Would this unit list be historically correct??

**D|major** · February 09, 2011, 04:02 PM

Let's just assume such a unit list would be featured in Shogun 2 (open the spoiler

).

What do you guys think:
Is this correct? Would it appropriately represent the Clan's strengths and weaknesses? If you keep in mind that CA doesn't want to feature more than ~40 different land units, is this the best simplification to generalise the japanese warfare?

I added historical background information to some of the units from the list. Those units are hyperlinked, just click'em

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

**CoconutFred** · February 09, 2011, 05:31 PM

Overall yes, it does seem extremely correct, but I don't think all the extra bow ashigarus as well as matchlocks (you forgot about arquebuses) are needed. I mean, what's the difference between a garrison bowman and a normal bowman?

Oh yeah, and the fire bombs would likely be called 'Thunder Bombers', a name taken from the Mongol Invasion expansion to STW.

**Juggernaut** · February 09, 2011, 06:30 PM

Katana Cavalry
Katana Samurai
No-Dachi Samurai

Levy records from this time often specifies men to bring spears, but usually doesn't say anything about swords. Having a unit of Samurais wholly equipped with swords seems weird. If there is a situation where they needed to use swords, they would just drop their spears. I also don't know why Date has their own No-Dachi unit. AFAIK, No-Dachi were mostly popular in Kyushu region. Although their historical accuracy is rather dubious, if CA wanted to give Date a unique unit they could have given them the mounted arquebusiers.

Chosokabe Bow Ashigaru
Chosokabe Bow Samurai

I never read anything about men of Tosa being skilled archers. AFAIK, Chousokabe were famous for their half-Samurai half-peasant Ichiryou-Gusoku militias, not archers.

Uesugi Warrior Monks

I don't know why CA decided to have Uesugi having warrior monks, considering Uesugi Kenshin was a strong opponent of the Ikkou-Ikki. From what I've read, the Uesugi army weren't so unusual apart from having lots of spearmen, and no mention of archers in their levy records.

Matchlock Samurai

Looks weird Shimazu not having their own one, considering that's what they were famous for.

Yari Ashigaru

What bugs me is that there aren't any pikemen, despite them being the mainstay of the armies of this period. All I've seen is Ashigarus with 3.6m spears.

Ships

The names are pretty bad. Couldn't they've used a more accurate name than "Cannon bune"? In fact, unit names in general sounds lame. They've used native names in ETW and NTW, so why couldn't they do that this time?

Hojo Cannons
Hojo Fire - Mangonels
Hojo Fire Rockets

I haven't read anything about Houjou clan using such weapons.

**Rolling Thunder** · February 10, 2011, 06:20 AM

Naginata Warrior Monk Cavalry?

That's just....retarded.

And single-man "Hero" units. Great, just what I wanted.

Not buying this until I see a bloody good realism mod.

**Erwin Rommel** · February 10, 2011, 09:32 AM

And single-man "Hero" units. Great, just what I wanted.

Not buying this until I see a bloody good realism mod.

You should have seen the Gametrailer videos then, the land battle one, showing the Takeda marching, the first unit was a hero unit a sohei unit and lo and behold, at most its a 30 man unit.

**Furious Mental** · February 10, 2011, 10:22 AM

if CA wanted to give Date a unique unit they could have given them the mounted arquebusiers.

What's the deal there - are these soldiers who fired from the saddle or dragoons?

**Heiro de Bodemloze** · February 12, 2011, 10:02 AM

arquebusiers are matchlocks matchlock arquebus is the name of the gun

**Juggernaut** · February 12, 2011, 10:11 AM

Originally Posted by Furious Mental

What's the deal there - are these soldiers who fired from the saddle or dragoons?

There really aren't any consensus on the issue. It may very well be both.

**gowski** · February 12, 2011, 07:18 PM

Come to think of it, they haven't shown any horse-archers in the videos so far. Are these units out of date at this point?

**Furious Mental** · February 12, 2011, 10:50 PM

When were these ambiguous teppo cavalry in use then? I am just curious because I have never heard of anything like that in Japan.

**Juggernaut** · February 12, 2011, 11:44 PM

Originally Posted by Furious Mental

When were these ambiguous teppo cavalry in use then? I am just curious because I have never heard of anything like that in Japan.

AFAIK the only mention of them in primary source is within the Maeda clan's military roster for the Osaka winter siege, witch lists 50 "Bajou Teppou" or "gunners on horses" as part of the Hatamoto Uma-mawari.

In secondary source the Jouzan kidan, a mid Edo period collection of anecdotes from Sengoku period, makes two mentions of the 800 "Kiba Teppou" or "gun cavalry" of Date clan during the Osaka summer siege. However, Date clan's roster for the siege only lists 628 cavalry on total, so at least the number is a clear exaggeration. There's also a mention of Tokugawa clan's Kiba Teppou in Oze Hoan's Taikou-ki, where Samurais of Okudaira Nobumasa dismounts before firing their guns during the battles of Komaki and Nagakute.

**Furious Mental** · February 13, 2011, 04:37 AM

Interesting. Thanks for the information. Perhaps this is a tactic that would have become more widespread, but for the end of the Sengoku Jidai era.

**D|major** · February 13, 2011, 03:10 PM

Originally Posted by gowski

Come to think of it, they haven't shown any horse-archers in the videos so far. Are these units out of date at this point?

From the latest preview build it looks like those Bow Cavalry will be featured in Shogun 2 (that is where I got to know about them, at least).

**TomteOfDoom** · February 27, 2011, 06:09 AM

If we first of all conclude that every unit needs to be an accurate representation of how samurai, ashigaru or any armed japanese during the 16th century fought in groups, and also have to abstract this by saying that all men in a unit use the same equipment, and lastly isolate this weapon to the most commonly used within the unit...

In that case the vast majority of the units in that rooster are ahistorical.

Let me explain why:

First of all it's important to state that the yari was the only melee weapon used extensively in the 16th century. Any group equipped for melee would've seen most of its men carrying yari, be that armed peasants, ashigaru, samurai either mounted or on foot, warrior monks or what have you. Yari was THE weapon.

Secondly, it's also important to identify the design and role of the yari. The avarage lenght varied between 3 and 5 metres. There are examples of both shorter and longer yari but these were the sizes commonly used in battle.
Samurai usually carried the shorter ones, between 3-4m, while ashigaru used yari between 4-5m, but even longer ones were not uncommon.

The role of the yari was NOT primarily anti-cavalry, it was an all-purpose weapon and was NOT discarded to fight other infantry. In fact the reason for the gradual lenghtening of the yari was not to counter cavalry threat, which we can deduct from the declining use of fighting cavalry, even while yari kept being lengthened. No, it saw this evolution to counter the "pikes" of the opposing infantry. Reach is of equal use wether you're fighting men on horse AND on foot.

So here we can scratch all yari-units. The samurai yari are barely longer than the men themselves, so under 2m which is not good enough. Goodbye for yari samurai. The ashigaru yari would appear to be no longer than 3-3.5m. That's how long a samurai yari would typically be, however they disqualify themselves further by pulling out their swords in melee (...), so they go too.

I'll take another oppertunity to underline that there were NO whole units armed with swords of any type, neither katana nor nodachi, and even if some bunch of dudes for some reason did use swords in battle there was an even greater number of dudes in their contingent who didn't. Swords were at all times sidearms, unless a nodachi in which case it was simply a curiousity. They were pulled out if the primary weapon was disabled or unsuited for a specific circumstance, like fighting in a kitchen. But honestly, in the midst of cramped battle if that was the case, a warrior would sooner pull out his dagger. Seriously, think about it.

Naginata units? Why use a naginata when you can use a yari with better reach? The yari is also easier to use in massed combat as long as the lines of battle doesn't become too mixed. I suspect this is why you read examples of naginata being mixed in with units fighting with yari; if an unspeared foe managed to evade his way close to the line intent on stabbing pikemen to death with dagger or sword, naginata-wielders at interwals could be used to force them back or cut them down. but more commonly this would be the role of the samurai with their shorter yari; ensuring the integrity of the units they commanded by protecting their weakspots, like flanks, rear and exposed gaps.

Naginata was never the norm in any fighting unit, so as a wholesale, they're out too.

On to cavalry. First of all the majority of cavalry units (not saying there were many) were mixed up with infantry acting as attendants and bodyguards of the riders. They were supposed to charge together so a samurai cavalry-charge wasn't much one in a european sense. In such a unit, there was a greater number of footmen to riders, which disqualifies most cavalry to even represent.

The remaining cavalry were such units as messengers or rapid response units, intended for riding to critical places or strategic locations, where they would dismount and fight on foot. Luckily for the unit list, all mounted units can dismount, which qualifies them for this role as long as they carry yari. Because just as with infantry, this was the only melee weapon really used by cavalry. However there is bad news for the list again, because cavalry by nessecity used yari of the longer variety, needing that extra reach desperately. Seeing how the spears of cavalry seem to be the shortest in the game, this eliminates all yari cavalry too.

So what about yumi cavalry? Mounted archery on any bigger scale was dead by the opening decades of the 16th century. It was simply not a viable way of fighting any longer and in truth it had never been while facing a respectable opponent (meaning armored). The only thing a mounted archer could hope to achieve with any greater success was downing his opponents mount, and since most enemies were dismounted spearmen, only the lowliest enemies without armor were decent prey. This left the role of the mounted archer almost entirely useless (since the enemies who were so exposed were hardly worth the arrows wasted), so the practice was simply dropped wholesale.

So what's left at this point?

Foot archer units for one. These are viable, at least ashigaru archers. I don't know of any samurai forming whole contingents of archers but I'm sure elite archer-units would see a higher percentage of samurai in their ranks. So we can let them pass.

The exact same applies to Foot arquebus units, both ashigaru and samurai used this weapon ofcourse (samurai loved effective weaponry regardless of type, being an accomplished marksman was a great honor in ANY clan). With the same allowance as above, all arquebus units pass, especially the warrior monk arquebusers.

we can even admit mounted arquebus units in the knowledge that there actually were some cavalry units wholly equipped in this fashion. Naginata-cavalry however is a no-show for obvious reasons.

Kisho ninja? Seriously... Let's say there were elite units intended for some kind of covert operations on the battlefield, I'm sure there were at quite a few times. How do you expect them to be equipped? Very conspicuously, as if saying to the enemy; "ignore us, we're going to pull some nasty prank on you."? Not very likely right. These guys are so out that.. I don't even know what to say.

Firebomb throwers? What is this I don't even?
Yeah ok, CA read somewhere that a guy once threw a firebomb down a wall, I don't know. These were exotic weapons, no one likely formed units for their specific employment, and even if someone did... Would you give this kind of expensive munitions to lowly ashigaru and train them in nothing but throwing bombs; "ok, you guys are absolutely useless at fighting right? But you can throw stuff? Ok that's good enough, here take these very expensive bombs." Weren't european granadiers when they appeared the biggest, strongest, most fearless and well trained men an army could muster? So what is this then? I'll tell you what; a very, very poor concept. *kicks out the door*

Fire rockets? Rocket launcher infantry... Ok.. Alright. There did exist large calibre arquebuses. The japanese were quick and eager to explore the possibilities of this formidable weapon. And sure maybe someone got the brilliant idea to fire rockets with them, I don't know. I haven't read about this, maybe CA did. But AGAIN with the rationale around the unit. You don't give this stuff to a bunch of clowns. Every picture I've seen of these "birdguns" are in the hands of some beefy, ferocious-looking macho-samurai with bristling beard and glaring eyes, and next to the image is a text describing how he was noted for his excellence in fighting or something. *clubs to death, digs a hole and buries it*

Assorted siege engines. Fine whatever. Cannons, catapults, it checks out. But for the record, the very few cannons that existed in japan and were used were all imports and used very late in the period.

Have I missed anything? Yeah, about the clan specialities, as Juggernaut noted, most of them make no sense at all.

**Juggernaut** · February 27, 2011, 06:43 AM

I think the big problem is the old "1 unit=1 troop type" formula that has been used since STW1. It just doesn't work well in this period. Actually, it doesn't work for ETW/NTW either. Isn't it about time CA tries to do something about this?

**TomteOfDoom** · February 27, 2011, 08:41 AM

Isn't it about time CA tries to do something about this?

It's very past due in my opinion, both compound units and real chain of command. And individual morale/stats within units prefferably.

Just imagine the whole new world of options if such a system was implemented. You wouldn't need to add a bunch of fantasy-units that really doesn't make any sense, you could just give the player access to the kind of weapons and equipment known in whatever era the game concerned, and then let him compose his own armies out of them. Then he would probably see for himself why certain weapons were favoured while others discarded. And the AI could work along a similar pattern, excluding on unit-level the kind of equipment it has no use for and favouring what works.

Imagine the army building options. Say you have the basic unit of a company, and depending on the military ingenuity of your faction, you have various ways in which to set up companies. You could if primitive be stuck with simply mustering men to bring whatever they have, and get ragtag bands of mixed equipment/quality, and depending on your lack of military sofisitication, you might be forced to lead them as disorderly bands of warriors.

Or you could develop military systems which would allow you to form companies with different setups, ranging between 2 to any number of weapon-squads, arranged in a number of different patterns within the company, depending on your traditions. And for these weapon-squads you'd have a pool of known/available equipment to assign them to. And you could assign these weapon-squads various preset attitudes to follow in battle; like archers fall back behind the pikemen when in melee, and pikemen move to front, etc.

This way it would be impossible to make a historical game with a boring or stupid unit-rooster, because it would be historical to allow the player the same terms that people actually had, by supplying the available equipment and let him experiment to find the best setups. It would just be a matter of modelling the equipment realistically, and that can't be very hard.

This is what I want from CA. Intelligent applications to play with that will naturally achieve reasonable results.

**fightermedic** · February 27, 2011, 02:52 PM

very informative posts tomte
thanks

**TomteOfDoom** · February 28, 2011, 03:53 AM

You're welcome.

I think, in contrast with what CA seems to claim that strict history can be fun, it's just a matter of how you represent it.

Even if history limits the player to use units almost entirely composed of yari, yumi and teppô infantry, you shouldn't think "we need to add more different units here to make this fun", you should think "how can we make this fun?"

You need to start thinking about quality over quantity.

Give units more personality, more possibilities, more complexity. Split every unit up in smaller parts, add chain of command, give those faceless creatures identity, add mixed weaponry as a mechanism, allow secondary equipment as a norm, to be used when necessary.

Let, as in history, each unit be commanded by a samurai individual, having it's own heraldry, loyalty and goals. Let this units composition and quality be reflected by the personality of its commander, how rich he is, what lands you have assigned him to and what you expect of him.

And so on. It's possible to make history fun and intruiging if you want to do it.