Historical basis for STW etc (split from the Shogun II Thread)

[gollum]

Originally posted by Asai Nagamasa
The Nodachi Samurai and Sohei (Monks) were added to the game for gameplay balance reasons.

Would you care to explain your point master camelier?

According to "Secrets of the Samurai" by Oscar Ratti & Adele Westbrook, both appeared as distinct units and are hostorically accurate and important.



PS Its also useful to note that for gameplay purposes STW "swords" ie Nodachi, Naginata, Warrior Monks, are not primarily anti-spear units but main line melee infantry, that is their main purpose is to engage the other side's main melee infantry; if now that is spears all the better!

Although theoretically in the RPS "cavalry beats swords", Naginata & WMonks will perform really well versus Yari cavalry and th cavalry Archer. Only Heavy Cavaly (and naginata cavalry if you play with MI/WE) has a chance to stop dedicated melee troops and often this with a good flank charge; only Nodachis (as the weaker swords) decicively lose to the light cavalry units in a "clean" match up (flat ground/no charge/front engagement).

[Karl08]

Would you care to explain your point master camelier?
Although theoretically in the RPS "cavalry beats swords", Naginata & WMonks will perform really well versus Yari cavalry and th cavalry Archer. Only Heavy Cavaly (and naginata cavalry if you play with MI/WE) has a chance to stop dedicated melee troops and often this with a good flank charge; only Nodachis (as the weaker swords) decicively lose to the light cavalry units in a "clean" match up (flat ground/no charge/front engagement).

I agree, though naginata is a polearm, not a sword (and I would think only fair to give them the "bonus attacking cavalry" that halberd units get, if adopted into MTW). I also agree on the naginata cavalry, and they decidedly feel overpowered to me. And cheaper, even, than yari cavalry. I almost feel guilty using them.

Almost.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Yes. The best troops by far in shogun were yari sam, samurai archers, naginata cavalry, and monks. The other were superflous really. I think it's mainly an AI problem though:

yari cav: the AI rarely brings cavalry
no-dachi: you are rarely short of money because the AI doesn't push you, so easier to go with monks
heavy cav: AI rarely has monks
cav archer: AI rarely has monks or no-dachi, and has trouble using it's archers effectively
naginata: sometimes good for a bridge assault, but the AI can be exploited by other means. Armored yari sam can substitute
ninja and kensai: just for fun units
guns: very powerful actually but I almost never end up getting them because they make it too easy.

[gollum]

Originally posted by Karl08
Yes, I've heard the "anti-horse" argument

That's the only one i didnt meant. I agree with you - spears do the job far better.

the game states that a castle can fit either X amount of cavalry or 2X amount of infantry, but I find that the game doesn't actually seem to make such a distinction. One infantry unit and one cavalry unit certainly has the exact same impact on how long the castle is expected to last the siege...

Well this is a space restriction - it affects the time the castle will fall indirectly : by letting you put less men inside the castle while it counts the horses for food/space. In this way half the amount of men the castle can take are allowed in if they are say all cavalry (and so make the garrison more vulnerable to asssaults) while they starve at the same rate as a full footmen garisson.

Well, as you say, peasants make cheap garrison units, and in a newly conquered territory where you perhaps need to boost loyalty, they are invaluable (and, perhaps, the only units available). And while town militia certainly become redundant later on, I train rather a lot of them in the first years of Early. Regular spearmen also become somewhat redundant later on, but that does not diminish their importance early on.

Precisely, so just count how many units are made redundant in this way in MTW and how many in STW. You'll find that there are tens of MTW that you can do without but only one in STW the yari ashigaru.

Well, there is the ashigaru. Once you've got a steady flow of koku going, there is no need to recruit them anymore. So they are redundant in the same way as town militia in MTW, but I wouldn't use that word anyway.

There are also the teppo units - I've never quite gotten the hang of firearms in STW, and use them mainly as a curiosity and because it's historical. I still rely on the good old archers and cavalry archers.

Yari ashigaru can still play a part in battles all the way to teh end of the campaign because their combat statistics are not as differen from high tech units as in MTW (compare early and late era infantry say). Their anticavalry role makes sure that they remain relevant in making up stacks up to the last years of teh campaign.

In MTW you actually get units that are a better version of the same statistically, which makes the previous obsolete - in addition as i mentioned, its well known that all you need is really swords/heavy cavalry(knights preferably)/arbalesters (after 1204). Such an army has huge advantages over any other MTW army composition unfortunately in all departments (firepower/melee strength/moblity/impact), unless you fight in desert terrain that makes less than 10% of MTW maps in vanilla. This was clear in MTW multiplayer were such armies dominated the field. Only aout 15 units were cost effective enough to be used in tournaments and regular mp in arid/lush/temperate maps.

As for the gun units, they are infact so powerful that certain players avoid to use them in STW SP, because the AI is unable to use them properly ie in a continuous wall, since he is using them in with skirmish on. If you turn skirmish off, put them in hold formation/hold position and deploy them in three ranks deep that enables them to use revolving ranks (and thus fire every 7seconds iirc instead of 21secs of reload), make a 3 or 4 gun units front and support them properly with melee units behind, spears at the flanks and cavalry behind at the ready to chase demoralised retreating enemies, they are devastating in attack and defence.

Particularly the musketeers in MI/WE are overly dominant and can oblitarate anything since they can also fire in the rain (although with a misfire penalty) and their missile stats were increased from the original game.

I agree, though naginata is a polearm, not a sword (and I would think only fair to give them the "bonus attacking cavalry" that halberd units get, if adopted into MTW). I also agree on the naginata cavalry, and they decidedly feel overpowered to me. And cheaper, even, than yari cavalry. I almost feel guilty using them.

Notice that i used the word swords with " ", since it was used in the context of gameplay categories and not of what the weapons are in reality. I dont think that the polearms need an anticavalry bonus in STW because as mentioned they already fare well against cavalry due to the good stats of Naginata/WMonks that yield them.

Yes Naginata cavalry is overpowered and cheap for its stats. Its also making the Heavy Cavalry obsolete - however i play STW v1.12 - without the MI - that does not have it (it also lacks the kensai and the battlefield ninjas), so it isnt a problem in my games.

[gollum]

Originally posted by Asai Nagamasa
... but as I understand it most clans did not field vast numbers of Sohei? Also Nodachi were not nearly as common as say Yari Ashigaru/Samurai?

Afaik, you are right about the Nodachi - however from what i have read (in the aformentioned book and in a few other ones including "The twelve men who made Japan" by Economics Prof. Sakaiya Taichi) it would seem the W.Monks were pretty numerous and common; they were particularly so in central Japan (that comprises the "Oda" area as well as Etchizen and Kaga) since their monasteries were in and around the centre of old powers that is the old capital of Nara (in Yamato during the Heien period) and later Kyoto.

They were particularly interested in resisting any potential unifier since they were essentially an independent power sect that yielded huge political, economical and military force at the time - not to mention their influence with the populace. As such they were naturally in a position of strength with a weak central authority.

When Oda Nobunaga took over Mino, Omi and Yanashiro, he tried to boost the economy by the equivalent of deregulation. This meant abolishing the various taxes that the imperial court, nobles and the buddhist monasteries were retrieving from merchandise and goods traveling through their lands. In this way he could buy goods cheaply at their production area and sell them at a high price where there was demand - the profits could afford him the professional ashigaru army he wanted. He even established the town of Gifu in Omi, strategically situated in the approaches to the capital and he personally invited merchants to settle in, while he gave various bonuses and allowances to encourage such moves. By the way the town still stands.

It was this move that brought Nobunaga in direct confrontation against the W.Monks and eventually forced him to massacre them and brake their power. It was clear to both sides that there was not enough space for both and one or the other would have to recede.

Apart from being an army in their own right (with their own units of missiles, melee and cavalry and even gunners), W.Monks often served as mercenaries in clan armies that supported their interests; this is what the discount bonus for the Mori clan is meant to represent - the Mori stood against Nobunaga's armies and W.Monks flooded their armies against him. The gossip was, that many ronins from defeated clans also became warrior monks in the period; it has been speculated that some may have had old scores to settle with the prospective unifier.

The other Sengoku Jidai Warlords were for the most part depended upon local land retainers/rulers and their underlings that were providing their own arms and armor and had to feed themselves and their compatriots while on campaign. This, generally disallowed them to fight when it was harvest time - typically all sides involved in a fight would abandon it in September and return to their villages for the harvest - otherwise they risked far more than losing a battle for their overlord.

Nobunaga, wanted an army that could fight any time - continuously if possible - his campaigns in Mino are indicative: he invaded unsuccesfully a number of times; he was repulsed everytime the retainers/farmers were in the field of battle, however he was winning when they withdrew to tend to their farms leaving tiny garissons to defend border forts. This allowed Nobunaga's troops to have odds as 2000:200 or even 2000:100 in sieges and so were victorious. However next spring the farmer/soldiers would come again to kick his professional ashigaru armies out and this happened quite a few times before Nobunaga finally took Mino as his own.

In SP gameplay terms both units are resource heavy to produce in terms of buildings required, and also the fact that "swords" are relatively vulnerable to cavalry (particularly the no-dachi), cost/effectiveness ratio and low build requirements make Yari Samurai perhaps the most useful/worthy and hence backbone unit in the game, as it should be.

Its true of course that a steamrolling player can produce whatever he wants after a point, particularly if he plays with the MI/WE that halves the building costs and build times, making easy to have multiple Temples and Sword Dojos - but in 1.12 things are far tighter and even more so in the early-mid game.

Originally posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Yes. The best troops by far in shogun were yari sam, samurai archers, naginata cavalry, and monks. The other were superflous really. I think it's mainly an AI problem though:

yari cav: the AI rarely brings cavalry
no-dachi: you are rarely short of money because the AI doesn't push you, so easier to go with monks
heavy cav: AI rarely has monks
cav archer: AI rarely has monks or no-dachi, and has trouble using it's archers effectively
naginata: sometimes good for a bridge assault, but the AI can be exploited by other means. Armored yari sam can substitute
ninja and kensai: just for fun units
guns: very powerful actually but I almost never end up getting them because they make it too easy.

They are superfluous with MI that altered stats, lowered building prices and building times and made guns thrice more powerful almost. They were far better as they were intended in the original release.

[caravel]

Apart from being an army in their own right (with their own units of missiles, melee and cavalry and even gunners), W.Monks often served as mercenaries in clan armies that supported their interests; this is what the discount bonus for the Mori clan is meant to represent - the Mori stood against Nobunaga's armies and W.Monks flooded their armies against him. The gossip was, that many ronins from defeated clans also became warrior monks in the period; it has been speculated that some may have had old scores to settle with the prospective unifier.

...they were particularly so in central Japan (that comprises the "Oda" area as well as Etchizen and Kaga) since their monasteries were in and around the centre of old powers that is the old capital of Nara (in Yamato during the Heien period) and later Kyoto.

That is how I had understood it, though this does not equate to the naginta wielding Monks in the game being freely available in every province. The Monks as bribable rebels, recruitable mercs or even as a separate faction would have been closer to historical - but probably not as good gameplay wise.

[gollum]

Originally posted by Asai Nagamasa
The Monks as bribable rebels, recruitable mercs or even as a separate faction would have been closer to historical - but probably not as good gameplay wise.

Indeed - it would also have required quite some extra amount of coding (the mercenaries part) that didn't appear as an effective choice for the TW AI until 3 releases later (RTW).

As it stands, the Daimyo that embraces Buddhism by building a temple pledges support to the cause of the Monks, and his religious commitment brings him in direct conflict with making a deal with the Portuguese and the jesuits. While this is not that much of a problem in MI/WE since the player can autopillage his own Temples, it is useful to remember that the original release afforded no such option and hence building a Buddhist temple and "siding" or "subsidising" the W.Monks was a major gameplay decision since it would bring about religious unrest in the case the player made the deal with the Portuguese.

In this way the two religious choices the game affords (going buddhist or christian) offer distinct strategic/tactical advantages to the player.

...though this does not equate to the naginta wielding Monks in the game being freely available in every province.

Well yes, but then again it was not unrealistic for Daimyos to become patrons of religious sects and benefit from their influence, taechings, skills and devotion as did for example the original Hojo rulers (such as Hojo Tokimune) in the 12th/13th centuries when they introduced Zen Buddhism in Japan and made their capital Kamakura the spiritual centre of the country at the time.

Last but not least let me relate something that i discovered relatively recently; you may all have noticed that there is a shrine gate in the middle of the sea opposite Hiroshima (in Aki) with a series of (obviusly descriptive) kanji around it. For quite some time i had thought that this related to a sacred site in the mainland but due to map representation restrictions this was not possible to be portrayed there. However it turns out that i was wrong and that the temple implied is in fact in an island in the exact location shown. It is a famous Heien period Shinto shrine the Itsukushima Shrine with its floating gate, found in Miyajima Island:
http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e3401.html
http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e3450.html
http://images.google.co.uk/images?q=...N&hl=en&tab=wi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itsukushima_Shrine

[caravel]

Last but not least let me relate something that i discovered relatively recently; you may all have noticed that there is a shrine gate in the middle of the sea opposite Hiroshima (in Aki) with a series of (obviusly descriptive) kanji around it. For quite some time i had thought that this related to a sacred site in the mainland but due to map representation restrictions this was not possible to be portrayed there. However it turns out that i was wrong and that the temple implied is in fact in an island in the exact location shown. It is a famous Heien period Shinto shrine the Itsukushima Shrine with its floating gate, found in Miyajima Island:
http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e3401.html
http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e3450.html
http://images.google.co.uk/images?q=...N&hl=en&tab=wi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itsukushima_Shrine

[Karl08]

Well this is a space restriction - it affects the time the castle will fall indirectly : by letting you put less men inside the castle while it counts the horses for food/space. In this way half the amount of men the castle can take are allowed in if they are say all cavalry (and so make the garrison more vulnerable to asssaults) while they starve at the same rate as a full footmen garisson.

Yes, but that's what I'm saying: the game doesn't seem to distinguish between a whole company of heavy cavalry or a single kensai. That is certainly the impression I get from what I'm told on the campaign map. I had a citadel which "would not fall without a direct assault" when a full unit of yari samurai was garrisoned there. I added a cavalry unit, and then it "could mean years of waiting". I then placed a unit of battlefield ninja in the citadel, as lone garrison. "Would not fall without a direct assault". Then I added a kensai. "Could mean years of waiting". I'm not sure how it actually works, but the prognosis given me on the campaign map certainly does not count anything but units, and doesn't care how many men are within that unit, nor what kind of unit it is. I've tried a number of combinations.

Precisely, so just count how many units are made redundant in this way in MTW and how many in STW. You'll find that there are tens of MTW that you can do without but only one in STW the yari ashigaru.

In MTW you actually get units that are a better version of the same statistically, which makes the previous obsolete - in addition as i mentioned, its well known that all you need is really swords/heavy cavalry(knights preferably)/arbalesters (after 1204). Such an army has huge advantages over any other MTW army composition unfortunately in all departments (firepower/melee strength/moblity/impact), unless you fight in desert terrain that makes less than 10% of MTW maps in vanilla. This was clear in MTW multiplayer were such armies dominated the field. Only aout 15 units were cost effective enough to be used in tournaments and regular mp in arid/lush/temperate maps.

Yes, but I like the flavour. When you play civilization, knights eventually replace chariots, too. And tanks replace knights. Without units becoming obsolete or at least old fashioned, there is no sense of technological progress. This is why I like militia sergeants replacing town militia; feudal sergeants replacing spearmen; feudal knights replacing mounted sergeants and so on. But the transitions are very gradual: just because I have just built a spearmaker's workshop and can now produce feudal sergeants, for example, I will still keep training spearmen until I have workshops in sufficient numbers that I can produce the new units at an appreciable rate.

Though in some cases, such as the mounted sergeant and the hobilar, the former replaces the latter almost immediately as it has either equal or slightly better stats, and the cost difference is negligible. In such cases I have tweaked the stats a bit. In this particular case I added spearmaker as a requirement for mounted sergeants, and gave the hobilar a slight defence advantage over the mounted sergeant, while the mounted sergeant retains the charge advantage. This way the hobilar is not useless to those who can train them. I have made similar tweaks to several units.

Yari ashigaru can still play a part in battles all the way to teh end of the campaign because their combat statistics are not as differen from high tech units as in MTW (compare early and late era infantry say). Their anticavalry role makes sure that they remain relevant in making up stacks up to the last years of teh campaign.

I find ashigaru much more vulnerable to missiles, and of course they turn and run much quicker. I definitely make different calculations on the battlefield depending on whether the spears are ashigaru or samurai. I think that is as it should be, though. I never use ashigaru for anything other than garrison, and after the first couple of years I never train them anymore, either. I still wouldn't want them gone from the game.

As for the gun units, they are infact so powerful that certain players avoid to use them in STW SP, because the AI is unable to use them properly ie in a continuous wall, since he is using them in with skirmish on. If you turn skirmish off, put them in hold formation/hold position and deploy them in three ranks deep that enables them to use revolving ranks (and thus fire every 7seconds iirc instead of 21secs of reload), make a 3 or 4 gun units front and support them properly with melee units behind, spears at the flanks and cavalry behind at the ready to chase demoralised retreating enemies, they are devastating in attack and defence.

Particularly the musketeers in MI/WE are overly dominant and can oblitarate anything since they can also fire in the rain (although with a misfire penalty) and their missile stats were increased from the original game.

They can fire in rain? I'll have to have a closer look at them, then.

Notice that i used the word swords with " ", since it was used in the context of gameplay categories and not of what the weapons are in reality. I dont think that the polearms need an anticavalry bonus in STW because as mentioned they already fare well against cavalry due to the good stats of Naginata/WMonks that yield them.

Ever since I first bought STW when it was brand new, I always hesitated using cavalry on naginata except in flanking/support, precisely because the naginata would be a good weapon against cavalry. And when I saw that they did indeed do well against cavalry, I assumed they were programmed with such bonuses.

Yes Naginata cavalry is overpowered and cheap for its stats. Its also making the Heavy Cavalry obsolete - however i play STW v1.12 - without the MI - that does not have it (it also lacks the kensai and the battlefield ninjas), so it isnt a problem in my games.

I never relied much on heavy cavalry in the first place, tell you the truth. The unit description gives you the sense that these are veritable tanks and can steamroll just about anyone, but after the initial charge they soon lose momentum and need to be supported by other units, just like everyone else. And because I never found their strengths to sufficiently offset their slowness, I always stuck on yari cavalry.


I might go back to playing STW sans MI myself, actually. My first reaction to MI was singularly positive, as I noticed construction times had been cut in half. It was really tedious to spend two years to build border forts in a province. But in retrospect, STW draws it out just nicely. With MI I feel like I've maxed out the buildings in a province in no time at all, whereas in vanilla STW I really looked forward to being able to train naginata or no-dachi.

[caravel]

I have split this one from the Shogun II thread in order to keep that thread on topic.

[gollum]

Originally posted by Karl08
I'm not sure how it actually works, but the prognosis given me on the campaign map certainly does not count anything but units, and doesn't care how many men are within that unit, nor what kind of unit it is. I've tried a number of combinations.

Well it doesnt count the type of unit but it does count how many men are in.

The system is like so: the closer you are to the full capacity of the fort/castle the shorter the garrison will last. In this sense you can think of it as a "density" ratio of (actual garrison)/(maximum garrison). The closer the ratio to 1, the shorter their resources will last - the closer to 0 the longer.

Yes, but I like the flavour.

Indeed flavour was the aim, and it succeded - most fans prefer flavour and it played a great part in helping MTW sell more. I however prefer solid gameplay, and am far less interested in variety. STW's 12ish units were more than enough for me.

[caravel]

There is nothing actually wrong with having clone units as such - that is units like Chivalric Sergeants, Order Foot Soldiers, Italian Infantry etc. This gives "flavour" so long as all units cost the same. It would be pointless to give the Italians both, but again if the support and initial training costs are the same it's not a real issue. The issue is where certain units cost more for no particular reason, without actually having better stats, or where better units are available too early/easily while inferior units are still around, being used by other factions.

A good example of this are the units brought into the main campaign by the Viking Invasion expansion. Most notably, the Viking units - which definitely weren't needed, the eastern javelin units and the Fyrdmen which are a Feudal Sergeants clone. The most notable of course is still peasants and the mass of irritating siege equipment (i.e. ballistas) that the AI builds. The STW/MTW AI trains what you give it and even with improvements to the unit training influences "junk units" still appear in even the best mods.

The only solution IMHO is to give factions a set roster for each of the three eras. Catholic factions should be balanced so that each has a small advantage (i.e. the english have longbows, so should not have Chivalric Knights and up, the French stay as they are minus the pavise arbs/crossbows, the Italians have the pavise crossbows but lack something else etc, etc.). Subtle differences like this would have made for a well balanced and challenging game - as it is MTW is a very unblanced game. This is apparent when you compare the heavy inf./cav rosters vs the light/missile based rosters. When it comes to auto-calced battles (which is what all AI vs AI battles are), missiles are not factored in autocalc so factions like the Turks always come off worse from such encounters.

This is where STW wins hands down. It does have the balanced rosters and none of the above is relevant. Every faction has the same units and thus every battle should be reasonably even. If MTW had the same balance as STW, it would be the best TW game by far.

-Edit:

Congratulations on promotion to member Karl08

[Karl08]

Well it doesnt count the type of unit but it does count how many men are in.

The system is like so: the closer you are to the full capacity of the fort/castle the shorter the garrison will last. In this sense you can think of it as a "density" ratio of (actual garrison)/(maximum garrison). The closer the ratio to 1, the shorter their resources will last - the closer to 0 the longer.

I know this is how it's supposed to work, but are you sure that's how it actually is? Because the game certainly does not distinguish between my 60-men yari cavalry unit and my 1-man kensai unit when giving me the estimate of how long a garrison will last. Granted, the kensai is bigger than most, but unless he has a particularly ferocious appetite, I don't understand the game's logic here. I think I know what's going on, though: the game probably counts in percentages, ie. a 100% BFN (12 men) counts the same as 100% heavy cavalry (60 men (and horses)). 50% BFN (6 men) = 50% heavy cavalry (30 men (and horses)). They might've gotten away with this in original Shogun, where there were no special sized units. But even so they should distinguish between infantry and cavalry, esepcially when they explicitly say that they do. But in reality don't.

Congratulations on promotion to member Karl08

W00t!

[caravel]

Would you care to explain your point master camelier?

According to "Secrets of the Samurai" by Oscar Ratti & Adele Westbrook, both appeared as distinct units and are hostorically accurate and important.

Well gollum you're obviously better read on the subject than myself. Despite this I'm well aware that Nodachi and Sohei existed (I wasn't dismissing them as fantasy units), but as I understand it most clans did not field vast numbers of Sohei? Also Nodachi were not nearly as common as say Yari Ashigaru/Samurai?

PS Its also useful to note that for gameplay purposes STW "swords" ie Nodachi, Naginata, Warrior Monks, are not primarily anti-spear units but main line melee infantry, that is their main purpose is to engage the other side's main melee infantry; if now that is spears all the better!

That's how I see it as well yes.

Although theoretically in the RPS "cavalry beats swords", Naginata & WMonks will perform really well versus Yari cavalry and th cavalry Archer. Only Heavy Cavaly (and naginata cavalry if you play with MI/WE) has a chance to stop dedicated melee troops and often this with a good flank charge; only Nodachis (as the weaker swords) decicively lose to the light cavalry units in a "clean" match up (flat ground/no charge/front engagement).

Stating the obvious... RPS is the starting point, but it's a good one, other factors such as honour, terrain, morale, fatigue and superior stats quite obviously skew the battle results. i.e. a game where spears beat cavalry every single time would not be much fun...