TARGET morale issue need to be solved

[Roman Totale XVII]

Must agree with most of TakeshidaSo's points but that's probably coz he's a mini gamer like me

There are many rule sets out there that incorporate huge amounts of historical research in order to simulate a good semblance of believable outcomes. This doesn't mean players have to get bogged down with historical accuracy - it just means there is a convincing 'internal logic' to events.

Morale always forms a major factor of any decent rule set. To take examples from one well known set; unit morale can be enhanced by the nearby presence of a respected general or a special standard or seeing an enemy unit run for it closeby.

Morale can progressively downgrade when unbroken enemy units are seen close behind a flank; when particularly unnerving enemy units are close-by (eg bombers or high quality vs low quality); when unit is 'out on its own'; or a close friendly unit is routed; or if a unit in melee receives more casualties than it inflicts in a round of h2h.

Morale will take a big hit when 4% casualties are suffered in a single volley when under enemy fire for the first time; when twice as many are killed in h2h than are inflicted; or when infantry are charged by cav and they are not in all-round defence formation. Or when ambushed from cover; or a nearby general is disabled or routed. Or if attacked whilst fatigued; or an army standard is captured.

Units taking 50% casualties and standing are rare - usually far less but it all depends on circumstances. I can perhaps see a case for a 'defending the homeland' bonus to samurai against the Mongols ('we'll fight them on the beaches...'). The 'domino effect' of units routing was also very real. The death of a commander in full view of his troops always had a devastating effect.

Sorry, KumaRatta, didn't quite understand what you meant by; 'Why bother with Mongols attacking the Japanese at all? It never happened.'; Hmmm. What about the history books that say the Yuan Mongols of Kublai Khan attacked Japan in 1274 and 1281? And, yes, Mongol tribes did actually fight against eachother...

[Swoosh So]

So when all is said and done krae u would rather have us not have the morale feature we want at the risk of u being looked upon as a newbie for playing high koku games? come on... I dont doubt u like the way it is now but any reasonable person will see theres room for both in 99999 koku, i find it quite bad that because some players find the new morale fine they would argue for us not to have the choice to play the way we like comon krae its a new game would u really be embarrased to play 20000 koku????? at the end of the day thats what your playing right now just with the new morale setup

swoosh

[Swoosh So]

Also as magyar said ask yourself why in 1 year of shogun being out did 5-6k become the standard which by everyone who had played for some time used.


Krae u might not like low morale in games but if its changed noone forces u to play 5000-6000 koku games werent all tournaments by all the clans and the dread league run at this value?

Almost every victory ive had in the exp pack has been a dull game no satisfaction of winning for me, the only games where ive had satisfaction are the low koku ones, infact its so poor that when i see the opposing army i know instantly if im going to win or lose, about 30 games 2 losses should have been fun was boring.........

[KumaRatta Yamamoto]

Takeshidaso: My point is , what reality? There has never been any reality in the original game in MP. The closest we got was those historical battles in SP. So no reality then and no reality now, no difference.

Swoosh So; So you agree then with Kraellin saying that nothing has changed, the better players still win and the weaker still loose. The problem is that you do not like the new morale settings.

[Polar]

Hmmm, swoosh got the point, 5000 koku did not become standard by accident.....

Right, units were too easy to route in the old system, it also piss me off sometimes when I see all my female ashigaru (sorry swoosh ) decide to take off. Its a good thing to adjust the moral. But moral in the new system is a bit too high.

In old system, I have to constantly check the moral status of my units, I have to move my units arround very carefully, and I can setup a trap to route a monk rusher.

In the new system, I can leave a single unit out in front without having to worry about it, I can set my missile units far ahead of my melee to avoid wild shots, I can send cheap low honor units well behind enemy line knowning they wont route, I can leave my gen in a dangerous area without the fear of causing my whole army to route. I find this not fun and not chanllenging at all.

You can disagree with me. I understand some people like the new system. You have every right to do so, but please, please, please, give the rest of us a option!

The fact is there is a lot of room above 5000 koku and honor 2, but so little below them. We can play low koku games such as 2000 koku, but then every unit has to be honor 0, there is no room to adjust the honor, weapon, and armor to fit our tactics. For example, with 5000 koku, I can have low honor missiles and high honor melee if I want to charge, or I can have high honor missile and low honor melee if I want to shoot, but with 2000 koku there is no choice.

So, I beg you, please, grant us who perfer the old system a chance to have a fun game! I hope no one is cruel enough to say that we can't even play a fun game. I wont call you newbies if you like to play 20000 koku games, I promise!

------------------
Polar the ugly

[This message has been edited by Polar (edited 08-18-2001).]

[Swoosh So]

Kuma alot has changed because of the morale settings as polar says, but yes of course exp players beat newbies we can group move as a group, march like an army of crabs, we understand the units, we understand the terrain, geez i can even make my men dance hehe.


Swoosh SO

[KumaRatta Yamamoto]

POLAR: Now this a valid argument for me...So if you are not having fun, you are right of course.

Please forgive me, i am a left wing bastard, it's my genes and cultural background. I can't resist but defend an opposite point of view than anything that sounds to elitist (WE KNOW WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT AND YOU DON'T , SO SILENCE )

I do understand that your Fun factor in MP has gone down. That for me is the only valid argument but it is very important for me. FUN FOR ALLLLLLL!!!

But before any tweaking is done, serious testing must be done thoroughly. No sense in balancing MP for one group and unbalancing it in SP and MP for another group, right?

Compromise?

I fully agree with that dumb guy Einstein "Everything is relative"

[This message has been edited by KumaRatta Yamamoto (edited 08-18-2001).]

[MagyarKhans Cham]

my Khan is happy to see all good statements in here.

morale just have to be changed back somehow. but the realeease of the game in europe will make more clear on that point

kuma, i think i make u happy when i say that a dedicated large group is spending a lot of energy to get a grip of the stats and possible future changes.

[Polar]

HEHE Kuma, you french communist Now we can share some understanding

You are right that it must be thoroughly balanced and tested if any change will ne made. I'm not pushing for a immediate change. I'm only persuing the developers to seriously consider the need for changing. I'm afraid if there is too many praises for the new system, the devs wont even think about it.

Battles on all koku levels are fun to play. My best kills record was made in a high koku game. My least kills record was made in 1000 koku game when I routed the enemy with only 27 kills. I also enjoy the all cav game I played with 99999 koku. They are all fun to play. But different people have different preferences. Most of my games were played in 5k -6k games. I personally perfer 6000 koku. But since I cant host, I have to use whatever the host gives me. Now with the new game, the choice for some of us are really gone.

I dont think players are judged on how many koku they like to play. Like Magy perfers 8000 koku, but who thinks any less of him? Kurando loves 1000 koku, does it mean he's better than most others? Its true that most players new to the game like 20000+ games. And they can easily find other new players to play with them. No one ever blamed them, they have the right to choose. Now, we only want our right to choose, coz we dont even have a choice with the new system.

------------------
Polar the ugly

[Koga No Goshi]

Call me a newbie, a bad player, whatever.

Chain routing as a primary tactic was totally cheap and cheesy. Playing games of under 6k because all you needed to do was place your guns and shock troops correctly and you could get your whole enemy army to run with sometimes less than 100 kills was cheap, cheesy, and not fun unless you were someone who knew very well how to abuse it. Yes, abuse. I didn't like this aspect of the game, and never felt good about beating an opponent if I only did it because routing one unit routed his whole army. It felt cheap and without value to me. That's my opinion, you don't have to agree. The victories I felt truly proud of were the ones that were neck and neck to the very last minute. Many people who've spoken so far have said the same thing, yet are complaining at the same time that it's not as easy to chainrout their enemies anymore. That strikes me as cheap. Also, morale was so bad in the original that you could pretty much forget about rallying. It never worked for me on any serious level, though I saw a few people who pulled it off, I have no idea how they did it because mine would jsut continue running. (Even if the enemy had long ago broken off pursuit to concentrate on my ally or whatever).

Honestly once more people have the xpack and play on the xpack foyer, I plan to play only there (well, sometimes I might miss the old units and lack of kensai and go back to the original) because of morale. Yes, maybe that strikes people who learned to win primarily through chainrout tactics as newbie-ish but it has nothing to do with "easier wins" to me for lack of skill. It has to do with more gameplay and a bigger variety of tactics than just trying to chainrout my enemy.



------------------
Koga no Goshi

"Nandai"
Since time began
the dead alone know peace.
Life is but melting snow.

[Polar]

Hmmmm Koga....can't people live with different opinions?

You can play your way and I can play my way, but do we have to call someone cheap win??

[Katsuchiyo]

Thanks for the response Target. Good to hear an explanation for the change for morale. My vote is for changing it back to much closer to the original morale setting. If men are fighting til only one or two left then your dont have to worry about the moral of your men and morale isnt a factor in your battle tactics. Without morale the battle is less tactical. Its that simple. There just needs to be some sort of compromise between the two opinions.

[DragonCat]

I'm glad to see that it seems no one wants to go back to the total insanity of the previous morale. Some adjustment, a little adjustment at the most sounds right- which has been my position for days.

Also, if you want to play low koku games, you can. If you sell your honor down for 16 units, can you beat someone who doesn't and keeps his fewer units at honor 2. Have you tried this? If the fewer units can win, then doesn't that prove that morale is just fine? I think its time we had some tests.

And I totally agree, I quit playing the original game when it became a rout fest. My highest rank was 49 in the old game, so i consider myself to be a decent player. And I didn't have fun on EITHER side of the rout fest. Just didn't seem like a contest.

I am having better battles NOW all the time. I like to play in the 4000 to 8000 koku range. I don't like the high koku. I want to be in the range where you can't have everything, you have to make some choices. And I have to tell you, I am very happy with the way it plays now.

Anyways, once we get a larger base of online players and some decent testing that takes into account ALL the options, not just some vocal minorities, then I am willing to join the consensus to get things set up so they are best for everyone.

Till then, you can change my morale once you pry my cold dead fingers off of it ;-)

------------------
DragonCat
"On the prowl . . . ."

[MagyarKhans Cham]

lol dragon it is nice to see how the xpack blinded u. a sharp man like u should notice that most people want to change it back or at least in between somewhere.

if a 3500 koku in XP "feels" like a 7000 koku in old game, and u like a 6000 koku in XP that u had to play 10000 koku or more in the old game.

the rout fest is most of teh times happening in the low kokus, like 1000 to 2000 koku, where people try to buy 16 units.

many players avoided the 10000+ koku since the enemy could easily bring up a -monkey- rush army. the balance between good gameplay and a nice army with several options (16 units, some h0 some h5 units) in koku was between 5000 and 10000 koku.

the problem with the new morale setting stays for me that a 3500 koku army give a good "routing possibilty" feeling, but it lacks many other things. u cant lower morale further for some units to save koku for others. Keeping teh things as it was just gave more options. i hope i am wrong, i only tried costum battles so far....

btw i finished the troopstateditor for those who like to do the testing...

[Yagyu Emissary Kensen]

I have read many convincing, articulate and well thought out arguments, and I STILL stand by my point, and agree with DragonCat and KummaRatta. I claim no vast knowledge of feudal Japanese warfare. You're probably right, people probly saw 20 men died, ran like pussies and were cut down in a most honourable fashion. But what fun is that???? I need to address a few things. First, Swoosh i think it was, yes Mortog has lost 12. At leas 3 of those were games he through, and a 4th was against me, yagyuONI and HeroofJapan, and his partners were weak at best. Technically he has 6-8 REAL losses. I agree with KummaRatta, you're all mad because now you actually have to stand and fight, and have tension and can't just slaughter people, who have half an army left. If you wanna go table top game, go play warhammer, and have ur entire army rout when u fail your morale check. Let me say it this way, IT IS A GAME! People are supposed to have fun. A few things are now different. In the old STW, once I got trained I was like honour 95....10-17. Now I'm something like 23-13..honour 116. Granted I've learned, but it also means I'm finally able to use my armies and have thrilling exciting battles. You like the old system because it let your gorge your honour on newbies, who were then forced into the clan system to learn. But this is an interesting point, because newbies still have to be trained to be any good, that's why the current number 1 is a person who's only been playing a week and a half. Why? Because Oni was impeccably and rigorously trained, and because oni plays a lot, AND, because oni gets to beat the shit out of untrained newbies.

With regard to the supposed lack of tactics...i may be an unknowledgeable peoon hothead, but please, spare me. I've never rushed my troops LESS, than in WE. Let's not confuse what flank means, if you hit an unengaged unit from the side, NOT a flank. If you disagree, stand up from your computer, back away from your monitor. NOW, gturn sideways as fast as you can. There, that's how u stop a flank when unengaged. if you flank an engaged unit, or rear them, it's been my experience that u cut through them like butter with a hot knife. Aniother scenario..you flank an engaged unit, I then hit u with my reserves, YOU are now flanked. Just as bad as the unit you initially hit. i wont enter into a debate about the games historical inaccuracies, I'm not knowledgeablwe enough. But is it more fun for EVERYONE? yes. Does it make more sense, not historically, but logistically...yea. Point made...if anyone disagrees with the new strategies, come play. I'll abstain from any strategy you want, rushes, rearing, flanking..ANYTHING. If you win, you'll have proven your point. If you lose, then I fear I'm right. But the point is i spose that we're all right because it's really just a preference. I love the new system, but would be willing to accept a slightly modified morale system. Just to shut everyone up.

[UglyElmo]

First to Koga, you can sometimes stop some of your army from routing by selecting all and then selecting the rally button at top of screen. Hit is several times until it goes away.

My biggest dissappointment with the add-on is: No mongol vs. mongol matches. Historical accuracy in single player is fine, but in multiplayer it is unneccesary. Since there is a perceived imbalance between Mongol vs. Japanese armies in multiplayer, the easiest fix would be to allow for everyone to choose the same army as their opponent. The morale issue is personal choice. I enjoyed the old game and will learn to adjust to the new game, but the usefulness of flanking has really been eliminated in the new game, whereas in the older game it held too much importance. If there could be a nice medium here, I feel that the game would be perfect. The problem with flanking being reduced in importance may be seen by a few of the matches in the new game. I have played matches, where my opponent just grouped all of his men together and charged as a group, all bunched up and no formation, just one big mob. I would spread out my army with support on each units flank and surround the enemy army as it approached. The enemy army stays around just as long as the one that is organized and has the morale boosting protection of units covering each flank. I am an old wargamer and also an old fan of Sid Meier's Gettysburg and the covering of one's flank is considered to be very vital to one's success on the battlefield. The current version of Shogun Warlord seems to have eliminated this very important item. Maybe the issue of routing is not the problem, maybe it should be that armies who do not have support on their flanks should lose men more quickly thus attaining that magic number of 10 or so before routing. I will play more and once the game is released in Europe we can have a proper discussion. But we SHOULD continue this discussion and find a proper way to handle everyone's concerns, so that each of us may enjoy the game as he/she likes it best. PS. For a proper perspective on the use of morale and routing, one should play the original version of Sid Meier's Gettysburg. This game, in my opinion, portrayed morale in a manner that was realistic and challenging.

[TakeshidaSo]

I would never have imagined this subject would come up as a discussion. I could never have dreamed that there would be this radical of an alteration to the heart of the game. I saw STW as a game that proved the developers understood ancient warfare, and how best to simulate it. That's the realism I'm talking about. The historical accuracy was in recreating the feel of real ancient armies, how they behaved and could be used. It seemed to compete very favorably with the best attempt so far to simulate it, the WRG miniature rules. It provided a wide range of possibilities for altering the simulation, with smaller weaker armies as well as an entire army of gods. The fact that online gamers have no clout because they are a tiny majority misses the point that they understood the tactical engine better than anyone else. Whatever options you wanted, to make it better for you, were available. The fact that you think routers having a negative influence on other friendly units is cheesy, because it spread army wide panic, is bigoted. To couch things in negative phraseology has only one purpose; to defame without any substantive point to make. The domino effect of routing was from accumulative negative modifiers, but are you saying the people who play the game online all the time have been fooled into thinking that the morale modifiers werent a good attempt at simulation? Didnt they have the options that would have let them "improve" it before? Or are you saying that you prefer not having to deal with the potential of your army to rout? You can say you dont want units to react accurately to negative morale modifiers if you want to. You can argue tactics or negatively describe other parts of STW. You can say that battles should be more often at higher koku, or with Morale turned off. You can say the bad players still lose. You can say the new units require a more arcade like game to function. You should really stop saying STW's morale system was cheesy, and that good players just want to maintain some advantage that they only had because of a poor game design. They will maintain their advantage in spite of one. This fact isnt gonna be helpful to the question being raised. Everyone played 4-7000 koku games because it meant you didnt have to field too many very low honor units, and couldnt have too many very strong ones. I always had to conduct a good pursuit of my enemy if I didnt want to fight him some more and have my pursuers routed, and I rallied and reorganized to win battles many times. Thats gone? My army fought, it didnt panic in ridiculous ways unless it got beaten or I made mistakes with it. I thoroughly enjoy STW because it reflects a game design I was already familiar with; ancient warfare in 3D, with realistic morale effects, and a proper understanding of the time and space needed to apply them. The statistical analysis of various armor, weapons, terrain, and Historical atmosphere also seemed to be not too unrealistic. I had all along hoped that many other armies from the same time period would someday be able to be included into this highly flexible game system. Instead, the flexibility has been removed, and the additional units have many restraints upon their use. Why wouldnt anyone ask how raising the minimum morale of this system might negatively effect it?

[This message has been edited by TakeshidaSo (edited 08-19-2001).]

[Algesan]

Yagyu gave me a thought. I am mixing eras somewhat, but still staying Napoleonic or earlier, and definitely not an Oriental milieu for combat. Most of the simulations (boardgames) most definitely did _not_ result in the mass routs I've seen in STW where the army uncoils from the intitial rout as units of similar qualitys (all Ashis, YS/SA, ND/WM/Cav) into a mass of fleeing men to be simply skewered as they ran. There were always "normal" units along the line that made the morale check, sucked it up and stood like rocks, stopping the mass routs and forcing my opponent to continue the assault, albeit at a distinct advantage. My reserves could be commited into the gap left by the units that did flee and when the routed units rallied, they could come back up.

The possiblility did exist for a mass rout as well as a mass stand, but it wasn't likely to occur and is not the near certainty it is in STW in a large scale meeting of battle lines. Most definitely you wouldn't have to sacrifice the routing portions to keep your fresh shock troops that are just "out of range" of the mass rout effect from routing. A more normal procedure would be to commit the shock troops (or cav) to a flank assault to disarray the enemy and buy time for your routing units to rally or escape off the field of battle. Instead, you sit and watch, maybe running some units out of the path of the train, while a battered unit or two of the enemy pursues half your army out of play and hope you can reform and steady your remaining troops down enough to continue the battle.

[Kraellin]

well, i've been fascinated by this discussion and i'm going to have to relent in one regard. swoosh, you are absolutely right about wanting options. i've argued for options for almost my entire stay on this forum and i forgot that others also want options which may not be the options i want, but fair is fair...so hang in there for a sec and keep reading. i'll get back to this ;)

one thing about the various arguements still bothers me a bit. and i'll pose this as a question, rather than a statement. the folks in favor of going back to the stw system want to see the enemy rout more whereas the folks that like the new system like to see the units die more, so, is there any real major difference here between having 50 men rout and 50 men dead? or 1000 men rout and 1000 men die? i mean, is there really a large difference in the overall outcome between the two versions of the game or is just that in one the enemy is routed where in the other the enemy is dead? i mean this seriously. is there really any difference in the overall outcome between the two and has anyone seriously tested this?

ok, that said, i may have something of a solution for everyone and it's so bloody simple that i'm a little surprised i didnt think of it before...specially since someone almost suggested it themselves. and here's what i was talking about, swoosh ;) why not simply allow for a negative value in the honor stat of units when you are buying them in multiplayer? someone in an earlier thread touched on this that they couldnt do this, but didnt mention this as a possible solution for everyone's tastes. think about it for a sec, if the honor of all units has been raised by 8-12 points as yuuki suspects, then why not simply allow players to adjust that stat back down by allowing negative values in honor stats? the obvious reply is going to be what do you then do with koku when a stat goes below 0? and the other reply is going to be why not just drop the stats back to stw values, but Target has already replied to that one. as for the koku, hell if i know...adjust it, leave it the same when it goes below 0?

we've all been talking about 'problems'. let's jump into solution mode here for a bit. there is an obvious division here between tastes in game play. we've established that and good arguements presented for both sides, so what's the solution which also takes into account what Target said and also taking into account single player custom and campaigns?

Target says they had to bump up morale because of the mongols. ok, so that somewhat eliminates going back to the old system, so how do we accomodate those that prefer to play more in the style of stw and still accomodate those that like the new system? we've established the problem. let's hear some solutions which take into account the givens and realities of the situation.

my solutions so far amount to two things, editing stats by ourselves and having the dev guys allow for negative values to honor. someone also mentioned something about the general and rallying. so, let's go. Take, you are obviously an intelligent person. it shows in your posts. and i already know magy and swoosh are, as are kuma and dragoncat and many others here. so regardless of what side of the fence you are on in the matter, what's the solution or solutions to make this a good game for all?

this has been a good debate on the PROBLEM and i applaud us for keeping it relatively flame/blame/name-calling free! so, in that same spirit of open debate, what's the SOLUTION?

can we simply move the honor points back to the way it was or will that screw something else up, especially with the mongols? do we want a compromise of lowering them partially? do we want to edit the stats ourselves now that we can and run more tests for balancing everything? does michael jordan really wear Hanes underwear? (just checking to see if yer still awake)

ok, anything more from me here and i'll just be repeating myself even more than normal, so, back to you guys :)

K.


------------------
I'm sorry, but i never apologize.

[Swoosh So]

I dont see editing stats ourselves as an option as it will split an already very small community, having honor -2 i cant see happening. There must be some other solution......


Swoosh

[This message has been edited by Swoosh So (edited 08-19-2001).]

[MagyarKhans Cham]

yep sids gettysburg was brilliant

[DragonCat]

I'm already on record for having a SMALL adjustment.

Interesting observations. I was in a multiplayer last night. 3x3- 60 man units. One of the newbie generals charged his h2 Yari Sams TAISHO unit out front. We had about four or five archer units then demonstrate what "pincushioning" is all about. At 19 men, the Taisho unit BROKE and ran. Hmmmmmm. . . . seems about right.

He was not pursued and rallied soon after he was safe behind his own lines. Hmmmmm. . . still seems about right.

So, if an adjustment needs to be made, (and I think fair debate has shown that maybe that is so to enlarge our options), then it does appear that the adjustment needed is very small.

Personally, I am happy as it is, but in the interest of the greater good, I would not object to such a small change.

------------------
DragonCat
"On the prowl . . . ."

[KumaRatta Yamamoto]

Kraellin is on the right track , let's look for a balanced solution.

I think that this issue is personnal preference, it is not right or wrong, it is not a bug (in fact most of my nagging was to try to get this idea through).

Played some MP games yesterday, and for me the lagging (i tried another 3 vs 3, dumb me)gets much more on my nerves than anything else.

Yes, i saw the difference that the changed settings made. I saw routing at 7, 9, 14 units. But i also saw routing at 21, 27, 32 units, it was later in the battle, when the troops where tired. I also saw the domino effect of the rest of an whole army rout but that was when the fatigue showed exausted.

Yes flanking has less impact routing wise, but it still kills more.

So my conclusion is, Yes Target the morale issue needs to be solved but only for a part of the community (granted a very vibrant and active part on MP) but let's take our time on this, and try to find a solution that will satisfy both sides. Because a lot of us don't want to roll back and go to the original settings also.

So a lot of serious testing and prudence please.

[Yagyu Emissary Kensen]

Wow, even though I'm not technically allowed to acknowledge it, takeshida so makes a good point. It was verbose, and a tad overdone in terms of vernacular and diction, but a good point all the same. The good players still win. I win using the same tactics that made me lose over and over in STW, those tactics i watched great players employ. I PREFER the new way, because i dont enjoy losing a hard earned position because someone routed, but, they're gonna die either way. I guess....i just think this is more fun.

[Polar]

Maybe change the moral back and set the default koku to 10k or 20k and default honor 4 or 5?
So people who like the new system still play with the default setting, and leaves people who dont like it more room to lower it...

------------------
Polar the ugly

[Koga No Goshi]

Anyone who goes back and reads my posts here from first to last knows I'm in favor of tweaking too. I just don't want it to be pure unchanged STW morale. In the original, by the time the main h2h clash happened, major mass rout ensued within approximately 4 or 5 seconds. In other words, by the time the units were engaged there was little or no time to do anything to win or lose, the battle was already won or lost by what units you had and where they were (and sometimes who had more guns left). Do I want major mass chain rout? Yes. Do I want it to be the conclusion to every single game I play in Shogun? No. Am I open to middle ground compromise? Yes.



------------------
Koga no Goshi

"Nandai"
Since time began
the dead alone know peace.
Life is but melting snow.

[Roman Totale XVII]

Yagua Emissary Kensen:
'If you wanna go table top game - go play warhammer...IT IS A GAME! People are supposed to have fun'

I understand your point of view and agree that the over-riding concern is 'a fun game'. I don't think even the historical wargaming fans would disagree. Believe it or not miniature wargaming *can* be fun (well usually...). The appeal of table top games include the painstakingly painted and researched figures finally arrayed on a realistic looking landscape with a set of rules that hopefully provide the immersion of almost 'being there'. The big pain with a realistic set of rules is that that there's just too much calculation and cross referencing of combat resolution tables etc. Too many breaks in the action That's where computers can provide the answer...
The dream of many a table top gamer is to have a computer simulation that takes the chore out of playing but also provides the visual spectacle of minis. Computers are now advanced enough to provide this where before we only had dull boardgame conversions (hexes and UGO-IGO). We already have Combat Mission (WW2), SMG (ACW) and W:NLB (Napoleonic) but there are centuries of warfare yet uncharted. It will be fun

There is a legion of fantasy RTS battle games out there to choose from but STW was touted as a game based closely on history and realism. The Sengoku period happened. The Mongol Invasions of Japan happened. Is it so unreasonable for we history gamers to have expectations from the Total War series?

[This message has been edited by Roman Totale XVII (edited 08-19-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Roman Totale XVII (edited 08-19-2001).]

[Swoosh So]

Polar as far as this issue is concerned we are soulmates

:-)

Swooosh

[Polar]

Swoosh, I'll take it as what it sounds like to me.

Does any one else find that guns are alot more powerful than b4? They dont cause easy routing now, but they kill much more than they did in the old game. Each shot can kill like 8 men!

I can't play the xpac online for now, but i can imagine many ladder players using mass gun army now.

------------------
Polar the ugly

[Koga No Goshi]

Polar,

From what I can tell, the way it works is that at closer ranges guns do heavy casualties, which is how it should be. Ok, I can understand only picking off one guy every volley at long range, but at close range against a massed opponent you should not only be picking off 2 guys or so per volley. The real strength of the guns in original STW was rout value, not firepower. Looks like they've switched it in a (somewhat) sensible way in ME. At the very least, with upp'd fast-damage range units like ninja and the skirmishers (though you can't use guns against Mongols.... *sniff*) it has kept the guns from becoming totally obsolete.



------------------
Koga no Goshi

"Nandai"
Since time began
the dead alone know peace.
Life is but melting snow.