FotS Modification wishes

[Elitewolf]

Now I don't know exactly what type of guns the Japanese ended up with during this time period.

But one of the reasons the American Civil War was so bloody is that the guns of that period were much more accurate than your simple muzzle loading musket, if I'm not mistaken the Union forces were probly mostly rifles. The South still used some muskets I think.

Also the Mini-ball was just devastating when it hit its target.

So like i said I'm not sure what the Japanese actually ended up with. But if they ended up with state of the art stuff and not hand-me-downs, guns of this period were pretty much begininning to be "hit what you aim at" accuracy.

And probly should kill if a soldier is hit, even in the leg or arm a Mini-ball can take a limb right off.

They all use rifles (with the exception of matchlock kachi) of varying types. It's one of the reasons I think guns are currently underpowered. Their range is good but their accuracy and reload suck. One of the reasons I started a pure traditional Aizu campaign was for the challenge. However, as it stands now it's actually extremely easy. I just need a frontal charge. It's not because the melee troops are overpowered (because they aren't, especially compared to later units) but because the guns are just too weak.

To name an example: I was in a siege today. Enemy had a lot of levie inf, so there was a lot of shooting at first. My line infantry garrison ran out of bullets first (why do line infantry have less bullets than levie anyway?) so I checked their killcount. 304. With 300 men in the unit. Meaning every man killed 1 enemy. Using 10 bullets in the process. With a rifled weapon. That's just too few. Even if I wasn't playing Aizu I'd probably start recruiting more samurai and cavalry.

I personally think the best solution would be too put weapon effectiveness between where it is now and where it is in vanilla (and to buff the line inf ammo, but that's a different matter)
This would still make melee troops very strong, but this is countered by the decreased movement speed of Darthmod. This means that although riflemen are less accurate than in vanilla and will kill less per volley (thus making battles longer and giving more time to react before soldiers are shot to pieces) but approaching melee troops will be in enemy fire for a longer period of time.

[Meethos]

My thing is that this period IS the age of the gun. Any gun units that are supposed to have any kind of formal military training should be very lethal with their guns. And gatling guns should continue to mow down whole armies.

[herb0815]

It would be nice, if the AI would make bigger fleets. In Vanilla they keep using 1 ship fleets, that my iron clad can easily destroy.

[Iceciro]

My thing is that this period IS the age of the gun. Any gun units that are supposed to have any kind of formal military training should be very lethal with their guns. And gatling guns should continue to mow down whole armies.

Right. This is 'Fall of the Samurai'. Not "Samurai continue to be mildly effective against enemies". But "The Japanese Realize That Pointing Guns In The Other Guy's Direction Is Super-Effective!"

The melee units should be rapidly approaching 'interesting curiosity' status. Meanwhile, ranged units should sieze the day against any enemy foolish enough to approach them head-on; Especially highly-trained units like Guard Line. The only way melee should be effective is if you use them while the enemy is occupied, or the like; they're foot cavalry now. If you want to poke people with sharp sticks you're in the wrong timeline, really.

[Seek]

Would love a bugfix of units refusing to climb walls or just stopping completely while climbing. Happens a lot in Fall of the samurai (no idea if it's also in vanilla but it probably is).

Love your work keep it up!

[AzureNight]

Right. This is 'Fall of the Samurai'. Not "Samurai continue to be mildly effective against enemies". But "The Japanese Realize That Pointing Guns In The Other Guy's Direction Is Super-Effective!"

The melee units should be rapidly approaching 'interesting curiosity' status. Meanwhile, ranged units should sieze the day against any enemy foolish enough to approach them head-on; Especially highly-trained units like Guard Line. The only way melee should be effective is if you use them while the enemy is occupied, or the like; they're foot cavalry now. If you want to poke people with sharp sticks you're in the wrong timeline, really.

Agreed.

Melee infantry should be completely useless in frontal charges. Rifle wielding units should be far more effective at long range and especially closer up. Foreign troops and the units with repeating rifles and the like should absolutely decimate melee units with ease.

[libindi]

I have an idea to balance the power of guns and game challenge issue,increase the unit size of melee unit,right now they have 200 pre unit(im playing on defualt unit size),make it 400 men pre unit,and increase their morale,so they only break when they lost too much,like lost 300 or more men,so players can kill a lot with firearm as it should be,and still have a challenging gameplay.

[soveliss99]

ok if there is any mod i care about for shogun 2 it's this one right here. my only request. pretty please with a cherry on top (all natural), give archers open basket quivers on their unit model or some kind of japanese quiver (rattan if open quivers are hard to model or something). I HATE HATE HATE how ca did not give their archers quivers in this it was actually something i think "completes" the archer unit. It will look soooo cool seeing all the fletched arrows on their backs! hey at least they got bow animations now!..... I will love you to death.

ps:and your cav archers don't fire behind them or to the side. I made a post a long time ago and you posted in my thread that your horse archers do fire as I stated. It was under proposals I think

.....thank you for making my shogun 2 get way better fps.

[Distortus]

The computer is at a too great disadvantage defending a fortifications while attacked with siege weapons.

As a player so can you attempt to counter attack or minimize the losses of bombardment by moving troops out of the direct line of fire.
The computer however does not move archers from the walls and often leave units standing for extended amounts of time in the direct line of fire.

Bringing two catapults (more than that would just be overkill) while attacking even a heavy fortifications can to large extent almost completely annihilate the computers defensive advantage.
A third of the ammunition can be spent on taking out the walls and the large part of the defending archers, a third on gates and/or towers while easily having a third catapult ammunition left for bombarding units alone.
Spending 15 minutes bombarding a settlement, the first five taking out the archers before sending in your own archers to rain death over the enemies from outside the walls while continuing the catapult bombardment can significant decimate the defending numbers.

I used this tactic repeatedly, being able to take out whole defending armies with significantly less losses then meeting them in open field and the computer don't seem to have any real counter strategy.
They just let themselves "be trapped like rats and drown in their own blood" as your generals nicely put it.

Things I could think of to counter this is that either making walls indestructible or significantly lower the ammunition of catapults so you have to be a lot more selective about what you bombard.
Alternatively giving fortifications siege weapons to shoot back at the attacking force with.

[Distortus]

The computer is at a too great disadvantage defending a fortifications while attacked with siege weapons.

As a player so can you attempt to counter attack or minimize the losses of bombardment by moving troops out of the direct line of fire.
The computer however does not move archers from the walls and often leave units standing for extended amounts of time in the direct line of fire.

Bringing two catapults (more than that would just be overkill) while attacking even a heavy fortifications can to large extent almost completely annihilate the computers defensive advantage.
A third of the ammunition can be spent on taking out the walls and the large part of the defending archers, a third on gates and/or towers while easily having a third catapult ammunition left for bombarding units alone.
Spending 15 minutes bombarding a settlement, the first five taking out the archers before sending in your own archers to rain death over the enemies from outside the walls while continuing the catapult bombardment can significant decimate the defending numbers.

I used this tactic repeatedly, being able to take out whole defending armies with significantly less losses then meeting them in open field and the computer don't seem to have any real counter strategy.
They just let themselves "be trapped like rats and drown in their own blood" as your generals nicely put it.

Things I could think of to counter this is that either making walls indestructible or significantly lower the ammunition of catapults so you have to be a lot more selective about what you bombard.
Alternatively giving fortifications siege weapons to shoot back at the attacking force with.

As I don't have the post count to have rights to edit my forum posts (odd annoying requirement?).
This is playing Shogun 2 vanilla + Darthmod.
My apologies if this was not the right thread for feedback for default Shogun 2.
Did not see any other thread like it.

[Mandarax]

Some suggestions of things I'd like... Having gone through the thread, there's a lot of stuff I really like already mentioned, but I'll go ahead and repeat 'em anyway because they're important to me. And, being a Navy guy, there's going to be an obvious bias in what I'd like to see

Also, forgive me if I mention anything that's already been implemented or confirmed to be in the process of implementation. I come here after finishing my first FotS campaign, vanilla, and haven't used DarthMod yet. I'm hoping to wait for the first patch to come out to fix bugs, then install DarthMod and play a second campaign.

Campaign level changes
1) Fewer fleets of more and better ships. I'd rather face two navies of five ships than five navies of two ships. I'd prefer to face three navies of eight to ten ships, though. In my last campaign, I never faced any Western ironclads either, which was saddening. I don't believe I ever encountered a fleet that was a match for a Kotetsu or two and couple armored Kaiyo Marus. This would be especially helpful to prevent full-stack+daimyo armies from being insta-sunk when the single twelve-gun transport goes blundering into my Warrior's crosshairs. I'd love to be hunting around the map for fleets with Roanokes and Oceans and Warriors.
2) Less restrictive unit limits, especially on ships. I'd like to be able to have at least two Warriors, and preferably more of the other big ironclads too. If I can afford them, I should be offered a way to buy them :p Perhaps have your number of large ships be limited by the number of drydocks you have to support them?
3) Bigger naval zones of control, and sturdier seaports. It should take a real fleet to subdue a drydock's defenses, and it should be nearly impossible to get within shelling distance of a hostile occupied port.

Naval Battle Changes
To guide changes in in FotS, I recommend looking to the Battle of Lissa as a case study in how naval warfare in this age was gone about. Seeing as it was the only major battle involving these sorts of ships, it's really all we have to go on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lissa_(1866)
http://www.cityofart.net/bship/sms_ferdinand_max.html - probably a better reference
1) Range-based and experience-based (in)accuracy. The maximum range of these naval guns was far beyond their effective range. Naval gunnery between the late 1800s and early 1900s was absolutely deplorable, with regular crews scoring only a few hits in every hundred shots. Inexperienced ships, therefore, should be very inaccurate, while experienced ships should gain accuracy until they can reliably hit targets out to medium range.
2) Incapacitation. I don't know if you can reuse old code like what was used for dismasted warships in Empire and Napoleon, but I'd much rather have critical hits to a warship's engine disable them rather than detonate them. Even better if you can have a particle effect for it, blasting steam and heat shimmer. A disabled ship is a wonderful target for a ramming attack!
3) Morale fixes. A flagship, and any ship within signal distance from the flagship, should be very difficult to rout. If they're experienced ships, they should fight to the death. Smaller ships ganged up on by more powerful enemies with no nearby leadership should rout, and the loss of the flagship should prompt a substantial drop in morale. But, if the battle is raging, your ships should stay much more focused on shooting the enemy than running for safety. The safest place in a naval battle is behind a mighty broadside. The only time an Ironclad should ever route is if it's isolated, burning, has just watched its admiral explode in a terrific fireball, and is under fire from armor piercing rounds.
4) AI fixes. I don't know what's up with the current naval battle AI, or lack thereof. Enemy forces should try to fight in line astern when possible, in the Empire/Napoleon style battle lines, until a melee erupts. They should also deploy to the front of their deployment zones, so that players don't have to spend five minutes waiting for their ships to get into range to fight. Have the AI try to attack the player even if it's defending. Don't have it sitting still and waiting for the inevitable outmaneuvering by the player.
5) Ship Durability. If the guns are made much less accurate, durability probably won't need to be changed much, if at all. I'd make L'Ocean and Warrior both have about 10,000 hull strength (Warrior was bigger, but L'Ocean had thicker iron armor), Roanoke have about 7,000 (she was an armor-plated wooden frigate, not an iron ship), Kotetsu about 5,000 (she was a proper iron ship, but pretty small), and give the iron-plated wooden ships an extra 500 or so. Wooden ship hull strength seems about right. Much more important would be reducing the instance of catastrophic explosion. In a regular battle, I'd like to see an equal amount of surrendering, sinking and exploding. If possible, have the bigger guns be more capable of causing explosions - in particular Kotetsu's 300-pounder bow gun. If that thing hit an engine or magazine with an armor-piercing shell, it'd be game over.
6) Port defense gun battery fixes. These things need to be like, three or four times sturdier. These are cement fortresses being knocked apart like wooden shacks at present. They should get the same accuracy nerf that ships get, though keep their exceptional range. If you can widen their arcs of fire by an extra 15º or so, even better.

And I think I'll stop for now before something happens and I lose all this writing I've done.

[Blingerman]

What the game needs is bigger maps for sea battles. I dont know if this can be modded. But in order to have more strategical battles maps should be a lot bigger. Now I always find myself restricted to the stupid red lines that break all the strategic.

[Major Hogan]

And I think I'll stop for now before something happens and I lose all this writing I've done.

Write it in Word, and save it when you want. Then copy/paste it in the textbox online .

[raphael]

more variety of units for samurai and melee troops as i wanna make a samurai army

[VirtualSmitty]

Ironclad re balance. It bothers me how HMS Warrior is so beastly when it's the oldest of the bunch.

[Mandarax]

Oldest, but still the biggest and baddest :p Stat for stat, in real life it'd have been more than a match for the Ocean class and would have roflstomped the Roanoke.

[VirtualSmitty]

Oldest, but still the biggest and baddest :p Stat for stat, in real life it'd have been more than a match for the Ocean class and would have roflstomped the Roanoke.

How do you figure? Warrior wasn't armored at the bow or stern, Ocean was, both had around the exact same speed, Ocean had thicker armor and higher endurance, and newer longer range armament. It outclasses warrior in every way. Roanoake I can see, but Ocean no.

[Mandarax]

Ocean was a wooden frigate with an armor belt along her waterline - not overall armor - and her main above-water armor only covered the central portion of the ship where the guns were. The bow and stern "armor" on the Ocean class was enough to keep the water out so long as nobody came at it with anything bigger than a ball peen hammer. The Warrior, meanwhile, also had a foot and a half of shock-absorbent wood behind its full-broadside-covering armor plate, offering a lot more durability to what would otherwise be rather brittle armor. Also, the four biggest guns on the Ocean are almost completely exposed to enemy shellfire. In a straight up fight, where endurance isn't a factor and inaccuracy claims nearly all those long-range shots, I'll take the iron ship with a twenty two gun broadside over the armored wooden frigate with six guns per side, the two biggest of which are vulnerable to seagull droppings.

[Sanderlicious]

How do you figure? Warrior wasn't armored at the bow or stern, Ocean was, both had around the exact same speed, Ocean had thicker armor and higher endurance, and newer longer range armament. It outclasses warrior in every way. Roanoake I can see, but Ocean no.

Ocean was wooden-hulled. Warrior was iron-hulled.

Ocean carried 12 guns. Warrior could carry up to 40.

In the end, the sea only cares about these two factors.

[W4lt3r]

I just had a thought..
Since we don't have bayonets in the game yet. Could these be modded in and make the line infantry / guard infantry etc use the rifles with the bayonet attached, using the yari kachi fighting animations? It wouldn't be too far off...