Rock, paper, scissors and the flow of battle.

[ironbrigade]

Originally posted by
Clover
please read thread for great discussion.
http://forums.totalwar.com/showthrea...flow-of-battle.


The rock, paper, scissors style of gameplay in Shogun was a turnoff for me because I felt as if the game wanted to decide my strategy for me. You could send Yari Samurai up against Katana Samurai, but you will know ahead of time they it's quite essential wasting troops because of the extreme weighted bonuses the Katana soldiers would have against the Yari. The battle would be over quickly and the Yari sacrifice would mean very little because they had been downright butchered by Katana Samurai who suddenly recived ungodly buffs when they engaged them. So in retaliation the entire battlefield ended up looking like a checkerboard with everyone trying to match the right kinds of troops against the opposing laying who in return shifts their own troops around to maintain the advantage.

The concept isn't so much the problem rather than the severity in which it is employed. In RTW pike and camel units recived a +8 and +4 attack against cavalry, while Skirmishers recived bonuses against elephants who in-turn recived a bonus against heavy infantry. These minor, yet noticeable advantages served to illustrate that yes indeed some troops are better at fighting other types of troops, but it wasn't so extreme that it was believed to nothing but a waste of soldiers to one type of soldier against another even though you know that if left unsupported they will lose.

The speed of battles also concerned me, as did many others which prompted early mods that increased the moral of the the units. The Shogun2 combat seemed to be over extraordinary quickly-- almost comically so. I belive early on I timed two units of Samurai swordsmen go at it, and the battle only lasted 1.5 minutes, while a Yari and sword unit fought for 30 seconds before one broke. This alarmed me because it felt like I had no time to work a strategy because once engaged my men would break and run seemingly in an instant.


Honorable mention to skating units.

[ironbrigade]

Other comments on that forum



'im of the opinion that the the entire unit design of shogun 2 was way too focused on actually making combat a game of chess. We have very little unit diversity and each unit has a single unique role to play. This means that you'll always try to match one kind of unit against the same 1 or 2 kinds of unit in every single combat, leaving very little fun to be had. So not only, as you say, are combats about trying to match your units all the time, it'll always be the same units you're doing it to.

As for the morale system, while I actually thought it was interesting at first, I soon realized that battles no longer ever was about killing the opponent, but instead trying to freak out the enemies soldier to make them run at the first sign of combat, which really isn't very fun for either party.


But you're correct that RPS style in Shogun seemed quite arcade-y.


But quite honestly, I don't want my singleplayer campaign to be so obviously a rock paper scissor scenario. Yes some units should have inherent bonuses against others, but some should be evenly matched, and sometimes a straight up better spear unit should stand a fair chance against a newly recruited sword wielding enemy. I also strongly dislike the two tier system shogun 2 used. Not only did it limit unit variety greatly, it also made combats that much less interesting imo. That brings me back to why I actually barely played shogun 2 singleplayer; In other total war games I pretty much only play singleplayer, but in shogun it simply wasn't very fun for me at all.


The Rock-Paper-Scissor elements really annoyed me in Shogun 2. The ridiculously hard counters and high game speed made the battles far less interesting than previous Total War games.


1) were over far too fast, 2) seemed to be more focused on matching which unit where as apposed to actual strategy, and 3) had panzy samurai who ran away far to fast.


I agree with the topic. I didn't feel like I could utilize my entire army effectively in S2, it seemed more a matter of yes, just matching up units with each other, which bored me to tears. Rome and Medieval 2 (my 2 favorites) I could always utilize and synchronize my troops for effective battle tactics, like effectively wiping out 5 units of Galloglaich with my 5 units of Spear Militia and Mounted General in M2.


I disagree, I think it acually makes strategy less important as it all reverts to simply matching your units to the right type of enemy units. No one wants to engage their Samurai Yari against the othersiders swordsmen because they will lose badly, so the result is constant changing of the line.

[FilipVonZietek]

Rock paper scisors is terrible gamey thing. In reality taking shogun2 for example 90% were ashigaru armed with spears supported by teppos (actually they fighting style was very similiar to european pike and shot). Samurais were minority, but they usually fought in formations too us using spear as main weapons and swords as secondary (so yari samurai could become katana samurai at any time he saw feasible), also most samurais were more or less skilled bowmen too.

[Ichon]

I agree combat in Shogun 2 was a step back while campaign improved. There is a good point about the rock, paper, scissors aspect though I don't quite agree it was so complete as you state but combined with lack of unit versatility it made the battles quite a bit more boring.

[Lord Baal]

The units and their natural stats should be the ones deciding which will win. No some silly rock, paper, scissors. If I want that I simply play rock, paper, scissors with some one else. It's sad but true, a part of strategy games that simply refuse to die like it should.

Take for example Command and Conquer, let's say Command and Conquer 2 Red Alert... where infantry units will survive several direct tank bullets simple because... thanks where only supposed to be used against tanks, not infantry...

In the history of games theres so much of this that I cannot phantom to list them all.

If you really want tactics, real tactics you should get into consideration the readiness of the troops, things such moral and freshness levels. A really battered and tired unit, no matter how elite could be defeated by a bunch of agricultural gear armed peasants.

Also yes, it's important the weapon they are carrying, but also the way they use it and the training they have. A single peasant could knock out a knight from his horse with a long pick or lance if the conditions are right and know how to do it. Of great importance is the kind of armor and the were carrying.

What we should be looking for is something that takes into account that and only that. Know that a pike unit have chances to strike first, that a sword is a cutting and stabbing weapon and outweigh that with the kind of strike the unit is giving and the armor the other unit is wearing, and so on..

[ironbrigade]

Agreed,my fear is tw is turning into a rts game, like battle for middle earth or something.

[DCyDe]

it is the grand battleplan that should decide a battle and not that arcade battle system we had in Shogun2, if they make for example hoplites good against cavalry but bad versus infantry i will facepalm and deffinatly not buy the game

[Ichon]

it is the grand battleplan that should decide a battle and not that arcade battle system we had in Shogun2, if they make for example hoplites good against cavalry but bad versus infantry i will facepalm and deffinatly not buy the game

The comment already was that phalanx will be strong against cavalry... I doubt it will be weak against infantry exactly but we will see what shorter length spear wielding units get as a bonus against cavalry- I bet it will be something. Ever since MTW CA seems to think spears are meant to fight cavalry, not as the first most efficient anti human weapons.

I don't mind some units being better than others in certain situations- that is a fact, but the way its twisted to be such a large stat based bonus instead of depending on terrain, discipline, or formations is disappointing.

What would be very rewarding would be that when cavalry charge to the rear if a unit has medium discipline it might not immediately break but the men at the rear run a bit away from the cavalry before reforming- distorting the formation and making it more likely to break if already engaged on the front but if not engaged at the front it has a very good chance of reforming facing the new threat. Low discipline unit might break right away while only high disciplined unit would would simply have the men in the rear ranks turn and fight in place forcing the cavalry to retreat or risking their lower numbers vs the higher numbers of the infantry in a melee fight.

[Lord Baal]

TEver since MTW CA seems to think spears are meant to fight cavalry, not as the first most efficient anti human weapons.

This, this is what is wrong with the whole damn approach!

[Intranetusa]

They should do what Europa Barbarorum did - give all the spear units large attack buffs while having lower lethality in comparison to swords. So spear units would be good against infantry and great against cavalry, but swords are best against infantry but still ok against cavalry.

[Armatus]

Now I can't speak for S2 mp, this probably should have been posted in the official sticky because there are some valid concerns surrounding rock paper scissors.

But, are you sure it is really a mater of this beats that? I mean in a standard RTS game that's typical, but TW has always factored in various things such as valor/xp, terrain advantage, flanking, charge, special bonuses/penalties, fatigue all affecting morale.

So maybe someone should post some actual statistics before accusing the game of being another C&C?

[Rorarii]

Isn't he asking for historical reality in combat ? if so, then YES!

Having spearmen as supermen when fighting cav is re-dick-u-lous.

R

[Jester]

blame the MP...

the more prominent the MP will become the more standard RTS gameplay will TW adopt

[Ichon]

blame the MP...

the more prominent the MP will become the more standard RTS gameplay will TW adopt

Which is bad marketing. Stand out from the crowd don't join them and become indistinguishable.

[windsupernova]

blame the MP...

the more prominent the MP will become the more standard RTS gameplay will TW adopt

When in doubt blame MP!

Never mind that the Spears>Cav>Swords>Spears system existed since Shogun 1!

You should mention the CoD generation, they are always to blame too!

As far as the thread goes:

The RPS gameplay is there to encourage army diversity and combined arms. As far as actual battles go, I don't think its such a big issue. In the end outflanking your opponent and concentrating force are what win you most of your battles.

I agree in that the gameplay was a little bit too fast on Vainilla Shogun 2 but I don't know why people act as if it was the 1st time they did that. As far as "Modern" Total War games go:

Rome: fast gameplay, hell it may be even faster than the Shogun 2 one.
Medieval 2: Slow, people even complained about how it felt like everything was in slow motion and unresponsive.
Empire: Slow, IMO this gamme nailed the pace of combat pretty well.
Napoleon: Fast.
Shogun 2: Faster than Napoleon.

I didn't think the Bonuses in Shogun 2 were as bad as many people say, sure a Katana Samurai would beat a Yari Samurai, but its not like it was an insta death battle where the Yari Sam routed on contact(Something that did happen in Rome) they held them long enough so that my other units could make a decisive difference.

As I said, while not realistic, the RPS is there to encourage army diversity. Also the lack of unit diversity in Shogun 2 is due to the setting of the game so blaming the traditional RPS for that seems a tad bit unfair as they are separate issues.

In the end, the weapon bonuses are just stats. Switching to a stats only system will still not make a huge difference.

[jazstl]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KItVf7PlqS8

Watch and cry.
RPS was always there... I do not support this but it is a working thing, as for the morale values, it should be considered...As all the other factors...

[Ichon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KItVf7PlqS8

Watch and cry.
RPS was always there... I do not support this but it is a working thing, as for the morale values, it should be considered...As all the other factors...

What is that supposed to prove? Attacking a formation that is strongest at its front would have the same result for infantry as well in RTW. The biggest complaint about phalanx in RTW was not only the bonus applied against cavalry but the extremely fast 360 degree movements that made flanking even with sword infantry quite difficult. That is not RPS. RPS is cavalry>swords>spear>cavalry>archers>spear/swords- a bonus not due to anything other than weapons used.

[Armatus]

Enough talk I want stats, surely there's a webpage with the break down?

[atheniandp]

I also think there should be luck taken into account. While Shogun 2 has complaints of checkerboard style gameplay, I found M2TW and its predecessors' battles predictable with absolute stats. In reality, equipment and training did of course contribute to success, but there was also lots of luck involved. I want to see my archers for once miraculously hold off some cavalry, or light infantry win against heavy infantry. It shouldn't happen often, but there should always remain chance that units perform exquisitely.

[Ichon]

I also think there should be luck taken into account. .

I would like luck to be taken account in generals skills before battle begins- ambush, surprise attack(in that opposing army knew enemy was there but they attacked before dawn or from a different direction than expected), etc- with effects from lower supplies, lower morale, some enemy units deserting if shared culture with attacker, those things but if it occurs before battle begins it can be fun in campaign but not affect mp if mp is really what CA is now chasing. I like MP but I really don't want another mp game of rock paper scissors. Almost all of them are like that. I still love Close Combat and the few other mp games that were distinctly NOT rock paper scissors which is really not about tactics but is a click fest. I enjoy click fest in shooters, not tactical games, my fingers need a break.