Archery in Shogun 2 - do you like it?

[killerrabbit]

artillery should take care of up-hill archers just fine I would think.

[bbad89]

Favoring realism over balance? IMO that's just stupid. Perhaps an option for that could be patched in?

[Gralachthule]

Of course MP is part of the game. No one area should suffer to accommodate the other - I'm sure the devs could find a way round this issue if they can be bothered to put in the work.

I've seen documentaries where experts say that will happen in our lifetimes; MP will always be a part of gaming though because no matter how clever the machine is, if you're playing against the AI, you're still just playing against a machine.

Seems to me that MP in most games is too 'gamey' if you know what I mean. Too much realism goes out of the window in MP:

People playing seven defenders in Fifa/PES and then using one talented player like Messi to waltz through the entire opposition and score.

Quickscoping in CoD - try it in real life and at the very least, you'll have a sore eyesocket.

Get more realism in MP - I'm sure most people will be happier.

Edit: More than 'a few others' were annoyed by this - 157 to be exact.

Actually, you got a few things wrong. One of the things that is often assumed but never proven is that more realism will eventually make things more tactical / strategical. There is no definitive asnwer to that, no matter how hard people try. Shogun 2 is still a game where gameplay is the defining factor, which is why we play it with a mouse and a keyboard. Let us try the example with the hill - it is a very good point to support my arguments.

Many people seem to believe that if you add more range to Archers on top of a hill (which is realistic to say the least), you'd have richer, more strategic gameplay. Now compare that to the way a battle is fought by the rules and the gameplay mechanics in Shogun 2;

- you get penalties for attacking up a hill
- you get penalties to your run speed when trying to storm one, which will most likely cancel any charges / and or grant charges to the enemy attacking downhill
- you'll have a penalty in prolonged melee due to the fact that you're on the slope
- the terrain around a hill is rather limited to say the least, meaning it is usually impossible to surround or get a good concave to fore from anyway
- archers can outshoot you and cause casulties while you're not able to return fire (proposal)

Now what does this have as effects gameplay wise :

- it is not advisable to storm a hill the same way you'd attack an army on flat terrain; I think we can all agree that you'll loose by a large margin if you try to handle it like any other combat situation
- you can not force your enemy down a hill with archers anymore since they outrange you, trying to do so will cost you the game as well (once you've lost your ranged units, he'll have a numerical advantage anyway and will win the fight regardless, assuming that the starting conditions were fair)
- you can surround the hill and try to apply pressure on all sides; this however does not work simply due to the fact that he'll be more mobile on top of a hill since he can move his entire army faster downhill anyway and isolate / break your circle, so he'll be able to break out and deal with half your army

So, while hill bonuses for itself are REALISTIC, they do not make the game more complex, richer or strategically demanding, they do EXACTLY the opposite, the make your gameplay less tactical, less strategical and shallow. The only way to deal with a hill gameplay wise is either to play the wait game or concede defeat. While so many people think that realistic game features will lead to more complex gameplay, this is not the case here; instead realistic features will remove many sensible choices from a player and make certain options no-brainer (Hills are a static no brainer - take them everywhere, at any time and without exception). Now, the only realistic (as in the real world) option in this case would be to deny attacking a hill, i.e. starve the enemy out. Needless to say you can not to this in Shogun 2. The gamplay answer to an enemy on top a hill is to wait for him to leave the hill. There is no alternative, unless you're willing to handicap yourself. Thus, there is no added strategic element from hills, instead they remove tactical gameplay, i.e. all your normal flanking maneuvers feints etc. won't work.

As we can see, it does not matter if some rules enforced by the game are realistic; what matters is how the changes influence gameplay and work gameplay wise. People should think more for themselves and try to figure out how X works before trying to apply realism to a game without gauging the consequences. I mean it would also be more reallistic to add a great delay linear to the distance between your general and the unit between issuing a order and its execution, because in reality orders can not be relayed that quickly in reality, especially not to retreating units or units in disarray; units once bound in melee should not be able to break from it anyway, unless fleeing. Maybe we'd also need messengers that carry orders between units that have to be micromanaged. All those choices would be more realistic, but would add little or no strategical depth to the game. and let us all be honest, we don't even know if a completely realistic warfare game would be fun to play at all - maybe realistic medieval warfare in itself was horribly one dimensional and there was little to no strategical depth besides deployment and numbers.

[bbad89]

Snipped to save page size from global warming.

Also this ^^

[spicykorean]

Very well said.

[SonOfCrusader76]

Favoring realism over balance? IMO that's just stupid. Perhaps an option for that could be patched in?

There was nothing wrong with the 'balance' in Rome, Medieval II - doubtless this also applied to Shogun and Medieval as well? It was a part of Total War from the beginning - so it should be in Shogun II and future TW games - it shouldn't need to be 'patched in'. Rather the other way around - it should be 'patched out' if it upsets MP players so much. And if we're going to talk about balance, let's look at one of the examples I used for CoD: quickscoping. Sure, it balances the game - it balances it in favour of people who are good at the game.

Edit: @ Gralachthule: As I've said several times in the thread, since I know nothing can be done about this in Shogun II, I'm trying to get it changed back for future TW games - unless of course, CA are going to persist with these bland and shorn of variety battlefields for the next game? I know the textures will be different, but will the difference between hilly battlegrounds vs flat ones be as evident as they were in Rome? Correct me if I'm wrong, but Japan is naturally a very hilly and mountainous country, is it not? That's why I find it strange that the hills are so low and there aren't any 'cliffs' of the kind found in Rome - it added a lot to a battle to work out how to defeat an enemy who were that high above you - and a lot of fun decimating them with archers if you were the one up there.

High ground in Rome worked brilliantly - then it went a bit wrong for Medieval II due to armies being deployed halfway up a mountain somewhere, which made for fiddly and annoying deployment. Haven't played Empire or Nappy for a while, so I can't comment on what it was like in those games.

I'm not saying the game should be totally realistic - of course it shouldn't as that would be boring. Battles would go on far too long, most of which would be just watching formations pushing at each other. But an aspect that has worked so well in previous TW games should be in - the only reason I can see CA removing it is to pander to the MP crowd - just like more and more games are doing.

As someone else said, what's next? Nerf flanking cavalry charges? Nerf elite units? The game will end up with the gameplay of Battle for Middle Earth (which was rubbish as far as any sort of strategy was concerned) and that will be when I wave farewell to TW.

[SonOfCrusader76]

artillery should take care of up-hill archers just fine I would think.

Yep - why not include one artillery unit in all MP battles? If someone decides to sit on a hill - obliterate them!

[Gralachthule]

Yep - why not include one artillery unit in all MP battles? If someone decides to sit on a hill - obliterate them!

You can't move them, and they're never going to hit the Hill in the enemy deployment zone .

[SonOfCrusader76]

You can't move them, and they're never going to hit the Hill in the enemy deployment zone .

Yeah, I forgot - I don't like the idea of non moveable artillery in any case. It would be OK in some instances, but from what I know, all artillery is non moveable and surely that wasn't the case historically?

[bbad89]

There was nothing wrong with the 'balance' in Rome, Medieval II - doubtless this also applied to Shogun and Medieval as well? It was a part of Total War from the beginning - so it should be in Shogun II and future TW games - it shouldn't need to be 'patched in'. Rather the other way around - it should be 'patched out' if it upsets MP players so much. And if we're going to talk about balance, let's look at one of the examples I used for CoD: quickscoping. Sure, it balances the game - it balances it in favour of people who are good at the game.

Edit: @ Gralachthule: As I've said several times in the thread, since I know nothing can be done about this in Shogun II, I'm trying to get it changed back for future TW games - unless of course, CA are going to persist with these bland and shorn of variety battlefields for the next game? I know the textures will be different, but will the difference between hilly battlegrounds vs flat ones be as evident as they were in Rome? Correct me if I'm wrong, but Japan is naturally a very hilly and mountainous country, is it not? That's why I find it strange that the hills are so low and there aren't any 'cliffs' of the kind found in Rome - it added a lot to a battle to work out how to defeat an enemy who were that high above you - and a lot of fun decimating them with archers if you were the one up there.

High ground in Rome worked brilliantly - then it went a bit wrong for Medieval II due to armies being deployed halfway up a mountain somewhere, which made for fiddly and annoying deployment. Haven't played Empire or Nappy for a while, so I can't comment on what it was like in those games.

I'm not saying the game should be totally realistic - of course it shouldn't as that would be boring. Battles would go on far too long, most of which would be just watching formations pushing at each other. But an aspect that has worked so well in previous TW games should be in - the only reason I can see CA removing it is to pander to the MP crowd - just like more and more games are doing.

As someone else said, what's next? Nerf flanking cavalry charges? Nerf elite units? The game will end up with the gameplay of Battle for Middle Earth (which was rubbish as far as any sort of strategy was concerned) and that will be when I wave farewell to TW.

Here, they got rid of longer range for archers on hills, because that did not require any thought at all. Even with the archer nerf, hill camping leads to victory 9/10 times. Nerf flanking charges? No. If you let a unit of cav get behind you, you damn well deserve getting whatever is coming to you. Elite units? The only viable nerf I could see is a price increase, but elite units should stay elite.

[SonOfCrusader76]

Here, they got rid of longer range for archers on hills, because that did not require any thought at all.

How do you mean it didn't require any thought at all? It's a realistic method of warfare that worked fine in all other TW games - why change it? What if it's the enemy with the high ground - how can you say that didn't require any thought?

[bbad89]

How do you mean it didn't require any thought at all? It's a realistic method of warfare that worked fine in all other TW games - why change it? What if it's the enemy with the high ground - how can you say that didn't require any thought?

I may have worded that wrong, but I'm saying putting archers on a hill barely requires any innovative tactic at all! Go online, see how many people put their army on a hill and spam insults at you for not losing fast enough. It's unbalanced and stupid, and I only wish they could nerf hill camping even more.

[SonOfCrusader76]

I may have worded that wrong, but I'm saying putting archers on a hill barely requires any innovative tactic at all! Go online, see how many people put their army on a hill and spam insults at you for not losing fast enough. It's unbalanced and stupid, and I only wish they could nerf hill camping even more.

Once again, we come to it: it might hurt online, but it doesn't damage SP at all - it enhances it in fact. But can CA be bothered to change it for MP only? I'm no programmer, so I have no idea of whether it's just a case of changing 'false to true' (unlikely) or if it's much more work.

[crzyrndm]

It wouldn't be too hard too add in a range limiter for MP(based on my own experience at programming). It wouldn't require changing how archers work, just making the detection range fixed. So a little more work than false to true, but probably not too much more. Actually it's probably the removal of the range limiter in SP seeing as the engine more than likely has it built in.

[painter]

Does anyone else perceive that archers on higher ground would often overshoot melee units as the melee units rush up hill? I noticed it happen in a few siege battles when I was the defender.

[crzyrndm]

@painter
You mean when they shoot the ground just infront or behind the charging unit at max->2/3 range. Yes, and it's rather annoying. They do it from hills in field battles occasionally too. Dosen't seem to depend on accuracy either, my 100 accuracy bow monks do it just as well as my bow ashigaru

[painter]

Yes. That is what I meant. Also in siege battles, I have sometimes noticed my defending archers on the walls shooting at one corner of an enemy unit rushing to the walls, instead of aiming for the entire unit. It is rather frustrating.

[napoleonic]

I may have worded that wrong, but I'm saying putting archers on a hill barely requires any innovative tactic at all! Go online, see how many people put their army on a hill and spam insults at you for not losing fast enough. It's unbalanced and stupid, and I only wish they could nerf hill camping even more.

lol... what is this retarded mentality some people here have? your ego and narcisism hurt? can't stand it? don't play it then...

but don't patronize us who simply want a realistic SP!

[Humble Warrior]

I may have worded that wrong, but I'm saying putting archers on a hill barely requires any innovative tactic at all! Go online, see how many people put their army on a hill and spam insults at you for not losing fast enough. It's unbalanced and stupid, and I only wish they could nerf hill camping even more.

That`s the silliest thing I`ve ever heard. It really deserves one of my rare faceslap pictures... But I won`t.

artillery should take care of up-hill archers just fine I would think.

Indeed, just one tactical option that can be used.

[Lord Baal]

I could say something but the a fairy would get eaten by a zombie.

I will only say, that if you are too impatient or lazy to figure out how to take some guy over the hill then go and play some of those MMO RPG where the weapon with more range is a magic spell of 10 ft and the only strategy required is to click your mouse near some other guy as fast as you can.