RPS

[nomercysniper]

I have seen it mentioned plently but have struggled to come to terms with what exactly it is, and how it affets combat.

Can some please explain in detail what it is, and what the problem would be with it in R2?

[Highland]

I think it is where a certain type of unit has a bonus over the other, for example swordsmen will have a +10 attack bonus when attacking spearmen, and spearmen will have a +10 attack bonus when attacking cavalry. Don't take this as exact because this is just my humble understanding of it, and I too am at the same stage as you are as i don't fully understand it and i hope someone else can explain it more fully.

[Gollrir]

I think it is where a certain type of unit has a bonus over the other, for example swordsmen will have a +10 attack bonus when attacking spearmen, and spearmen will have a +10 attack bonus when attacking cavalry. Don't take this as exact because this is just my humble understanding of it, and I too am at the same stage as you are as i don't fully understand it and i hope someone else can explain it more fully.

As you say, it's basically this: spears decimate cavalry, cavalry decimates archers, archers decimate swords, swords decimate spears.

[InF3sTeD]

As you say, it's basically this: spears decimate cavalry, cavalry decimates archers, archers decimate swords, swords decimate spears.

That is the basic idea. But with a focus more towards group combat it will be how you use these units. swords have the advantage against spears but only if positioned correctly. Cavalry can be effective agaist any unit (except elephants) if used properly.

[roarer]

That is the basic idea. But with a focus more towards group combat it will be how you use these units. swords have the advantage against spears but only if positioned correctly. Cavalry can be effective agaist any unit (except elephants) if used properly.

If rock-paper-scissor represent sword-spear-cavs respectively, then elephant would have to be the nuclear bomb that annihilate everything around it XD

[Evillemon325]

Right. Some RPS is good, but overdone RPS a la Shogun 2 is bad.

[Maklodes]

It might be useful to note here that RPS is an acronym for rock-paper-scissors, based on the childhood game.

[Highland]

^ I forgot to mention this

[Lanciarius_90]

It might be useful to note here that RPS is an acronym for rock-paper-scissors, based on the childhood game.

In that way phalanx and hoplits will never win again swordsmen or roman infantry.

[Sir Furlong]

Ok I thought it was some mutation of RTS and everyone was just going along...

[Ichon]

RPS is usually thought of as an RTS mechanic to make faster matches where even powerful units have a weakness so that cooperation between teams or fast and skilled play can change the course of matches.

CA take is to make the weapon a unit holds give a substantial bonus against another unit holding a different type of weapon to make a circular path like rock, paper, scissors. At least in Shogun 2 which has led to lower quality game play and especially repetitive and boring battles with low replay value compared to earlier TW titles. TW engine has the capability to make much more interesting battles where yes- some units will be better than others but it depends on- quality, terrain, formation, objective, etc.

It is all about balance.
First CA can limit the number of praetorian cohort or uber-ubarn cohort of death. It was already done in ETW, in NTW and even in STW2 with the heroes unit.

Of course all formation should have weakness. The testudo would be vulnerable to charge. especially from shock cavalry. Phalanx is extremely vulnerable on its flanks and in the rear. Circular Sheltron would be more vulnerable to projectile.

Add to it terrain variation. Most tight formation would became useless in forest while an open formation would get advantage. Even more for pikemen phalanx as it would simply not be usable in forest (your pikemen would switch to their secondary weapon).

The type of unit and their equipment would give them advantage and inconvenient for each formation. Short-sword and pike would be powerful in tight formation but outmatch by longsword in open fight. Cavalry would be at disadvantage in forest while light infantry and skirmisher would gain bonus. Light infantry and skirmishers would be better to hide themselves and thus able to an enemy unit in their terms.
So while all units could have most formation they won't act the same way depending of their type.

Add to it the mass factor and things could become really interesting.
So for example if you are facing a line of phalanx with mediums infantry you could order to one unit on two to give up terrain when fighting to create gaps in the enemy line that could be exploited.
In contrary if you are facing a circular sheltron of heavy infantry you should be able to push them in a so small area than they might become unable to defend themselves in melee fight by ordering your unit to push the enemy back and by giving them more ranks so they had a bigger mass.

If done properly that should lead us to more balanced army composition. Along with a new system of army recruitment that should greatly help the AI.

So the main weakness of the legionary unit would be difficult area like forest or accident terrain where they won't be able to use properly their formation.
But alone it would also be vulnerable to inter-armed action such as your archer attacking the legionary unit before a charge of an other unit. It would be especially hard to deal with mounted force without support.

This inter-armed action is the final goal of formation combat.

[roarer]

The RPS system means that a certain type of unit have an inherent advantage over another type, while it is also inherently vulnerable to a third type of unit. All unit types will fit into this cycle and generally make none of the unit types superior to all the others. This will make players try to match a unit type against another type on the battlefield. It is a system that give more complexity to the game and require players to consider more factors during a battles.

The only problem for this Rock -Paper-Scissor system people have is that it plays too much of a role that other aspect of the game are being overshadowed. The idea is very simple. We have a number of factors determining how a fight went, such as, morale, troops experience, troop tiredness, the RPS bonus for unit types, etc. If any of these factors is too determining for a battle outcome, then it means other factors have less impact on the outcome. Then the game will just become too simple with only 1 factor affecting the game.

e.g. if an exhausted troops will have combat stats one third of the fresh troops, the battle gameplay will simply be too focus on how to tire your enemy before contact. The army on a superior position will simply won every time, no matter of army composition/troops experience etc. This is an example of 1 factor being too determining and overshadow everything else. The fun from battles usually comes from balancing all this factors and making trade off among them, i.e. I have to harass them while keeping both my range units save and my melee units fresh & not forgoing hilltops etc. It will just kills the fun if every battle boils down to only one element. That is how someone feel in the Shogun 2 for the RPS play too much of a role than other factors can be ignored.

The hard thing is finding out the balance among all these elements and every player has a different view on that. And this is what people always complain about. At the end of the day, not everyone can be satisfied and CA as a company has to choose who to appeal to and who to sacrifice. And of course the mods can suit the taste of those been sacrificed.

[Argon Viper]

Yeah, I'm in agreement with the anti-rps crowd. Certainly spearmen should have some advantage over cavalry, but a heavily armored, high morale, high experience cavalry should still be able to crush a bunch of peasant spearmen. The specific bonuses have their place, but they really need to be toned down to allow for a broader range of tactics.

[nomercysniper]

Thanks for the answers guys! I remember an old game called fire emblem...
Swords beat axes
Axes beat spears
Spears beat swords

Weapons triangle it was know as.

That idea but not with weapons and stuff

[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.

[ironbrigade]

sorry

[lawandorder82]

Shogun 2 turned out fine with rock paper scissors I k don't now
ywhat you u guys are talking about and you have to have some because you don't want 1 unit to own all the other units

[ironbrigade]

Shogun 2 turned out fine with rock paper scissors I k don't now
ywhat you u guys are talking about and you have to have some because you don't want 1 unit to own all the other units

according to you maybe. most not so well.

[mAIOR]

according to you maybe. most not so well.

I find it just a terrible idea. Mods such as EB changed this somewhat by giving attributes regarding weapon but also unit type. THat way, spear armed classical hoplites or Thureophoroi can defeat sword armed infantry if their "rank" is higher or equal. Also, Spears get a defensive bonus due to their reach being a defence in itself.
According to a medieval fencing manual, "an average spearman can defeat a good swordsman". Also, achieving proficiency with a spear was faster than with a sword. THat's why I hate this kind of RPS gameplay and only end up playing heavily modified versions of the game. War of the West is also an interesting mod in which they give infantry formations "melee weapons" consisting of axes, swords, clubs, etc. Those weapons would not be so different on the battlefield to require different units to wield them.

[daelin4]

RPS (Rock Paper Scissors) is a game system where one element has advantages and disadvantages over another, who in turn has advantages and disadvantages over another, and so on, usually until it cycles back. The formula used in Shogun2 were spears-cavalry-swords at its most basic, but that ignores firearms, naginata and missiles.

The system used in Shogun2 was extraoridnarily exceptional because it took the focus a lot more towards what weapons the unit used rather than unit quality. In earlier TW games you had a whole slew of units of progressively better stats and performance- naturally a milita spear unit will suck in comparison to an elite spear unit, especially against heavy infantry. They are still quite good against most cavalry, but to a unit of elite knights in heaviest armour stats a bunch of cheap spearmen means near nothing. All of this disappeared in Shogun2 where not only were there a very limited roster of units, but a spear unit will do fantastically well against even the best cavalry units. It WAS historically accurate, but it also meant that players end up training tons of cheap spear units because they performed their roles very well and did well enough in other fields even against sword units whom they were suppsoed to be a weakness to. The problem with Shogun2's RPS was not only was it relatively severe, but it also negated many other units, like Yari Samurai, who were supposed to be the better quality version of spear units, but were often too much trouble and effort to train- why get one unit of good spearmen when you can make arguably dozens of cheap spearmen?

@Ironbrigade I'm surprised you still rely on an old post from someone else to draw a conclusion and argument over something you've never played.