Original vs. Warlord

[Togakure]

Thanks Puzz3D, that's a good link. I'll swap my text files over tonight, to get WE 1.02 to STW v1.12 statistics.

It's interesting what you wrote about Naginata Cavalry:

I never noticed that Naginata Cavalry were a problem, mainly because I felt they were a realistic idea and they proved effective on the battlefield. The fact that they're the equivalent of mounted Warrior Monks is a little terrifying. I'll avoid using them in future.

1.02 Monk Stat:

Charge: 4
Attack: 5
Defense: 2
Armor: 1
Morale: 8
Cost: 500 (550 MP)

1.02 Nag Cav Stat:

Charge: 11
Attack: 4
Defense:1
Armor: 4
Morale: 8
Cost: 450

I'm not sure where Puzz copied that troopstats.txt file from, but I'm looking at my WE 1.02 file right now, and the stats for NC are as above, not as posted in the linked post Puzz gave. I think Puzz expresses his frustration over the 1.02 stat fiasco a bit strongly sometimes. The NC is not a monk on a horse for 450 koku. Close, but not quite. His point is valid, just a bit exaggerated in my opinion.

In Single Player, the NC effectiveness is countered a bit by the cost in time and koku to build the infrastructure required to train them (Fortress, Spear Dojo, Famous Horse Dojo). That hasn't been taken into account here. By the time you can build them, there are plenty of YC around and they counter NC effectively. YC trained at a location with an infrastructure that can build NC have +1 honor (+1 attack, +1 defense, and +2 morale)--when you factor in the spear bonus, they do very well against NC trained on the same level. NC are still decimated by any YS and can be defeated by Yari Ashigaru as well, provided the ashis have morale support and aren't charged from the flank or rear.

The NC is more powerful than it should be in 1.02. They were used extensively in STW 1.02 MP, particularly for their high morale, and were the most common Taisho unit by far. You didn't often see armies from any but the best players without four of them in it (the limit with a 4 max rule in effect). Their effectiveness caused YC to be used much less, YC morale being weak at a base of 4, making them flighty. Still, YC could beat NC in a head-to-head fight.

1.02 Yari Cav Stat:

Charge: 15
Attack: 1
Defense:2
Armor: 3
Morale: 4
Cost: 500

[Puzz3D]

I'm not sure where Puzz copied that troopstats.txt file from, but I'm looking at my WE 1.02 file right now, and the stats for NC are as above, not as posted in the linked post Puzz gave. I think Puzz expresses his frustration over the 1.02 stat fiasco a bit strongly sometimes. The NC is not a monk on a horse for 450 koku. Close, but not quite. His point is valid, just a bit exaggerated in my opinion.

STW/MI v1.02 is not the standard. The resultant gameplay of that stat is inferior to STW v1.12, and evidence supporting that opinion is that participation dropped from over 100 players in the multiplayer foyer during STW v1.12 to less than 50 during STW/MI v1.02. Over half of the players left.

The troopstats I posted is STW/MI v1.00 modified back to STW v1.12. The nag cav is unmodified because it didn't exist in STW v1.12, and I've made suggestions for changes to its stat to make it fit in with the STW v1.12 stats. In STW/MI v1.00, the naginata cav had 4 charge, 5 attack and 2 defense just like warrior monks; same morale, higher armor and lower cost. The version of the game that Milo is using happens to be the unpatched STW/MI v1.00 because he has the random reenforcment problem.

The people who made the STW/MI v1.02 stat wanted to change the gameplay of STW v1.12. As I recall, I was the only one on that team who wanted to return the STW/MI gameplay to STW v1.12 gameplay, and I had many arguments with people on that team over this issue. In fact, the mandate from the player community to the v1.02 beta team was to return the gameplay to that of STW v1.12; a mandate that was ignored by most of the v1.02 beta team members.

[Wilbo]

Hang on, what team? Were you a member of Creative Assembly? Or do you mean the MI beta testing team?

[Togakure]

The beta testing team, Wilbo.

Yes Puzz, you know I know all of this, and I sympathize and agree with the great majority of what you've been saying about these issues for many years now. When I read what you wrote about an NC being a monk on a horse, and then looked at my 1.02 stat and compared that to over a year of playing 1.02 daily online with some very good players and using NCs extensively, I had to disagree with the extremity of that statement. Monks don't suffer from a spear penalty nor all the disadvantages associated with cav. The thread you linked is titled "Fixing STW/MI v1.02," and there is no indication that the stats posted in it are actually modified WE 1.00. When I compared the NC stat shown in your post to my 1.02 troopstats.txt values, they didn't match up.

These guys benefit from multiple perspectives. You've got a very credible opinion, but you're not the only valid opinion on STW here. I stopped using my account with the Outstanding STW Player badge on it, but I'm still the same player. I don't know nearly as much about the mechanics as you do, but I do know how to play, have played a lot, and I think my subjective experience is credible.

Yes, a great many of STW's original online elite couldn't stomach 1.02 and left. But many stayed. I came along just after the change and had no choice but to play 1.02. With the rules in effect we managed to have many months of very fun, reasonably balanced games before the server shut down, and the experience wasn't nearly as bad as some of the old-timers made it out to be. I've since played some 1.12, 1.03, and 1.05 and games online--including the 1.03 tournament in which you and Tosa beat out me and Kas 3-1--enjoying all of the available stats.

All this aside, for single-player it's just a matter of preference. Players can play whatever patch floats their boat and make adjustments as they see fit. I'm sure your advice will be heeded, so no worries there. But when I see what I believe to be an exaggerated opinion expressed and heeded with no other perspectives being offered, I feel obliged to speak up. Thanks for the clarification on what that stat actually is.

[Puzz3D]

All this aside, for single-player it's just a matter of preference.

The tactical gameplay of STW/MI is inferior to STW v1.12, and this is true in single-player as well as multi-player. You can demonstrate this with objective testing. Your opinion that it's just a matter of preference means that you don't hold an objective standard.

Yes Puzz, you know I know all of this, and I sympathize and agree with the great majority of what you've been saying about these issues for many years now. When I read what you wrote about an NC being a monk on a horse, and then looked at my 1.02 stat and compared that to over a year of playing 1.02 daily online with some very good players and using NCs extensively, I had to disagree with the extremity of that statement. Monks don't suffer from a spear penalty nor all the disadvantages associated with cav.

If you had played STW/MI v1.00 online as I did you would have seen just how strong NC were and that I'm not exaggerating at all. They were a WM with more armor, higher speed and lower cost. The spear disadvantage was a non-factor because the WM could take care of the spears while the NC avaoided them by virture of its higher speed. NC + WM armies dominated the gameplay. This combination was unstoppable. We had to chop 2 combat points from the NC in v1.02 to bring it into a better balance with the other units.

The thread you linked is titled "Fixing STW/MI v1.02," and there is no indication that the stats posted in it are actually modified WE 1.00. When I compared the NC stat shown in your post to my 1.02 troopstats.txt values, they didn't match up.

The title of the thread is correct. It's my attempt to fix v1.02 Why are you assuming that I would use v1.02 as the basis? The unit speeds are all wrong in v1.02. The v1.02 unit peeds damage the flanking tactics of infantry because the units move too slowly compared to the combat resolution speed. I hope that your not going to take the position that there is nothing wrong with v1.02. The fact that you had to use "rules" to limit certain units in multi-player shows that there are significant problems with the v1.02 stat. There were no rules governing army purchase needed in STW v1.12.

[Romanus]

Will the warlord edition work on a vista system? It's been a long time since I played the game and I thought i's give it a try again.

[Martok]

Will the warlord edition work on a vista system? It's been a long time since I played the game and I thought i's give it a try again.

It's hard to say for sure. Some people have definitely had issues getting STW to run on Vista, while others haven't had any problems whatsoever.

Probably a bigger concern, however, is whether or not your video card will allow the game to run. A lot of the newer graphics cards -- and the Nvidias in particular -- are notorious for being seemingly incompatible with Shogun and MTW.

[Togakure]

... Your opinion that it's just a matter of preference means that you don't hold an objective standard.

You are correct. I try to balance objectivity with subjectivity in most judgments. There is value in both qualitative and quantitative analyses. We are humans after all.

If you had played STW/MI v1.00 online as I did you would have seen just how strong NC were and that I'm not exaggerating at all. They were a WM with more armor, higher speed and lower cost. The spear disadvantage was a non-factor because the WM could take care of the spears while the NC avaoided them by virture of its higher speed. NC + WM armies dominated the gameplay. This combination was unstoppable. We had to chop 2 combat points from the NC in v1.02 to bring it into a better balance with the other units.

I wasn't talking about 1.00 from the get-go. The original dialog that led to my comment was that NCs in 1.02 were "monks on horses." I disagreed with that, having played and still playing much 1.02. Maybe I wasn't clear in my second post.

The title of the thread is correct. It's my attempt to fix v1.02 Why are you assuming that I would use v1.02 as the basis? ...

It was the way my perceptions flowed from Wilbo's post, the link, and reading what you wrote. I didn't notice that you'd started with another stat; I just looked at the monk and NC stats and went "???".

... I hope that your not going to take the position that there is nothing wrong with v1.02. The fact that you had to use "rules" to limit certain units in multi-player shows that there are significant problems with the v1.02 stat. There were no rules governing army purchase needed in STW v1.12.

Certainly not. 1.02 is flawed, and even the rules didn't completely address the flaws. But the rules made it quite playable. Despite its flaws, many players enjoyed many, many games over an extended period of time. This emphasizes my point about objectivity and subjectivity.

Peace, Puzz. I was operating on little sleep yesterday. Hence, my initial post must have come off more critical than I intended it to. Again, you are the unquestioned authority here on STW technical matters. However, you might want to consider my point about balancing objectivity and subjectivity. It might make it easier to understand those who tend to take the opposite view in discussions like these.

All the best.

[Puzz3D]

Peace, Puzz. I was operating on little sleep yesterday. Hence, my initial post must have come off more critical than I intended it to. Again, you are the unquestioned authority here on STW technical matters. However, you might want to consider my point about balancing objectivity and subjectivity. It might make it easier to understand those who tend to take the opposite view in discussions like these.

All the best.

If I'm going to spend my time playing a game, I want to play the best version of the game. I don't want to play the second best, third best, fourth best, etc..., and I'm certainly not going to recommend inferior versions to other players. I spent about 6 months playing STW/MI v1.02 online, and I found it to be significantly inferior to STW v1.12 in terms of tactical playbalance.