This is a repost of "Some thoughts on the campaign game as it exists/is" (12/31/00 to community forum & sword dojo general discussion) more appropriately titled with 2h, 2i added at end on desertion, bribery parameters. Many thanks for responses from Anssi Hakkinen, Tarrak, Major Freak, Kichigai Nagao, and ShadowKill. Hope this is courtesy enough to those named not to have to slog through this twice.
Some thought on the campaign game from playing since it was released: Hope some of these are in patch 1.13. Realize others more distant, problematic. Think some the below could take advantage of the existing concepts, structures/methods of the game - just carry what exists a little farther than it is now-some just allow the player more choice of action. Some of the following might need to be put in together or not at all - some of it would interact. Some the
below could be implemented driven by menu or complexity level too - for people who don't
want complexity. Also think a lot of this could go into the coming multiplayer campaign game.
1. Have been playing version 1.11, and am still running into the effects of the 16 unit limit to each side: 1-2 defending 16 unit armies can defend provinces successfully against a bunch of
16 unit armies, sometimes at 1 to 8-10 odds.
Scenario goes like:
a. A well-balanced, well-led (+1, +2 general) defending army of 800-1000 (80 man units) puts the 1st entering army to flight, perhaps killing the general in the process.
b. Victorious defending army gets into the attacking army's reinforcement area and proceeds to attack and put to flight entering attacker reinforcement units one-by-one as they enter the map.
c. Much smaller defending group of armies defeats big group of armies for possession of province.
d. 2nd "auxillary army feeds replacements to the primary defending army with the best general and the cycle repeats.
e. Horde group of armies gradually becomes a collection of husks, not recombined, as the defeats continue.
Suggestions related to above, and army operations in general:
a. More 16 unit armies allowed per side at one time on board, maybe 2-3, and variable: make
player feel like he's outnumbered. Seems like AI should be able to handle - does so in some form with custom battles.
b. Vary reinforcement entry points some - maybe they come on from the same general direction, but not at exactly the same place - see c. below too.
c. Relate the tactical battle map orientation to the stratregic map:
Maybe just a North arrow, or if the AI could take it, an AI "sun" and battle-time-of-start to relate direction (would add even more atmosphere to already atmospheric game with the weather and all). The edge of the tactical battle map would indicate adjacent provinces. This would affect how reinforcements came in, and also where/how or what penalties/losses would occur if an
army got cut off from its home provinces.
(Curious if anyone knows how these armies really land navigated or thought about direction).
d. More intelligent distribution of AI armies - make it driven by their ranked generals. If there's only one good (+1 at least) general in the horde maybe it is just one big horde, but if there are multiple good generals then the horde becomes multiple columns of attack, might be an elegant simple, accurate way to reflect the relative "operational" ability of the AI army. (Might even be an idea worth playing with to constrain the players too) - more reason to assassinate generals.
e. Make the movement sequence uniform for the AI and the player: let the player get a
"reaction/interception phase" like the AI does now - would also add some depth to the strategic level of the game. It would seem like Shogun should be able to emulate at least some of what conventional hex map/counter operational wargames do commonly.
f. Please let's eliminate the "magic amphib" attacks into the AI's back lines through ports: One wonders how much "sealift" and time it would take to move 1000 samurai from Hizen to Mutsu, not to mention that an enemy would just let you dock at his port and unload troops, but see below. (Curious if anyone knows in general how often/many troops moved around by sea in the
time period, and was it just transport, or did people move around and invade places from the sea).
g. Armies that switch sides through emissary, shinobi action, and "national morale effect" (see below).
2. Political/Economic/Diplomatic/Production:
Like many, would like to see a deeper game in these areas, lots of concepts from
Civ II, Master's of Orion II, Pax Imperia , and Alpha Centauri to borrow from- would think copyright issues could be skirted. Some the below would put more flesh on establishing control over Japan - it was political as well as military.
a. Province "governors" - use the Pax Imperia/MOO2 model - they can be bribed/subverted (more jobs for the emissaries/shinobi), hired/fired. ect. and they have varying effects on production, honor/morale of troops in province. MOO2's method of "colony/ship" leaders are a
good model too. You'd have to pay their salaries (affects loyalty) and they'd get better the longer in office. Building more stuff, having more troops in his province makes him more loyal too, less vulnerable to bribes from other subverting Daimyos. Would emphasize the political nature of building infrastructure in provinces. Would think names, personalities could be drawn from
Japanese history. What this all might mean is a more direct, more mature expression of how the existing rules work concerning province loyalty. Could be basis of valid seaborne assaults - a neglected province governor switches alliegance and lets you land in the port with troops, butloyalty still has to be built in the province-and a battle ensues to conquer the province with
troops remaining loyal to the original Daimyo.
b. Heirs, other royalty: more active, be able to assign them a group of provinces to affect loyalty in, like the Daimyo does only less - the guy's are princes after all. Make heir/general appearance more randomized, but still keep the historic figure names (maybe more historical figures), just add the possibility of more/less - game is somewhat predictable now on when folks show up. Make the line grayer between who can be an heir and who can't be -general's of sufficient earned rank and/or province governors could become elgible to be heirs. Princesses - appear like
heirs, but are a counter like shinobi, married off to affect strength of alliances, loyalty of province governors (recently bribed subverted ones . . .), marriage arrangement by emissary.
c. "National" morale effect - a kind of "1862 Army of the Potomac/Vietnam (bad) verses "Battle of Britain" (good - we're holding out against impossible odds) effect on overall loyalty/morale of provinces, units - all incrementally cumulative, and similar to the existing "longer held more
loyal" rule.
*AI tracks ongoing win/loss ratio of all battles and adjusts morale of units, loyalty of provinces accordingly - AI/player gets punished/rewarded for general success/failure. More troops to keep
peasants in line with continuing defeat.
*Proximity to success/failure affects morale: lose a lot in the attack and the loyalty goes down in the province attacked from, or in provinces adjacent to an unstopped enemy - maybe province switches sides to avoid being sacked (probably ties in with the governor concept above).
Morale/loyalty goes up if a province holds against attack repeatedly.
Some of the above might only be selectively appropriate for Shogun, but certainly the concepts might be valid for follow-ons for different eras.
d. Fishing ports for coastal provinces - produce koku, could be expanded to famous, legendary status, no castle needed to build, but need, large castle for famous, and fortress for legendary. Koku amounts generated probably not qualitatively as much as generated by regular farming.
e. Upgrading armor/weapons of veteran troops: veteran plain YS goes in to famous armory comes out with new "silver" shield armor for a price in koku and one season, has to start in the upgrading province. If province has armory and swordsmith, new YS comes out with sword upgrade too, but at higher cost. Each combination of upgrades given a koku cost.
f. More flexible building of units: let players select small 10-20 man units to heavy 120 man units with graduated costs. Detachments, scouts could be built this way using existing unit types. Could be a structure for putting retinues into the game for heirs, Daimyo's and the above
governors.
g. Civ II like diplomacy - reputation counts - if you double deal with allies, harder to make alliances.
h. desertion: as a result of being in a -1 general stack or national morale effect(per above), armies units take an attritional loss per unit, loss severity according to how bad the morale's become. Use the
same mechanics/structure the game uses now to resolve losses to beseiged castles, same information box format.
i. bribery parameters for province governors outlined above:
Bribery would be menu-driven, and would be essentially the briber opening the provinces build/train menu, and constrained by the bribed province's building/training limits at bribe time, with additional menus for a direct grant of troops from somewhere else in the bribers overall army, and one for just money. Briber assembles his package
can see how much it costs in koku, and then accepts. All of the bribe would be an upfront committment cost in koku and
building time. bribe troop unit limits no castle - 1, scastle - 2, large 3, fortress 4, citadel 5. Structure above captures some degree of status, builds in a little culture - bribes are limited by the bribed's relative prominence. Emissary's would initiate the bribes and run the risk of getting killed if they failed. Seems like the menu portion of this could be good structure, method for economic aid to allies too, making alliances stronger.
Interested in hearing what people think.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks