Newb Q's: Initial Diplomacy, Trade, Auto vs. Battlefield, Loyalty, Numbers

[Madae]

It looks like you have a lot of people helping and answering your questions already, and some of what I say will probably already have been answered, but I'll throw my 2 cents in here as well just from my experience.

1) Even after reading a couple diplomacy guides, including Dribb's, I am at a complete loss as to how to get started with diplomatic relationships. I am playing Chosokabe, so I initially don't have any contact with any clans off Shikoku. I conquer Iso by the first Winter, and Sanuki shortly after, and even that early, I've found it impossible to find a replacement trade partner for the Miyoshi clan, who are next on my list. Only the Mori ever offered me a trade agreement, which looked unfavorable to me, but I took it anyway. They broke the agreement a couple turns later. By the time I own Awa, or worse, Awaji, it seems my territorial expansion penalty is so high, no one will trade with me. Even clans with no resources said I had nothing to offer them.

What I am doing wrong? I've offered them payments over turns amounting to half the amount I'd gain in trade. Since my experience with the Mori, I've been reluctant to offer a single lump sum, seeing as they may well break the trade agreement a couple turns later. By the time I've found a worthy enough potential trade partner that I would offer marriage, it seems like everyone is paired up into multiple trade agreements, leaving me with no one to even potentially trade with! How do I cut this knot?

Later in the game, trade agreements get harder to get. Early on, everyone is scrambling for money, so most likely all agreements will be accepted. As the game goes on, it becomes less about money and more about what trade resources you can provide for them, what they're willing to provide you (are you threatening to them enough that they don't want you to have their trade resoureces?), in addition to how threatening you are to them in general, their allies, or other unforeseeable consequences. You can get just about anyone to agree to a trade agreement, but just know that later in the game, it will require you to spend kokou. It's not uncommon for me to drop 5k-10k on a trade agreement I want - the longer term benefits outweigh the short term requirements. If I'm willing to spend that much money for it, it's likely I don't really need the money in the first place.

Whether or not they break the agreement is completely up to them though, and it is definitely a risk you take. It's hard to want to drop a lot of money on an agreement that you're not sure they'll keep. It has happened to me, but again, that money is usually throwaway. Most of the time, it doesn't bother me if they keep it, because I was mostly only asking for it for the one trade resource that was required to build a certain building.

Marriages are hard to come by after the first 20 turns or so. Most family members are married off by then and solid alliances have been established. I wouldn't worry about it to much. It's good for the early game to cement a strong alliance with a faction that you'll want to stay allied to for a very long time, but it's just as useful to use that kid and marry them for a general (daughter), or for specific retinue bonuses (son).

Other things to keep in mind; I try not to trade with enemies of my friends. I'm not sure if that even matters, but I would like to think it does. If I'm neutral, it's not so much of a big deal, but I'm still wary of who I may potentially anger by doing that. Also, when expanding, it's a very good idea to take a few settlements and then hold off and defend for awhile so that diplomacy penalty subsides. It won't be there forever, and you have plenty of time to win the game. Don't feel like you have to steamroll every province you run into as quickly as possible. Wait it out for more positive benefits. You'll want to have an assortment of friends or vassals by the great divide anyway, so you still have avenues of making money when other clans start teaming up against you.

2) Without trade agreements, it looks to me like I DO derive some income from trade resources. Am I reading the Finance Summary window correctly? Am I getting some income from resources that I control but am not trading?

You will get funds from trade resources, and that can vary wildly throughout the game. There will be specific amounts of trade resources that you are exporting, and what specific amounts of that trade resource bring in revenue. I can't remember off the top of my head if that is shown or not, but I do remember that from Empire.

3) For the sake of simplicity I am learning the strategic game by relying on Ashigaru and Auto-Resolve Battles. I realize that in the long term, battles will be more enjoying on the battlefield with a variety of units. I am wondering what the differences between Auto-Resolve and Battlefield, so I can anticipate how my strategy will have to change. I assume the main difference is that a good battlefield commander can win a bigger victory with a smaller force well played, for example, and that the quality of troops matters more on the battlefield.

It also seems to me that units gain XP roughly in proportion to their losses, or at the very least, no losses means no experience. Is this really so, and how will battlefield play affect my units' XP gains.

Are there Bushido Arts bonuses, like formations, that don't affect Auto-Resolve much?

This is really a preference, but it can also mean different outcomes. Read my post here for more info on this, as I recently commented on something similar to it.

Units will get experience based mostly on how many kills they get, but also how many battles they've been in in general (or at least that's my take on it). Units that take a lot of losses typically means they will get more experience, but only because they've been locked in fighting a lot more than other units, and coincidentally kill more of the enemy.

I'm not sure on the formations. I prefer to use my own setup that is normally something like;

Heavy infantry in front, Archers in the middle, Light infantry reinforcements behind the archers, defensive reserves on the sides and horses in the back and mostly towards the sides, with my general in the middle to hit as many units as possible with rally.

Sometimes I'll switch it up and put my archers in front, but I usually only do this when I'm attacking. When I'm defending, I will use the above setup. I will also swap units in and out of loose/tight formation, depending on who is getting targetted by enemy archers. Trust me, you will want to do that to reduce losses. Heavy infantry can normally take quite a beating from archers, but I don't like to suffer unnecessary losses. Light infantry will get tore up though, so you will definitely want to spread them out as well if they come under fire. Archers... Eh, they aren't really affected to much by being showered with arrows. Sure, they lose men and damage potential, but that's all they'll ever do in a fight. I would prefer the enemy target my archers and not my infantry. The only time I worry about archer casualties is when my archers are in front peppering the enemy archers. That's about the only time I'll worry about setting them in loose formation.

As an addendum; historically, I've never really done this, but I've been finding myself, more often than not, creating a solid line of heavy infantry about 20-30 steps away from the rest of my army as a "front line", and then I send in my light infantry to reinforce or fill in gaps as I'm required. This is especially true for the more difficult fights, as you will want an abundance of fresh troops. Sending your entire army in is really only relying on who has the most morale and resistance to fatigue. You're also running the risk of your entire army chain-fleeing because one group broke rank and had their morale fail.

As I mentioned in my link above, I will often fight very difficult battles on half-speed, so that I can catch morale failing units faster than normal, and also so I can respond to it by sending in a unit to reinforce them quicker. It's typically ok if one unit breaks and flees, but only if they're doing it because they went from a full stack of 120 men down to 10-20 units (in short, they were getting owned, but if they're doing that, it's because you didn't reinforce them quick enough). In my experience, that doesn't have as much of an effect on adjacent unit morale nearly as much as seeing an entire full stack break and run away. My two defensive units that I have positioned on the sides I will normally use to flank the enemy as well, but I keep them on the sides also because the AI likes to try and sneak in cavalry to kill my archers. Another added benefit of creating a front line away from your main army is that you can probably catch the AI trying to flank your front line and then you can sandwich them with a reinforcing unit, which is only benefitting you. They lose horses and morale.

Getting their units to break and flee is an integral part of the battles - battles aren't fought solely for trying to kill everything and everyone, it's more about who can get their army to stand, fight and break the other army first.

4) For a while I thougt I was seeing a bug, because when my general took skills or retainers that increased loyalty, it seemed their loyalty stayed the same or even dropped. Last night I moused over the loyalty of my main general, and found he had a -3 penalty for "Delusions of Granduer." What's the deal with that, why isn't it a Trait, how come I got no notification, and is there anything else like that I should worry about?

It's sort of a hidden trait, and is really only because they've won so many battles that they're getting a fat head. I typically use my Daimyo or his heir for my generals. Other generals I will usually just give an assignment to finance or construction and just have them sit in the back to collect on that bonus, and then eventually kill an enemy army here or there.

5) I really appreciate the various guides that have been posted here and in other forums, especially FrogBeastEgg's, but I really am a fan of the Brady/Ultima Strategy Guide format, with lots of reference materials, and especially hard numbers. The Encyclopedia is frankly disappointing in that regard, is not well organized, and appears to have no search function. It is quite vague, and leaves much unsaid. Are there tables of hard numbers compiled?

Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Smeelbo-san

I don't know about this. Sorry. =/