Level of Difficulty in Samurai Wars Multiplayer

[Puzz3D]

This issue was raised by a player who said that Samurai Wars didn't require very much skill. The way I see it is that the level of skill required to win depends upon the level of skill exhibited by your opponent. Also, it is possible to come back from a lost position and win a battle if the player with the winning advantage doesn't use use his advantage properly. This isn't due to luck as the combat system actually has a rather small level of uncertainty. However, it does have uncertainty, and therefore, if two units of the same type engage frontally with no other combat modifiers in efffect then the outcome of that matchup is determined by luck. I think some uncertainty enhances the gameplay because it means you have to try for an advantage large enough to overcome the intrinsic uncertainty of the combat system. However, if there is too much uncertainty then luck will play a larger role than skill in determing the outcome. With this game engine using 60 man units you need +2 combat point advantage to win 9 out of 10 matchups. That's a 40% advantage in combat power required when both units have 60 men. If the units are equal in combat power, but one unit has less men this same 9/10 ratio of wins is reached approximately when one unit has 25% less men (15/60 = 25%). The required advantage is less than that for combat power because the unit with more men can get doubleteam attacks on individual men. Almost all of the tactics you can try in the game will give you the necessary advantage to overcome the uncertainty 9/10, so that means these tactics can't be ignored by the other player. He has to make a move to counter the tactic being used on him.

Using units in combination both from a combined arms standpoint and from a flanking standpoint is very important in Samurai Wars. In this sense, you only have to counter what your opponent tries to do, so this determines the level of skill required to win. If your opponent uses units singlely, then you can gain a winning advantage by using two units in combination. If he uses two, you can use three, etc. You can carry this to a very complex level if both opponents are highly skilled at coordinating their units in space and time. Right now most of the battles in Samurai wars are being fought at a fairly simplistic level compared to what the game system is capable of providing or the level that I observed during the height of popularity of original STW.

We could increase an easily accessible difficulty by making the units move faster, but this would reduce the attack/defend dynamic playbalance. The objective of Samurai Wars is to emhasize playbalance and offer a gameplay as near to original STW gameplay as possible.

[Nobunaga]

I was that player :P

Still I don't c much skill required in 1v1 battles. maybe team games are different. And maybe this is because of my very limited MP experience (I played SP for a long time).

Warcraft 3 requires much more skill imho.

[Nobunaga]

p.s. Fatigue is a big issue in this game. From the games I played last Sunday units tiered really fast + defender have a big advantage (this is why I attacked u at the end of the last game).

Anyways still maybe I am wrong. I dunno, these are still first impressions...

[Nobunaga]

We could increase an easily accessible difficulty by making the units move faster, but this would reduce the attack/defend dynamic playbalance. The objective of Samurai Wars is to emhasize playbalance and offer a gameplay as near to original STW gameplay as possible.

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... I think Total War would benefit from an additional layer (between campaign map and battle map). This would increase game depth and realism.

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.

With Samurai Warlord I feel the game is over before it begins (1v1 wise). Thing is in 1v1 battles their no room for real tactical maneuvers. I have watched plenty of replays and they all feel the same.

[Nobunaga]

Right now most of the battles in Samurai wars are being fought at a fairly simplistic level compared to what the game system is capable of providing or the level that I observed during the height of popularity of original STW.

We could increase an easily accessible difficulty by making the units move faster, but this would reduce the attack/defend dynamic playbalance. The objective of Samurai Wars is to emhasize playbalance and offer a gameplay as near to original STW gameplay as possible.

I thought that the battle speed in original STW is the same as samurai wars. So why are most of the battles in Sam Wars "being fought at a fairly simplistic level compared to ... the level" in original STW?

p.s. I have been really bust lately + today... am replying whenever time permits. Maybe an admin can combine all my posts in this thread...

[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.

[Nobunaga]

as I said these are still first impressions. Puzz u r obviously more skilled than I am, I haven;t played more than 30 mp 1v1 battles (the 3 we playes and like some battles in mtw 1.1) still I was surprised by our last game.

Still I have to play more to develop a better feeling for the game...

[Nem]

I was that player :P

Still I don't c much skill required in 1v1 battles. maybe team games are different. And maybe this is because of my very limited MP experience (I played SP for a long time).

1V1 games bear no resembalence to team games. They are as far removed from each other as SP is to MP. The abilities need to play team games well require skills that only come with experience, they cannot be learnt on forums.

Generally speaking a good knowledge of the units and how the game engine works with be enough to win most 1v1 TW games no matter what the era. This is probably why 90% of MP games are team based as 1v1 is dull and lacks any type of strategy

[Nobunaga]

Generally speaking a good knowledge of the units and how the game engine works with be enough to win most 1v1 TW games no matter what the era. This is probably why 90% of MP games are team based as 1v1 is dull and lacks any type of strategy

this is exactly what i felt. Thank u Nem

[Nem]

I meant this about all TW MP versions not just Samuri Wars

[Nobunaga]

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.

I c that their is not a big room for real tactical maneuvers in 1v1 battles since each team gets only 16 units. And the things u do with 16 units is limited. Now in 4v4 battles each team has 64 units which gives room for better tactics.

[Nobunaga]

I meant this about all TW MP versions not just Samuri Wars

I know. My remarks are for all the TW series. I think Samuri Wars is the best the series get to offer till now. (still fatigue can be improved.)

[Nem]

I c that their is not a big room for real tactical maneuvers in 1v1 battles since each team gets only 16 units. And the things u do with 16 units is limited. Now in 4v4 battles each team has 64 units which gives room for better tactics.

Play a 3v3 and try holding your teams flank while your team mates attempt to rout the enemys opposite flank before they rout you. If you want to know how much skill is required to play MP well this will demonstrate it perfectly

[Puzz3D]

as I said these are still first impressions. Puzz u r obviously more skilled than I am, I haven;t played more than 30 mp 1v1 battles (the 3 we playes and like some battles in mtw 1.1) still I was surprised by our last game.

Surprised because you did well in the third game? I wasn't because you obviously adjusted to the army I was bringing. I had brought 3 YC in each of the 3 games, and by the third game you made an adjustment and brought 4 YC. It worked, and you won the cav engagements on the flanks. I incured about a 1000 koku net loss during the cav fighting on the flanks. I was pushing on the flanks because I could not win the gun battle since you had the better guns. My advantage lay in the infantry which I placed in the woods and couldn't expose until your guns were neutralized. Since I was unable to neutralize your guns, I estimate that I had a lost position by the end of the gun battle. You graciously switched to attack since you now had the advantage, and I thank you. I would do the same in that situation. This negated your gun advantage since guns can't shoot into trees, but I believe I still have a lost position. However, you made several mistakes (cav matched up on spears, using cav in woods and not bringing up that last spear unit promptly), no doubt due to lack of experience with this mod, which gave me the opportunity to erase the 1000 koku disadvantage. CBR watched this replay, and he said that both of us made mistakes.

Don't be fooled by the large number of units in MTW v1.1. If you play that online long enough, you'll eventually find out that only about 14 of those unit types are cost effective which is scarcely more than the number of types in Samurai Wars all of which are balanced to be effective. Also, the RPS in Samurai Wars is stronger and better balanced so that all components of the RPS system work. You'll see spear + sword + cav in Samurai Wars armies while MTW armies were mostly cav + sword. The ranged units in Samurai Wars are also more effective than those in MTW, so the skirmish phase is more important.

[Puzz3D]

I know. My remarks are for all the TW series. I think Samuri Wars is the best the series get to offer till now. (still fatigue can be improved.)

Yes this is true because fatigue rate is actually optimized for the small maps that were used in STW. We have no control over the fatigue rate. If we increased unit speeds that would reduce reaction time and reduce the effectiveness of ranged units on moving targets. Small or medium size maps are probably a better choice for 1v1 battles.

[Nem]

PPPsssst! Nobunga

Here is a guaranteed tip to beat Yuuki everytime.

Next time your playing him, just before you att ask him to explain his opinion on why the MTW2 game engine is inferior to VI. Then while he's typing his 8 page reply rush him Never fails mate, a win every time

[Nobunaga]

Surprised because you did well in the third game? I wasn't because you obviously adjusted to the army I was bringing. I had brought 3 YC in each of the 3 games, and by the third game you made an adjustment and brought 4 YC. It worked, and you won the cav engagements on the flanks. I incured about a 1000 koku net loss during the cav fighting on the flanks. I was pushing on the flanks because I could not win the gun battle since you had the better guns. My advantage lay in the infantry which I placed in the woods and couldn't expose until your guns were neutralized. Since I was unable to neutralize your guns, I estimate that I had a lost position by the end of the gun battle. You graciously switched to attack since you now had the advantage, and I thank you. I would do the same in that situation. This negated your gun advantage since guns can't shoot into trees, but I believe I still have a lost position. However, you made several mistakes (cav matched up on spears, using cav in woods and not bringing up that last spear unit promptly), no doubt due to lack of experience with this mod, which gave me the opportunity to erase the 1000 koku disadvantage. CBR watched this replay, and he said that both of us made mistakes.

Don't be fooled by the large number of units in MTW v1.1. If you play that online long enough, you'll eventually find out that only about 14 of those unit types are cost effective which is scarcely more than the number of types in Samurai Wars all of which are balanced to be effective. Also, the RPS in Samurai Wars is stronger and better balanced so that all components of the RPS system work. You'll see spear + sword + cav in Samurai Wars armies while MTW armies were mostly cav + sword. The ranged units in Samurai Wars are also more effective than those in MTW, so the skirmish phase is more important.

Sam Wars is much better than MTW1.1 I have no doubt about that. As I said I still have to develop a better feeling for the game...

[Nobunaga]

ok. I have been watching the replays and I see many mistakes I done. The second battle I think I would have won if I executed the attack properly . I need much more practice... Nice game...

[Nem]

Can you post the games you mention Nobunga or email them to me. I would like to view them so I can see how you play

[Nobunaga]

can u pm me your email nem

[Nem]

Done

[Nobunaga]

email sent