenders or allied castle in order to see how the enemy would react.If the enemy would be passive the agressor would try and take the castle in order to expand his domain. If the enemy would mobilize and or call in allied forces the agressor would scout the strength of the enemy and based on that he would decide either to engage the enemy in field battle or retreat back to the safety of his own fortressess. Most of the time opting the latter option. This was because decisive battles were really that. If the other party would be crushed.All his neighbours would most likely invade his domain and that would be the end of his Clan.
Even most of the larger battles like the famous battle of Nagashino, where the Takeda force under the son Of Takeda Shingen,Katsyori was crushed, stemmed from a siege as before the arrival of the allied Tokugawa and Oda armies.Katsyori was besieging Nagashino castle, while that time the enemy decided to give battle and the result was decisive, but just not the way Katsyori had calculated.

[A Nerd]

but if CA is going for historical accuracy, the sieges were essential part of warfare in Sengoku period Japan and most warfare consisted of sieges and counter sieges.

I like historical accuracy as much as the next guy, but a big chunk of the TW series has always been the field battle and it's tactic. I'm not saying sieges lack tactic, but to employ tactic and have it remain novel such that you spend hours on the game, the number of castle layouts would have to be vast or at least there would have to be more than one castle per province. What would be the point of applying too much detail to the game if all to the combat system was to seige or be sieged? This would more than likely negate weather, fatigue (for attacker would tire faster than defender) and certain units, calvary for example, might be considered obsolete. I would prefer historically accurate combat per say, but not necessarially the reason for it. Meet on the field then the castle, or in the castle if I fear leaving to meet you on the field...more former than latter. Perhaps fighting clan wars in a historical fashion would be fun, I don't know. All I know is that the original STW allowed for hours of entertainment the way it was and I would hope the sequel would provide as much if not more. But this is but one persons opinion, a person who is nominally (if at all) versed in Japanese history. :)

Even most of the larger battles like the famous battle of Nagashino, where the Takeda force under the son Of Takeda Shingen,Katsyori was crushed, stemmed from a siege as before the arrival of the allied Tokugawa and Oda armies.Katsyori was besieging Nagashino castle, while that time the enemy decided to give battle and the result was decisive, but just not the way Katsyori had calculated.

Interesting potential of the new diplomacy model. Hopefully not abused leading to campaigns that end before they start!

[Kagemusha]

I like historical accuracy as much as the next guy, but a big chunk of the TW series has always been the field battle and it's tactic. I'm not saying sieges lack tactic, but to employ tactic and have it remain novel such that you spend hours on the game, the number of castle layouts would have to be vast or at least there would have to be more than one castle per province. What would be the point of applying too much detail to the game if all to the combat system was to seige or be sieged? This would more than likely negate weather, fatigue (for attacker would tire faster than defender) and certain units, calvary for example, might be considered obsolete. I would prefer historically accurate combat per say, but not necessarially the reason for it. Meet on the field then the castle, or in the castle if I fear leaving to meet you on the field...more former than latter. Perhaps fighting clan wars in a historical fashion would be fun, I don't know. All I know is that the original STW allowed for hours of entertainment the way it was and I would hope the sequel would provide as much if not more. But this is but one persons opinion, a person who is nominally (if at all) versed in Japanese history. :)



Interesting potential of the new diplomacy model. Hopefully not abused leading to campaigns that end before they start!

I am not saying in any degree that sieges should be the only mode of battle as they certainly werent. I think one great thing would be to mix the two. How about enemy army attacking your besieging force, while the castle garrison would sally out from the castle? How would that sound for a challence? I cant see how this could be anyway impossible for the engine, but then i dont know the limits of it. Pesonally i would love these kind of scenarios as it would be lot more harder to decide how many men would you have to leave to contain the garrison, while with how many and how to fight the agressor.

[A Nerd]

I am not saying in any degree that sieges should be the only mode of battle as they certainly werent. I think one great thing would be to mix the two. How about enemy army attacking your besieging force, while the castle garrison would sally out from the castle? How would that sound for a challence? I cant see how this could be anyway impossible for the engine, but then i dont know the limits of it. Pesonally i would love these kind of scenarios as it would be lot more harder to decide how many men would you have to leave to contain the garrison, while with how many and how to fight the agressor.

I like this idea, sounds better than the M2TW siege practice. But how would the 3d map be implemented in such a scenario? Or even 2D for that matter? I suppose if you were attacked on a 2D map you could be given the option to sally or remain inside, you wouldn't need many maps though (depending on the number of castles of course). I actually like the 2D map so I would have no problem with this. You just might loose terrain variances, choke points, rivers and the like. History aside, such things made the TWs of the past entertaining. There must be a nice way to blend the two, historically accurate sieges and less historical field battles. Perhaps garrisons and field armies could be recruited seperately? Produce troops for the garrison that can only be used during a siege and troops produced exclusivly for the field (who could retreat to a castle if defeated on the field, well, what was left of them). This might blend the two, I don't really know. What do you think?

[Kagemusha]

I like this idea, sounds better than the M2TW siege practice. But how would the 3d map be implemented in such a scenario? Or even 2D for that matter? I suppose if you were attacked on a 2D map you could be given the option to sally or remain inside, you wouldn't need many maps though (depending on the number of castles of course). I actually like the 2D map so I would have no problem with this. You just might loose terrain variances, choke points, rivers and the like. History aside, such things made the TWs of the past entertaining. There must be a nice way to blend the two, historically accurate sieges and less historical field battles. Perhaps garrisons and field armies could be recruited seperately? Produce troops for the garrison that can only be used during a siege and troops produced exclusivly for the field (who could retreat to a castle if defeated on the field, well, what was left of them). This might blend the two, I don't really know. What do you think?

Incase you were the defender.I think it couuld be handled with a single option that once an allied or your own army would attack the besiegers.You would be asked to sally or not. I cant see any reason why a field battle could not occur in a battle map that contains a castle. In any case the battle maps should be enlargened. In this case you should just leave eanough units to match the enemy near the gates, while choosing where to meet the rest of the enemy.

[Reenk Roink]

I am sorry to say this Reenk, but if CA is going for historical accuracy, the sieges were essential part of warfare in Sengoku period Japan and most warfare consisted of sieges and counter sieges. Usual pattern for warfare between two Clans was that the agressor would besige one of the defenders or allied castle in order to see how the enemy would react.If the enemy would be passive the agressor would try and take the castle in order to expand his domain. If the enemy would mobilize and or call in allied forces the agressor would scout the strength of the enemy and based on that he would decide either to engage the enemy in field battle or retreat back to the safety of his own fortressess. Most of the time opting the latter option. This was because decisive battles were really that. If the other party would be crushed.All his neighbours would most likely invade his domain and that would be the end of his Clan.
Even most of the larger battles like the famous battle of Nagashino, where the Takeda force under the son Of Takeda Shingen,Katsyori was crushed, stemmed from a siege as before the arrival of the allied Tokugawa and Oda armies.Katsyori was besieging Nagashino castle, while that time the enemy decided to give battle and the result was decisive, but just not the way Katsyori had calculated.

Nice post Kage, thanks for that historical background. If it historically accurate than I'm willing to put up with it more. It wasn't as common in ancient times I believe, so that is what frustrated me in Rome.

If they can actually make the siege gameplay fun however, I will of course like sieges as much or even more than open field battles.

[A Nerd]

If they can actually make the siege gameplay fun however, I will of course like sieges as much or even more than open field battles

Field battles shouldn't be dissmissed however. They are what made the franchise. Siege battles do sound fun as Kagemusha has said and hopefully are applied as such in STW2, but if the game is nothing but seige battles, I think they will lose their appeal as they did in RTW and M2TW (that style of siege being quite novel at the time). A nice mix of historically accurate sieges and field battles coupled with the frequency of both a la STW and MTW, would be perfection in my opinion. Ah, I can only dream however, let's hope CA (and Sega) listen to some of the interested in informed posters here at the .org and don't rush out an unfinished product!

[andrewt]

They always talk about making siege battles more fun but haven't delivered yet. I just think it's one of the weakest parts of the franchise and it would be nice if we don't have them all the time.

[Prussian to the Iron]

Judging by this picture:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

i'd say sieges will be pretty epic

[Kagemusha]

In couple days when i have time i will post about the siege engines used in Japan. You can prepare for some interesting things,like traction trebuchets used only againts the enemy men, not the walls. Also to me it is weird that it is said over and over that Japanese didint use ladders because of sloped stone walls of castles. Sure you dont need ladders to climb the stone foundation of Tenshu, or stone basin of a wall, but how will you get over those meters high plastered, or wooden walls in top of any sloped wall?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I've been fascinated by sieges for a long time -- probably because of it's move-countermove quality. My regret from TW games is not the plethora of sieges available for non-autocalc play, but the repetitive fotresses being assaulted. I've always wanted to have a go at some of the classic fortresses of the era or defend Valetta against a host of Jannisaries.

Oh well, most of the rest of the TW org would loathe it.

[seienchin]

Sieges were common in sengoku jidai Japan, but not siege battles. Castles were only sometimes stormed by the enemy troops. More often the defender retreated, sallied out or waited for reeinforcements. Off course the lack of siege weapons played an important role, because castles were easy to defend, without them.
Decisive battle were a daimyo used all his troops were the least common form of combat until Oda Nobunga took over and the battles became a new scale. Still many battles were rather skirmishing fights with lots of duels and not meant to cause huge losses like for example the battles between the takeda and uesugi.

[Kagemusha]

Sieges were common in sengoku jidai Japan, but not siege battles. Castles were only sometimes stormed by the enemy troops. More often the defender retreated, sallied out or waited for reeinforcements. Off course the lack of siege weapons played an important role, because castles were easy to defend, without them.
Decisive battle were a daimyo used all his troops were the least common form of combat until Oda Nobunga took over and the battles became a new scale. Still many battles were rather skirmishing fights with lots of duels and not meant to cause huge losses like for example the battles between the takeda and uesugi.

I think you are mixing two things here.The many battles of Kawanakajima werent about honourable duels, but even adversaries probing each other.Guess what would have happen to Takeda with decesive loss in Northern Shinano? Invasion of Hojo, Tokugawa, Saito and Anegakoji.For Uesugi, Invasion of Hojo, Ashina, Mogami, Hatakeyama, Shiina and Jinbo. Reality wasnt a totalwar game,where you could constantly put everything for a individual card.

Oda Nobunaga was anomality. After he decapitated Imagawa in Okehazama.He had his eastern border secured by alliance with Matsudaira/ Tokugawa, which allowed him to completely focus to West and North. Its same kind of issue that happened in Kyushu, when 300 Shimazu warriors destroyed the 3000 strong Ito army that created a power vvacuum in Kyushu, that allowed Shimazu to grow as an coutnry wide important clan.

[Barkhorn1x]

That picture is impressive - and wicked cool. But...how does one go about assaulting that behemouth? Those cliffs look pretty daunting and it appears as if one would only have a couple of attack paths leading to channeling and excessive vulnerability to missle troops.

Scary stuff for the attacker.

[Barkhorn1x]

They always talk about making siege battles more fun but haven't delivered yet. I just think it's one of the weakest parts of the franchise and it would be nice if we don't have them all the time.

Indeed. Nothing like using some tactical finess out in the open. Oh, and I really hate excessive losses caused by pathing issues.

[Tsar Alexsandr]

The castles look huge.... XD So carry out a siege will be very difficult. (As it should be.) Japanese castles would have slots in them for archers and gunners to fire from, (pretty standard stuff.) As well as openings to drop rocks on invaders from. XD Cleverly made from chutes that jutted forth from the castle. (And looking rather ornamental I might add.) Some of these chutes would even employ a teppo man.

There will probably be large courtyards, and the keep to deal with. The keep will be riddled with defenses. (Maybe. In real life it would have what I described above.) Setting fire to the enemy castle will never be a bad idea.... XD I have a feeling the AI will take advantage of this too.

Sieges may be boring, and breaking castle after castle gets old fast. But I'm always glad to be able to use mine in a defense. These Japanese castles will be fun to defend. :D Since they'll borrow from the local geography, hopefully their different enough to be interesting.

I get tired os sieges just like anyone else. : / But it won't be all sieges all the time. And at least it's a new venue. :D

[seienchin]

I think you are mixing two things here.The many battles of Kawanakajima werent about honourable duels, but even adversaries probing each other.Guess what would have happen to Takeda with decesive loss in Northern Shinano? Invasion of Hojo, Tokugawa, Saito and Anegakoji.For Uesugi, Invasion of Hojo, Ashina, Mogami, Hatakeyama, Shiina and Jinbo. Reality wasnt a totalwar game,where you could constantly put everything for a individual card.
.

Im not mixing anything. I just might have not chosen my words wisely. ^^ The fighting in sengoku jidai (Especcialy the early one) wasnt one line of men against another. It had more skirmishing character with lots of individual fights and that is why most battles werent decisive, for example the battles at kawanakajima.
And dont overdramatize loosing a battle. Tokugawa ieasu lost at mikatagahara and still wasnt defeated decisevly etc. The thing about the decisive battles Oda Nobunaga fought was, that he killed the enemies leaders or just every enemy including their families like he did with the warrior monks.
Anyway, if you think about the takeda and Uesugi fighting several times at kawanakajima and still beeing two of the mightiest clans, and the defeat of the warrior monks (Or anybody else he fought) against Oda nobunaga or Toyotmi hideyoshis conquests or sekigahara etc., you have to admitt, that there was indeed a change in the fighting rules. It wasnt just about the single battles, it was about completly destroying your enemy. When Takeda shingen for example conquered shinano he let most of the families in charge and took over their forces. Oda would have killed them, Tokugawa would have given their lands to his own retainers. There was a huge shift in the fighting rules between early sengoku jidai and Oda Nobunagas time.

[Kagemusha]

Im not mixing anything. I just might have not chosen my words wisely. ^^ The fighting in sengoku jidai (Especcialy the early one) wasnt one line of men against another. It had more skirmishing character with lots of individual fights and that is why most battles werent decisive, for example the battles at kawanakajima.
And dont overdramatize loosing a battle. Tokugawa ieasu lost at mikatagahara and still wasnt defeated decisevly etc. The thing about the decisive battles Oda Nobunaga fought was, that he killed the enemies leaders or just every enemy including their families like he did with the warrior monks.
Anyway, if you think about the takeda and Uesugi fighting several times at kawanakajima and still beeing two of the mightiest clans, and the defeat of the warrior monks (Or anybody else he fought) against Oda nobunaga or Toyotmi hideyoshis conquests or sekigahara etc., you have to admitt, that there was indeed a change in the fighting rules. It wasnt just about the single battles, it was about completly destroying your enemy. When Takeda shingen for example conquered shinano he let most of the families in charge and took over their forces. Oda would have killed them, Tokugawa would have given their lands to his own retainers. There was a huge shift in the fighting rules between early sengoku jidai and Oda Nobunagas time.

You know of migatahara?He was backed by Oda anothe clan with larger income then his, or do you have some information discarding t his, for battle of ,Mitagahara, Tokugawa Ieayasy threatend to shift his alliance to Takeda un less oda would save him.You are making it sound like Oda Nobunaga invented the destruction of his enemies, you are more then wrogn maybe You should ask that from Minamoto Yo Norimoto?

[General Malaise]

"Shogun: Total War doesn’t include the battles that arose from siege warfare because
the long, slow business of laying siege to a castle doesn’t make a very exciting game.
Sieges are covered in the strategic game in a straightforward fashion so that you don’t
have to worry about the details. Siege warfare was often neither heroic nor dramatic.
In fact, most of the time it was a fairly squalid affair. If you want to imagine what a
siege would have been like, think the most overcrowded camping holiday you’ve ever
had or heard about, with utterly dreadful food, no toilets, no reliable fresh water,
constant bad weather, no chance to wash for weeks on end and no chance to move
somewhere more interesting. Now add in random bouts of illness (caused by the
food, bad water, bad weather, lack of hygiene and overcrowding) and random
episodes of small-scale violence when the people you are besieging try to kill you or
you try to break in and kill them.

Of course, none of the intricacies (and boredom) of siege warfare mattered on many
occasions.At Osaka in 1615, for example (and at other sieges), the troops inside the
castle left the protection of the walls to fight it out with the enemy on an open
battlefield. Sometimes this was a good move, breaking the siege in one climactic
action. At other times, such as Osaka Castle, it simply meant the defenders were cut
down outside the walls rather than being starved or slaughtered within them." - from STW1's The Way of the Daimyo manual

I hope they remember the above in regards to STW2. The endless siege-fests that were present in Rome on really made the campaign a tiresome chore. It's fine if historical sieges were a large part of warfare, but there's no reason not to abstract and streamline them the way they did in STW1. No matter how fun they make charging or sallying from a castle in any event, it's still going to be dull when if it makes up every battle.

[aimlesswanderer]

Personally I don't find the sieges or castle assaults interesting - much prefer battles in the field. Sieges are too repetitive. I actually like the way the original STW handled them: the castle held out for as long as they had supplies, and the besieging army could just sit around and wait. You had the option of storming it, and the defenders could sally.

IIRC the big problem was that if defenders sallied and you didn't quite kill them all, the few survivors could then hold out for decades (since there were 10 instead of 800 people eating). That would be easy to fit.

[Prussian to the Iron]

id like if, instead of having a ton of castles to besiege, there are fewer, more epic castles, with lots of unmarked/very small icon marked villages to combat in first. like E:TW, only there are also real sieges, not where you capture london by fighting in a town that couldnt have more than a few hundred.

[Nelson]

I look forward to assaulting and defending Japanese castles.