With the rear cleared from resistance and the sea routes secure, at last it seemed the time had come to bring the war to the Ashikaga Shogun. But you can never get too cozy in your sense of security. At that most inconvenient time, six pirate ships turned up near the trade nodes. Six spanking new medium bune ships, obviously bought with a loan from a foreign power that was not eyeing too fondly the growing Shimazu might.
There were enough military ships between the various trade nodes to take on the pirates but the danger was that might leave our trade ships undefended. So a small force sailed from our naval base at Bungo to become the core of a fleet that would hunt down the pirates. Cunningly, the pirates left the trade nodes alone and swiftly turned and attacked the force sailing up from Bungo.
A fire bomb kobaya was scouting ahead and was first to spot the pirates. It was not an easy fight and the Shimazu came close to losing some of the ships but in the end disaster was averted.
Last edited by Geoffrey of Villehardouin; September 13, 2013 at 10:48 PM.
The Shimazu army marshal Tanegashima Tomokata along with the Shimazu daimyo's youngest son Ietsune have attacked the outposts of Kyoto.
Part 1: the sally
In response, the Ashikaga Shogun Yoshiharu sallied out with his entire army. A battle could decide the fate of the Shogunate.
The Ashikaga deployed in a forest on a hill. Scouts were sent forth by Tomokata but there are no signs of activity. But the Ashikaga had been seen entering the forest so they had to be there. The cavalry and some samurai were sent on the left to flank the hill under Shimazu Ietsune, while a small but battle-experienced force of samurai were sent off to flank the hill on the other side.
The main army under Tomokata advanced in the cloud dragon formation (as in Stephen Turnbull's Osprey book "Samurai Armies 1467-1649, rather than the exact formation used in game): archers in front, melee units echeloned further back in a looser formation, cavalry as bodyguards protecting the general and finally some naginata monks as the rearguard. That formation was recommended when the army was stronger but the enemy was hidden in difficult ground, just right for the occasion.
The bow cavalry on the left identified the Ashikaga Shogun and his retinue but their arrows were useless in the forest. The Samurai on the right advanced cautiously and came across some Ashikaga bow samurai, whom they charged. Immediately the entire Ashikaga army burst into life. The left wing of the Shimazu army with the cavalry joined the action immediately, with Ietsune charging the Ashikaga archers on that side of the hill. And the main army lunged forward, with the bow ashigaru providing some support, ineffective as it might be within the forest.
Placing their army in the forest made some sense, as long as the Ashikaga were to start using their bows while the Shimazu army was in the open. It seems the BAI has only a sketchy understanding of the tactical advantages of taking cover in a forest. Or maybe the Ashikaga were only hiding in fear? Perhaps fearing, indeed, the Shimazu might, the Ashikaga had camped right next to the map's edge, on the reverse side of the hill, so that the Shimazu infantry charged downhill into their ranks, having taken very few casualties from the Ashikaga archers. Once the bow samurais were routed, the entire Ashikaga army fled, leaving the generals behind to hold off the attackers. Three of the generals died in battle, with the Shogun only escaping after all his bodyguards had been slain. But enough men survived for the Ashikaga to still be able to put up a decent defense at the walls of Kyoto.
Part 2: the siege
Kyoto was besieged by the Shimazu daimyo Takahisa and the Shimazu army marshal Tanegashima Tomokata. Their combined armies surrounded the city. Tomokata led the main attack to draw the Ashikaga garrison to one side, while Shimazu Takahisa and Shimazu Ietsune attacked the walls on the other sides.
The gates had been sabotaged by our ninjas. For the Ashikaga, however, there was no way out.
There was at first a surprising spirited resistance, especially on the walls facing Tomokata and also on the western side, where Ietsune was leading a smaller force. However, the walls on the side of Takahisa, who turned up with a full army stack as reinforcements, were left completely undefended. Takahisa's army had led a victorious campaign on the northern side of western Honshu as Tomokata was advancing along the Seto Inland Sea coast. It was a strong and veteran army and once inside the city, the issue was decided. The Ashikaga Shogun Yoshiharu died a proper samurai's death - in battle. Ietsune was among the first to step onto the Kyoto citadel. With its fall, Kyoto fell and with it the Shogunate passed from the Ashikaga to the Shimazu and their daimyo Takahisa.
Victory! Glory! May the name of the Shimazu live on for a thousand years!
Last edited by Geoffrey of Villehardouin; September 15, 2013 at 07:54 PM.
Though Angry Joe has some good points (see his hilarious videoclip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_QK-lcW8a8) over issues I actually have mostly not experienced yet myself, Rome II is an improvement over the original Rome in the graphics department. For some of us it matters, for me graphics put me off playing the original Rome. Animations have also been improved over Shogun 2, for example the routing animation where in all previous mods the unit about to rout stopped, most men turned around and began to walk away as if nothing was happening, before they started to actually run. There are also fewer examples of horses going through other horses (so far, fingers crossed). The landscapes are as good as Shogun 2 and the settlements are a vast improvement over Shogun 2. Athens, for example, is so carefully made it is breathtaking.
The BAI I have is reasonably good. It may have been patched since I only bought the game after the initial patching. About as good as Shogun 2, though different. Except that I sometimes win open campaign battles without a fight when the AI forgets it is supposed to be defending its flag. Although this battle was fun like other custom battles I tried, there are a couple of things you will see in this videoclip that are not quite right.
The Romans, once the chariots run into them, become tangled up in an amorphous mass and never manage to get back out into some kind of decent deployment. Of course that was my intention in using the chariots but maybe it should not be that extreme. The BAI guy needs to work out a way to get the Roman infantry at least into some kind of formation, they should not be just running here and there and coalescing into amorphous mobs during battles. Romans fought in maniples and the Greeks in phalanx formations and these followed some rules and have to follow some rules to be effective. A phalanx formation should not be flanked, there had to be a continuous line and effective coordination with the units on either side, so these formations were inflexible but very effective on the defense (like the Saxons in the historical battle of Hastings in M2).
AI controlled Roman maniples should have the ability to toggle through formations, archers in front or javelins in front or javelins in the second line and melee in front or spearmen in front, etc. To do that rapidly, the Romans kept gaps between the maniples. Although in Rome II Greek armies are deployed in phalanx formation and Roman armies in maniples correctly, once the battle starts the AI army formation goes out of the window. There must be a way to keep some of that (low tolerances in movement helped with the M2 BAI). One thing that seems to be gone is the guard command, where in fact that command might have had some potential in maintaining overall formation, if it could be used better in the game engine. Once this can be mastered, units and armies capable of fighting with more discipline (e.g. the Romans) can be made more expensive. There is too much predictability at the moment in the sense of how the BAI will respond well at the local level with relative disregard of the overall tactical situation - in the case of this battle forming a dense mob that was a perfect target for the Pontus artillery.
EDIT: Having started a campaign with Epirus with my only settlement with a port under blockade by a massive Roman fleet by turn 4 or so (plus being attacked from land by the Spartans) and the other settlement having endured maybe 6-7 sieges in the first 8 turns - on normal! - I can safely say this harder than any other campaign I have ever played. Whether it is due to the patching or the specific faction, unfavourable stars or what else I do not know, since I have not had the game in its original release. I went back to a previous save to deal with the Roman blockade, still the campaign ended in game turn 16 after Larissa had fallen to the upteenth siege. Apollonia was besieged by Athens and Ardiaei with three large armies plus a naval force when suffering from food shortage (I had no money to build anything except in the first 2-3 turns). The battle odds were in the region of 10:1 against Epirus. Simultaneously Pyrrhus was besieged in newly conquered Brundisium by the Romans with 17 ships (!) and an army outnumbering Pyrrhus by about 6:1 based on the game odds. My only spy had been assassinated and part of the Apollonia garrison had been poisoned in the previous turn by an enemy agent.
Last edited by Geoffrey of Villehardouin; September 23, 2013 at 12:15 PM.
The Yashima Taira is meant to be a hard campaign but given their position and their advantages (master shipbuilders, merchants and sailors) and their proximity to the trade nodes relative to the other playable factions, their campaign on the contrary seems one of the easiest. They are ideally suited in building a maritime powerbase in the Seto Inland Sea from where to expand and taken over the rest of Japan, or just the 25 provinces they need to win the short campaign. Most victory provinces are within that region except for Sagami in Eastern Japan that can wait until they are the dominant sea power and able to move by sea to Sagami and take it without upsetting too much the Minamoto.
In this campaign at normal difficulty, the army concentrated in capturing Okayama (Bizen) and Tsuyama (Mimasaka) both of clear military value as they can provide good quality or cheap units for the land army. Together with Akashi (Harima) they can form the nucleus for expansion in Honshu. By securing alliances with the Hasebe and Urakami on the northern coast of Western Honshu, a strong base was formed that would resist future attacks.
The Yashima Taira diplomat in the meantime headed for Kyushu, where he secured the allegiance of Kanoya (Osumi) and Kagoshima (Satsuma). From these bases our trade fleets could get additional support vessels and trade ships to quickly dominate the three trade nodes (incense and Chinese texts) on that side. The Junsatsushi next secured the allegiance of Saito (Hyuga) and the Taira forces that were subsequently raised in Kyushu took Fu'nai (Bungo) by force to serve as an additional naval base, starting a war with Hata, the most dominant faction in Western Japan. This is where the first videoclip picks up.
The Hata responded to the invasion of their provinces in Kyushu by rushly attacking Okayama. It was a clash of Titans but protected by the walls of Okayama the Taira had a distinct advantage. This is the first of three large battles in the first videoclip. In all of these the odds were equal or against the Taira. In the second battle, the Taira forces having taken Kokura (Buzen) in Kyushu turned against Fukuoka (Tsukushi) which they captured despite being outnumbered. A relief force arrived too late. In a battle near Kokura it was defeated and destroyed.
Kyushu soon fell completely under the rule of the Yashima Taira and Shikoku followed its fate soon afterwards. Inevitably Realm Divide led to war between the two Taira factions. Taira Tsunemori took Fukuhara after it had sworn allegiance and his son Tsunetoshi went a step further and took Kyoto by force. That act triggered a response from both the cousin Fukuhara Taira faction and surrounding clans such as the Kitabatake and Sasaki. Tsunetoshi had to endure two great sieges of Kyoto against massive odds. Its defenders fought almost to the last.
Kyoto had to be abandoned when it could no longer be defended but Tsunetoshi was a die-hard fighter flying the motto "War is Slaughter" and was determined for a comeback.
Placenames are different in ROTS compared to those in vanilla Shogun 2, which are shown for comparison next to them in parentheses.
Angry Joe and others have lamented the absence of a campaign AI in Rome II. This is Rome II post patch 2. I did not have the earlier version and do not know what the situation was really there. Nonetheless, a game is not a person and you can even break a person if you try hard enough, let alone a game. This videoclip shows you how hard can the Rome 2 AI be if you let the game take its natural course. But you can break it and I can do it too, and then the game becomes so easy to win it is simply a waste of time to play it.
These let's play-like sequences and battle scenes are from a Rome II Epirus campaign on normal difficulty. Unless you break the AI by capturing two settlements in the first 3-4 game turns, before it becomes active, this is the kind of AI behaviour you will have to contend with. Passive it is certainly not!
If you cannot beat the AI, maybe you can break it. But be fair to the game: if you do decide to break the AI, do not complain that there is no campaign AI behaviour in the game. And it would be an illusion to believe that when you play against nobody, not even against the AI, you are playing on hard difficulty, or on very hard, or on legendary, etc.
What probably happens is that once the human player becomes the most powerful faction, which is easy to do at the start of the campaign by quickly capturing just one or two settlements (since AI factions never seem to start with more than 2), then the CAI becomes passive - which normally ought to happen far into the campaign when the human player's faction should have 15 or 20 settlements not on game turn 4 with 4 settlements. Then to complain that there is no AI is pointless. That is in essence what a passive AI does - it does nothing. Just sits around its settlements hiring some units and waiting for the inevitable. The problem currently is that there is no middle ground, at least for the Epirus campaign: it is either near impossible to win even on easy difficulty, if the CAI is active, or else you can walk through the game without an opposition. Neither is much fun.
If someone has any hints on how to win the campaign once the CAI has become active, i.e. without the human player attacking before the AI attacks, then please post away.
Two siege battles against the Mongols. The first one is from a Khwarezmshah campaign. The Mongols first attacked Bukhara with two stacks but failed to take it, then took Gurganj after two sieges. Their next target was Khiveh. There were three successive sieges. The Khwarezm economy was so devastated that there was no money to retrain units. There was also no chance of reinforcements as the only other city close by, Merv, was also besieged at the same time. The garrison of Khiveh defended the city from three successive attacks. Those still alive at the end of the third siege dismantled all the important buildings and abandoned the city to the Mongols.
The second battle is from a Ghurid campaign. The Mongols predictably made peace with the Seljuk Turks and, after destroying Khwarezm, sent their entire army to attack the human player faction, this time the Ghurids. Sayf al-Din the Cruel had recently arrived from the east, where he had been putting down rebellion after rebellion, gaining experience and some dread. He had brought with him some elephants on which everything depended. This was the second time he had to defend his castle against the Mongols. Of course, he was not quite alone. Other generals were holding the rear at Balkh and the bridge and castle to its rear, blocking the way towards Firuzkuh and launching devastating counter-attacks. This time, however, the Mongols were attacking with such an overwhelming force that all attempts to relieve Sayf al-Din had failed. In this battle, they threw three stacks at Sayf al-Din's castle. Sayf al-Din sallied out with his elephants. The battle ended in a heroic draw.
Egypt and France defending a ME fortress against Venice, England and the Moors. Defenders 30k, attackers 45k.
Edit: My ally, pgrifoni, did a great job in holding those breaches on the left. Please, when you see some breaches thinly guarded or completely unguarded and others heavily guarded, do not send more units to the heavily guarded breaches. It is common sense.
Sometimes it is impossible to communicate with an ally or just too time consuming in the heat of a battle. So please when an enemy is heading for some unguarded breaches and much, most or all your infantry is sitting back, think of what you should be doing. Half the time, while some breaches are guarded by just one hashashim unit or by no unit, since I have no infinite infantry, my ally may sit back or send all his men to the breach with the catapult and all my main heavy units. That is the last breach that needs reinforcement. Please, use common sense. There is hardly any use in 10-15 units defending one breach when many others are left wide open. It is also difficult for a single person to concentrate on defending six different breaches. It is common sense, please, just think.
Also please. once you have committed yourself to a battle, stay in it until you are defeated, then concede defeat. Do not just leave, it is rude. It is not good saying, sorry I got to go, my mum is calling. If you are expecting a guest or a telephone call, do not join a battle. Also if there is lag, and you do not like it, lower your graphics settings. Lag happens, we play with fellow gamers from across the world. Their actions travel over the skies or underneath the oceans to reach you. Lag is no excuse to leave a battle. I am saving most battles and I am tempted to start making a list with the names of those who left a battle because someone called or because they did not like the lag.
Last edited by Geoffrey of Villehardouin; June 17, 2015 at 05:14 PM.
A colourful battle featuring all the m2tw animals: elephants, horses and camels. It was also an opportunity to field a pike and shot army. The rules were no rules, as we believe in freedom. Different factions have different strengths and restricting the use of some units has a big impact on their battle effectiveness. The Timurids and Mongols would be ineffective in an open battle without plenty of cavalry. After all, they practically only used cavalry in open battles. The Moors would be a very weak faction in a pitch battle without camel gunners and the desert peoples would be hopeless in a siege environment without naffatun. It would be like not allowing heavy infantry for Spain for example. The handicap would be huge. So in the battles I am hosting, I like to leave all choice to the player.
Sadly, the Timurid player made an extremely poor use of his elephant bodyguard and used his abundant cavalry in a very static way, while the English player brought only standard medieval units. Moreover, our enemies moved slowly, which played into our hands, since we were the ones with the pistols, muskets and arquebuses.
Siege of a middle eastern fortress with the Turks and Milan defending. Defenders had 30,000 florins, attackers 45,000 florins. Rules: 3 artillery and 3 cavalry maximum per player, everything else allowed. Middle Eastern fortress with level 1 towers. Special thanks to my ally Aquila for his able defense but not to his monster ribault whose main apparent accomplishment was the killing of my general. It also caused the stakes the Janissary archers had led down on their deployment to disappear, allowing the enemy cavalry to come into the keep and harass our missile units when we had run out of infantry to man the breaches.
Another online battle defending that desert fortress from the hordes of our enemies. A 3v3 online battle with 30,000 florins for the defenders, 45,000 florins for the attackers, max 3 art and 3 cav per player, all types of units allowed. Those who disagree that the Turks are the best faction, all they have to do is attack their fortress.
Special thanks to my two allies, xDerFred and fall209090 and really to everyone for staying with the battle until it was over.
Medieval II Total War online battle. A 3v3 siege, 30000 florins for the defenders, 45000 florins for the attackers, max 3 artillery and 3 cavalry, this time taking a walk to the other side of the fence and attacking the fortress for a change.
Apologies to those of you who have seen enough sieges of the middle eastern fortress. I had once asked why no one played as Egypt or the Turks and was told they are weak factions, which had surprised me. So I decided to make some objective statistics, playing online. Most online players want to play with swords, so they restrict the amount of cavalry and gun units players are allowed. Of course then spearmen fall victim to swordsmen who are themselves immune to enemy missile units and cavalry since these are either restricted or too light (archers and crossbowmen lack punch or range) to stop the heavier swordsmen. The best Turkish units, their missile cavalry, the Janissary musketeers and the naffatun are rarely seen because of such restrictions. If players are given, however, freedom to choose what units they want, Egypt and the Turks become formidable. They are probably the two best factions when defending in a siege.
The problem with other online battles and why I do not post other battles with different settings is exactly that players who like to play with heavy swordsmen restrict so much the choice of other units that their battles become predictable and repetitious. There are plenty of those on youtube and there is little point in adding one or two more. For the same reasons players usually restrict the money they give to their opponents, for example give the opponents about the same money as the defenders in a 3v3 siege, disallow guns and restrict artillery to one or two units per attacker, a sure sign of a bad loser. As the Welsh say, it is easy to be brave behind a castle wall. It is not even worthwhile participating in such battles.
So here is one more battle of that ME fortress that almost went to completion. Some players became desynchronised near the end, but by that time the battle had been decided. There was some fierce fighting and many charges from elephants and it would have been a shame not to make a videoclip from the save.
The first pike and shot battle was over in 4 minutes, a SEGA world record and both battles were over in 13 minutes. That is the result of a pike and shot formation fighting a traditional medieval army.
This may be my last online battle for a while. It was one of the last of a series of late period battles where I always used pike and shot formations. I lost one out of half a dozen, in which case I was fighting against some old hands that routed my ally early despite sending some cav to my ally to help him defend himself against his adversary. I can't remember what happened on that case but I seem to remember that my opponent had some units with a range at least as long as muskets, maybe some type of longbowmen.
Pike and shot formations are best for breaking the morale of the enemy in the open much as naffatuns on walls and catapults in defense are the ideal units for breaking the morale of attackers when defending. They are the best medicine against spams of swordsmen.
Not one but two Rome II battles from a Baktria campaign at normal difficulty. The campaign was fairly addictive, interesting and fun, ending with the conquest of Rome itself. The graphics of Rome II are fantastic, especially the naval battle visuals and the towns and cities. The units are also well made as are the animations. Despite all that and the insinuations of political intrigue and the heroes and spies, and other agents and all the pretty graphics, somehow Rome II does not reach the kind of involvement one feels with M2TW campaigns or even with some Shogun 2 campaigns. Perhaps if someone started with Rome II as their first total war experience, things might look different.
Both of these battles were from near the end of the campaign, one from 109 BC and the other from 95 BC. The campaign finished shorty afterwards. They were the two biggest battles of the campaign. The naval battle of Harmozia in 95BC was between the Baktrian fleet and two Gerrhaean fleets. Although Gerrhaea made several attempts to provoke Baktria into war by sending fleets to the ports controlled by Baktria, the Gerrhaeans completely neglected their navy, suffering a string of defeats at sea. This was perhaps their biggest and most crashing defeat.
Anartes went into war sneakily invading the Baktrian empire from the north while most of the Baktrian armies had moved west. Their two armies were seen just in time approaching the Dacian city of Petrodava. A depleted army of mainly levy eastern spearmen and a few cavalry units happened to be in Petrodava. A second Baktrian general, seeing the two approaching Anartes armies, hastily recruited some mercenaries and rashed to the relief of the city. The two Anartes armies attacked from three directions. The smaller army, called The Fury of Sabazios, divided itself into two and attacked from the northeast and northwest as the second and biggest army called The Tumuli approached from the west. A glorious battle ensued during a sublime dark storm. Will the Baktrian relief force arrive in time to save the city?
Last edited by Geoffrey of Villehardouin; October 07, 2015 at 11:00 AM.
Despite all that and the insinuations of political intrigue and the heroes and spies, and other agents and all the pretty graphics, somehow Rome II does not reach the kind of involvement one feels with M2TW campaigns or even with some Shogun 2 campaigns. Perhaps if someone started with Rome II as their first total war experience, things might look different.
Two more online battles, assaulting the Southern European fortress. The first one is on large unit scale (not huge as I am saying in the video) and the second on normal unit scale. The rules were otherwise the same for both: a maximum of 3 cavalry units per player and a maximum of 3 artillery for each attacker, 2 for each defender. Both are 2v3 battles.
In this first siege the florin balance was 60k for the attackers, 40k for the defenders.
In the second siege the florin balance was 45k for the attackers, 30k for the defenders.
Wako Pirates
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Geoffrey of Villehardouin
