Is the Tosa cup worthless?

[Oda]

So, I was playing this game today in the Tosa cup, against Chocobo, who thought It is a good idea to pick a mass bow cav army (and a bow general). I myself had picked a balanced army (what else?), basically consisting of 4 archers, 2 matchlocks, 3 spears, 4 cav and 6 sword inf. My enemy was hiding in the forest, and as I was moving towards the mid of the map, as he appeared, with his 6 highly vetted bow cav (and 2 great guards, plus some yari and light cav). Upon seeing that I did a controlled retreat back to my forest. Apparently my opponent had expected me to suicide my army, but as he saw my retread he refused to attack - in any manner.

To me it was ridiculous that someone picked such a spam-army, as in all previous TW tournaments the number of bow cav was always very strictly limited. So, while I was waiting in the woods, I contacted an admin (TinCow), who later forwarded me to another admin, Kocmoc. As we were in the chat, my opponent, myself and Kocmoc, discussing the situation, Kocmoc made following points clear:

- He suggested that It was me who should move out of the forest and attack the cav, since "the cav is so very inferior".
- He also proposed that we restart the game, and then in each game there is one defender and one attacker.
- However, he did not force the restart of the game under balanced conditions, or anything like that, but he said we should sort it out ourselves.
- Furthermore he added, that if nothing, we should play on the current game (which meant camping forever).

Of course my opponent, who was massing cav, disagreed to restart the game and play a balanced matchup. And since waiting forever was not an option for me, we agreed that I should move my army out of the forest (as Kocmoc suggested). Well, as expected I got slaughtered by the highly vetted bow cav. I then sent this replay to the admin, Kocmoc, demanding that something is done in the rules about it. He then criticized that I deployed my archers in one line, and that I should have stacked them (!?), and that that was the reason I lost...

Here is the link to the replay (http://www.megaupload.com/?d=841ZV7VR), so judge for yourself. I had concerns regarding the rules from beforehand, and now I feel confirmed. What's your opinion?

If the rules get changed (bow cav limited), I will stay in this tournament, and I have no problem with being behind 0-1. However, I won't waste my time on a tournament where players can mass bow cav and get away with it.

[TinCow]

It was very clearly stated in the rules that the only limits on units was no artillery. Many people have many different opinions what is a proper army. It is impossible to please everyone, so we chose the method that seemed to be supported by the most: setting no restructions except for artillery, which can insta-kill a general at the start of a match. No army is invincible, not even a bow cav army.

[Oda]

Yes, all of this is true. But the question is not whether an army is invincible or not, but if you can pick a (balanced) army, that gives you a fair winning chance against any matchup, or not. If this is not the case, it boils down to a simple rock-paper-scissors, where the game is over before it has even begun, and this can never be within the meaning of a proper tournament.

I also noticed that in the brackets (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/tourn...?do=view&id=18) my opponent got advanced although the second game wasn't even played. How is that possible?

[TinCow]

Yes, all of this is true. But the question is not whether an army is invincible or not, but if you can pick a (balanced) army, that gives you a fair winning chance against any matchup, or not. If this is not the case, it boils down to a simple rock-paper-scissors, where the game is over before it has even begun, and this can never be within the meaning of a proper tournament.

I also noticed that in the brackets (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/tourn...?do=view&id=18) my opponent got advanced although the second game wasn't even played. How is that possible?

You were at am impass with your opponent that could not be resolved. We had to advance someone and you couldn't sort it out for yourselves, so we had to make a decision. It was decided that it was best to advance him, as his army was legal and you were refusing to fight his army.

[Kocmoc]

While watching the vid, everyone can notice, that you dont play that great. Actual a full cav army is easy to beat, even with your setup. Just that you lose your archer like this (actual you was lucky, that your opponent didnt attacked your unprotected 5 archer in the woods at start) is bad. There was just one archer group. Not good moved, not good lined up.

Get some 200 monk bows and done. I cant see how someone can lose vs bow cav. Anyway, Im not here to judge your playstyle. There are rules and your opponent did stick to the rules.

I also want to add, that we had some interesting communication. Im not posting it here, I jsut want to remind you on some of your spellings and swearings.
Just in case, I did copy paste it and I suggest we leave it as it is now and end it right here.


I spent about 1 hour to find a dimplomatic solution.

[Oda]

While watching the vid, everyone can notice, that you dont play that great. Actual a full cav army is easy to beat, even with your setup. Just that you lose your archer like this (actual you was lucky, that your opponent didnt attacked your unprotected 5 archer in the woods at start) is bad. There was just one archer group. Not good moved, not good lined up.

Get some 200 monk bows and done. I cant see how someone can lose vs bow cav. Anyway, Im not here to judge your playstyle. There are rules and your opponent did stick to the rules.

I also want to add, that we had some interesting communication. Im not posting it here, I jsut want to remind you on some of your spellings and swearings.
Just in case, I did copy paste it and I suggest we leave it as it is now and end it right here.


I spent about 1 hour to find a dimplomatic solution.

I already mentioned that you "criticized" the way I play. First of all my archers in the woods in the beginning were not unprotected, but they had a Naginata samurai at close proximity and 2 great guard + 2 yari cav little further away. This makes them invincible to almost every variation where the opponent could charge me with cav.

I however don't know what you mean with "there was just one archer group". I actually don't comprehend most of them things that you say, and yet you energetically claim them to be true. This is the reason I challenged you to a game, which you refused (for whatever mysterious reason).

200 monk bows (if you mean the amount of actual monks) will cost you a third of your money in a medium sized game on 14k, if you keep in mind that you have spent 1800 on your general already. It will not only make you vulnerable to rush armies, but monks also have hardly any armor and take a lot of damage from bows. Thus, because of their cost and their weak armor, monks are best used combined with other archers typed in 10 and 14k. Maybe other people see this differently, but my theory works for me, and differences in theory are best sorted out through the praxis (an actual game which you refuse).

@TinCow:

So be it then. If cav spamming, red line camping (game Sabre vs AzureCuzYeah) etc. is going to be allowed in this tournament I don't bother wasting my time. And I am not the only one who thinks that way.

[douchebag]

Pretty strange, I don't see why a natural reaction to such an army build should be punished. . .

[Meataus]

Well, I just finished my games vs Chocobo. He brought an almost identical army to our second game, which I won with a heroic victory. I found him to be a good sportsman, although I do think those all cav armies are a little cheesy.

Some suggestions for being flexible enough to be able to beat these armies without having to screw up your own army too much.

1) More spears. You only had 3 vet naganitas. I also take 3 super cheap unvetted yari ashiguru, both to screen and eat arrows, and have a better chance if my opponent is really cav heavy.

2) Long range archers. You need at least a couple of these. If you're not in a bow clan, your only choice is 200 range bow monks. 175 range ashiguru archers would also cut it. Since I'm not in a bow clan I have to go with the bow monk option. They're expensive, but without them you can get skirmished with impunity vs someone who micros bow cav well.

3) Blockers. Bow cav are much easier to micro if your archers are up the front of your lines, since he can leave fire at will on. Put your blockers in loose formation and have them just in front of your archers. Matchlocks, yari ashiguru, or naganita sam will all do the job nicely, with matchlocks having the ability to shoot back if your opponent is careless.

[Oda]

@Meataus:

Doesn't really need much APM to target-fire archers, I think the blockers are rather a waste of money against someone who knows how to play, and a potential target for someone who has more ammo than you. The problem with your build (yari and archers) is that it is very weak against a rush army (what I try to prevent with my build), unless you mass matchlocks and camp (and I am someone who hates to camp). But this is a story on it's own.

Also, the topic here is mainly the lack of proper rules, rather than that specific game. Proper rules would also include a heavy clamp-down on matchlocks.

[AggonyKing]

there's no need for strict rules that restrict everything. The rules as they are right now allow for everyone to play the game the way they like to best. Its up to you to succeed, if you didn't, then train harder.

[Oda]

there's no need for strict rules that restrict everything. The rules as they are right now allow for everyone to play the game the way they like to best. Its up to you to succeed, if you didn't, then train harder.

Train harder in doing what? Picking imba armies and hope my opponent doesn't pick the counter army? Well, If I wanted to play rock-paper-scissor I would play rock-paper-scissor and not Shogun 2 Total War. Someone who makes such statement must be either massing bow-cav or matchlock camping himself.

But since you are so eager in judging my skill, I think you wont mind a game, would you? With mirror vanilla armies on Ricefields? Just a plain test of skill, on a plain field, without any forests, or hills, or anything? Do people like you even have the skill to win a game that is not won by army composition? No, they don't. And I shall prove it by wiping the Ricefields with your face. Ok? Because else everything you say are just empty words.

@OUT4BLOOD:

My Bows were inferior from the beginning on to his Bow-Cav. I knew that and it proved to be correct later on. So I sacrificed one unit of matchlocks (which is just 340 koku out of 14k), to get my archers to safety so I could fight on later. I retreated all the way back to the forest, because this is the only forest that neglects the forest advantage for the enemy in a skirmish.

Furthermore, my meele cav was inferior too, and although highly armored, his Bow-Cav was highly upgraded. So if I attacked him I would get decimated first, and then engaged by his even more so superior meele cav, and in the end lose my cav to nothing.

Yes, he microed his Bow-Cav poorly, and this is what upsets me. That someone which such a bad micro and a no-skill army can win a game only because proper rules were neglected.

Also, you can't "pressure someone from all sides" if you have the mobility, i.e. cav, disadvantage.

[Meataus]

I'm not sure that unit rules are needed, at least if you're trying to make a tournament where you see an interesting array of different armies.

As I mentioned, my idea of a balanced army is having a decent number of archers, matchlocks, spears, and of course a solid melee core. As you saw in our practice games, it can beat a rush army too if you can keep enough of your ranged units firing.

If one person wins all their games in this tournament with a super cheesy army, then we can all put on our 20/20 hindsight glasses and blame the rules, but right now I dont think that's going to happen as CA has balanced the units pretty well, and the ranged buffs (inspire/rapid fire) are getting nerfed in a couple days, before the tournament ends.

To be honest my only problem with the rules is that they took out the woodcamping rule, but hopefully the anticipated shame of everyone seeing the replays of players do that will prevent it happening. I'm certainly not going to attack archers in the woods, so I'm unclear what happens if no one attacks for all 3 games.

[Jevanko]

Idk about the whole conflict u had, but what I find a bit dissapointing is that we'll have played one playround over the whole weekend.. I was expecting to at least play 3-4 rounds this saturday.. If it continues like this it will be a 6 week event.. I mean a deadline for sunday 24.00 that is 29 hours to play one round..

[OUT4BLOOD]

I watched the replay, I think you just were in a state of panic for a lot of the fight. You retreat all the way back, allowing the much faster CA to snipe you... then you kept your archers on your left far back instead of putting them in front of your melee to protect them. Instead, you put your guns there which obviously got slaughtered due to the range difference.

Next time vs this setup, use a high armour fast unit (e.g great guard) to pressure their CA whilst aggressively moving forward with your archers. Also, try to initiate combat by flanking with your own cav rather than sitting them uselessly behind your lines.

His setup could have been a lot nastier if he actually micro'd his CA to encircle you instead of being lazy with them all in one group. If you were aggressive with your archers and pressured from the sides he really couldn't do much here