Obsession with Rock-Paper-Scissors

[Puzz3D]

I think we agree on the basic principles - that no one tactical aspect should become vastly more important that the others. My initial concern was that people were getting too caught up over the sword-spear-cav RPS and not taking into account other important, and to me, more fun, balance aspects.

I'm an advocate of RPS (combined arms) gameplay, but not to the extent that it's the only thing of importance. STW was RPS, but it had the minimal amount necessary to ensure that the YS (yari samurai) could beat the HC (heavy cavalry) frontally with no combat bonuses being applied other than the anti-cav bonus which was the only unit-type combat bonus in the game. There was a flaw in STW in that the HC could not reliably beat the WM (warrior monk) which was a consequence of the charge bonus not working. This in itself is interesting because the problem of battle mechanics not working properly which plagues the Total War series goes all the way back to the original game.

Finally, by MTW/VI v2.01, with the help of community beta teams, all the battle mechanics problems were eliminated in the engine, and you have something worth balancing. Those of us that worked on Samurai Wars tried to bring back the original STW gameplay without the flaw of WM beating HC. All other things being equal, the HC can now beat the WM, but it's not black and white. The HC is only 1 combat point (20%) better than the WM, and must rely on a good charge using the 5 combat point charge bonus to win consistently. To put this in perspective, a 4 point charge bonus is equivalent to a 1 point melee advantage. A 1 combat point advantage in melee will generate 6 wins out of 10 fights for these 60 man units. A 2 combat point advantage will generate 9 wins out of 10 fights. A 1 point advantage will probably leave the winning unit with about 50% losses and a 2 point advantage with about 25% losses.

In the case of the extreme infantry matchup of WM (warrior monk) vs YS (yari samurai) you have a 5 point combat differential (250%), but the YS, if put into hold formation, can survive long enough for a second YS to move forward and attack the WM from the rear and the two YS win. As I recall this takes about 50 seconds, and you can't waste any time making the flanking maneuver. The WM does not rout on impact, and has to be reduced to less than 25 men since it's a high morale unit. This maneuver works because the combat bonus for rear attack is large enough for it to work, but not large enough that a single YS hitting a WM in the rear can win. The cost relationships are YS = 400, WM = 1000 and HC = 1200. There are cheaper cav in the game, but they cannot beat the WM, although the medium NC (naginata cav) can win with a charge into the rear.

The magnitudes of rate of attrition, flanking combat bonus and flanking morale bonus are well chosen in the engine and optimized for 60 man units. The relatively large number of combat cycles needed to resolve combat ensures a low enough uncertainty in the result that strategic planning and tactical execution of that battle plan is important to achieving a good result. More simply stated, it means you can play the game intelligently because uncertainly is kept to a reasonable level.

There is a weaker spear, the YA (yari ashigaru = 200), in the game, but it's designed for defending ranged units from cav attack and doesn't have high enough morale to operate independently.

The WM has another weakness in that it's lightly armored. A 60 man archer can reduce a 60 man WM to half strength with 10 volleys if the WM is stationary, and that takes 40 seconds (4 seconds reload). The archer carries 36 arrows, so it can be quite potent if the enemy allows it. The archer cost is 400. While the archer is vulnerable to cavalry attack, it doesn't collapse instantly and therefore attacking cavalry can get caught by supporting units if used too aggressively.

The unit selection is small (14 unit types), but the RPS is complex because there are 3 separate RPS systems working simultaneously. Also, the combat advantage between most of the units is so small that situational combat factors are often larger than those differences especially if you accumulate several of them. This introduces the strategic concept of the accumulation of small advantages into the tactical gameplay. Attrition tactics and maneuver tactics are balanced so that they are both important. So, simply making the right matchups is not the whole story and neither is simply flanking.

And finally, the MTW/VI v2.01 battle engine has many features which have been dropped in the M2TW battle engine. So, even if the battle mechanics problems of the new engine are corrected, you still have a more simplistic engine and therefore cannot equal the depth of the tactical gameplay achievable with the older engine.

We see in Samurai Wars the gameplay all come together in very interesting and tactically complex battles vs other human players. There are no unit type restrictions other than the tax on more than 4 of a unit, which I wish we could eliminate because it's nothing more than a hedge against imbalance, and yet we see players taking diverse armies. These armies are suited to their playing style, and I haven't seen any of them conclusively refuted other than the more extreme types which are completely lacking one of the combined arms components. Even then extreme armies can work under the right conditions.

As concerns SP, the AI itself is playing an RPS game. It looks at the combat strength of its units and its opponent's units and makes the best matchups it can. In the older engine, the AI will try to flank if its unit is weaker than the target unit. If its unit is stronger, it makes a direct attack. The cavalry flanks in the MTW/VI engine whereas it didn't in the STW engine. The new engine has incorporated 3D into the combat, but it's not clear whether or not the AI can properly evaluate its winning chances in individual matchups anymore since the numeric combat factors alone no longer determine that.