Shogun 2 campaign balance patch please

[beastfeast]

I've been playing the shogun 2 campaign for a very long time now (2000 hours +) and I'm convinced that it needs a balance patch. Here is why:

1. Yari ashigaru are overpowered when upgraded at a master weaponsmith and jyujutsu dojo. One possible solution for this would be to reduce the bonuses they receive from an armourer/weaponsmith. Another option would be to make spear wall available later in the campaign through the development of a particular Bushido art e.g spear expertise or sojutsu mastery. At present samurai tend to become obsolete after about 5 years of game play when better and more numerous ashigaru forces become available.

2. Some factions are overpowered, some are too weak. This is particularly noticeable in multiplayer campaign games. The two weakest clans are probably Takeda and Tokugawa. The most powerful clan, when played correctly are the oda, who from game start receive +1 melee, +1 defence and +2 morale for yari ashigaru when lead by their daimyo. This bonus is HUGE, and the diplomatic penalty is relatively minor. Furthermore, some clans have very limited access to trade and have little to show for it.

3. The generals skills are unbalanced (yes general's warrior skills I'm pointing at you). Up to level four the only sensible path for most generals is the central strategy path and infantry leader. The bonus that infantry leader 3 provides is huge, particularly when you are leading a large ashigaru force. It adds up to +5 melee attack and a bonus to reload skill and accuracy for every unit in the general's radious.

4. Some agents skills aren't very good or particularly useful compared to others. For example metsuke's secret police skills are rarely used unless your daimyo happens to have an extremely low honour. The magistrate and censorship skills should be used with every metsuke for better tax collection Some of the skills only provide a tiny +1/2% bonus that is more or less insignificant. Skills need rebalancing. They are much better balanced in fall of the samurai, as are generals skills.

5. Many of the units, eg samurai and imported matchlocks are impractical to field due to their high upkeep costs. My proposal: increase recruitment costs but reduce upkeep to encourage the use of samurai units on longer campaigns. This is another reason why ashigaru tend to dominate the campaign so much.

6. Matchlocks need a range increase to make them worth using against bow heavy armies. Without a range increase a player who knows how to exploit the range advantage of bows can beat matchlocks almost without a scratch. To compensate for increased range they could receive a sizeable penalty to long range accuracy.

7. The faction bonuses that each faction gets are unequal in balance terms. The hattori and tokugawa bonuses don't even seem to work. Their ninjas are no better than those of other clans, when they probably should be. The Uesugi bonus to trade (I think it was 10 or 20%) should be more like 40% to compensate for the fact that they are so far from trade nodes and are in a difficult starting position. The Tokugawa bonus to diplomacy (+5 I think) has virtually no impact at all on game play and their bonuses are nowhere near making up for their gimped starting situation as vassals of the imagawa.

Do you agree?

[DeliCiousTZM]

1. Yari ashigaru are overpowered when upgraded at a master weaponsmith and jyujutsu dojo. One possible solution for this would be to reduce the bonuses they receive from an armourer/weaponsmith. Another option would be to make spear wall available later in the campaign through the development of a particular Bushido art e.g spear expertise or sojutsu mastery. At present samurai tend to become obsolete after about 5 years of game play when better and more numerous ashigaru forces become available.

Wrong, Ashigaru never reach up to the Samurai level with lower stats on everything, the most important being Armor. Even tho ashigaru remain the most cost efficent unit in the game having nothing but Ashigaru armies can be a disaster vs a well rounded Samurai army. And i don't know why anyone would upgrade too a master weaponsmith when what you really want is armor!

2. Some factions are overpowered, some are too weak. This is particularly noticeable in multiplayer campaign games. The two weakest clans are probably Takeda and Tokugawa. The most powerful clan, when played correctly are the oda, who from game start receive +1 melee, +1 defence and +2 morale for yari ashigaru when lead by their daimyo. This bonus is HUGE, and the diplomatic penalty is relatively minor. Furthermore, some clans have very limited access to trade and have little to show for it.

I agree, for the most part. Oda is considered the strongest faction in multiplayer campaign, this is common knowledge to most. But i would claim that Shimazu/Otomo/Mori can compete with Oda just fine. But i will let people decide for themself.
Otomo vs Oda I have 900 hours of Shogun2 experience as Otomo. This guy has over 2000 hours of experience as Oda, Both are high level Legendary players.

3. The generals skills are unbalanced (yes general's warrior skills I'm pointing at you). Up to level four the only sensible path for most generals is the central strategy path and infantry leader. The bonus that infantry leader 3 provides is huge, particularly when you are leading a large ashigaru force. It adds up to +5 melee attack and a bonus to reload skill and accuracy for every unit in the general's radious.

Agree, it is absurd how unbalanced they are. It is common to get a choice between 1+ charge for you bodyguard and 10+ accuracy for all bow units.

4. Some agents skills aren't very good or particularly useful compared to others. For example metsuke's secret police skills are rarely used unless your daimyo happens to have an extremely low honour. The magistrate and censorship skills should be used with every metsuke for better tax collection Some of the skills only provide a tiny +1/2% bonus that is more or less insignificant. Skills need rebalancing. They are much better balanced in fall of the samurai, as are generals skills.

Agree, AMEN!

5. Many of the units, eg samurai and imported matchlocks are impractical to field due to their high upkeep costs. My proposal: increase recruitment costs but reduce upkeep to encourage the use of samurai units on longer campaigns. This is another reason why ashigaru tend to dominate the campaign so much.

I agree with the increased recruitment cost and reduced upkeep. But the statement is still false Ashigarus are not dominating the campaign to this extent. And anyone that watch my campaigns know i Love ashigarus.

6. Matchlocks need a range increase to make them worth using against bow heavy armies. Without a range increase a player who knows how to exploit the range advantage of bows can beat matchlocks almost without a scratch. To compensate for increased range they could receive a sizeable penalty to long range accuracy.

Very interesting, sounds good. But you should really learn where matchlocks are useful and where they are not. matchlocks work wonders as a small part of your army designed to deal with melee infantry preferable from a safe vantage point.

7. The faction bonuses that each faction gets are unequal in balance terms. The hattori and tokugawa bonuses don't even seem to work. Their ninjas are no better than those of other clans, when they probably should be. The Uesugi bonus to trade (I think it was 10 or 20%) should be more like 40% to compensate for the fact that they are so far from trade nodes and are in a difficult starting position. The Tokugawa bonus to diplomacy (+5 I think) has virtually no impact at all on game play and their bonuses are nowhere near making up for their gimped starting situation as vassals of the imagawa.

I agree, its absurd how much CA failed when designing retainers and faction specific advantages. From a cost efficiency standpoint the Kisho ninjas serve no purpose and a minor buff to them will not help. I would expand this too Hero units which i find to be more cute then useful if they came with the same numbers as a Samurai they would actually have an impact on the battlefield. Thehe sacrifices we make for Avatar conquest.

[Cruzz]

And i don't know why anyone would upgrade too a master weaponsmith when what you really want is armor!

An attack bonus has a far larger effect on battles than an armor bonus. Especially if you don't make a habit out of letting your units sit in a rain of arrows (non-fire ones, armor doesn't help against fire arrows afaik) all day long.

[CptAustus]

An attack bonus has a far larger effect on battles than an armor bonus. Especially if you don't make a habit out of letting your units sit in a rain of arrows (non-fire ones, armor doesn't help against fire arrows afaik) all day long.

Fire arrows are two or three volleys, and they dont even ignore armor, they just have higher missile damage. Besides, the AI usually shoots infantry and now missiles, so armor is indeed more useful.

[DeliCiousTZM]

An attack bonus has a far larger effect on battles than an armor bonus. Especially if you don't make a habit out of letting your units sit in a rain of arrows (non-fire ones, armor doesn't help against fire arrows afaik) all day long.

Armor helps in melee as well. Not sure how effective it is but i always reckon that it is equal to 1 Melee defense. and against arrows its unparalleled. Also Melee attack is given when the unit rank up and by skills from the general, armor is not.
I have had invincible 12 armor naginatas. and the difference shows.

[Plan C]

Armor helps in melee as well. Not sure how effective it is but i always reckon that it is equal to 1 Melee defense. and against arrows its unparalleled. Also Melee attack is given when the unit rank up and by skills from the general, armor is not.
I have had invincible 12 armor naginatas. and the difference shows.

Hmmm... I'm pretty sure reading the whole thread on how armour has no bearing on melee and is only a projectile modifier. I'm also pretty sure that there were examples and everything. I'll try and dig it up.

Either way, even if that is the case then armour upgrades still make perfect sense. Armour is the only value for melee units which does not increase with experience (ok, besides walking / running speed). Melee attack can be increased with experience, armour certainly cannot.

EDIT: Simple test can confirm - 2 units of Yari Sam 1v1, first custom battle with 1 unit with full armour upgrade, on without, second test with either unit without any upgrades. Hope it makes sense.

[DeliCiousTZM]

Hmmm... I'm pretty sure reading the whole thread on how armour has no bearing on melee and is only a projectile modifier. I'm also pretty sure that there were examples and everything. I'll try and dig it up.

Either way, even if that is the case then armour upgrades still make perfect sense. Armour is the only value for melee units which does not increase with experience (ok, besides walking / running speed). Melee attack can be increased with experience, armour certainly cannot.

EDIT: Simple test can confirm - 2 units of Yari Sam 1v1, first custom battle with 1 unit with full armour upgrade, on without, second test with either unit without any upgrades. Hope it makes sense.

I tried to give them + armor but failed miserable. Iam curious tho to find out if Armor works in melee. I mean i get it for protection against arrow and you still get melee attack elsewhere so it wouldn't matter if it did but still.

[MJWilliams]

Some interesting points mate, I'm not a player of Multiplayer campaigns so the intricacies of that mode without doubt affect the issues raised. It's probably worth mentioning that all the things you've brought up can be altered with mods (either on here or Steam Workshop), and a balance patch is highly unlikely at this point. For vanilla Singleplayer campaigns though I see it like this:

1. Ashigaru were most certainly the backbone of armies of this period, and in a game which skirts around historical accuracy somewhat in other areas, this seems fine to me. They can get chewed up by experienced samurai and monks, but can also hold said units very efficiently if used correctly. As for the encampment/regional bonuses, you can make an argument for most units being "overpowered" when highly upgraded (14 armour Naginata Samurai being an example). However, I've always thought an 'Ashigaru' technology tree would have fitted the vanilla game very nicely, allowing research of spear wall and stat increases etc., so I agree with you on that part.

2. Weaker and stronger faction bonuses have always been present in Total War games, clan/faction diversity is all good, and to wish for a completely level playing field (whereby all clans are on paper as strong as eachother but rely on different strategical choices) is in my opinion rather unrealistic, both in terms of game development and historicity.

3. Agreed, Strategist/S&F are too powerful. Left hand side of the tree has some alright skills, but you never have enough points to get there.

4. I hardly ever use Metsuke for anything other than you've mentioned, so I agree. Some of the skills are completely pointless, in fact I can't remember the last time I did anything other than grab the 'Overseeing Settlement' ones then put the rest into Apprehension. As for bribing, they seem to have a ridiculously high chance of success regardless of putting skill points into it. Ninjas and Monks/Missionaries seem to have a much better spread of useful skills though.

5. Again, this definitely fits the Sengoku Jidai period, as a general rule of thumb there simply weren't armies full of samurai and their cost and upkeep seems balanced to me.

6. Ignoring issues with the consistently stupid BAI, I agree matchlocks should be able to shoot further at a reduction in accuracy.

7. Similar to point #2 in some respects, though for Uesugi I'd say their 10% trade boost is already nice as it's flat (not just tariffs); if they had a significantly higher bonus, making money would be so easy as to completely outweigh any difficulty from their tricky starting position. Tokugawa traits are indeed rubbish though, I think either their flat diplomatic bonus or gains from Tea Ceremony/Caligraphy should have been higher.

[beastfeast]

Thanks for your feedback, you made some good points. I think that we differ because historical accuracy is more important to you than a good mixture of units in the campaign. For me the sengoku jidai period is famous for its samurai and they are what makes that period so intriguing. Its agreed by most that ashigaru were the dominant component in armies of that period, but they are not nearly as cool as samurai I think. If you look at the game box for shogun 2 most of the units shown are samurai- probably because they look cooler. I just think its a shame that samurai aren't very good in the campaign, except perhaps nodachi samurai, warrior monks and daikyu samurai.

Nonetheless, I think we agree on a number of things. If enough people agree maybe CA will take notice.

[DeliCiousTZM]

Thanks for your feedback, you made some good points. I think that we differ because historical accuracy is more important to you than a good mixture of units in the campaign. For me the sengoku jidai period is famous for its samurai and they are what makes that period so intriguing. Its agreed by most that ashigaru were the dominant component in armies of that period, but they are not nearly as cool as samurai I think. If you look at the game box for shogun 2 most of the units shown are samurai- probably because they look cooler. I just think its a shame that samurai aren't very good in the campaign, except perhaps nodachi samurai, warrior monks and daikyu samurai.

Nonetheless, I think we agree on a number of things. If enough people agree maybe CA will take notice.

They are good, their just expensive so once you reach the point where a solid army matters more then a lower upkeep, you need to make the switch.

[beastfeast]

Nice video, the monetary. I haven't seen it all yet. I probably would have gone with markets in my first 5 provinces so that I could get the extra tax revenue from 5 level 3 metsuke, but I can see why you did that.

It looks like what you're doing with the taxes could be an exploit of some kind. Am I correct in saying that you received no penalties from running very high taxation? I couldn't make out all of the on-screen details.

[DeliCiousTZM]

Nice video, the monetary. I haven't seen it all yet. I probably would have gone with markets in my first 5 provinces so that I could get the extra tax revenue from 5 level 3 metsuke, but I can see why you did that.

It looks like what you're doing with the taxes could be an exploit of some kind. Am I correct in saying that you received no penalties from running very high taxation? I couldn't make out all of the on-screen details.

I burn away my town wealth by having such high taxes, and it lasts for two turns,to discourage fluctuating taxes i presume. Still it is way worth it.

I wanted more markets but you forget im a christian so i need churches for priests and i need only 3 early metsuke as Otomo to place them in the three Very fertile farms.

[MJWilliams]

The_Monetary, your videos rock mate Just about to grab a cuppa and watch part 5 of that head-to-head!

[daniu]

1. Yari ashigaru are overpowered when upgraded at a master weaponsmith and jyujutsu dojo. One possible solution for this would be to reduce the bonuses they receive from an armourer/weaponsmith.

I don't see how; they may become deadly but their general weaknesses in morale and lacking armor remain.

5. Many of the units, eg samurai and imported matchlocks are impractical to field due to their high upkeep costs. My proposal: increase recruitment costs but reduce upkeep to encourage the use of samurai units on longer campaigns. This is another reason why ashigaru tend to dominate the campaign so much.

6. Matchlocks need a range increase to make them worth using against bow heavy armies. Without a range increase a player who knows how to exploit the range advantage of bows can beat matchlocks almost without a scratch. To compensate for increased range they could receive a sizeable penalty to long range accuracy.

Again, I don't see why.
Bows are a partial counter to matchlocks, why remove that? Increasing ML effectiveness would OP them very fast. They're nearly unbeatable in siege defense as is, so they do have a good role.
Also, Christianity has the major advantage of the super effective Missionaries, so buffing it even further would be more damaging than helpful balance-wise.

2. Some factions are overpowered, some are too weak.

7. The faction bonuses that each faction gets are unequal in balance terms.

Yes, some factions are stronger than others, but in my eyes that's an advantage. You can call it "unbalanced" and that would be true, but it does give the SP player (who are in the large majority) more variety in choosing their difficulty.

3. The generals skills are unbalanced

4. Some agents skills aren't very good or particularly useful compared to others.

Fully agree.
Especially the agents' paths through the tree makes it very difficult to "design" them for a certain purpose (except assassination, that's pretty straightforward). For instance, wanting to train a scout/spy network ninja requires to spend several points on other skills you really don't need, like escaping a failed action.
I literally started five or six times to redesign the skill trees to make them make more sense... sadly I failed every time.

[krisslanza]

I really do wish they'd consider re-doing the skill trees in vanilla Shogun 2, as ROTS and FOTS' skill trees are just so much better then the mess that vanilla's is. All the excessive "tiers" and a lack of skill points to actually develop most of them.

EDIT:
For armor, at least in every other Total War, it's a melee defense as well.

[DeliCiousTZM]

I really do wish they'd consider re-doing the skill trees in vanilla Shogun 2, as ROTS and FOTS' skill trees are just so much better then the mess that vanilla's is. All the excessive "tiers" and a lack of skill points to actually develop most of them.

EDIT:
For armor, at least in every other Total War, it's a melee defense as well.

So far that is what i have assumed as well.

[krisslanza]

I would personally favor armor for the fact you can't upgrade it otherwise. Melee attack goes up naturally as the unit progresses after all.

And personally, for me, in MP I see a LOT of bow units. The worst is when you are defending in a siege, and the attacker uses all bow-clan upgraded archers, or bow monks. Your best defense - your walls - just becomes your tomb because now they can shoot you to death from utter safety, unless you decide the best way to defend is a mess of melee troops - which I don't think is the usual tactic. /offtopic

[DeliCiousTZM]

I would personally favor armor for the fact you can't upgrade it otherwise. Melee attack goes up naturally as the unit progresses after all.

And personally, for me, in MP I see a LOT of bow units. The worst is when you are defending in a siege, and the attacker uses all bow-clan upgraded archers, or bow monks. Your best defense - your walls - just becomes your tomb because now they can shoot you to death from utter safety, unless you decide the best way to defend is a mess of melee troops - which I don't think is the usual tactic. /offtopic

Exacly, this one gets it!