Shogun 2 Total War - confirmed

[gollum]

Well, your opinion is to be respected of course, but the Japanese were, are and always will be, a skilled people for whatever has to do with war. During the Sengoku period this trend was sharpened to new heights.

I understand the point about being confined to styles, however i would equally welcome a TW game during the Romance of the three kingdoms in China. I know very little about Korea - other than the fact that it was under the heavy shadow of China in the medieval era and later during the modern times under the heavy shadow of Japan. Its national martial art tae kwon do - is nearly a renaming of Okinawan karate that Korean immigrants brought from Japan pre WW2, but could not practice with a Japanese name due to the national issues against Japan in Korea - not exactly a great martial tradition when you compare it to Japan's.

As far as weapons are concerned, japanese swords - katanas - are the highest quality hand-to-hand weapons ever produced - metallographic analysis in the highest quality european swords (from Toledo) showed about 200,000 layers of iron/carbon in the steel alloy. The equivalent number for a katana is 1,500,000 - making it a killing tool that hasn't been repeated. Other Japanese blades for yaris (spears) and naginatas (halberds) were of comparable quality.

For me only a single "style" is not a problem especially now that i know a lot about this particular one - although again your assumption is misleading - Sengoku Daimyos were particularly imaginative when tactics and strategy were concerned and were keen inovators in many instances. It was also not a problem in the past when i knew nothing about japan, its history and its warring tradition.

Perhaps your opinion is based on a misunderstanding or lack of understanding - in that case S2 provides a great opportunity to sort this misunderstanding for you - you never know.

[Mailman653]

It's cause China and Korea are coming in the expansion

[gollum]

There is indeed potential for such an expansion, as historically Toyotomi Hideyoshi (the second of the japanese unifiers) decided to try to conquer Korea with part of his samurai army.

[gollum]

Intranetusa, I can see why you are here, so i'll leave it at that :)

Have fun denying, demistfying and generally showing how much you dislike the japanese setting, since it would have been better to choose an 8th century Britain setting where swords are not overhyped etc etc

all yours ;)

[Intranetusa]

Intranetusa, I can see why you are here, so i'll leave it at that :)
Have fun denying, demistfying and generally showing how much you dislike the japanese setting, since it would have been better to choose an 8th century Britain setting where swords are not overhyped etc etc
all yours ;)

It's not that I dislike the Japanese setting. It's I dislike repetative stuff with no creativitiy. My main problem is they already made a Shogun game. Why make another? Why don't they branch out some to at least the rest of East Asia? Japan is an island. Making two games about Japanese Shogun is basically no different than making a TW game about 8th century England, and another about 11th century England - it's the same damn thing.

And my other problem is how the samurai has been elevated to mystical proportions. I commented on your post because in reality, katanas aren't much better than East Asian, European, or Middle Eastern swords. That's a common misconception that has been continually perpetuated by Hollywood and pop media...sorta like the damn lorica segmentata.

[gollum]

Actually - katanas are really far better - there is a reason for the hype, and i can tell you that its not Hollywood based as you think. The point is not to compare katanas with nuclear weapons - clearly katanas will lose - the point is the quality of the sword and its use in regards to the purpose it had to fulfil. many european weapons were designed to do blund damage, because they had no chance of piercing armor - they could though create an internal wound andhemorrage in the wearer by deforming the armor locally (maces etc). The philosophy is different because the conditions were different. In Japan plate metal armor was only reserved for the Daimyos themselves and this because of its ability to stop bullets.

During the feudal era bujutsu - the fighting arts were developed in Japan. These did indeed blend the practical and necessary with the natural and the beautiful - their offshoots: kenjutsu-fencing (and other weapon arts like archery, the art of thespear the art of the halberd), jujutsu and all its derivaties (judo, brazilian jujutsu, aikido) and karate and its prequels and sequels became amazingly popular worldwide for many good reasons: a) because they really work b) because they help one build character and learn self defence at the same time.

As far as the setting is concenred i can't do anything for it if you don;t like it - however i hope that you'll agree that others may like it and wish to enjoy it in its new forum without negations, denying, cynicism and the like.

[A Nerd]

As far as the setting is concenred i can't do anything for it if you don;t like it - however i hope that you'll agree that others may like it and wish to enjoy it in its new forum without negations, denying, cynicism and the like.

You shouldn't argue. What's done is done. Sometimes critisisms provide for valuable opinion, could benefit discussion both positive and negative. :)

[Intranetusa]

Actually - katanas are really far better - there is a reason for the hype, and i can tell you that its not Hollywood based as you think. The point is not to compare katanas with nuclear weapons - clearly katanas will lose - the point is the quality of the sword and its use in regards to the purpose it had to fulfil. many european weapons were designed to do blund damage, because they had no chance of piercing armor - they could though create an internal wound andhemorrage in the wearer by deforming the armor locally (maces etc). The philosophy is different because the conditions were different. In Japan plate metal armor was only reserved for the Daimyos themselves and this because of its ability to stop bullets. During the feudal era bujutsu - the fighting arts were developed in Japan. These did indeed blend the practical and necessary with the natural and the beautiful - their offshoots: kenjutsu-fencing (and other weapon arts like archery, the art of thespear the art of the halberd), jujutsu and all its derivaties (judo, brazilian jujutsu, aikido) and karate and its prequels and sequels became amazingly popular worldwide for many good reasons: a) because they really work b) because they help one build character and learn self defence at the same time. As far as the setting is concenred i can't do anything for it if you don;t like it - however i hope that you'll agree that others may like it and wish to enjoy it in its new forum without negations, denying, cynicism and the like.

I'm not comparing katanas with nuclear weapons. I'm comparing katanas with other swords. Other swords =/= nuclear weapons. Yes, there were plenty of European weapons that was meant to defeat armor through blunt force, but I'm talking about European swords.

High quality European swords are just as good as a katana. And you still haven't given any reason why katanas are better than good quality European swords.

Europe, China, and Korea has plenty of sword based martial arts. Karate actually comes from Okinawa and is a blend of Southern Chinese martial arts with Native Okinawan arts. Sword/weapon based martial arts are not something unique to Japan.

And your discussion about martial arts has nothing to do with your argument that katanas are superior to quality European swords.





All I'm saying is the katana is a good sword, but it's vastly overrated by pop culture and Hollywood. A good European sword or a good Chinese sword is equal to a good katana.

[Thermal]

It's not that I dislike the Japanese setting. It's I dislike repetative stuff with no creativitiy. My main problem is they already made a Shogun game. Why make another?

As the first game, it was made on a 2D map with terrible graphics and not much appeal anymore. There are so many ways they can improve it, I'm glad they are.

You could say that about Medieval as well, but they redid that (even if some people still prefer the original), the first two games deserve the makeover, really.

[caravel]

it was made on a 2D map with terrible graphics

The game was released back in 2000 - "terrible graphics" by todays standards were "cutting edge" back then. You have to remember that most other RTS, TBS or RPG games were still on true 2D iso maps.

[Intranetusa]

As far as weapons are concerned, japanese swords - katanas - are the highest quality hand-to-hand weapons ever produced - metallographic analysis in the highest quality european swords (from Toledo) showed about 200,000 layers of iron/carbon in the steel alloy. The equivalent number for a katana is 1,500,000 - making it a killing tool that hasn't been repeated. Other Japanese blades for yaris (spears) and naginatas (halberts) were of comparable quality.
For me only a single "style" is not a problem especially now that i know a lot about this particular one - although again your assumption is misleading - Sengoku Daimyos were particularly imaginative when tactics and strategy were concerned and were keen inovators in many instances. It was also not a problem in the past when i knew nothing about japan, its history and its warring tradition.
Perhaps your opinion is based on a misunderstanding or lack of understanding - in that case S2 provides a great opportunity to sort this misunderstanding for you - you never know.

Japanese katanas are great, but also greatly overrated. They are really no better than a quality European sword. Katanas weigh the same and have slightly better cutting ability (due to its curved shaped) when compared to a straight European sword.

And any cutting weapon, (ie katana) is totally useless against almost all forms of metal armor. And the katana was also a weapon of last resort for a battlefield samurai - their primary weapon was a bow/arrow, spear, naginata, etc

The forging styles of the katana came from China, transmitted through Korea. And nobody talks about the "quality" of Chinese or Korean swords even though quality swords from those states are basically the same or even superior compared to katanas. Katanas are made with quality because iron is scarce in Japan - whereas the average European sword can be made to be mediocre since iron was plentiful. All in all, katanas are great, but it's mostly hype.


PS - btw, 200,000 vs 1,500,000 folds is meaningless, because their cutting ability is virtually the same. Some quality European swords even have better edge geometry and superior sectional density when compared with a quality Japanese katana.

[Vuk]

Well, your opinion is to be respected of course, but the Japanese were, are and always will be, a skilled people for whatever has to do with war. During the Sengoku period this trend was sharpened to new heights.

I understand the point about being confined to styles, however i would equally welcome a TW game during the Romance of the three kingdoms in China. I know very little about Korea - other than the fact that it was under the heavy shadow of China in the medieval era and later during the modern times under the heavy shadow of Japan. Its national martial art tae kwon do - is nearly a renaming of Okinawan karate that Korean immigrants brought from Japan pre WW2, but could not practice with a Japanese name due to the national issues against Japan in Korea - not exactly a great martial tradition when you compare it to Japan's.

As far as weapons are concerned, japanese swords - katanas - are the highest quality hand-to-hand weapons ever produced - metallographic analysis in the highest quality european swords (from Toledo) showed about 200,000 layers of iron/carbon in the steel alloy. The equivalent number for a katana is 1,500,000 - making it a killing tool that hasn't been repeated. Other Japanese blades for yaris (spears) and naginatas (halberds) were of comparable quality.

For me only a single "style" is not a problem especially now that i know a lot about this particular one - although again your assumption is misleading - Sengoku Daimyos were particularly imaginative when tactics and strategy were concerned and were keen inovators in many instances. It was also not a problem in the past when i knew nothing about japan, its history and its warring tradition.

Perhaps your opinion is based on a misunderstanding or lack of understanding - in that case S2 provides a great opportunity to sort this misunderstanding for you - you never know.

I am sorry, but I do not agree with you. First of all, you are wrong if you think that Taekwondo was their military tradition. They had Hwa Rang Do (see Hwarang), Subak, Taekkyeon, Shippalgi, Muye24gi, Gungdo, Seon Kwan Moo, Ssireum, etc at that time that they would have known. If you want an example of an early Korean warrior, check out the Hwarang of Silla.
Koreans wore advanced iron armour (article picture) and used swords well before the Japanese. In fact, the Japanese learned about swords only in the fourth century from Korea. You should note that not only does Korean armour give more defense, but their swords (straight swords) are optimized for defeating armour. The Japanese Katana was virtually useless against most any well armoured foe. It was made of excellent quality, but the design was inferior for fighting armoured foes, as its slashing cannot even break through ringmail. With that in mind, I would consider a heavier Chinese broadsword or a Korean longsword superior.
A lack of shields can be made up for by really good armour (as Parthian Cataphracts are proof of), but unfortunately for the Japanese their armour was not up to parr with other countries, so their lack of shields puts them at a serious disadvantage.
Also, (and this is something that is heavily debated I know) I believe that Chinese martial arts are superior to Japanese ones. This is of course something that I cannot source, but as I have practiced both, allow me to give my reasoning. Japanese martial arts (at least Karate and Judo, the only two which I have a good knowledge of) focus on power and speed. You have Karate which is a striking martial art, and Judo which is a grappling throwing martial art. Chinese martial arts on the other hand (as well as traditional Korean martial arts) focus more on unloading, redirecting, or turning energy, which means that it is not necessarily the fastest and most powerful who wins. Chinese martial arts have a broader focus usually, and cover everything from kicks, to punches, to elbows, to grappling, to ground fighting, etc. In my experience, Chinese martial arts are able to defeat karate-like martial arts because of their focus on sensitivity and redirecting and unloading energy, as well as maintaining structure. Of course that is highly contested, but I thought I would explain my reasoning.
Also, remember that the Japanese learnt almost all their martial technology from the Chinese or Koreans, which means that the Chinese and Koreans would have a much richer tradition and more time to develop their martial arts.
You are correct, I am not an expert on Japanese military tactics of the time, but from what I do know about them and Chinese and Korean military tactics and weapons, I think that the Japanese were seriously disadvantaged.
I definately do understand the interest in Japanese military and culture, I however also think that it appeals to a niche audience, and as I do not particularly care for it, I wish that they made a game that had more than just one culture.

[gollum]

Thanks for the interesting info on Korean martial arts - i'll check them out. As i said, i know little about Korea.

Now some info about the battle use of a katana. Katanas were side weapons and were not used in battle unless one's main weapon was out of use. Yaris and Naginata's were preffered and were used against armor with thrusts and cuts with good effect. In Japan during the Sengoku Jidai, only the Japanese quilted armor existed in wide use (Yoroi) and that was relatively light by continental standards. However it was of no import to develop heavier armor due to the widespread use of the arquebus during the period, that could pierce armor anyway.

The wide spread use of the katana actually was established during the Edo period - the period that followed the Sengoku Jidai - the 250 nearly years of the "great peace". This was because all "actual war" weapons like spears, halberds and pikes that have a long reach, are good against the weak points of armor with thrusts and cuts and can be used effectvelly by large units were not used - because there was no war.

In addition, the Japanese did indeed import nearly everyhting to their culture from other cultures. Their strength as a people has never been in inventing stuff but in developing and perfecting. Think all you want about the japanese martial arts - but there is no MMartist that would get into the ring without some sort of throwing and grappling technique syllabus at the ready, and apart from the european wrestling and the russian sambo, the two most developed arts that provide such techniques are jujutsu and judo.

During the japanese invasions of Korea, that took place at the closing stages of the Sengoku period, the Japanese had great success at land, and lost the invasion due to the sea battles (at which they really indeed sucked) and harassment of their logistical lines from the Sino-Korean navy. So - in practice they've proven not as disadvantaged in terms of tactics as you may have thought.

[Intranetusa]

During the japanese invasions of Korea, that took place at the closing stages of the Sengoku period, the Japanese had great success at land, and lost the invasion due to the sea battles (at which they really indeed sucked) and harassment of their logistical lines from the Sino-Korean navy. So - in practice they've proven not as disadvantaged in terms of tactics as you may have thought.

Japanese successes on land really doesn't say much about Japanese tactics because the Korean army was entirely ineffective. The Korean soldiers were poorly trained for close quarter combat, and were far outmatched by the Japanese army for most of the 1st invasion.

So just like the Japanese navy sucked, the Korean army sucked. When the Ming Empire intervened in the war with 40,000 troops, the Japanese faced a well trained and well equipped land army - and they started losing on land as well as the sea.