Some info on shogun2 units.

[Nelson]

Strong RPS can mean anything. It could mean strong RTW RPS, which basically means that a weapon is better than another in a given situation, but it could also mean that a certain weapon almost always beats a specific other one (no matter how, why or what).

I agree. This is why I am concerned about exactly what CA means by "strong RPS". When it reflects real weapon and tactical abilities such as a spear formation vs cavalry, it's OK by me no matter what CA calls it. But if it means that a unit is given a boost in an offense or defense stat in order to make it more useful than it was historically or to invent some sort of gamey “counter unit” then I am opposed. Sword units have no inherent advantage over spears as andrewt points out. Yet some people expect to see just that. Since spears have an edge over cav they want spears to have a corresponding weakness even if it is not supported by history. Remember the monks in Shogun? They had big attack and small defense. There was no basis for this in history but that’s what CA did. Then they turned around and said “Well, I guess we need a big defense unit too.” And we got the naginata unit. Totally bogus performance from both of them. These are the types of decisions I would rather not see. Why would a man with a naginata have better armor? And why would he be slower? He didn’t and he wasn’t. I know it just a game. But it’s about 16th century Japan. They should do it right or drop the pretense.

Well, RPS system always gives tactical edge to the battlefield tactics. The decision to use sword units into the melee also seems logical. What's the problem with that? Do you mean that the units should be only teppo ashigaru, ashigaru, archers and some cavalry?

If those tactics are historically correct then fine. If they are not then I have a big problem with the tactical game.
In answer to your question, my good Prince, certainly not. You left out the samurai! Samurai used any weapon they liked. Samurai units should therefore have a mix of weapons. Perhaps even a mix of mounted and dismounted troops. Games have for years convinced players that all armies were made up of units of soldiers with homogeneous weapon types. Like the phalanx or the maniple/cohort. But this was not always the case in every era in every army. Only in formations did mandatory weapon types make any sense. Among warrior cultures it was rare. Samurai seldom fought in formations. They undoubtedly fought with swords sometimes. And with naginata, bows and even guns plus a bunch of other weapons I can’t remember! What we know is that the yari was most popular by far during the Sengoku era. There need not be many different unit types with different stats.

The Japanese have reinactors. I wonder what they think.

I also believe we as gamers get too wrapped up over the weapons because weapons are how the units are defined. Weapons didn’t endow troops with mighty advantages over their opponents in many cases at all. Leadership, morale, training, timing and dumb luck were usually far more important. Oh, and numbers were important too.