Veteran System - Review

[Evan MF]

Hi all,

I've played quite a bit of Avatar Mode Multiplayer in Shogun 2 and have gathered some conclusions on this new and daring implementation CA have carried out. This thread regards the Veteran System aspects. In this review I will be highlighting the problems of the system.

Firstly, the Shogun 2 Veteran system does not fully adhere to historical accuracy. For example, having veteran Ashigaru units which have a large stat and ability buff almost contradicts the point of the unit. Historically speaking, peasants were never meant to become flagship regiments of the army and thus vetting them does not give a realistic representation of Japanese military. Realism is fun and seems to be a self-proclaimed hallmark of CA's projects, but here they've failed to carry through.

The next problem is the use of the Veteran system by users, ultimately due to CA's poor implementation. Veteran units should not be common - they are veterans because relative to other units they are superior in experience and presumably skill - and therefore having large amounts of them in your army nullifies the Veteran nature of them; they aren't unique or special anymore, which I gather is what CA intended them to be.

This overuse of Veterans also conflicts with the purpose of other Avatar Mode perks: in particular Retainers. The purpose of Retainers is to give skill/ability buffs usually to a majority of the army or a particular area of the army, why then are Veteran units being used for the same purpose? I.e. being 'spammed' in order to give the certain parts of the army an overall stat superiority - this is the Retainer system's job not the Veteran System's job.

The exploits of the Veteran system have drastic implications on the battlefield. It makes gameplay so much more about stat buff rather than in-battle tactical vision. It leads to a player being able to vastly improve 1 area of their army (imagine Sword Veteran 'spam' + Sword Infantry Retainers - I have some Katana Veterans in this situation with around 30 attack and yet I am able to bring around 8 of these in a 14k match??) and this makes for battles which are so much more extreme and rushed. Weaknesses and strengths in armies are amplified to high levels, this means the weak areas of an army are very quickly crushed, hence the rushed nature of battles.

Overall, the Veteran System fails to act as what it was meant to be: a system for individual units. It currently acts as something that can be used on aggregate scale, thus conflicting its role with the Retainer System. Veterans make for extreme gameplay, with players have extreme weaknesses and strengths in certain areas of their army meaning a much more rushed battle as both extreme strengths erradicate extreme weaknesses quickly. Some Veterans are not historically accurate either and thus taint the aura of Japanese warfare that is meant to be depicted by the game. CA need to rethink the implementation of this system for future games.


Possible solutions to make Veterans rarer and more suitable could entail:

• Limiting the amount of Veterans one can bring (perhaps increasing with each money level, e.g. 1 for 5k, 3 for 10k, 5 for 14k).
• Forcing a player to spend more skill points at the same time which therefore increases the price of Veterans (perhaps each level up would force a player to spend 3 skill points instead of 1)
• Increasing customisability in terms of appearence and perhaps linking it more to the acquired Veteran skills of the unit - this is just to make Veterans more exclusive than normal units and more individually cherishable (e.g. armour shape/size depending on armour upgrades, horse type depending on speed upgrades, spear head shape/quality depending on attack upgrades, etc, etc).
• Removing Veteran status from peasant-standard (Ashigaru and Loan) units or at least limiting how much these units can level up - perhaps they can only gain certain types of upgrades?

What are your views?

Evan

[daniu]

Historical accuracy has never been relevant for MP, only gameplay and most importantly balancing.

I think the veteran system as such is fine, but needs some finetuning, at least price-wise; some should cost more, some less.
However, if pricing were right, there would be no need for any additional restrictions. There wouldn't be a reason to forbid any for certain unit types either if they were expensive enough.
This discussion has been going since the beginning however, and it doesn't look like CA are putting a high priority on rebalancing that.

[ckd]

I don't think referring to historical accuracy is very valid, seeing how it's a the multiplayer aspect of the game. Gameplay trumps historical accuracy when it's a matter of entertainment. It doesn't really seem like CA was all that for historical accuracy, also considering the game has a rock-paper-scissors balance.

Anywho, also another thing your assumption that veteran units are supposed to be special and rare. My own view is that the veteran system is more like a matter of choosing quality over quantity, rather than a "rare super unit" thing. Quantity can definitely beat quality if flanking tactics and whatnot are used correctly. And in either case, many people mix so they don't have extreme quantity or extreme quality.

Veteran loan swords are problematic though because they mess with the balance considering their lovely cost and effectiveness compared to say, a more expensive vanilla samurai unit. This is partly also a retainer issue too of course.

edit: agree with the points in daniu's post above. Pricing/cost-effectiveness is just not done very well.

[Toldyugawa]

I feel lucky that Shogun 2 doesn't suffer from the balancing issues of games like starcraft 2.
In starcraft they are constantly dealing with issues similar to the "loansword vets" issue we have, but in shogun if a general is good enough, it doesn't matter much what he brings he can still win, unless his army is a complete joke. The fact that one giant aspect of the game hasn't been ruined is an accomplishment in itself for CA.
It would have been very easy for one kind of unit to be basically useless and the only unit that is right now is the firebomb throwers, could have been worse like Cav could have been useless or something.

Shogun has the balance-buffer of the rock paper scissors system to ensure that things make at least some sense and have reason behind them. Shogun feel reasonably balanced. its not like Cav Vets can get the spear bonus immunity that Generals can.

I think the only thing I could ask for Avatar MP would be more units, a higher variation of them. Or just some more DLC. DLC for this game is so damn delicious. Maybe have the capability to modify units by equipment like OP suggested. DLC seems for sure though and not to shabby.

[Red Stag]

I just think that ashigaru should not be able to get clan token upgrades. If you did that you'd have a much more balanced game and you wouldn't see the kind of spams that are going around now.

That said, I'd be against changing the game in any dramatic way at the moment. Its been released and its too late to go making any big changes. Probably something to remember if they carry the avatar mode to the next game.

[Holy.Death]

Firstly, the Shogun 2 Veteran system does not fully adhere to historical accuracy.

No need. Total War series weren't aiming to adhere historical accuracy (especially in multiplayer, hence loan swords are present) in 100%. It has been said a lot before but many units in Shogun 2 are wrong or inaccurate from historical standpoint the way they are now.

Veteran units should not be common - they are veterans because relative to other units they are superior in experience and presumably skill - and therefore having large amounts of them in your army nullifies the Veteran nature of them; they aren't unique or special anymore, which I gather is what CA intended them to be.

Veterans cost money. More money than average unit. The more veterans you pick up the fewer men will you have on the battlefield. They are better than standard units, that's all. There is no real problem with veteran units being common.

I think that stats of units needs some tweaking. How about lowering efficiency of upgrades? They'd still beat any standard unit but not as easily and they would require more tactic in order to win the game.

[GoldenElite0]

It makes gameplay so much more about stat buff rather than in-battle tactical vision

This is what makes Shogun the least Total waresque game in all the series. I praise CA for daring to do something new but I'd rather play on an even field (stats wise) and let the tactics do the talking. The is a total war game, it doesn't need to copy the Call of Duty perks. Don't get me wrong I don't mind the idea of the veteran units so much, it's just they're overpowered. 500 horsemen shouldn't be able to charge head on through 2000 men who are tightly packed together. That would be suicide in real life and suicide in previous total wars.

[daniu]

500 horsemen shouldn't be able to charge head on through 2000 men who are tightly packed together.

I'll say it again, 500 Katana Cav will easily cut through 2000 Loan Swords.
Stop spamming them.

[GoldenElite0]

I didn't use 2000 loan swords, so don't assume that I did. But I know that would happen in the game anyway, I'm saying it shouldn't. I expect better units to be > than lesser units but not to the extent it is. It probably doesn't help the game plays a tad too quick either. You spend 8mins of a match positioning, 2 mins actually fighting. Surely anyone would be a bit concerned of the arcade direction the game is going?

[daniu]

I didn't use 2000 loan swords, so don't assume that I did.

Then what, bows? Yeah, that will go down even worse.
It sure as hell weren't spears, because a unit of yari ashigaru (cheapest unit in game) will easily kill a Great Guard (most expensive unit in game) with hardly any losses.
It's what Rock-Paper-Scissors is about.

If you think there was something fishy going on, post your replay; but it's unlikely that people will find anything wrong with it, or it would have been noticed before.
As long as you're the only one complaining, you don't have much of a point; less so without anything to back up your position.

But I know that would happen in the game anyway, I'm saying it shouldn't. I expect better units to be > than lesser units but not to the extent it is.

No, it's fine.
The stronger the RPS effect, the better for the game; it makes balanced armies stronger as opposed to spam.

[GoldenElite0]

Then what, bows?

I don't normally use bows

Off the top of my head I had 2 units of loan, some samurai, some no daichi, some yari cav, and the general of course. Some were vets. Admittedly I was a bit spartan on the pike units, I think I had two on the wings to cover the flanks. I'm not saying this is the most ideal army in the world, by rights I should have lost and I believe that. But 500 horses charging head on into the middle, having a sustained fight and killing 3/4 of my men while losing 82 of their own is an unrealistic expectation, even for Total war.

I have no replay as I didn't think it fishy, I know thats just how the game works. I'm complaining about the game mechanics not the actions of my opponent. You don't have to be so hostile in defending Shogun II, I am allowed to criticise something I own.

[Vaenson]

^^
in med II if you did it right u was able to kill everything with 6-8 Hvy Cav units. In S2 u cant normally.

Back to the topic of evgen... I think rebalancing a game at this point is difficult because it would just change which units would be used more often because of price benefit ratio.
For me the most anoying thing is not the Veteran system..i think the biggest problem in case of game balance is that you can only get the most powerfull Retainers by paying 3 bugs for the Ikko Ikki DLC and playing this game more then 200-500 hours...before that you have an disadvantage by default and that is kind of frustrating for competive games as you never know how good or bad you played as it isnt comparable in both directions.

[Evan MF]

Veterans cost money. More money than average unit. The more veterans you pick up the fewer men will you have on the battlefield. They are better than standard units, that's all. There is no real problem with veteran units being common.

I think that stats of units needs some tweaking. How about lowering efficiency of upgrades? They'd still beat any standard unit but not as easily and they would require more tactic in order to win the game.

I think its hard to argue that a Veteran system wasn't intended to be for a minority, special and elite unit and not something that could be replicated on large scale. Why doesn't CA just make you able to customise your whole army if in many cases most of your army consists of these customisable Vets. In fact, why don't we just go back to the old Rome and Medieval system with Chevron, Attack, Defense Upgrades, because that seems to be what the Vets system is used like except that it has larger costing pitfalls. The system is being used for the wrong reasons and should be fixed or reviewed for future Total War games. The whole notion of costing your Vets so that you are able to spam them in your army is an exploit of a system that's been poorly implemented.

Evan

[Toldyugawa]

I like the fact that ashigaru can be upgraded to be highly effective, its just that everybody playing this game has the "inspiring orator"(-10% ashigaru cost) retainer, meaning anybody who feels like being lazy and winning can trounce most players with an army consisting mostly of loansword vets. I think that issue would be solved if the Banzai ability costs like an additional 100-150 instead of 50(loan swords only). The unit would stilll be good but cost just enough to balance it a smidgen. I like having the ability to shape my army in the manner I want, if CA can make their game reasonably balanced and give me the ability to "creatively assemble" my army then they are doing right by me. I dont know bout the rest of you but I don't appreciate having less options. If I wanted less options id play risk or chess.

[daniu]

I think its hard to argue that a Veteran system wasn't intended to be for a minority, special and elite unit and not something that could be replicated on large scale.

I didn't catch your meaning there. Are you saying they were intended to be used in a large scale or not?
I don't think it's either one to the extreme, they are supposed to be mostly "special" in that you can give them perks and that you can only have a limited number.
Most people I remember talking about that were asking to increase the vet slot count btw.

Why doesn't CA just make you able to customise your whole army if in many cases most of your army consists of these customisable Vets.

Speak for yourself, mine doesn't.
And even if it did: what's the point in making the other units customisable if in many cases most of your army consists of these customisable vets anyway?

In fact, why don't we just go back to the old Rome and Medieval system with Chevron, Attack, Defense Upgrades, because that seems to be what the Vets system is used like except that it has larger costing pitfalls.

No, the vets system is supposed to be a fun addition that is in part supposed to make you more attached to the units you won battles with.
Plus, it gives more control over what bonus your units gets; the chevrons of old gave a the same set of stat boosts every time (and rarely were worth getting as opposed to getting more units instead).

[bggeneral2]

Hi all,

I've played quite a bit of Avatar Mode Multiplayer in Shogun 2 and have gathered some conclusions on this new and daring implementation CA have carried out. This thread regards the Veteran System aspects. In this review I will be highlighting the problems of the system.

Firstly, the Shogun 2 Veteran system does not fully adhere to historical accuracy. For example, having veteran Ashigaru units which have a large stat and ability buff almost contradicts the point of the unit. Historically speaking, peasants were never meant to become flagship regiments of the army and thus vetting them does not give a realistic representation of Japanese military. Realism is fun and seems to be a self-proclaimed hallmark of CA's projects, but here they've failed to carry through.

The next problem is the use of the Veteran system by users, ultimately due to CA's poor implementation. Veteran units should not be common - they are veterans because relative to other units they are superior in experience and presumably skill - and therefore having large amounts of them in your army nullifies the Veteran nature of them; they aren't unique or special anymore, which I gather is what CA intended them to be.

This overuse of Veterans also conflicts with the purpose of other Avatar Mode perks: in particular Retainers. The purpose of Retainers is to give skill/ability buffs usually to a majority of the army or a particular area of the army, why then are Veteran units being used for the same purpose? I.e. being 'spammed' in order to give the certain parts of the army an overall stat superiority - this is the Retainer system's job not the Veteran System's job.

The exploits of the Veteran system have drastic implications on the battlefield. It makes gameplay so much more about stat buff rather than in-battle tactical vision. It leads to a player being able to vastly improve 1 area of their army (imagine Sword Veteran 'spam' + Sword Infantry Retainers - I have some Katana Veterans in this situation with around 30 attack and yet I am able to bring around 8 of these in a 14k match??) and this makes for battles which are so much more extreme and rushed. Weaknesses and strengths in armies are amplified to high levels, this means the weak areas of an army are very quickly crushed, hence the rushed nature of battles.

Overall, the Veteran System fails to act as what it was meant to be: a system for individual units. It currently acts as something that can be used on aggregate scale, thus conflicting its role with the Retainer System. Veterans make for extreme gameplay, with players have extreme weaknesses and strengths in certain areas of their army meaning a much more rushed battle as both extreme strengths erradicate extreme weaknesses quickly. Some Veterans are not historically accurate either and thus taint the aura of Japanese warfare that is meant to be depicted by the game. CA need to rethink the implementation of this system for future games.


Possible solutions to make Veterans rarer and more suitable could entail:

• Limiting the amount of Veterans one can bring (perhaps increasing with each money level, e.g. 1 for 5k, 3 for 10k, 5 for 14k).
• Forcing a player to spend more skill points at the same time which therefore increases the price of Veterans (perhaps each level up would force a player to spend 3 skill points instead of 1)
• Increasing customisability in terms of appearence and perhaps linking it more to the acquired Veteran skills of the unit - this is just to make Veterans more exclusive than normal units and more individually cherishable (e.g. armour shape/size depending on armour upgrades, horse type depending on speed upgrades, spear head shape/quality depending on attack upgrades, etc, etc).
• Removing Veteran status from peasant-standard (Ashigaru and Loan) units or at least limiting how much these units can level up - perhaps they can only gain certain types of upgrades?

What are your views?

Evan

I agree only in some parts. Historically - OK.
But I do not agree, that the veterans are common. If you play more, on higher ranks, you will find, that many people are using just few high level vets. and the rest are vanilla, in order to deploy more man on the battlefield. And this is usually good players that have good scores.

[Holy.Death]

I think its hard to argue that a Veteran system wasn't intended to be for a minority, special and elite unit and not something that could be replicated on large scale.

I don't pretend to know what CA intended. I only know what they did. And they made a lot of slots for veteran units as well as the game mechanic itself which let you to deploy as many veterans as you like if only you have money to pay for it.

The system is being used for the wrong reasons and should be fixed or reviewed for future Total War games. The whole notion of costing your Vets so that you are able to spam them in your army is an exploit of a system that's been poorly implemented.

Only thing that limit you is the amount of money you have. Where you spend it is free to decide for you. I would only tone down veteran upgrades to make ashigaru less cost-effective than their samurai counterparts. Sure, you spend your money on veterans so they should perform better than average units, but highly vetted ashigaru make some of the samurai units pointless because you can have cheaper and better units like loan swords. I don't think that matchlocks should have reload skill that high too - they can fire without need to reload when upgraded enough with these matchlocks.

That's my opinion on veterans. I don't expect anyone agrees.

[perablenta]

The advantage on some units is because of the animations and they way they act in the game.
No mater how much you upgrade a unit of LS or katana samurai, they have a process for killing enemy units that is slow compared to range units.
A melee unit has to get to an enemy unit, has to engage, kill and then move on. Perfect example of this is the katana hero, most powerful sword inf unit yes, but takes forever to kill enough enemy units to make a difference on the battlefield.
But a range unit like bows or matchlocks CAN cheat their own animations for example the reload speed.
I have seen matchlocks monks after the patch with 125 reload speed. That means that they can jump from one shot to another without even doing the reload animation. Which in turn gives them an advantage as a veteran unit compared to other veteran unit types.
A katana samurai can't jump from one kill to another, a matchlock unit can.

[Holy.Death]

That's why I think some veteran units needs their upgrades adjusted - while loan sword should be potent in melee they shouldn't outclass katana samurai the way they do now and matchlocks should suffer longer reload time as well as friendly fire morale damage when shooting through friendlies because right now they are kind of snipers and machineguns in one. As standard units they are fine, veteran upgrades make them so deadly. They should be deadly, I agree, they are veterans after all but that is way too much.

P.S. I can beat them. But I don't think it's right how they do perform now.

[Evan MF]

I didn't catch your meaning there. Are you saying they were intended to be used in a large scale or not?
I don't think it's either one to the extreme, they are supposed to be mostly "special" in that you can give them perks and that you can only have a limited number.
Most people I remember talking about that were asking to increase the vet slot count btw.

I am saying that they are not meant to be used on large scale. The whole nature of the system: perks, customisability and personality has been made for the user to have unique units that are better than normal units, but when you have a lot of Veterans you completely lose that uniqueness.

Evan