Definition of Bugs and Issues for WE/MI - Volume 2

[BSM_Skkzarg]

Qapla all.

Some of you may remember my original post concerning the problems, issues and bugs that the community felt were the most outstanding at the time. Well, time has passed, the folks in Europe (most at least) have recieved WE/MI and had some time to spend on it as well, allowing for more feedback. That being the case, its time to revisit the idea and see what the community now feels are the major issues in the WE/MI release. After all, a bit of experience is a good thing to use when looking at things like this.

Okay, as before, there will be 2 sections. One for Bugs, another for Issues. Bugs being the critters that make the game fail to run correctly, or an implimentation in the game that acts contrary to what it is SUPPOSED to do. Issues are those things that the community feel need to be addressed to help make Shogun WE/MI even better than it is.
When dealing with issues, I will endeavor to provide a few solutions that have been suggested by the community. So... here we go!

Bugs: There are 3 major bugs - 1 technical and 2 gameplay that stick out tremendously. While many are having problems getting the game to run, or have sound, etc., these are related to hardware and driver issues and are not a flaw in the program per se.

Technical bug - game crashes to desktop.
Process terminates unexpectedly without warning.

Crash can be recreated using saved game and repeating the actions that precipitated crash. Specifically happens when moving units on the Strategic Map. Also occurs when starting a battle and group switching units. You may switch out individual units, but if you group a few and then click to rotate the group out, the battle/game crashes. Both of these are verified, repeatable technical bugs. (Yes, one could say that you should not switch out a group of units. Agreed, perhaps disabling the switch button when more than one unit is selected will resolve at least part of the problem.)

Gameplay bug - Owari AI.
Occurs only when the AI ATTACKS Owari. (I got it wrong the first time.)
Due to the time limit, a defender who "outlasts" his opponent will win by default. When the AI attacks Owari, it places its units in the center between the two bridges and does not attack. It appears to be confused as to which bridge to use, and thus uses neither. This allows a player to sit on defense in Owari and never be beaten, regardless of the enemy troop number, type, quality etc. A small tweak of the AI to allow (or force) it to use either or both bridges depending on its forces is required to remedy this critter.

Gameplay bug - AI units getting stuck.
Specifically, at times reinforcing units will enter a square where they cannot move, or should not have been placed. We have seen yari spearmen "walk" on water - although "stand" would be a better term as they could not move. A unit will sometimes enter the battlefield, become stuck on an obstacle (or land feature such as a river outcrop) while still in the edge square (denoted by the red cursor when you try to move your men in), and be both unable to move, and unable to be targeted either by melee or range attack units. There is a report that this has occured to a routed unit at least once as well. What happens is you end up with a single, solitary enemy unit that, even in a routed state, can sit where you cannot shoot at it, charge it, attack it in any manner, nor can you force it off the battlefield. Again, given that most players use timed battles, the result is a loss for the player if he/she is attacking, regardless of them having earned the victory. One suggestion to remedy this is to modify the "solidity" of the units allow them to "pass through" any obstruction in the "red zone". Another would be to modify the AI to avoid such obstructions upon entrance to and exit from the battlefield.

Now... On to ISSUES! There are 2 MAJOR ones, a few minor ones. The two major ones, reinforcement handling and morale, are loosely tied together. Both are the subject of many posts, however I place reinforcement first due to it being the cause of some (but not all) of the morale problems.

Issue #1 - Reinforcements. This will be divided into 2 parts.

Part A: Players do not recieve reinforcements correctly.
The AI recieves its reinforcements properly, however there are times when the player will not recieve his or her replacement units when one of the initial 16 units leave the field. At other times, it can take 5-10 minutes before the reinforcement does arrive. There is some debate as to whether this time expenditure and the occasional lack or reinforcement is intentional - by design. If so, then it should be implemented for the AI as well. However, by consensus, the community feels that replacements units for the player should arrive in as timely a manner as they do for the AI.

Part B: Random entrance placement of reinforcements.
There is some debate on this, but the vast majority of the community feels that pure random entrance spots for reinforcement of the armies on the field of battle is a major detriment to large battles. In addition to taking away quite a few tactical advantages held by the defender, such as hills, rivers, etc., it also causes the reinforcement rout issue that will be dealt with in a moment. While we all understand that this was done to facilitate the "King of the Hill" Multiplayer battle type, it is a detriment to Single Player battles at all times. There are a number of suggestions on how to resolve this. The 3 most popular are - (in no specific order):

A toggle allowing for either Random (current scheme) placement, with the other option being "old style" (Original Shogun:TW scheme) entrance.

A modification to the battle logic that defines a large (but less than half) portion of the battlefield as "owned" by each side. Reinforcements for each side could then legally enter from any edge "owned" by their respective side. This would limit the entrance options to a bit less than one half the battlefield edge. In river provinces, the river would be the "dividing line".

Any position where 2 or more friendly units are situated very close to the edge is considered a "friendly or owned" square, and is allowed for use by incoming units to enter the battlefield. The 2 units "owning" the edge could be engaged in combat, but could not be in a state of rout. This would give an enemy general a large amount of tactical leeway.

Issue #2 - Morale. This also will be subdivided.

Part A. Multiplayer Morale.
It seems that during Multiplayer, all units are "unroutable", in that they will often fight MUCH longer than they should, even when flanked or reared. This appears to be due to the Multiplayer units using the morale of the SP Mongol Invasion campaign. To keep the Japanese units from running at the first sight of the Golden Horde, CA was forced to increase the morale of all the units. This morale model is in use for all multiplayer games,including Japanese vs Japanese, and greatly lessens the ability to rout enemy units through superior manuevering.

Suggestions to resolve this include:

Going back to the original Shogun:TW morale model.

Providing a toggle or slide to allow the players to modify morale for each game.

***It should be noted that the Mod'ding community is attempting to standardize a more balanced morale scheme for Multiplayer, but it faces technical (and ethical) issues due to the inability to play others who have a differing Morale model. Thus the need for CA/DT/EA to standardize a fix for the Morale Issue.

Part B. The Reinforcement Rout (and routing direction).
Due to units coming in from various places on the map, very often a player will rout the initial AI units, take a defensive position on the AI's "side" and await the incoming units. However, the AI sends its units to attack the player, and as they approach, they rout due to lack of friendlies around, being outnumbered, under fire, etc. They then rout INTO the player army, creating a HUGE kill count.
The feeling in the community is that a routed unit will rout to the nearest edge if there is no enemy blocking it. If there is, it will rout in the closest direction of an edge that an enemy is not blocking.
However, if the reinforcement entrance issue is addressed, this problem will be eliminated or severly reduced.

Suggested solutions:

Modify reinforcement entrance points as noted in Issue #1.

Modify the AI rout pathfinding to keep routed units from running into the arms of their enemy.

Now - on to the more minor issues.

The OPTIONS issue - while it is by design, many still feel that things like limited ammunition, battlefield time limits, etc., should not be forced upon them, regardless of difficulty level.

The concealment issue - currently a unit may have a concealed icon, yet still be partially visible. The AI uses this to focus in on concealed units. Either a unit is concealed or it is not, there should be no doubt. If a unit is even partially visible, then no icon should appear. The only suggestion to date on how to fix this is to grant "invisibility" to any visible men when 75% or a unit is concealed. Otherwise, do not show the concealed icon unless the unit is entirely covered.

The province/tax loyalty issue. One can have very low taxes for 3 seasons a year, with the corresponding boost in loyalty. One can use this to raise taxes to the highest level for one season, and recoup the lost loyalty by dropping taxes again the following season. It is suggested that either the tax loyalty modification in the provinces only be done once a year, or limit the player to one tax change per year.

Geisha - Some have asked for the ability to toggle geisha availability on and off. Such a setting would apply for both the player and the AI.

New/old economy - Some have requested a toggle that will allow them to play using the original economy - ie. longer build times, etc. Again, such a setting would apply to the AI and the player.

Port invasions - A few players have requested a strategic AI tweak to make the AI more willing to use port invasions. Again, a possible place for a toggle or switch allowing this to those who wish it.

Strategic online campaign - This is placed under minor ONLY due to the fact that we have, regretably, little faith that we will recieve one until TOTAL WAR: Crusaders arrives, at the earliest. However, if anyone wants to suprise us....

Multiplayer setup - One thing that would be welcomed greatly is the ability to not only modify honor/weapons/armor value of a unit, but to also modify the number of men in a unit. This would allow the players alot more flexibility in multiplayer.

Lastly - Some have requested that Mongol vs. Mongol be included in multiplayer.

This is NOT a complete list of everything that has been discussed and debated, but it is a fairly even representation of the main topics. If I have missed any that need to be brought in, feel free to post them below. As I did in the first post, I ask that you follow some common sense rules of courtesy.

Do not turn this into yet another debate thread on your dearest issue, whatever it may be.

Present the issues as clearly as possible, provide the solutions that have been discussed, and remember to not just use your favored solution.

If some people like the way things are and you are mentioning it as an issue, make sure it does not look like EVERYONE wants it changed. We don't want to take something from those who do like certain things as they are.

That about sums it up. Constructive Feedback is welcome as always.
Qapla!

------------------
BSM_Skkzarg
"A mind is a terrible thing to taste."

[This message has been edited by BSM_Skkzarg (edited 09-05-2001).]

[KumaRatta Yamamoto]

An excellent post, a good summary to give out to CA. I agree that in this thread we should keep short. No room for debating, to help you continue with your work.

Here are my remarks:

1. Gamebugs. Fix the 3 bugs mentioned in your post.

2.Re-inforcements
A)I am one of the patrons who want them sent in for the player and the AI in the same fashion.
2) I prefer solution number 2. Reinforcements come in the right half of the map.

3.Morale
first choice: Provide a toggle
Second choice: Tune it down but not at the original STW settings.

4. Minor issues
I am for any modifiaction that gives more options to the paying customer.

Finally a comment about your signature:
"A mind is a terrible thing to taste."

I like it but i dout that Hannibal Lecter would agree

[Yoko Kono]

for me the biggist game issue has to be the F1 bug
it was only present after i got the v1.12 patch ( i never had the v1.11 patch so dont know ifs its in that) and its also present in the MI and STW:WE
i like to know the attack values of units in game as one can forget whats more effective in battle when you have mix of low honor units with normal stats plus units at hon 3+ whose basic values may differ somewhat greatly

[TakeshidaSo]

Articles of Petition
---------------------------------------------

1). MORALE>

Morale is increased by 2 points for each honor upgrade. MI has increased morale by 12 pts. Thats a morale increase equivalent to 6 honor upgrades, which is nearly triple that of a units base cost. This increase was to a system where 18 pts. is considered impetuous, and the range was from -4 morale for YA, to +8 morale for WM, and ND. For every 2 honor upgrades morale is raised by 4 pts., and the units cost is almost doubled (96%). Campaign costs, and base unit stats, are for H0 units. The cost of custom and online units is for an H2 unit, and so they have +4 to morale, and double the value of campaign units.

Solution:
Make the default campaign unit an H2 unit, and set the default morale in MI back 12 points.
Alternate:
Set the custom, and online default to H0, and lower MI morale settings by 8 pts.

2). F1 BUTTON>

Since custom and online units start with H2, they are supposed to have a 1 pt. increase to attack, over their base stats. It takes 1 Honor upgrade, at 40% over the units base cost, to add one pt. to attack bonus, although it cant be verified with the F1 key. With 2 Weapon upgrades, for 44% over the units base cost, two attack bonus's are shown, but none are shown for added Honor.

Solution:
Show the correct Attack bonus number.
Alternate:
Show the units morale bonus instead.

3). UPGRADES>

Since custom and online units start with H2, they already have a 1 pt. increase to defense, over their base stats. It takes 2 Honor upgrades, at 96% over the base units cost, to add one pt. to defense. Armor upgrades add 1 pt. to defense, and armor. Armor upgrades can add 3 pts. to defense, at a cost of 75% over the base, and also add 3 pts. more armor protection than was even possible in STW. Honor upgrades do not improve armor, just defense. Raised by 60%, the highest armor is now 8. Raised by 33%, the maximum defense is 9.

Solution:
Double the cost of Weapon and Armor upgrades.
Alternate:
Double the cost of Armor upgrades.

4). UNIT BALANCE>

4A). JHC(600 koku) aren't competitive with; MHC(600 koku), MLC (500 koku), WM (500 koku), JYC (475 koku), or JNC (450 koku). Compared to JYC, MHC has 2 more melee pts., 3 more armor and defense pts., and 6 more morale pts., but only costs 25% more. If JYC added 2 Weapon, one Armor, and one Honor upgrade, at their present costs, for a total of 960 koku, it still would not compete with the MHC.

Solution:
Increase JHC Honor to 8, and melee to 3. Increase JYC armor to 4. Reduce MHC melee to 3. Reduce MLC armor to 3.
Alternate:
Reduce cost of JHC to 500, increase the cost of MHC to 700, and MLC to 600.

4B). SA have 1 pt. less defense than they did in STW. The muskets value is increased because of being able to fire in the rain, and thru walls and hills. KSK can easily destroy SA and costs only 25% more. A KSK can easily destroy a NAG, or JHC; the power of this unit is not reflective of the real destructive potential of Javelin, or even pilum armed troops.

Solution:
Increase SA defense to 0. Reduce KSK armor to 4, and it's killing-power by half. Stop guns firing thru hills and in the rain.
Alternate:
Reduce cost of SA to 250, increase the cost of KSK to 450, and increase the cost of guns by 40% each.

4C). It may be that play balance, relative to Mongol vs. Hojo strength, wont be entirely solved with these few changes, even if every option were employed. It may be that modified troopstats will be needed to further even the odds.

Solution:
Allow selections of preset troopstats options for custom, online, and campaign battles.
Alternate:
Allow selections of preset troopstats options for custom, and online battles.

5). REINFORCEMENT>
They have improved this area from cycling reinforcements, to allowing reinforcements to enter the map safely. It allows for KOTH games, and the AI makes better use of reinforcements than it used to. Secondary forces should be able to be employed strategically.

Solution:
Let units be assigned as detached reinforcements, and let all secondary forces choose entry areas.
Alternate:
Allow for a "safe" reinforcement option, such as STW's approach, or a "friendly" mapside entry.

6). ROUTERS>
If a routing unit moves a set distance from enemy units, much like skirmish formation instructs missile units now, and then towards it's rout area, it attempts to retreat safely. If it cant move away from two equal distance enemy, it should move towards its rout area as it currently does.

Solution:
Instruct routing units to follow skirmisher type reactions to the proximity of enemy units.
Alternate:
Instruct routing unit that it's rout area is the nearest map edge.

7). MONGOL RESTRICTIONS>
Allowing for Mongol, and Hojo infighting, would avoid any unit imbalances that exist between the Mongols and the Japanese. This infighting occurs in the SP campaigns, because of ronin, and bribed mongol armies. This can also happen in online games, because of buggy behavior.

Solution:
Remove the restriction, and provide alternative player colors.
Alternate:
Provide alternative player colors.

Eight). COMBINED SERVER>
Combining the servers would promote the game, and its expansion. It would allow for the online community support to grow, instead of being choked to death because it's divided. New online players may find they are alone in MI's server.

Solution:
Combine the ports of the server.
Alternate:
Create a new server to let both games into a single online area.

Nine). TIMER>
The "5-min." timer is an online cheat, and is incongruous with the honor\ranking competitive data base. Why have an honor\rank data base, if you wont protect it from this cheat.

Solution:
Make it known in lobby if timer is used.
Alternate:
Require MAX. timer for the season.


Addendum.

Unit.Chrge.Melee.Defns.Armor.Honor
---------------------------------------------
SA.......2.......0......-1.......1.......0
AC.......0......-6......-3.......1.....-5
ND.......8.......6......-2.......1.......8
WM......4.......5.......2.......1.......8
NG.......4.......0.......6.......5.......4
YS.......0.......0.......2.......2.......2
YA.......0......-1.....-1.......2......-4
CA.......3.......1.......2.......3.......0
YC.......8.......2.......3.......3.......2
HC.......5.......2.......6.......5.......4
NC.......4.......5.......2.......4.......8
MHC.....6.......4.......4.......5.......8
MLC.....4.......2.......2.......4.......4
KG.......4.......2.......4.......4.......0
KSP.....0.......0.......1.......2......-1
KSK.....0.......0.......0.......5.......0
---------------------------------------------



[This message has been edited by TakeshidaSo (edited 09-04-2001).]

[celtiberoijontychi]

Tax revenue:

I'm missing one solution:

The annual revenue equals (harvest)x (average tax rate)


Reinforcements:

The initial entry point for reinforcements is chosen randomly. If the AI considers this point to be to dangerous, it moves to a different one until it finds a safe point.

Solution: the default entry point should be chosen by proximity to...
1. friendly Taisho; if routed then
2. friendly units; if routed or all dead then
3. friendly side; if enemy waiting there then
4a. clockwise and/or unclockwise nearest safe entry point, or
4b. Quit battle! No reinforcements at all!

------------------
Gloria y honor al Clan Celtiberos
Glory and Honour to Clan Celtiberos

[This message has been edited by celtiberoijontychi (edited 09-04-2001).]

[Kraellin]

currently one cant have mismatched koku amounts in online play. this shld be an option for the host, to provide for mismatched conditions, weather, terrain, player abilities by altering the amount of koku each side or team has to start with.

after long debate and listening to those who've lost their stw morale system in we/mi, i have to agree that the method of making all units default to h0 and dropping morale by 8 points, like takeshido suggests, is the solution that best fits my idea of giving folks more options. by making the default h0 instead of h2 and by lowering morale across the boards by 8 points, this effectively drops morale back the 12 points that were added for we/mi. since adding honor in stw was like training units (since it does improve performance), it never made sense to me in stw that you could 'untrain' units by selling their honor back for koku.

in single player, alloting an area for reserves to come in from is fine, or being able to designate an area yourself, within limits is fine. in multi, i like the way it is now, with one exception. rather than allowing for units to come in from any of the 4 map edges, i'd narrow it to 3, the edge you started on and the 2 adjoining edges, so that you could never come in from completely behind the enemy. it could still be completely random to make a little more adventure for koth games and castle games, but definitely not just the one edge like stw did.

most of the other stuff i'm in agreement with here and others seem to have covered most of the issues, except the map editor. there are some tweaks needed there as well. some features were removed from the old editor and need to be brought back, but rather than run through that list, you can just look in the mods forum at my wish list there.

there is also at least one bug in the new editor which renders a map unuseable and causes a crash to desktop when that map is being loaded. i havent completely narrowed it down, but it seems to involve bridges or models. this shld be looked into.

it shld also be noted that any lowering of morale is going to require re-balancing of units, but takeshido has already covered that better than me. yuuki and several others are also working on this at the moment.

as one last note and following bsm's elegant presentation here, i would suggest that we, the community, not only present this list of neededs and wanteds, but that we also do more testing with stat mods and present DI/CA with not just gripes, but solutions. takeshido has made a number of suggestions in his post above and perhaps someone could actually mod the stats as he suggests and present the findings, or better yet, test them with takeshido so that he can see what these mods actually look like in play.

K.

p.s. thanks bsm. nice post.


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

[KumaRatta Yamamoto]

BUMP! To important

[BSM_Skkzarg]

I have to add one more request - can we please be allowed to have ashigaru xbowmen in non-mongol campaigns??
I love these guys - they are my favorite ranged unit - better damage than archers, more accurate than muskets - not made useless in a downpour, and cheap as all get out!


------------------
BSM_Skkzarg
"A mind is a terrible thing to taste."

[TakeshidaSo]

I knew the person responsible for the STW morale system had not worked on MI. STW had H0 units, that would barely stand their ground, to H9 units, who would almost fight to the last man. MI does not.
The problem is MI raised the morale table, that ranged from -4 to 8, with a median unit morale of 2, by TWELVE points. Lowering morale used to be an option, and most games included some H0 troops. Increasing a units morale is just one way to counter natural negative modifiers.

1). CASCADE ROUT>
Units only react to TWO routing friends MAX. So the cascade occurs naturally, not because so many friends rout, but because each one see's two nearby friends routing. If a unit is close enough to get a boost from a friends presence, then it's close enough to see it rout too.

Solution:
Increase the radius of positive morale factors; like the CNC's presence, or friends on flanks and rear, and seeing enemy rout.
Alternate:
Decrease the radius of negative modifiers.

2). F1 BUTTON>
Of course, the F1 Button needs to show attack, and morale modifiers. The numbers arent where the real art is, but science and art merge in war. Player's should have the chance, to apply the science of the game.

Solution:
Fix the F1 screen features.
Alternate:
Remove the F1 screen option entirely.

[KumaRatta Yamamoto]

rebump!

[TakeshidaSo]

1). TAISHO>
The CNC, (TAISHO) has too small a radius of effect. His standard would be seen, and have a positive effect, over a wider area.

Solution:
Increase the range of the Taisho's positive morale influence.
Alternate:
Limit the negative effects of his death to only those that could see him, with his currently small radius.

[TakeshidaSo]

REINFORCEMENTS
A lot of people are annoyed by the new reinforcements approach. You cant detach units, to act as reinforcements, and reinforcements wont arrive where you want them to anyway.

It's a SP issue, related to the strategy of attrition, and a MP one, as far as KOTH games. It would be good for both SP and MP, if you could tell reinforcements where to arrive. It would help both, SP and MP games, if you could detach forces. It would help MP games, if you could buy more than 16 units, and detach forces.

ROUTERS
If routing units moved toward the nearest mapedge, they would still move thru enemy units, if the enemy were between them and the edge. If they behaved like a skirmisher, while they remain routed, then they could rout more safely. They obviously dont rout logically now, and they do have to rout in some direction.

The question you must answer first, is how should routers behave, while they are routing. If your satisfied that they are acting like they want to survive, then I will disagree. If you think that CA\DT should not be asked to allow routers to behave like skirmishers already do, then I would also strongly disagree.

[This message has been edited by TakeshidaSo (edited 09-09-2001).]