Real "Realism" Mod

[Erwin Rommel]

Yes, that's why I mentioned the battle of Nagashino as depicted in Shincho Koki because there you see descriptions of how the Takeda army attacked the Oda position.

I think the most reasonable reading of the account is a more detailed version of "a command go[ing] out to the mounted samurai to form up and then charg[ing] a particular enemy formation": a command would indeed go out to the mounted samurai because one of them would have been the highest in the command chain, and as he calls his men to charge, you would be seeing mounted samurai under his command charging, who in turn would have had dismounted individuals under them.
So you would be seeing not only mounted samurai but also even more men on foot charging along with them.

Here. Just like this...

[Shos]

Your statement seems to go against all the Steven Turnbull and other sources I have read so far on this time period. I am no historian on Japan either, I just go with what I learn from the sources available (IE: my Japanese wife who sucks at history too sometimes).

That's bound to happen because any singular claim is a general statement at best. Not all daimyo armies stayed the same, and we are dealing with a century-long period with hundreds of independent polities. I guess I should have presented the army organization as a phase that all clans would have gone through at one point or another, one that was pretty relevant to all clans in 1545.

I kind of mentioned that in my first post, noting that

bulk of armies during the Sengoku era would have been composed of

1) a land-owning samurai rich enough to afford a mount who would have brought from his fief
a) several individuals with surname, rich enough to afford good armors, but not a mount
b) more individuals with no surname, not as rich

....and the guys a) and b) would have fought under the command of the guy 1), who would in turn be commanded by his superior. Of course this changes as infantry gets better coordinated as units in the more successful clans, but the socioeconomic pattern remained essentially the same.

Of course, as you can probably guess, tracing the progression of military structure and composition is rather difficult because the earlier the time period the scantier sources get. For example there is indeed evidence that a number of clans divided their men based on weaponry, but the title of the man in charge of such units differed among clans (for example, Ashigaru bugyo is only one example of titles for a man in the position) and it is hard to argue that all clans' armies operated in such a manner. It's much more reasonable to infer, I think, that the clans that managed to do that were relatively small, seeing as organizing an army in this manner is a step forward from an army mobilized in a feudal manner.

According to the Samurai Archives web site it lists distinct numbers and percentages of armies that were cavalry "units". In books I have read the samurai are divided into distinct cavalry units of around 100 men for each major weapon type (bow/yari/teppo). Those are also subdivided into the different types of yari (Lance/Long Spear/Hand Spears, etc.) The units are lead by members of the Kashindan (Gun-dan) normally.

I have sources that talk about percentages as well, but we shouldn't translate from the numbers that mounted men (perhaps referred to as cavalry to familiarize the readers) always fought as distinct units, let alone separated from the infantry.
But this situation is not entirely implausible with my description just above. If the clan in question had an army organization advanced enough to organize men based on weaponry, it is certainly possible that petty soldiers were separated from their land-owning samurai lord. IIRC there was a clan (don't remember which, sorry!) that, in addition to the number of men, also directed how many men from one's fief should bring such and such weapon, etc.

Even in the movie RAN there are whole units of samurai cavalry running around the battlefield being countered by the opposing army's cavalry. It didn't show a bunch of scattered samurai suddenly getting a order from higher up, forming a unit right on the field then charging into the enemy. All the cavalry in the movie rode together under a single banner of the cavalry unit leader.

I think the movie (or Kurosawa's movies in general, tbh) places more emphasis on cinematic effect than historical details, nor does it claim to be historically accurate.

Are all these sources wrongly portraying the cavalry unit? I hope I haven't filled my head with a bunch of useless knowledge again.

Not at all, your post raised a good point that hasn't been seriously addressed yet, which is that we are making general statements while in reality there are things that are left out by generalization.

[Shos]

Wow that's a long but intriguing post Kaunitz!

So, in Shogun 2' time frame, one can say that the feudal armies were superseded by standing armies (spearheaded by the "big players" who could afford it)? Before that, the lord would call all his vassals/liegemen/knights and their subordinates to battle, requiring them to bring their equipment with them and serve for a certain span of time (probably not in harvesttime?).

Exactly. Unfortunately the harvest time factor is generally ignored in all major games covering this period, so S2TW isn't alone in that regard. But it was a serious issue at the time, and you'll see that Bishamonten couldn't exempt Uesugi Kenshin from this reality.

As for the tactical units on the battlefield: Are you sure that the "constitution" of the army (samurai and their vassals...) translated 1:1 into tactical units on the battle field? Perhaps it was broken up, like it was also the case in late medieval armies like in those of the counts of burgundy. It still (partly) relied on feudal mechanisms ("lances") to deploy an army, but from the comparatively detailed battle accounts that we have, it becomes clear that the gens d'armes (together with some mounted servants) formed their own mounted units, seperate from their bow- or pike-wielding vassals. The command over the "wings" of the army was then bestowed on selected (very powerfull/influental) nobles or the count himself.

It indeed appears to be the case that men were broken up into different units as army organization progressed in some clans. I raised that issue here in first post, but there I only mentioned that "things changed later for some clans".
Your depiction of the European feudal army isn't that far off from Japanese armies at the time, either, especially when it comes to the mobilization part. Regardless of unit organization, as long as the system remained feudal, men would have been called to war as feudal levies of some lord. Exceptions to this rule is conscripted peasants, which started happening in the later years of the Sengoku era and professional Ashigaru that Oda Nobunaga is known for.

Also, I wonder what role cities played? Did they deploy their own contingents? Were they powerfull/independent enough to get rid of such obligations? Did daimyos have to struggle with cities in order to subjugate them? Alas, I don't know anything about Japanese cities, I only infer my questions from European conditions. Perhaps cities (unlike temples) have never been the independent and self-conscious entitites in Japan that they've been in Europe?

City is a tricky concept because the kind of cities that we think of today, which is typically both an economic and political center, is virtually nonexistent with the exception of Kyoto.
Part of the problem comes from what the word "political" even meant in Sengoku context: samurai class was not the only political class, and so anyone who could exercise power was a political actor. In this sense there was a couple of kinds of settlements:

1. Merchant cities, whose leadership purchased autonomy through money (and self-defense forces) to the higher political authority. Examples include Sakai and Hakata.
2. Temple complex, referring to businesses that were located just outside the main temple buildings, which therefore had "urban" (as opposed to rural) population.
3. Souson, autonomous villages which maintained their own rule inside the villages through money, policing, and demonstration of power.
4. Castle town (jokamachi), which is in infancy during this period and becomes common only since the Edo era.

So yes, with the exception of 4, these non-samurai cities were not independent for nothing - they had some kind of power to resist outside control. But then again things change in the later years of Sengoku, of course, as we see the emergence of a series of large daimyo clans whose power just couldn't be matched by individual "cities" alone.

[Shos]

Here. Just like this...

In fact, I don't think Shincho Koki says anything about sandan uchi. It's more infamous for the 3000 muskets thing, IIRC.

As far as sandan uchi goes, though, it's another mystery to me. I haven't read anyone who says there's a trustworthy contemporary that says YES THERE WAS, but there doesn't seem to exist a contemporary source that definitively says NO THERE WAS NOT, either.

[Hazbones]

That's bound to happen because any singular claim is a general statement at best. Not all daimyo armies stayed the same, and we are dealing with a century-long period with hundreds of independent polities. I guess I should have presented the army organization as a phase that all clans would have gone through at one point or another, one that was pretty relevant to all clans in 1545.

To try combating that generalization theme in S2TW I am working on a mod right now that attempts to insert different military and governmental organizations for each clan (Mettle Blades Skill). This will make the gameplay totally different depending upon which organization you choose. I had the idea of representing the different methods that daimyo used to organize their forces since the first time I played Shogun 2.

I think my mod will not get everything historically correct but will at least address the fact that not all Japan used the same organization for their fiefs as you mentioned and that they went through phases until finally a standard started to emerge as they got closer to the 1600 mark.

[Dee Jay]

WOW, got some big post going on now I read it all last night (I was away for a few days and had a lot of reading to do) but I finally got through it and I think that it will help this mod a lot.

@ Hazbones - your mod looks interesting

[Hazbones]

WOW, got some big post going on now I read it all last night (I was away for a few days and had a lot of reading to do) but I finally got through it and I think that it will help this mod a lot.

@ Hazbones - your mod looks interesting

Thanks, it will be pretty cool once I get all the pieces together. Once all the prelim parts are created I will start to make it compatible with other mods and I hope the "Real Realism" mod will be far enough along by then that I can combine MBS with it.

It's just slow going when you are the only one working on a mod.

[RonaldAniban]

Dee Jay, how's the progress?

And you said in your previous post that you have already took care of the bulletproof samurai's animation also being applied when units survive arrows.
Really? If yes, that's awesome! How did you do it?

Oh and I want to play Shogun 2 now but I can't because I want to wait for this dream mod...But what I really wanted is battle realism. I want to mod the game to make the battles (only) realistic, but I do not know what the rows mean in kv_rules_tables

Can you tell me what those rows mean if you have the time? Thanks in advance.

[Kaunitz]

Hm, realism in battles. Technical weapon-discussions will only give us realism within fantasy battles. Dee Jay already knows about my approach to realism. I always stress morale over casualties. I’m hardly interested in technical details of weapons and armour. Of course, one needs to have the correct trooptypes (ranged inf, melee inf, some kind of cavalry) who should be able to perform their roles (a suicide charge is probably not in cavalry’s repertoire).

But what’s really paramount when I think about realism in battles is to try to filter out the factors that decided battles. We need to think like a general, not like a martial art master. Equipment (the often mentioned rock-paper-scissors-system) shouldn’t play a big role if you compare it to: terrain, surprise/communication/information/manoeuvre (they're all linked), reserves, cohesion of a certain unit. This is what „real“ realism is about (for me personally). It’s not located on the tiniest micro level of weapons and armour. The cavalry charge at Nagashino (if there even was one) was not stopped by muskets, but by wet ground, fortifications and a stream, and – if it happened – a horrible decision.

I also have severe troubles to imagine premodern battles in general as the drawn out melee duels that games and movies show to us. My unfounded hypothesis is that of extremely short or almost non-existant „melees“. I rather tend to think in terms of longer times of „attritional action“ (performed by archers, muskets) and very short timespans of „shock action“ to force a position, with one side drawing back before or very shortly after contact. From the sources of the 18th century, one can learn that bayonet „charges“ as well as cavalry „charges“ primarily worked by means of psychology, not by means of physical force, and I see no reason why the laws of psychology would be different 200 years earlier. But that’s just me trying to come up with a picture of premodern battles that makes sense based on what I believe to know.

PS: I found this podcast (especially part two) about the interpretation and documentation/sources of the battle of Nagashino on the samurai archives and I found it quite interesting and well researched.
http://samuraiarchives.podbean.com/2...ry-revolution/

PS: Thinking about the campaign again, and refering to this (although I think G-Shock overestimates the speed of armies). Can one make it 12 (or even more!) turns per year? The time units (in all Total War games) are far too big to allow for smaller movement distances of armies (and thereby more operational depth). I'd also consider more turns per year a prerequisite for raised upkeep costs (as described in my previous post).

PS: Another thing I find strange is that the length of the common spear was about 3-5 meters! Now, I'm rather sceptical about Turnbulls works, but here I agree with him that the length of the spears (rather: pikes) is a clear indicator that warfare in Japan must have looked similar to European warfare at that time. I'm speaking of pike formations that were supporting groups of ranged weapons. A spear of 3-5 meter length doesn't make a lot of sense if it isn't used in a formation, does it? Pike and shot warfare is something entirely different from the pell-mell-individual brawls that we have in Shogun II right now.

[Kensai56]

Yes, pike and shot battle is essentially what were dealing with by sekigahara and thats what the ashigaru should eventually become through research and maybe some type of building upgrade? Also may we please have a list update on whats being changed and whats in discussion atm?

[Loger]

imo a pike and shot unit would be incredibly boring and overpowered. Pike and shot = Long yari ashigaru + Matchlock ashigaru.

[RonaldAniban]

imo a pike and shot unit would be incredibly boring and overpowered. Pike and shot = Long yari ashigaru + Matchlock ashigaru.

LOL that's why they became popular. There's no "overpowered" or "boring" units in historic wars.

And in the game, they should only be recruited in a very very late time.

[Kaunitz]

Why would ashigaru armed with pikes be available only late? Weren't they the basis infantry unit throughout the whole period we're talking about? What would we have instead in the early stages of the sengoku period? And pike and shot formations would be overpowered if compared to what other unit? I don't see any other unit: we've got bow-, arquebuse-, pike-armed ashigaru, lance-/spear-armed mounted samurai (who could also fight dismounted), and perhaps also some samurai who could not afford a horse and/or armour? Did I miss any non-fantasy unit type? What changed throughout the period - judging from Turnbull... - is that the amount of ranged weapons (especially arquebuses) increased and even surmounted the amount of pike-armed troops, which is quite similar to developments in Europe, where incidents of pike formations actually clashing became rarer and rarer.

Now that I've faltered and that I'm just downloading the game, I will make a small experiment if pike and shot warfare can be modeled in the game, stressing cohesion (=formerly fatigue) much more than casualties, just like I did it for my ETW modding project. Apart from the AI, the biggest problem is the fact that we cannot give ranged units a "disruption"-effect (instead of only "killing effect"). Judging from ETW, there is the "being under small arms fire"-fatigue factor, but unfortunately, it doesn't actively "accumulte" fatigue (=cohesion loss), but it only prevents the "regeneration". Also, cavalry as a unit type needs a complete overhaul.

The idea of "research" is absolutely strange in my eyes. Perhaps one could also change it to represent reforms or actions taken by you as a daimyo? Some ideas for reforms (in form of buildings and/or research): land survey, mint coins, tighten control over local samurai, take action against minor local clans/rival factions within your clan (should lead to a revolt but increase income after that), establish toll booths (if yes: +income but trade will decline; if no: trade will increase --> better in the long term), curtail the power of local temples and/or guilds, refuse the shugo's rights (in the early game).

I know that comparisons with European warfare are not unproblematic. Nevertheless, I think that armies of the late 15th century come pretty close to those of sengoku Japan. Not only in terms of the half feudal half professional/mercenary recruitment, but also in terms of the troop types: We have pikes, mounted "knights" (not acting as disciplined "cavalry" yet), and we've got plenty of firearms (much more artillery than in Japan). What is missing in Japan are crossbows, both mounted ("cranequiniers") and on foot. Archers, still very numerable on European battlefields around 1460, seem to have been in very quick decline. By 1500, it seems as if they've been completly replaced by arquebuses and crossbows. I thought I could add two depictions which are quite un-schematic and therefore interesting:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

army on the march in the "Hausbuch von Schloss Wolfenegg" (after 1480); Unfortunately, I couldn't upload it in a higher resolution - The baggage train-wagons are accompanied by groups of soldiers either armed with pole-weapons or with a mixture of crossbows and handguns. The incomplete sets of armour and the rag-tag-look of what we would call "knights" is also very outstanding.


army ready for battle in the "Kriegsbuch des Phillip Mönch" (1496). Perhaps this depiction of "early pike and shot" gives us an idea of what warfare in the sengoku era looked like?

Now, obviously, depicitons of this kind (that show formations) seem to be non-existant for the Sengoku era. But one has to see that there seems to be hardly any sengoku-period artwork that takes up on warfare (and even then it has to do with legendary stuff?). The non-contemporary artwork that shows sengoku battles doesn't show us formations either. My hypothesis is that it doesn't show formations not because they didn't exist, but rather because the mentality behind the art was more of a narrative and elite character, still focused on the notion of individual samurai warrior. Whereas in the arts this ideal still flourished, the reality on the battlefield looked very different und much less "heroic". Nowadays the ideal still caters for Hollywood movies and Total War games. But that's just my unfounded hypothesis.

[RonaldAniban]

Why would ashigaru armed with pikes be available only late?

I was referring to pike and shot.

[Loger]

LOL that's why they became popular. There's no "overpowered" or "boring" units in historic wars.

And in the game, they should only be recruited in a very very late time.

Ok, what I meant was, Instead of having a "pike and shot" unit, I think it's a lot more tactically interesting gun units supported by pike units. The tercio formation (arguably the most succesful pike and shot formation in the renaissance era) wasn't a bunch of matchlocks and pikes clumped together, It was squares of pikes supporting the gun formations.

This is much more interesting from a gameplay perspective than massive blobs of invincible "pike and shot" units.

EDIT: Like in the last of those great pictures from Kaunitz. +rep for your effort

[RonaldAniban]

Dee Jay, how's the progress? I can't play Shogun 2 without this dream mod D:

Edit: Can somebody please teach me what the rows mean in kv_rules_tables?

[Loger]

Hey, here's a crazy suggestion:

How about balancing the campaign around 12 turns per year?

Strategically it would be very interesting game, I think, as you would have to plan when to launch your campaigns. Get stuck behind enemy lines in the winter? Too bad, you just lost half your army (I would also buff winter attrition somewhat, so that spending a whole winter in enemy teritory would be quite devastating). I would also increase movement speed a little (So that it's possible to go from any castle town to the next in one turn) and increase the blocking radious of units and castles (so it's possible to close off strategic passes with an army).

For army copositions I would suggest a change over time, not just in terms of unit types, but also on how the army is recruited. I think Samurai should stay the same from the beginning to the end, you can recruit 2-3 units of samurai in each region, and that's it. They have high recruitment costs, medium upkeep and take half a year to recruit (6 turns). As well as very slow replenishment (If possible I would slow samurai replenishment even further compared to Ashigaru). I think ashigaru should change dramatically throughout the campaign. Basically the first ashigaru, the peasant types, were mass levied. I think this could accurately be portrayed by giving them a unit cap for each province (5-6 ashigaru units) but that they become instantly recruitable. IE In one month you should be able to raise your entire levy and they should be dirt cheap to recruit. The drawbacks? Other than obvious low combat performance, I think these troops should have a very high upkeep, significantly higher than samurai, as the domain should produce less rice with all the farmers fighting in the army, and it will encourage the disbanding of these farmer levies in times of peace. This also means that early on, your fighting power is determined by how many provinces you hold, and conquering new provinces will be more difficult, due to the relatively small size of the army (similar to the samurai skirmishing period in the earlier sengoku period).

Through research you unlock proffessional ashigaru, with low upkeep, medium costs and not too long of a recruitment time (3 turns/3 months) and no caps. This will allow huge permanent armies to be raised in the latter half of the game.

Obviously, building costs and construction times should be rebalanced for 12 tpy.

A bit far fetched, but would be cool of you to consider, I think

EDIT: I do think siege times should remain the same.

[The_Nord]

Hey, here's a crazy suggestion:

How about balancing the campaign around 12 turns per year?

Strategically it would be very interesting game, I think, as you would have to plan when to launch your campaigns. Get stuck behind enemy lines in the winter? Too bad, you just lost half your army (I would also buff winter attrition somewhat, so that spending a whole winter in enemy teritory would be quite devastating). I would also increase movement speed a little (So that it's possible to go from any castle town to the next in one turn) and increase the blocking radious of units and castles (so it's possible to close off strategic passes with an army).

For army copositions I would suggest a change over time, not just in terms of unit types, but also on how the army is recruited. I think Samurai should stay the same from the beginning to the end, you can recruit 2-3 units of samurai in each region, and that's it. They have high recruitment costs, medium upkeep and take half a year to recruit (6 turns). As well as very slow replenishment (If possible I would slow samurai replenishment even further compared to Ashigaru). I think ashigaru should change dramatically throughout the campaign. Basically the first ashigaru, the peasant types, were mass levied. I think this could accurately be portrayed by giving them a unit cap for each province (5-6 ashigaru units) but that they become instantly recruitable. IE In one month you should be able to raise your entire levy and they should be dirt cheap to recruit. The drawbacks? Other than obvious low combat performance, I think these troops should have a very high upkeep, significantly higher than samurai, as the domain should produce less rice with all the farmers fighting in the army, and it will encourage the disbanding of these farmer levies in times of peace. This also means that early on, your fighting power is determined by how many provinces you hold, and conquering new provinces will be more difficult, due to the relatively small size of the army (similar to the samurai skirmishing period in the earlier sengoku period).

Through research you unlock proffessional ashigaru, with low upkeep, medium costs and not too long of a recruitment time (3 turns/3 months) and no caps. This will allow huge permanent armies to be raised in the latter half of the game.

Obviously, building costs and construction times should be rebalanced for 12 tpy.

A bit far fetched, but would be cool of you to consider, I think

EDIT: I do think siege times should remain the same.

Your post is very interesting, but on the winter attirition point I have to go against you. Why? Because the sekigahara mod recently tried having a huge winter attirition penalty, and what that resulted in was that the A.I not being able to recognise it, I and one other player experienced the AI sending as much as three full stacks to besiege our castles in winter, and when attirition had taken it's toll, there was nothing left of the enemy which pretty much negated the need to even have a garrison at the castles, the A.I. would kill it's own armies for you, making the campaign extremely easy. I conquered a ridiculous amount of regions with tiny armies consisting mostly of three bow ashigaru in each army and wiped out three factions in a matter of 4 turns. It does not work i'm afraid.

[Loger]

Your post is very interesting, but on the winter attirition point I have to go against you. Why? Because the sekigahara mod recently tried having a huge winter attirition penalty, and what that resulted in was that the A.I not being able to recognise it, I and one other player experienced the AI sending as much as three full stacks to besiege our castles in winter, and when attirition had taken it's toll, there was nothing left of the enemy which pretty much negated the need to even have a garrison at the castles, the A.I. would kill it's own armies for you, making the campaign extremely easy. I conquered a ridiculous amount of regions with tiny armies consisting mostly of three bow ashigaru in each army and wiped out three factions in a matter of 4 turns. It does not work i'm afraid.

Ah, that is too bad.

[Kaunitz]

The only way to make the AI "work" with such a feature would be to exempt the AI's units from this feature (which should be possible), limiting the player to play a certain faction. But that's all still very half-assessed. Nobody likes to be limited in his choice of clans (I wouldn't mind), nobody likes it when the AI officially cheats. All the suggestions so far would require incredible amounts of time and effort to be tested. DeeJay hasen't even found the time to continue on Frederick and Napoleon - Art of War.

One point though: I would also go for 12-32 turns per year. But one of the main reasons of that would be to make campaign-movement distances shorter, not longer. This should force you to make more difficult decisions as it punishes campaigns far off your "home territory". If one of your neighbours suddenly declares your war while your army is operating a 3 weeks' march away, then you 've lost. On the other hand, with improved sieges (in my personal opinion siege assaults shouldn't ever happen at all!) will help you through such a situation.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

A first impression of my experiment: Pikemen slowly breaking through the centre. I'm not really fond of the little flags. Especially in pike formations I'm pretty sure they would have got in the way all the time (apart from the fact that must have severly limited the sight of all the ranks behind the first one)...And, in case the action got really hot, they must have been a good target to stick your yari in in order to inflict some chaos in the enemy ranks.