Shogun 2 Total War

HOLY CRAP I'M EXCITED! And I've never even played a Total War game before. I guess it's time to give this series a chance.

I'm a huge fan of jidaigeki and chambara, so this one will definitely make me happy.

Edit: One more link.

 

Great, wish granted, the total war I wanted a remade the most as well.

And LoL at AI based on Sun Tze's art of war.

 

I've read the Art of War. Sounds like an interesting idea to base the AI on it. Though it may create some predictability if the AI adheres to it too strictly.

 

There's only one general, Takeda Shingen that is well versed in Sun Tze's Art of War in the history of feudal Japan though, even though he's a big fanboy of Sun Tze, even his war banner writes a verse from Sun Tze art of war's army marching chapter in it.

 

I haven't touched a total war game since the first Medieval and Viking Invasion, but my personal preference would have been a Total War based on the Warring States Era when the Sun Zi's doctrine REALLY hit the heights.

It's wrong to say Shingen was the only general who knew the principles, if that was the case he would have united Japan instead of the eventual triad of unifiers who did finish the job.

 

Ok he might not be the most well versed, but definitely had the most display of Sun Tze fanboyism.

Wonder how they are going to do the AI though, if it's going to apply Sun Tze's rule of engagement, the com is only going to attack me if he has more than twice my forces... which means I probably will never get attacked...

 

You know your history and I have to agree. The teachings of Sun Tzu were not truly exemplified until Nobunaga, Hideoyoshi and Leyasu fought during the warring states.

But it's a game, these developers even though part of their job is often research seem to fail miserably on this aspect. Can't expect too much.

 

I hope they got Ninja's. (you know like in RTW you got those guys in black robes who could hide anywhere).

 

The Total War games have been Steam only recently which is very unfortunate. I think I'll pass.

 

I've played Shogun Total War and this news really made me smile I loved the first one and hope that the second one won't be a disappointment

 

If they come up with cooler assassination movies, I'm all for getting the next edition next year with the new laptop.

 

Yea I'll probably wait untill I got a new laptop aswell before I buy Shogun, I also haven't bought Empire yet. Since even the m17x couldn't max the settings on that game with 2 gpu's (can't remember if it were the 285gtx or ati hd4870 cards). The Total War games are always great but you need to wait like a year, or even two years after their release to find a laptop that is affordable & that can play those games on max settings (the way they are suposed to be played).

Though perhaps Shogun might be less cpu intensive since the smoke rendering in Empire and Napoleon did ask a tremendous load of your cpu, forcing you to finish your battles really quick before there is too much smoke on the field.

 

5870MR on mine could max napoleon totalwar though. The smoke and explosion effects are very nice on max, but I still prefer the traditional rain of arrow.

 

Hopefully Shogun 2 won't be absurdly demanding. I'd certainly want to play it maxed out.

Here's hoping Nakadai Tatsuya makes some odd appearance as one of his famous roles.

 

Wonder why they didn't make a total war on China, there's so many warring periods and great military figures in Chinese history.

 

i think its because the biggest clamor in the total war forums was for a remake of shogun.
but i agree that china would be perfect for total war.

 

thats was the setting for the first shogun.
knowing CA, they probably will return to that era in an expansion. more $$ for them that way

 

Well the most obvious choice for China would be Sanguo Yanyi, but there's already Koei's ROTK series for that. That would be great though. But the Dynasty Warriors series has probably spoiled that era for a lot of people because of the games' redundancy.

You could go with the warring states period too, but this was so long ago that I can't imagine there'd be much unit diversity.. at least compared to the Sengoku period.

 

Well, because the Sengoku era was the most interesting period military-wise in Japan history.

 

AFAIK the sengoku period is the warring states era

 

There's the Japan's Sengoku (Warring State) Era which is somewhere in medieval times, there's also the China's Zhan Guo (Warring State) Era which was thousands of years ago.

IMO, China's Warring State Era is a great period as well, it's the era where Sun Tze was in. There was already quite a lot of unit type back then, Shield troops, swordsmen, spearmen, archers, cavalries, chariots, crossbows, flaming bulls, crossbow catapults, multi-firing crossbows etc.

 

i see. he was referring to the chinese warring states era.

i agree that that would make a good setting for a total war game but i believe multi crossbows, crossbow catalplts came much later than this era ( 300 BC).

edit : i stand corrected they were present in the warring states era

 

I meant warring states period in China, aka Zhanguo Shidai, as opposed to Sengoku jidai. They are written the same in Traditional Chinese and in Kanji, and refer to each country's own "warring states period".

Edit: 12 minutes late in clarifying myself lol

It's certainly an interesting period, but I'd still prefer Sanguo Yanyi, if only because I love that story.

 

Would've rather had a Rome II: Total War

 

Gotta admit that the Empire setting has not really been for me. I just love watching thousands of people charge into doom, with Sword and Spears!

This setting is not overused, but I just have this thing for the medival ages. I would love a new Rome or a Medival 3, but I can see how Shogun is next in line to be updated. It would be nice if the world map also includes Templar factions...

During the age of the samurai, many christian missionairs apparently slaughtered in Asia and Japan. They where considered heretics, and I actually think that Rome sent Crusaders to deal with the problem...

Maybe the task was impossible. I actually wonder if a Holy Knight Templar would be able to take on a full fledged samurai.

Supposedly Templars had stupidly strong armor, and could take 3-4 Arabs by themselfs, due to their heavy armor and weapons. But on the other hand, I heard that Samurai and their swords, and fighting ability as swordsman where unmatched in the world.

Aint there something about that, a Japanese Katana could slice any armor they could make back then? they where the only ones anywhere to make Steel swords the way they did, and it made them much more sharp than anywhere else... where templars had dull large, hard hitting almost blunt weapons, as they where just hacking away on each other in large armors?

 

The Japanese Katana was brought over during China's Tang Dynasty where the art of swordmaking was at it's peak and refined further in Japan, while after that China move towards other weapon types for actual combat while swords became more of a form of decoration.
Actually some of China's blades are already more than sharp enough to cut through armor long time ago as early as the warring states, where there's history record of large rock cut cleanly into half for sword testing.

 

not only that, the samurai used recurved bows that packed more energy than an english longbow (which could penetrate armor)

but really your kinda comparing 12-13th century to 16th century tech
the templars were ordered disbanded and hanged by then of the 13th century so historically they would not have faced the samurai.
but it would have made an interesting fight though - in favor of the samurai imo

 

A katana would not penetrate the plate mail of a knight. Not chainmail either, although it would break bones and cause internal bleeding through chainmail.

To beat a knight, you either need to apply a LOT of force in a very small area (like a pick, lance, or longbow at extremely close ranges), or apply extremely precise attacks, like with a dagger. As much as my asian heritage hates to admit, a knight would probably take apart a samurai 1v1. You have to remember that both a knight and a samurai spent a large part of their life training for combat and war. While you might be able to say that a samurai has superior martial skills than a knight, a knight has his own form of martial arts that is extremely effective. In a fist fight, a samurai would win, but with armor and weapons, a knight wins.

 

I think it can't be assumed that ALL samurai were good with a sword, or that all their swords were quality. I'm pretty sure your average cannon-fodder samurai was no better than your average, club-you-over-the-head knight.

Best against best, though, I'm pretty sure a samurai would win.

 

Or a wakizashi.

 

I don't know how many samurai carried wakizashi into battle. Around a castle or traveling, sure. But into battle?

 

the katana was also a piercing weapon.
since good quality katanas could cut through a machine gun barrel im sure it could pierce medieval armor. im not sure if it could penetrate it with a slash since chainmail(inside the plate) is quite effective at blunting slashing attacks

 

They usually look for weakspots in the neck area and go for decapitation rather than trying to slice/pierce through your armour.

 

Well, if it's your average samurai, definitely not.

But if it's someone of considerable ability and stature, I'm pretty sure they'd bring it at least. There are also two-sword styles that use a wakizashi.

Anyway, like I said, I don't think there'd be much of a difference between your average samurai and average knight. And your average soldier will be the difference in a war, not your fencing instructors.

 

Well, I doubt there's "average" samurai, because samurai back then was always the well trained elites like the commandos. Simply because sword is a very bad weapon for war if the wielder is not skilled, the bulk of foot soldiers in almost all ancient Asian (and probably European as well) armies are always the spearmen who don't need much training.

 

i also dount theres an 'average' knight since you had to be a noble and v rich to afford the armor itself. having an armor and horse and a small retinue would be equivalent to having a jetplane by todays standards.
also you have to have some good martial training since those things would weigh around 50lbs. youd have to be v skilled to wield a heavy two handed sword wearing full battle without tiring in a few swings or losing balance.

 

I find it hard to believe that there may not have been a large number of "average samurai", or poorly skilled samurai, who have the title, but not the famed ability. Perhaps they became samurai because of political connections, family ties, or some other means.

Not everyone is a Sasaki Kojiro or Yagyu Jubei.

Edit: I'm watching Zatoichi Meets the One Armed Swordsman right now. Katsushin vs. Wang Yu omg

 

well no doubt, but the point we were trying to make is that medieval armor is not impervious to a katana strike

 

Well, yes, it still comes down to skill vs skill, if both are skilful, the armour won't be of much help.

 

im sure there were a few. but your 'average' samurai and 'average' knight were most assuredly skilled. these were elite martial societies and warfare was their business. being unskilled could lead to a quick death.

 

Well I'm not saying they sucked, but they are all certainly not masters.

Anyway my point is: average (whatever that is) against average, I believe they would have been equal. It is in the higher tiers of ability that samurai would have advantage. /opinion

 

well the real answer to this is : we will never know since they never fought each other.

back on-topic, i hope they drastically improve battle AI. the way the total war series looks right now, they dont even need to add any new graphical eyecandy.
but what this series really needs is great ai- which is easier said than done esp. considering that your dealing with terrain, thousands of troops, different weapons and abilities.
imho ETW and napoleon had ok to good AI. hopefully we get something much better than that

 

A katana strike to the weak spots (joints) would most likely damage the wearer, but those weak spots are still protected by chainmail, and a katana used as a piercing weapon still won't pierce plate. The tip of the katana would most likely break.

 

I find it funny how CA have reversed their decision on naval battles for the Japanese era, for one they couldn't do naval battles for the first game due to hardware constraints and the simple fact that naval landings were very rare during the period. The IGN article given by the OP even stated that ships they used were little more than ironclads made to support instead of land an invasion force.

I've seen the development of the engine over the years and the Medieval 2 engine really was impressive in its depiction of hand-to-hand combat. I'm hoping that the motion-capture purportedly going into this iteration turns out well.

Mods do exist for the Chinese Warring States Era, but frankly I would have preferred if CA did the job themselves, obstacles being the distinct lack of military variety and ridiculously heavy emphasis on terrain, tactics and logistics for the Chinese era.

 

Yes, during the Chinese Era a lot of battles were decided by terrains, as there were a lot of mountains and valleys in China, and hardly any battles were fought on open plains. It will be a technical challenge, but would be exciting if terrain factor would be even more emphasised.

 

Disagree, Japan as a nation today has far more mountains and hills as a percentage of total land mass than China today (not absolute size, but relative percentages) yet if memory serves me correctly a lot of the battlefields in the original Shogun were flatland, particularly in areas around modern Kanto.

Espionage wouldn't be quite so cool for the Chinese era since you remove the chance to include cool assassination movies, just simple intelligence gathering from the different classes of spy listed in the Art of War.

 

Katanas are made specifically for slashing techniques around decisive strikes. They are not made for sword clashing, constant hit vs blut objects etc as they can easily break. Basically, it is a slashing weapon that requires technique, angle and arc to cut.

Now keep in mind that european swords, being bigger harder and wider, were made that way because they needed to pierce the thick armour of opponets. They were made for hacking, crushing, etc. Additionally, they were made to last longer, for long drawn out battles and little manteinance. Even when their sharpness is not that good anymore, they rely in weight and momentum to hack, thus even a dull old blade still helped fighting.

Samurais were very skilled warriors, but so were Knights. No one is truly superior to the other by nature, it would depend up to personal skill and training. Knights rely more on devastating strong blows to rend the enemy, while the Samurai would be more agile and careful, to perform the one strike to defeat their opponent.

No one has a definitive advantage.

So who would I vote for? Most likely the knight. They are usually better equipped, specially armour.

 

It's not exact, well really not that close at all, but closest I could fine.

Deadliest Warrior: Spartan vs Ninja

Ninjavideo.net - Deadliest Warrior 1x03 Spartan vs. Ninja

 

I'm pretty sure Deadliest Warrior did a Templar vs Samurai recently.

Edit: Oh it was Viking vs Samurai, and it was episode 2. lol.

The Katana had trouble.

 

i think this would depend on the quality of the sword and armor.
an average katana would most likely break when piercing average armor.
but a katana made by an expert swordsmtih would probably penetrate medieval armor made by an expert armorer.
a master swordsmiths katana is made of cold folded steel that is heated and cooled some 2000 times, making it both strong and quite flexible.
heavy plate and chainmail are made of lesser quality iron and steel.
given these facts andthe right amount of force and skill, i do believe the master katana could indeed penetrate heave plate and chainmail.
however a slahing or hacking attack would be of little effect do to the force being dissipated by the chainmail.