Shogun II Total War

[caravel]

To me the current totalwar engine is just not capable of challenging AI. If there would be a game that would combine the totalwar battle engine, with something aking to EU III strategic game.I would be in heaven. It is simple fact that ever since the strategy map turned into what RTW introduced.The AI has not been able to handle a coordinated attack or defence against the human player.

Precisely how it should have been, but CA went all "movement points". This was the worst decision as though in theory the map allows for unrestricted movement (well almost unrestricted if you count walking the giants along the roads as unrestricted), it introduces a whole new game that the AI cannot handle. With the risk map this was a whole layer of AI that the developer didn't actually have to worry about. in fact leaving the risk map in place and concentrating on the battles and diplomacy would have been a smarter move. Unfortunately CA went for what was essentially the "marketing approach".

I agree. Too bad there isn't some way to 'tile' the current campaign map of TW games. So you don't move along those meandering lines but rather along certain tiles that could be countered by the player or ai similar to the provinces in STW and MTW. Just a vague and illinformed suggestion.

I know what you mean, but in all honesty the AI still wouldn't be able to handle it. We've all seen those RTS basebuilding games, where the pixies are fighting the trolls? The trolls build away like mad, as do the pixies, until their infrastructure is in place, then they start training more trolls and better trolls with upgrades etc. Then once there are about 10 trolls standing around in the "muster area" in the troll base, the trolls all rush off to the pixie camp, kill the lot and raze it to the ground. It's a very simple AI, and unfortunately that's the sort of AI that is controlling army stacks (and ships) in RTW/M2TW. It builds an army and simply sends it off to besiege a nearby settlement. Same as the pixies and trolls - just turn based.

STW/MTW are different because an army stack makes one move (like chess) and a good balanced AI can make the most of that one move. It's simple enough for the AI to handle and the AI can decide there and then if it has a chance of taking province X instead of dumbly sending out hordes of fragmented armies on suicide missions that are easily isolated and picked off by the human player.

The only time I found RTW remotely challenging was when the campaign difficulty was ramped up and the AI mindlessly spams army stacks at you, non stop - but that's not the kind of "challenging" I like.

[A Nerd]

Perhaps cities as the trigger to cause a province to go from one faction to another should be scrapped. I always did like the way in older TW's where the armies first met on the field and the loser would retreat to the nearest castle (or city?) to weather a siege and then the province was taken. The problem is that the AI doesn't know how to properly defend or attack. In the past it seemed to recognize in a bordering province, at least the size of the enemy army. It would then make its move and attack. On defense, it sometimes lacked, usually only mounting good defensive armies when in the beginning, with few provinces, in the end, with few provinces, or when it was quite large and generally only had one front to defend. It seemed not to dicern between wealthy valuable provinces and the poorer ones. Developing strange things in strange places even when it had the money. Though I ramble. As far as updating, perhaps provinces should be taken when armies are destroyed. Primarily on the field, and remnants can retreat to castles or such. If the army is taken on the field with no surviors, despite the city the province should be taken. Some rigid form of movement is necessary to allow the AI ease of movement. Paths must be in straigt lines no longer round about. The AI seems to think better in terms of mathematics versus philosophy. The reason for garrisons has always primarially to improve to a degree the chance of rebellion. Why does that army need to be in the city to accomplish this? The advanced diplomacy, build tree and the like should accomplish that. I think the AI need to forcebly be placed on the feild and stop hiding behind the walls. I am now at a loss, I'm not going to proof read this so I hope it makes some sense. Though ways to make new TW like the old is indeed an entertaining topic.

[caravel]

The reason for garrisons has always primarially to improve to a degree the chance of rebellion. Why does that army need to be in the city to accomplish this?

That's one of the fundamental flaws of the newer TW games. You can have a 1000 men traipsing around the province, but if they're not actually inside the walls of the settlement, the place can rebel and the enemy can walk into your lands unhindered and take up residence.

This, and may of the reasons above, is why I personally would not want to see an S2TW. CA will not go back to the risk map now as they would lose more sales by doing so. Most of the current consumerbase prefer the new map. I also don't think CA will do S2TW because it would be moving away from the "Europe and North American centric" setting of the latest games. There is also the fact that the map would be considered "too small" and factions too alike in terms of unit rosters, etc. (etc, etc, etc)

[A Nerd]

I agree. The fact that STW is considered such a classic by many TW fans and the fact that many people haven't been as pleased by everything that followed MTW, especially the old-timers who have been playing since STW, STW2 would probably be very bad. Especially when compared to STW. Some would probably feel that they got a M2TW based in Japan. I've heared people talking about a far east TW that included Japan, China, Mongolia and Korea, but that, like you said, would move away from Europe, not to mention away from the gunpowder and naval battles that has been developing thru ETW to NTW (thru all the patches and onward). Hence, us purists can dream about STW2 but until some campaign map flaws and the poor way in which the AI reacts to them are somehow fixed and/or changed STW2 would probably be rather poorly received. That doesn't even touch upon all the complaints the battlefield AI has received. Though personally, I have never been too upset with that AI, though it does seem to get alittle confused from time to time. It can't seem to decide a strategy. It runs around seemeing planning a text book counter as the human player continually evolves it tactic to make the win. Hence, the AI runs around stupidly. My observation anyway, I tend not to be the best strategest either though.

[ReluctantSamurai]

I tend to think STWII will never be done, and perhaps, given recent trends, this is for the best. CA will want an era where they can use their naval AI, and feudal Japan/China doesn't have much to offer in that respect.

I rather like the RTW-style map, but I also understand the problems it creates for the AI. If one reads through some of the early playtesting done, a lot of the problems stem from pathfinding problems more than anything else. I also think that if the designers hadn't ignored one of the basic 'rules of engagement' for international diplomacy, some things could have been a little better. Imagine if any country in the world sends a military force traipsing through another country uninvited and that doesn't result in an ugly DOW? What were they thinking???

Much of the 'siege mentality' could have been avoided if some other basic 'rules of engagement' were observed. A minimum size force should have been required to siege a particular sized city....the larger the city, the larger the force required. And a port city will require it's port to be blockaded in order for the garrison to take losses. Otherwise a direct assault is required, as the garrison cannot be starved out.

I recall the first time I saw the Scipii siege Syracuse (a walled city) with a general, 2 Hastati, and 2 Velite, and take it by direct assault after 3 or 4 turns. Didn't anyone play-testing this find that just a bit too much bending of reality?

If a provinces resources had been put outside the city (like the farmlands), then a siege isn't necessary to cripple a province, and eventually the garrison will have to come and attempt to drive off the occupying army or continue to suffer the loss of resources.

As has been posted before, too much emphasis was placed on roads. Nearly all combat occurs on, or near roads which might be more true for modern warfare because of the need to supply large armies with ammo and fuel, but not for the live-off-the-land type of movement for that era.

One often overlooked change for the worse, IMHO, was the change to two seasons per calender year from four and the paying of taxes and income every turn instead of every year. Not only does this make the movement of armies highly unrealistic( for instance, it does not take 2-3 years to march an army from say, Mazaka to Pergamum), it allows for much too rapid building of infrastructure, as opposed to something more carefully planned if you get income once per year.

Anyways....I've rambled too long on a subject that is probably moot.......

[A Nerd]

I like and agree with all of your points, keep them coming if you have more! The game does move too quickly and the movement on the 3D maps tends to be unrealistic. More turns per year and building times depending on the complexity of building use and construction would definately be a plus. It seems that spaces between points on the map, mainly cities, are rather equal to one another despite distances perhaps represented in real life. Perhaps this is because the developers wanted a uniform map to fit the game and decreasing map distances make things more uniform and accessable. Perhaps fewer major cities or smaller less important cities are needed to conquer a region? In other words, conquer smaller cites in a large province where a large city is the focal point of conquering the province on the move to take said region. Not cities like in ETW and NTW where taking them only results in a financial hit, but rather strategic positions of both economic and military importance. Move times might seem shorter (or longer ?) but a more asymetical map might provide more realism to movement and region conquering. A different time scale would help development based on tax collection as well. Though I too ramble, hopfully this jumble of words makes some sense or provides some interest in which to read.

[Kagemusha]

I like and agree with all of your points, keep them coming if you have more! The game does move too quickly and the movement on the 3D maps tends to be unrealistic. More turns per year and building times depending on the complexity of building use and construction would definately be a plus. It seems that spaces between points on the map, mainly cities, are rather equal to one another despite distances perhaps represented in real life. Perhaps this is because the developers wanted a uniform map to fit the game and decreasing map distances make things more uniform and accessable. Perhaps fewer major cities or smaller less important cities are needed to conquer a region? In other words, conquer smaller cites in a large province where a large city is the focal point of conquering the province on the move to take said region. Not cities like in ETW and NTW where taking them only results in a financial hit, but rather strategic positions of both economic and military importance. Move times might seem shorter (or longer ?) but a more asymetical map might provide more realism to movement and region conquering. A different time scale would help development based on tax collection as well. Though I too ramble, hopfully this jumble of words makes some sense or provides some interest in which to read.

There is potential for such map in Sengoku period Japan. The provinces of STW in reality were made of sometimes more then 20 or so districts, which each usually consisted of atleast one or more Yamashiro´s. Ofcourse there were also provinces with only two or three districts.So a huge map could be done of feodal Japan if there would be an interest.