Level of Difficulty in Samurai Wars Multiplayer

[Puzz3D]

Exactly. I think this is the reason (high calvary speed) that MI 1.02 needs more skill than Samurai Warlords but then the game would become a click fest...

That's a serious problem that limits the depth of a game which is why the game would need another layer to increase the depth that was taken away by increasing the speed. Here is an article that discusses how to best implement depth in an RPS game:

Rock Paper Scissors - A Method for Competitive Game Play Design

Samurai Wars incorporates all but one of the suggestions in that article which are:

1. Make the RPS System Obvious
2. Given a Predictable Attacker, Counter Attacks Should be Easy to Perform
3. Provide Multiple Signals per Attack (we only have position as a signal)
4. Insert Adequate Time Between Signal and Attack
5. Vary Levels of Activity (to allow assessment of the tactical situation)

Quoting the article:

"The following is a likely "skill path" of two players who are learning an RPS game with signals and separation of signal and attack:

1. The players experiment with the game. They learn how to attack each other.

2. The players realize that each attack has a counter attack or defense.

3. One player may find one attack which is effective against his opponent.

4. After numerous attacks, the defender will recognize a signal for the attack.

5. By recognizing the signal and knowing the counter attack or defense, the defending player is able to react to the attack and stop the attacker.

6. The attacker realizes that the defender has detected a pattern, so he performs a different attack.

7. The defender learns the signals for other attacks and is able to effectively counter them. At this point, without separation of signal and attack, the players would reach the end strategy of turtling.

8. The attacker realizes that the defender is reacting to his signals, and with the knowledge that signals can be separated from attacks, he attempts to "fake" his opponent.

9. Initially, if the defender is conditioned to react to the signal, the fake will be successful, and the attacker will be able to take advantage of his opponent's conditioning.

10. The defender realizes that the attacker can separate his signal from his attack, and cannot rely purely on reaction to defend against attacks.

11. The defender cannot rely on initial signals to counter the attack. He must hesitate and attempt to predict or detect when the attacker will commit to an actual attack.

12. The attacker realizes that the defender tends to hesitate so he strikes preemptively (without faking) destroying the defender's ability to rely on hesitation.

13. The defender cannot rely on signals so he attacks while the attacker is "faking".

14. The defender realizes that the attacker's ability to separate signal from attack is reduced when the attacker is placed under stress. Therefore, he can also create signals which may cause the attacker to evaluate whether the signal will actually be followed by an attack. This will reduce the effectiveness of the attacker in separating signal from attack.

Conclusion

If the RPS system with signals and separation of signal and attack is implemented properly, players will have an incentive to try different attacks and defenses. Furthermore, they will have an opportunity and incentive to learn, keeping the game enjoyable for a longer amount of time and allowing experienced players to continue to develop their skills. Beginners will be encouraged by the ability to quickly learn and veterans will appreciate the depth of game play."

End of quotation.

In Samurai Wars we have 2 different kinds of ranged attack with two variations within each, a spear attack with two variations, a sword attack with three variations and 2 melee cav attacks two of them being variations of sword and one of them being a variation of the spear attack. In addition the two archers have limited sword capability. I suppose that's not much, but these attacks have to be used with precision to have maximum effectiveness. So, you could say the difference between most players is the precision with which they carry out attacks, and the degree to which they can coordinate 16 units which incorporate the 6 types + variations of attack.

I have been playing warcraft3 for about 6 month now for about like 10 games a week. My impressions that this is a game that is extremely hard to master.

Samurai Wars is intended to have intuitive gameplay that's relatively easy to master. The difficulty is in figuring out how to beat your opponent.

With Samurai Warlord I feel the game is over before it begins (1v1 wise).

If our three 1v1 battles were over before they began it's because you were not as skilled at this game as I am. I certainly didn't win because I had a better army. I know players who rarely play Samurai Wars multiplayer, and when I play them in 1v1 I loose. It's because they are better players than me.

Thing is in 1v1 battles their no room for real tactical maneuvers.

That's an ironic perspective when the limitations are for the most part imposed by the realism of the simulation. I'm not saying it's entirely realistic, but the combat modifiers are based in realism as are the movement speeds. You could argue that the Cav Archer should move faster, but it doesn't expressly to set up the tactic of the Yari Cav being a counter unit to the Cav Archer. The range of projectiles and rate of fatigue was chosen by the designer to simulate a somewhat larger battle. We can't change the rate of fatigue, although, we did increase the walking speed of the slowest unit to help compensate for the larger maps. We did experiment with longer ranges for the ranged weapons, and we found that it degraded the playbalance between melee and shooting. The combat resolution time is designed to allow for local superiority to succeed if support units are not within a certain distance.

What kind of real tactical maneuvers are you looking for? Samurai Wars will never have a "fast strike, fast combat resolution and withdraw before the enemy can react" kind of tactical gameplay.

I have watched plenty of replays and they all feel the same.

It has a particular kind of gameplay, but those replays don't display the full potential of the game. It's going to take more experience with the game to fully explore the possibilities. In addition, team games restrict a player to a conservative style of play when the team is not well coordinated. The tax on more than 4 of one type of unit is restricting players from fielding more extreme armies. We might address this by duplicating each unit type so that you could effectively take 8 of one type with no penalty. We could introduce new unit types, but it's not clear that would improve the gameplay.