Shogun 2: Total War

SPARTAN VI said:
Rome was my favorite as well. The theme and gameplay just mixed so well. Empire was a huge disappointment. I gave a second shot recently and it still failed to draw me in. I like some of the campaign map enhancements made, specifically the neato tech tree and how provinces develop. But combat, particularly fort warfare, was just a buzz kill.
Click to expand...

And watching the AI make the same foolish, doomed-to-fail assault on the same stronghold turn after turn just brings me to tears of frustration. Especially since if you auto-complete the battle, the AI will magically win, forcing me to replay the same battle time and time again.
 
SPARTAN VI said:
Rome was my favorite as well. The theme and gameplay just mixed so well. Empire was a huge disappointment. I gave a second shot recently and it still failed to draw me in. I like some of the campaign map enhancements made, specifically the neato tech tree and how provinces develop. But combat, particularly fort warfare, was just a buzz kill.
Click to expand...

To me, doing a fantasy or a non-historic/sci-fi based RTS would be fun if they did something more unique then your general high fantasy elves/orcs/etc.


I'd really like to see an RTS game that takes place in the Dino era. Like what BC (Lionhead game) was gonna be like but on a more combat appraoch with your tribe (and/or dino's).
 
I found that video to be pretty much useless. Looks like cavalry is ridiculously overpowered as usual, flame arrows are super effective, and I saw nothing to indicate any actual improvements in battlefield AI. To heap on that, let's film a battlefield that is obscured by low light and bad weather.
 
PanzerBoxb said:
I found that video to be pretty much useless. Looks like cavalry is ridiculously overpowered as usual, flame arrows are super effective, and I saw nothing to indicate any actual improvements in battlefield AI. To heap on that, let's film a battlefield that is obscured by low light and bad weather.
Click to expand...

150 archers firing 2 sets of steel tipped flaming arrows, equalling 300 arrows, would easily devastate a charging cavalry, since, of course, the point is to damage the horses rather than the riders.

Maybe you'd like to saunter out onto a battlefield and have somebody shoot 300 flaming arrows at you. Better you than me.
 
PanzerBoxb said:
I found that video to be pretty much useless. Looks like cavalry is ridiculously overpowered as usual, flame arrows are super effective, and I saw nothing to indicate any actual improvements in battlefield AI. To heap on that, let's film a battlefield that is obscured by low light and bad weather.
Click to expand...

I think they simply cannot figure out a way to have cavalry break a line rather than break it and massacre the troops. There is a reason dismounted feudal knights ruled the battlefield in middle ages. Its hard to kill people riding around a horse in armor. Hell, its hard to just ride a horse lol.
 
Is there even a reason to be using flaming arrows versus infantry in rainy conditions? I imagine an arrow would hurt a helluva lot, flaming or not. Generally the use of flame comes at a great cost to accuracy and range.. so it just seems they're taking a page from Hollywood's book.
 
Last edited:
SPARTAN VI said:
Is there even a reason to be using flaming arrows versus infantry in rainy conditions? I imagine an arrow would hurt a helluva lot, flaming or not, in fact it may sanitize the wound as it passes through.
Click to expand...

lol, not sure, I believe they were used to frighten as well as injure a lot of times.
 
WabeWalker said:
150 archers firing 2 sets of steel tipped flaming arrows, equalling 300 arrows, would easily devastate a charging cavalry, since, of course, the point is to damage the horses rather than the riders.

Maybe you'd like to saunter out onto a battlefield and have somebody shoot 300 flaming arrows at you. Better you than me.
Click to expand...

The point is not that archers are deadly to any troop type, it is that CA continue to exaggerate capabilities of units for the sake of "balance" or whatever excuse they use this time. Besides, those archers were supposed to be peasants so how exactly should I believe they were that accurate against a fast moving target? This discussion can do without your condescension.

huxley said:
lol, not sure, I believe they were used to frighten as well as injure a lot of times.
Click to expand...

Correct. Having flaming arrows impact a units morale is one thing, portraying that as some uber weapon upgrade like the have done is not a good indicator for the rest of the game. In essence, I have the feeling that this will be another CA release that will need some talented mod teams to make worthwhile.
 
+5 fire damage enchanted arrows. -5 to morale. +50% chance that a random oil trap will light up all the horsees. Saw it in braveheart once. Gets 'em every time. This is so awesome, maybe they will have Tibetan monks whooping up the battle floor with their uber fist powers and super leaps.






ok, ok, i'm joking around.
 
PanzerBoxb said:
The point is not that archers are deadly to any troop type, it is that CA continue to exaggerate capabilities of units for the sake of "balance" or whatever excuse they use this time. Besides, those archers were supposed to be peasants so how exactly should I believe they were that accurate against a fast moving target? This discussion can do without your condescension.



Correct. Having flaming arrows impact a units morale is one thing, portraying that as some uber weapon upgrade like the have done is not a good indicator for the rest of the game. In essence, I have the feeling that this will be another CA release that will need some talented mod teams to make worthwhile.
Click to expand...

You're just being silly. It's a game. Of course it has to be gamey.

Every discussion about a war game at any gaming forum always degenerates into this same silly discussion - about how in the real world this would never have happened, or that would never have happened.

It's a game, not a simulation.
 
WabeWalker said:
You're just being silly. It's a game. Of course it has to be gamey.

Every discussion about a war game at any gaming forum always degenerates into this same silly discussion - about how in the real world this would never have happened, or that would never have happened.

It's a game, not a simulation.
Click to expand...

Well, as a general principle I find that games that are closer to a simulation have more mileage and replayability. The arcade feel is better for one quick rush until you beat the game. Long sex vs. quick sex. It's the same difference between the stereotypical PC game and the stereotypical console game.
 
Just speaking of the flaming arrows, etc. From a historical standpoint flaming arrows were used mainly against buildings and things that could catch fire (IE siege towers, etc).

Against people they were not effective really at all. The disadvantages of using flaming arrows vs normal ones far outweighed their usefullness against people.

As using flaming arrows made them unbalanced, harder to aim, and could even potentially harm the bowmen using it (as the fuel could drip back).

You were much much better off using normal arrows against any type of infantry/cavalry unit.

However against full plated armor arrows were almost useless, as they wouldn't pierce it unless you were extremely close or got very lucky and slid the arrow into a weak point (visor slit, groin/armpit areas). Otherwise the area would glance off or at best nick the armor.


With Shogun it's set before the full plate era and thus arrows are more effective, however the "Flaming arrow" crap is still as CA has done in other games, done for "show" and not any type of historical accuracy, they don't even use a light source for the arrows even, just magically pull them out of the quiver.
 
Stiler said:
Just speaking of the flaming arrows, etc. From a historical standpoint flaming arrows were used mainly against buildings and things that could catch fire (IE siege towers, etc).

Against people they were not effective really at all. The disadvantages of using flaming arrows vs normal ones far outweighed their usefullness against people.

As using flaming arrows made them unbalanced, harder to aim, and could even potentially harm the bowmen using it (as the fuel could drip back).

You were much much better off using normal arrows against any type of infantry/cavalry unit.

However against full plated armor arrows were almost useless, as they wouldn't pierce it unless you were extremely close or got very lucky and slid the arrow into a weak point (visor slit, groin/armpit areas). Otherwise the area would glance off or at best nick the armor.


With Shogun it's set before the full plate era and thus arrows are more effective, however the "Flaming arrow" crap is still as CA has done in other games, done for "show" and not any type of historical accuracy, they don't even use a light source for the arrows even, just magically pull them out of the quiver.
Click to expand...

If you have 150 men shooting flaming arrows at the enemy, and nothing happens, then people playing the GAME are going to say, that's stupid, and they're going to feel cheated.

Who cares if the archers are over-powered or under-powered, or even if flaming arrows are out of place historically, the most important thing is that the GAME be fun, and well balanced.
 
Parmenides said:
Well, as a general principle I find that games that are closer to a simulation have more mileage and replayability. The arcade feel is better for one quick rush until you beat the game. Long sex vs. quick sex. It's the same difference between the stereotypical PC game and the stereotypical console game.
Click to expand...

Not to mention the time, money, and effort CA has put into every one of their games to ensure a degree historical authenticity. They have described Shogun: Total War as a simulation, so it would be reasonable to expect as much from its sequel.

Modders will fix this. No doubt.
 
The attraction of the Total war games to me, at least from the first one and others was the more HISTORICAL aspect of them. I'd like to see the TW series lean toward realism in it's combat and things rather then fantasy or such.

Just because it's a game doesn't mean more realism and historical accuracy "hurts" it, especially when the series already leans more toward that then most other RTS games.
 
Parmenides said:
Why is Rome better than Medieval 2? I never played Medieval. Just wondering.
Click to expand...

All of these have had AI problems. I think Rome worked because of the unit interactions and the size of the map (not too big) so you didn't find it ridiculous trying to expand and gain territories. I also liked the wonders of the world that they had. Because of them, conquering greece was always a top priority for me.

I also think that it was the most informative (or at least the way that they presented the information) so it had a cool historical aspect to it.

I remember cultivating my hastati until gold star level, at that point they could take on a bronze phalanx and win (with some casualties). That was a lot of fun.
 
WabeWalker said:
You're just being silly. It's a game. Of course it has to be gamey.

Every discussion about a war game at any gaming forum always degenerates into this same silly discussion - about how in the real world this would never have happened, or that would never have happened.

It's a game, not a simulation.
Click to expand...

If people love a certain type of game, you often get into the simulation vs. gameplay argument. It happens in sports games all the time, I was just arguing in the NHL 2k11 thread that I prefer a mix of realism with arcade speed/action. Some people prefer pure realism, fun is subjective but I think there is a reason that there is not a huge amount of pure simulation games out there, not enough market.
 
Megalomaniac said:
All of these have had AI problems. I think Rome worked because of the unit interactions and the size of the map (not too big) so you didn't find it ridiculous trying to expand and gain territories. I also liked the wonders of the world that they had. Because of them, conquering greece was always a top priority for me.

I also think that it was the most informative (or at least the way that they presented the information) so it had a cool historical aspect to it.

I remember cultivating my hastati until gold star level, at that point they could take on a bronze phalanx and win (with some casualties). That was a lot of fun.
Click to expand...

Rome's historical focus is more interesting to me. Although historically inaccurate in areas, I'd still take the opportunity to play as one of the Roman houses or as ancient Greece over any medieval faction.

Units in M2:TW suffer from cohesion problems, cavalry have issues charging at times, murder holes don't do anything during sieges, and units run around like they're knee deep in molasses; Rome Total War's pacing is spot on. Also felt that they dumbed things down in M2:TW a bit by removing the population impact when conscripting soldiers; if you have a dinky village it can pump out a seemingly endless amount of troops with no impact whatsoever on the population.

I like the trading mechanic in M2TW, the city/castle specializations, and the neat little combat animations, but overall it didn't hook me like Rome did.
 
That's neat. Seems like unexplored areas appear as parts of a map, which then get populated with flora and geometry when scouted. Excellent!

Little over done on the fog though. Not making situational awareness any easier.
 
The total war campaign maps are improving all the time - my favorite so far was the Egypt map in Napoleon, with its swirling sand storms, and fast moving clouds... even the lighting was different for the various seasons.
 
My god those screenshots look tasty. Notice the art on the unit cards, so much better than the recent TW games.

How does the saying go, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me... these bastards have been fooling me since Rome (the first TW game I consider despicable), and as much as I have sworn them off, I feel by the time this game rolls around I'm gonna be fooled again. I just can't resist the idea.
 
If the enemy AI stands around while I rain heavy catapult rocks at their stupid little heads, while they line up for more and don't do anything about it then meh :rolleyes:

10 years and still little improvement on the AI

I saw this in the original Shogun: Total War where I could inch closer, to get my archers in range. In Rome: Total War it's just painful to watch the enemy AI eat heavy catapults.

I have not played any mods but I read that SPQR mod adds AI scripts / garrison scripts.
 
RELEASE DATE ANNOUNCED!!!

11th November, 2010
Shogun 2 Release Date Announced
The wait is over. We’re excited to be able to announce the release date for Shogun 2: Total War as March 15th, 2011.

Shogun 2: Total War will feature enhanced full 3D battles via land and sea, which made a name for the series, as well as the tactical campaign map that many refer to as the heart and soul of Total War.

Featuring a brand new AI system inspired by the scriptures that influenced Japanese warfare, the millennia old Chinese “Art of War”, The Creative Assembly brings the wisdom of Master Sun Tsu to Shogun 2: Total War. Analysing this ancient text enabled The Creative Assembly to implement easy to understand yet deep strategical gameplay.


Many thanks,

CraigTW (aka Craig Laycock)
The Creative Assembly
 
The first Shogun is bad ass, I couldn't get enough of it. Shogun 2 is gonna rock, I can't wait.
 
A brand new AI system? Well then.... now we are talking. Everything about total war is awesome except the AI which is enough to keep me away since Rome.
 
SPARTAN VI said:
That's neat. Seems like unexplored areas appear as parts of a map, which then get populated with flora and geometry when scouted. Excellent!

Little over done on the fog though. Not making situational awareness any easier.
Click to expand...

It's the mythical Fog of War.....well implemented I think, +1 for that.
 
Hope we get some sweet videos, I loved the Geisha and Ninja assassinations in the first one.
 
Parmenides said:
A brand new AI system? Well then.... now we are talking. Everything about total war is awesome except the AI which is enough to keep me away since Rome.
Click to expand...

I'll believe the claim of a new AI when I see it perform. CA has burned the community too many times with claims of improved AI lately.
 
What I am most excited about are the mods that will come out after the game is released. XL mod for original total war was epic and Europa Barbarorum for Rome is brilliant.
 
I just wonder about the hardware requirements. Napoleon and Empire already peg my system and make my fans howl at anything above mid-range settings. Shogun will probably be like the previous in the series where it will have to wait for next-gen hardware to fully appreciate the game graphically.
 
I might be mistaken, but I believe that Shogun will be running off the same engine as Napoleon? If you can play Napoleon then you should be able to play this. I still feel slightly guilty about not playing The Peninsular Campaign for Napoleon. I bought it day one, but never even touched it.
 
Hey, nice. I'm liking everything I see about this game. Especially love the neat unit card artwork, very nice touch instead of the usual rendered or "realistic" unit cards.
 
Video of siege warfare. Looks like the guy kinda just flopped and let the AI beat him, or maybe the AI had better troops.

Historically, is this how siege warfare really went down? To be honest, it doesn't necessarily look like fun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top