Is Shogun2 the most poorly balanced TW yet?

[Texo123]

well ...

Katana > Loansword when they are upgraded the same...

what kills the Katana is the skirmish support a LS core allows its user to field... that simple

LS have comparable attack and defense stats due retainers ...

but lets take a closer look, without retainers and leadership gen...

Katana samis (4 upgrades ) / Loanswords (4 upgrades)

moral :11 / 6
attack :18 / 15
defense : 6 / 4
charge bonus : 15 / 10
armor : 5 / 2

cost : 950 / 540


now lets analyse this:

Katana samis have compared to LS:
5 moral more
3 attack more
2 defense more
5 charge bonus more
3 armor more

no imagine how much koku you would have to spend to make your LS that good if you could spend that many skillpoints and if those upgrades were available....
(we keep it like the known stat increases... and 50 koku per upgrade)

5 moral = 5 upgrades = 250 koku
3 attack = 1 upgrade = 50 koku
2 defense = 1 upgrade = 50 koku
5 charge bonus = 1 upgrade = 50 koku
3 armor = 3 upgrades = 150 koku

Total = 550 koku -----> + 540 = 1090 koku

(with 10% cost retainer = 981 ---> compare to katanas 950 koku)

(considering that upgrades are all 50 koku, you have to spend probably clan points which are 70 koku, just to make it clear, LS would probably cost even more)

The thing that makes them slightly better are only:

the DLC retainers & cost retainer & more numbers

but they can get moral shocked!!


Blademaster + Drill Place are retainers that buff both ! ikko retainers are the only reason they get sligthly better ...
the prob... there are no samurai retainers !!!

Imagine something like a " + 3 attack + 1 moral for samurai" retainer... whos going to cry...


most people downgrade units to attack/defense stats ... but for example ...armor is one of the most important stats for resisting arrows and charges !


Vettet LS get ripped apartand routed by Light Cavs

1 Katana Cav with minor upgrades like attack and defense is going to kill 200-400 vettet LS if they get the chance. Not that strong huh? A 950-koku-60 men-mounted-unit unit acts like 240 vettet Katana Samis on foot!

Bows will absolutely destroy Loanswords if they can get some volleys of.





Well ... now they dont seem even that cost effective to me xDD

[spicykorean]

i think part of the reason of all the complaining is no one can agree on terminology.

For instance I consider a "cheese" move to be something that is irregular and supposed to catch you off guard, and because youre caught off guard you have trouble maintaing your army. There's nothing wrong with using a "cheesy" strategy, just a cheese general doesn't work against skilled players (eg bringing all cav against a skilled player is not going to work)

"Overpowered" to me means the unit doesn't have sufficient draw backs to make up for all it's advantages

"broken" to me means a bug or an exploit causes a unit to perform better or worse than intended.

To give examples:

"Cheese tactic" would be a player going all light cav and just running around the map avoiding you or hiding.
Or back when artillery was far more accurate, players hiding artillery in trees and sniping your general as you approached.

"Overpowered" would be the current state of upgrades per cost of loanswords vs. kat samurai. However, is something overpowered when the majority uses it? Wouldn't that "balance" things out?

"Broken" would be the veteran duping bug where you're able to bring 3 great guard to a fight. Another example, is the cav charge bug where a yari cav unit front charging into a immobile yari cav unit would lose the engagement.

Just felt that the terms needed to be fleshed out in order for people to understand.

[i came from outerspace]

The issue is that per koku spent, you get more from each upgrade to loansword than kat samurai.

The same applies to retainers that give flat stat increases, you get more koku equivalent retainer boosts to your loanswords than samurai.

I really liked an idea put forward somewhere in this forum about disabling veterancy and upgrades for ashigaru units.
Just allowing upgrades to samurai and monks would make these units truly elite while ashigaru units can truly be fodder/filler units.

I like this sort of idea. But maybe they shouldn't disable veterency all the way. Just tweak it so it makes more sense. Perhaps the ashiagaru upgrades should be cheaper (because ashiagaru are cheap units), but they shouldn't allow them to grow to levels to actually compete with samurai units 1 on 1. For instance instead of a loan sword melee attack upgrade costing 50 koku and giving them +3 melee attack, it should cost 20 koku and only give +1 melee attack (with a limit of 2 upgrades). The other upgrades should be downsized in a similar manner.

That way ashigaru units can be upgraded to try and outdo the other ashigaru units still, but theres no way youre going to upgrade an ashigaru to beat a samurai on even ground. THe only possible way an ashiagru should ever be able to beat it's samurai counterpart is if the ashiagaru is like level 9 or 10 and the player is just commanding his army real well (using flanking maneuvers and using the higher ground etc etc)

I know what the main complaint of this is going to be though.. (and probably the main source of this inbalance) is that new players only have ashigaru units. I'm not sure what to do about that. (though it might just work out, since the low level player will have a big numbers advantage with his cheap general)

[Evan MF]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

well ...

Katana > Loansword when they are upgraded the same...

what kills the Katana is the skirmish support a LS core allows its user to field... that simple

LS have comparable attack and defense stats due retainers ...

but lets take a closer look, without retainers and leadership gen...

Katana samis (4 upgrades ) / Loanswords (4 upgrades)

moral :11 / 6
attack :18 / 15
defense : 6 / 4
charge bonus : 15 / 10
armor : 5 / 2

cost : 950 / 540


now lets analyse this:

Katana samis have compared to LS:
5 moral more
3 attack more
2 defense more
5 charge bonus more
3 armor more

no imagine how much koku you would have to spend to make your LS that good if you could spend that many skillpoints and if those upgrades were available....
(we keep it like the known stat increases... and 50 koku per upgrade)

5 moral = 5 upgrades = 250 koku
3 attack = 1 upgrade = 50 koku
2 defense = 1 upgrade = 50 koku
5 charge bonus = 1 upgrade = 50 koku
3 armor = 3 upgrades = 150 koku

Total = 550 koku -----> + 540 = 1090 koku

(with 10% cost retainer = 981 ---> compare to katanas 950 koku)

(considering that upgrades are all 50 koku, you have to spend probably clan points which are 70 koku, just to make it clear, LS would probably cost even more)

The thing that makes them slightly better are only:

the DLC retainers & cost retainer & more numbers

but they can get moral shocked!!


Blademaster + Drill Place are retainers that buff both ! ikko retainers are the only reason they get sligthly better ...
the prob... there are no samurai retainers !!!

Imagine something like a " + 3 attack + 1 moral for samurai" retainer... whos going to cry...


most people downgrade units to attack/defense stats ... but for example ...armor is one of the most important stats for resisting arrows and charges !


Vettet LS get ripped apartand routed by Light Cavs

1 Katana Cav with minor upgrades like attack and defense is going to kill 200-400 vettet LS if they get the chance. Not that strong huh? A 950-koku-60 men-mounted-unit unit acts like 240 vettet Katana Samis on foot!

Bows will absolutely destroy Loanswords if they can get some volleys of.





Well ... now they dont seem even that cost effective to me xDD

Texo I think you're taking the wrong approach. Loans are extremely cost effective, especially at the levels you have identified simply by virtue of the fact that you can pretty much afford 2 Loan Sword Vets for the price of 1 Katana Vet.

1080 for 2 units of lvl 4 Loan Sword Vets vs 950 for 1 unit of lvl 4 Katana Vets, you'd be mad to say that the 2 Loan Swords wouldn't win (in a controlled experiment situation). For almost the same price you can even more than double the amount of men on the field from Katana to Loan Sword vets (300men vs 120men), which means each Katana warrior has to face double a Loan Warrior at least twice in order to survive, which in a sense would equate to facing double the stats or more:

moral :11 / 12
attack :18 / 30
defense : 6 / 8
charge bonus : 15 / 20
armor : 5 / 4

cost : 950 / 1080

difference = 130

NOW look at what you're getting for your money. For a mere + 130koku (if say you were changing 1 Kat Vet into 2 Loan Vets):

moral : +1
attack : +12
defense : +2
charge bonus : + 5
armor : -1

+ 180 men


What does this mean?

Firstly you're going to beat Katanas in melee. (with over twice as many men on the field your men have at least 2 Loan Warriors to attack a katana warrior, and with such minor stat differences you're going to be able to kill them in those 2 chances most of the time).

Secondly, you have plenty men to absorb missile fire: the loss of armour is only -1: I.e. negligable compared to the vast amount of men you gain.

And furthermore because you have more than twice as many men you can encircle the katana unit giving the following morale downers:

was_attacked_in_flank -3 morale
was_attacked_in_rear -6 morale

(and this is all happening without matchlock, bow or leadership general support!)


Your calculation of cost effectiveness is hypothetical and based on unexploitative costings. I've shown in real terms how Loan Swords are way more cost-effective and why they win so often. The principle of what I'm saying is that numbers mean a lot more than just 'more men', they mean the duplication of stats and the ability to take advantage of other mechanics in the game.

Evan

[Evan MF]

I'm posting some more information on this, as I see a potential counter argument that may be misused and unassessed.

In the situation of 2 Loan Vets vs 1 Katana Vet its 1080koku spent vs 950koku spent, if we spend 130koku on 2 upgrades for the Katanas, even then their stats aren't good enough to beat the sheer numbers of Loan Swords (numbers which are more than double).

This is demostrated by these calculations:

These are the new possible stats of each unit-interaction value when 130koku is spent on 2 upgrades for the katanas (I.e, equal money has been spent on each team pretty much):

( Loan / Katana )

attack : 24 / 15
defense : 12 / 4
charge bonus : 25 / 10

This obviously shows that in the fight between 1 Katana Warrior vs 1 Loan Warrior the Katana Warrior will win on most occasions, in fact the probabilities are calculated here:

attack :

24/39 x 100 = 62% of the time the Katana Warrior will win in this area

defense :

12/16 x 100 = 75% of the time the Katana Warrior will win in this area

charge bonus :

25/35 x 100 = 71% of the time Katana Warrior will win in this area

BUT look what happens with 2.5 Loan Swords vs 1 Katana Warrior (this is when equal money has been spent on each side and when we include ALL men in the calculation):

Layout of calculation:

Chance of beating 1st Loan Swordsman x Chance of beating 2nd Loan Swordsman x Chance of beating 1/2 a Loan Swordsman = Total Chance of beating all of them in a row;
and 1 Katana warrior HAS to be able to beat all 2.5 Loansword warriors in order to survive. The results:

attack :


62% x 62% x 76% = 29% of the time the Katana Warrior will win in this area


defense :


75% x 75% x 86% = 48% of the time the Katana Warrior will win in this area


charge bonus :

71% x 71% x 83% = 42% of the time the Katana Warrior will win in this area

As you can see Loanswords are more cost-effective simply because they will beat Katanas due to their numbers. I haven't even included the other positional and morale advantages of having greater numbers in these calculations, and already you can see that its better to take 2 Loansword Vets at a certain price than 1 Katana vet at the same price.

Evan

[FARFAR~AWAY]

Ever since MTW mp, people have to set at least 5 stupid rules so as to give the players a sound tactical viable and a more fair but competative enviroment. Every remembers something like this, max 4 of one kind, max 6 cav, max 4 archers, max 2 horse archer, no arty(because of randomness) etc...

This conituned till ETW...

Shogun 2, so far, only has one common rule (no arty) and alot of the games out there doesn't even bothered to implement any. Shogun 2 is the most unbalanced game so far? You decide.

[AlfonsoVIII]

no one in matchmaking has tried to ask for any rules. only battlelist.

[Texo123]

Texo I think you're taking the wrong approach. Loans are extremely cost effective, especially at the levels you have identified simply by virtue of the fact that you can pretty much afford 2 Loan Sword Vets for the price of 1 Katana Vet.

1080 for 2 units of lvl 4 Loan Sword Vets vs 950 for 1 unit of lvl 4 Katana Vets, you'd be mad to say that the 2 Loan Swords wouldn't win (in a controlled experiment situation). For almost the same price you can even more than double the amount of men on the field from Katana to Loan Sword vets (300men vs 120men), which means each Katana warrior has to face double a Loan Warrior at least twice in order to survive, which in a sense would equate to facing double the stats or more:

moral :11 / 12
attack :18 / 30
defense : 6 / 8
charge bonus : 15 / 20
armor : 5 / 4

cost : 950 / 1080

difference = 130

NOW look at what you're getting for your money. For a mere + 130koku (if say you were changing 1 Kat Vet into 2 Loan Vets):

moral : +1
attack : +12
defense : +2
charge bonus : + 5
armor : -1

+ 180 men


What does this mean?

Firstly you're going to beat Katanas in melee. (with over twice as many men on the field your men have at least 2 Loan Warriors to attack a katana warrior, and with such minor stat differences you're going to be able to kill them in those 2 chances most of the time).

Secondly, you have plenty men to absorb missile fire: the loss of armour is only -1: I.e. negligable compared to the vast amount of men you gain.

And furthermore because you have more than twice as many men you can encircle the katana unit giving the following morale downers:

was_attacked_in_flank -3 morale
was_attacked_in_rear -6 morale

(and this is all happening without matchlock, bow or leadership general support!)


Your calculation of cost effectiveness is hypothetical and based on unexploitative costings. I've shown in real terms how Loan Swords are way more cost-effective and why they win so often. The principle of what I'm saying is that numbers mean a lot more than just 'more men', they mean the duplication of stats and the ability to take advantage of other mechanics in the game.

Evan

theory crafting...

1 of my vettet Katana (950) is holding its line vs 2 vettet LS with nearly the same attack stats and is set both wavering and routes atleast 1 of them before it gets under 50 men...

the 950 koku katana is winning the 1v1 vs LS ... im pretty damn sure bout this... because i experienced it my last 15 battles again and again vs LS core armys

even when my opponent had 6 LS with 20 attack vs my 3 Katana (20 attack) + 2 (LS 17 attack)
Katanas will lose the fight if flanked but in a hand to hand frontal fight.... i dont think LS feel pretty comfortable vs Katana


probably means = armor affects meele defense aswell

otherwise my katana wouldnt end up killing so many even outnumbered while having the same stats
otherwise Katana cav woudlnt own so many swords, keep in mind they are only 60 men and kill 200+ vettet LS even when surrounded... with 25/11 stats ---> but 7 armor ! maybe that comes into play aswell

And its not because they are mounted, dismounted i experienced the same effect



btw even a fresh yari Ashigaru without ikko retainers can hold 2-6 vettet LS 2+ mins ... =)
probably my greatest moment in Shogun2 seeing such brave yari spears!

[Lord Mark]

Let's see...

A large number of obsolete units,
overpowered DLC units,
almost game breaking retainers,
matchlock Ashigaru which rape highly armoured units at a fraction of the cost and don't cause friendly fire,
peasant swords which rape samurais yet are cheaper,
new players are severly handicapped against 10 stars,
the list goes on...

P.S CA have pretty much admitted they ed the balancing up by nerfing lots of units e.g nag monks and heavy guns and introducing unit caps. lmfao

You say this, and I have indeed witnessed one smashing loss against 2 rank 10s using all lone sword armies.

However, I and my bro have played versus many level 10 teams. On my second ever Shogun 2 battle I played a fight vs two level 10s. They brought;

gunmen, DLC units, peasant swords too...

We had literally all the starting units (bow men, spears and lone swords). We absolutely demolished them - they hid on a hill whilst we took the objectives (and they clearly didn't understand this most simple concept).

Then my archers shot his gunmen from behind some buildings. Then I encircle his army, and flattened everything.

Just goes to show, doesn't matter what units you bring, what level and bonuses you have, and how lame you are (hill camping), if you don't use tactics you will still lose - terribly against two noobs who only understand the basics (spear vs cav, archer vs soldier and swordsmen to fill the gaps).

However, I admit (after losing a terrible defeat against OP army), there are some features that offer game inbalance when abused by lame asses.

[Evan MF]

1 of my vettet Katana (950) is holding its line vs 2 vettet LS with nearly the same attack stats and is set both wavering and routes atleast 1 of them before it gets under 50 men...

We need to do this under controlled conditions. My friend and I will attempt it and bring back results.

Evan

[FARFAR~AWAY]

no one in matchmaking has tried to ask for any rules. only battlelist.

I am talking about BL, almost nobody asked for rules. I play BL(90%) most of the time.

I hated mm and no one asked for rules when there is a token at stake.
"Leave the token and walk away or die..."

[crzyrndm]

We need to do this under controlled conditions. My friend and I will attempt it and bring back results.

Evan

I think the problem between your calculations and his experiences is that most (the not smart ones) LS armies don't end up flanking the katana's so the doubled stats you're working off don't come into affect. It would be the same as running a katana against 1 LS then another which I'm 90% sure the katana's would win. Also two vanilla YA can beat quite a heavily upgraded KS if they flank, the problem is often creating the oppurtunity to flank effectively.

[AlfonsoVIII]

I am talking about BL, almost nobody asked for rules. I play BL(90%) most of the time.

I hated mm and no one asked for rules when there is a token at stake.
"Leave the token and walk away or die..."

sorry, your post did not clarify bl or mm. and yes no art is the only rule that i see in bl, besides "noobs only"

[Captain Arrrgh!]

edit

[i came from outerspace]

I am talking about BL, almost nobody asked for rules. I play BL(90%) most of the time.

I hated mm and no one asked for rules when there is a token at stake.
"Leave the token and walk away or die..."

The reason for that is simply just because there would be no way to enforce the rule. You can't kick someone for not following the rules. If you go into a game and someone didn't follow the rule all you can do is leave and give them a ranked win (and yourself a ranked loss). So we could agree in the pre game lobby "no matchlocks", but seriously what are you going to do if the game starts up and I have matchlocks?

If anyone ever attempts to make a game with rules, it's even more obvious that its a trick than when someone makes a game with rules in battle list..

[Evan MF]

I think the problem between your calculations and his experiences is that most (the not smart ones) LS armies don't end up flanking the katana's so the doubled stats you're working off don't come into affect. It would be the same as running a katana against 1 LS then another which I'm 90% sure the katana's would win. Also two vanilla YA can beat quite a heavily upgraded KS if they flank, the problem is often creating the oppurtunity to flank effectively.

Most of the stats are on the basis of 2 Loanswords being 1 unit with constant stats, not stacked stats (therefore also ignoring any flanking stat gains) and the Katana facing each Loansword warrior with normal vetted stats. However flanking is a still very potent force and the 'flanking' morale loss WILL most likely be suffered EVERY time 2 Loanswords attack a Katana Unit at once for the following reasons:

1. Loanswords are larger than Katanas and thus when 2 charge into a Katana they will wrap around the flanks of the Katana considerably enough to cause a morale downer, because there are 2 units attacking the Katana unless both of them are almost EXACTLY in front of the katana 1 of them WILL get the 'flank' morale downer.
2. You may argue that engaged battle lines are always straight with no gaps, look closely and you'll realise they aren't, even as 'Grouped' units the Loan and Katana will get clumped up in a charge, thus detatching the katana enough from its line to allow wrap-around.
3. You may argue that a wall of Katanas standing still will not suffer this problem: yes, this is the only instance when it won't, but what it will suffer is a lack of charge bonus which would most likely give the Loans a considerable advantage from the start, making up for the lack of 'flank' gains.

Evan

[Texo123]

Most of the stats are on the basis of a LS being 1 unit (i.e. ignoring any flanking) and the Katana facing each Loansword warrior with normal vetted stats. However flanking is a still very potent force and the 'flanking' morale loss WILL most likely be suffered EVERY time 2 Loanswords attack a Katana Unit at once for the following reasons:

1. Loanswords are larger than Katanas and thus when 2 charge into a Katana they will wrap around the flanks of the Katana considerably enough to cause a morale downer, because there are 2 units attacking the Katana unless both of them are almost EXACTLY in front of the katana 1 of them WILL get the 'flank' morale downer.
2. You may argue that engaged battle lines are always straight with no gaps, look closely and you'll realise they aren't, even as 'Grouped' units the Loan and Katana will get clumped up in a charge, thus detatching the katana enough from its line to allow wrap-around.
3. You may argue that a wall of Katanas standing still will not suffer this problem: yes, this is the only instance when it won't, but what it will suffer is a lack of charge bonus which would most likely give the Loans a considerable advantage from the start, making up for the lack of 'flank' gains.

Evan

rawr facts clashing with experience and many other facts

im sure your right if tested under "controlled conditions" probably on rice fields in a 1vs2 kat vs 2 LS
but in the battle ...

in my theory ... yari ashis take the charge/ pin down the LS and 1 Kat sami countercharges

effect ---> no charge bonus for LS, dont get arround the flanks when they clash together

creates pretty much a 300 scene ... superior infantry slauthering peasants and making their numbers meaningless

[Evan MF]

Due to lacking LoanSwords of an appropriate Veteren Level my friend and I preformed the experiment in classic, where we constructed similar stats through upgradesL

Original Stats:

Kat/Loan

moral :11 / 6
attack :18 / 15
defense : 6 / 4
charge bonus : 15 / 10
armor : 5 / 2

Tested Stats:

moral :13 / 9
attack :18 / 14
defense : 10 / 7
charge bonus : 15 / 10
armor : 5 / 2

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

As you can see our upgrades are similar enough and perfect for testing.

We tested 12 Loanswords vs 6 Katanas so that our sample sizes was large enough and so we could replicate the typical battle line of an infantry fight.

The results were: a confident win for the Loanswords. At first the Katanas seemed to be holding out ok, but there came a point when they'd lost so many men that they routed, all because of the large numbers of Loanswordsemen with competent stats.

For crzyrndm and anyone who wants to see the progression of the battle:

As you can see clumping of the nature I described in my previous post almost always occurs in this fashion:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Wrap around almost always occurs.



Average loss LS= 62men

Average loss Katana= 120men

If you remember, these were my calculations of Similar (not the same) unit stats, predicting who would win:

attack :


62% x 62% x 76% = 29% of the time the Katana Warrior will win in this area


defense :


75% x 75% x 86% = 48% of the time the Katana Warrior will win in this area


charge bonus :

71% x 71% x 83% = 42% of the time the Katana Warrior will win in this area

The average of all these is [29% + 48% + 42%]/3 = 40%

So it suggests that the Katana will kill 40% of all the 2 units of Loanswords before its completely dead.

The result? They killed slightly more than the prediction, they killed 60% of the Loanswords before they were completely routed.

(The prediction is offset most likely because of the difference in stats between testing units and initial hypothetical units, perhaps also because of the snowy weather conditions which my testmate couldn't resist using and also perhaps because of some unknown game mechanic that wasn't included in calculations. Despite that it still shows that Katanas are no match for Loans.)

So ultimately the Katanas hardly performed well enough for them to be cost-effective to take over Loanswords. The potency of numbers shines through and shows to affect balance a lot more than most think; it being the reason why Loansword vets are so deadly.

Evan

[Texo123]

Due to lacking LoanSwords of an appropriate Veteren Level my friend and I preformed the experiment in classic, where we constructed similar stats through upgradesL

Original Stats:

Kat/Loan

moral :11 / 6
attack :18 / 15
defense : 6 / 4
charge bonus : 15 / 10
armor : 5 / 2

Tested Stats:

moral :13 / 9
attack :18 / 14
defense : 10 / 7
charge bonus : 15 / 10
armor : 5 / 2

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

As you can see our upgrades are similar enough and perfect for testing.

We tested 12 Loanswords vs 6 Katanas so that our sample sizes was large enough and so we could replicate the typical battle line of an infantry fight.

The results were: a confident win for the Loanswords. At first the Katanas seemed to be holding out ok, but there came a point when they'd lost so many men that they routed, all because of the large numbers of Loanswordsemen with competent stats.

For crzyrndm and anyone who wants to see the progression of the battle:

As you can see clumping of the nature I described in my previous post almost always occurs in this fashion:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Wrap around almost always occurs.



Average loss LS= 62men

Average loss Katana= 120men

If you remember, these were my calculations of Similar (not the same) unit stats, predicting who would win:

attack :


62% x 62% x 76% = 29% of the time the Katana Warrior will win in this area


defense :


75% x 75% x 86% = 48% of the time the Katana Warrior will win in this area


charge bonus :

71% x 71% x 83% = 42% of the time the Katana Warrior will win in this area

The average of all these is [29% + 48% + 42%]/3 = 40%

So it suggests that the Katana will kill 40% of all the 2 units of Loanswords before its completely dead.

The result? They killed slightly more than the prediction, they killed 60% of the Loanswords before they were completely routed.

(The prediction is offset most likely because of the difference in stats between testing units and initial hypothetical units, perhaps also because of the snowy weather conditions which my testmate couldn't resist using and also perhaps because of some unknown game mechanic that wasn't included in calculations. Despite that it still shows that Katanas are no match for Loans.)

So ultimately the Katanas hardly performed well enough for them to be cost-effective to take over Loanswords. The potency of numbers shines through and shows to affect balance a lot more than most think; it being the reason why Loansword vets are so deadly.

Evan

you have invested 2000 koku more for LS ...
the Katana player could have brought 2 more for the money

while it is normal for a Katana core to field 6 sami units, it is pretty unusual for a LS core to field 12 units
anyway it ends up being 1800 loanswords vs 720 Katana samurai

this is how you test cost effectivness and unit stats?? investing 2000 koku more into LS to prove that Kat samis are not as deadly??

the Katanas killed 742 LS... so everyone killed atleast 1 guy... which is pretty good when you keep in mind that they where outnumbered 2:5 and probably even flanked


any way keep in mind that katana have more moral... most LS out there have something arround 9 moral... Katanas 13
LS are easy to rout...


got some nice replay with a final clash between 2 Ls +3 katana vs 6 LS
while my 2 LS have only 18 attack, his have 20 attack, my Katana have 21 and only 1 meele defense more but his LS have 20-30 charge

So its pretty much a 5vs6 situation, 660 vs 900 men.

If you have some time to take a look at the replay, you will see my left flank LS nearly routs after seconds of contact with 8 moral vs 2 LS, with 1 Katana reserve i was winning the left flank.

In my center 1 Katana was holding 2 LS, 1 LS starts wavering (keep in mind they have only 1 attack/1 defense less than my Katana ...as far as i remember) its a 120 vs 300 situation.

On the right flank i have 2 x 1vs1, LS vs LS and Katana vs LS, the Katana wins it fight and helps the LS out. Won the right flank.

Mass wavering on the LS lines, general falls all rout. Even if the general didnt fall im pretty sure i would have won the infantry fight.


Im gonna drop all LS soon for Katanas, its just because you can trust Samurai more to hold their lines than peasants.

[Evan MF]

you have invested 2000 koku more for LS ...
the Katana player could have brought 2 more for the money

while it is normal for a Katana core to field 6 sami units, it is pretty unusual for a LS core to field 12 units
anyway it ends up being 1800 loanswords vs 720 Katana samurai

this is how you test cost effectivness and unit stats?? investing 2000 koku more into LS to prove that Kat samis are not as deadly??

THAT was a CLASSIC battle, where they happen to actually balance the costing of Loan Sword Ashigaru upgrades - I.E. making upgrades more expensive, and that is why it costed more, BUT, I made the stats comparable to your example of AVATAR battle stats, where indeed the costs were equal, so this experiment was fair in replicating the correct conditions. Look at the stat difference in those screenshots, not the costing.

Evan