Jump to content


Feudal Japan Unit Tree


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

Arclinon #1 Posted 05 February 2018 - 11:18 PM

    Junior Sergeant

  • Closed Alpha Gladiators
  • 170
  • Member since:
    11-27-2016

I just would like to repost a nice post made by my friend narag and i think this could be interesting, i am personally opposed to matchlocks for lots of reasons but they are there. I think its share worthy.

 

http://forum.totalwa...apan-unit-tree/



Vipus_2017 #2 Posted 06 February 2018 - 03:58 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Closed Alpha Gladiators
  • 17
  • Member since:
    11-27-2017
I think that someone has the wrong era. matchlocks didn't come in till 1500's CE, upwards of 2000 years before our current units. I am also apposed to that tech tree.

Ardez #3 Posted 06 February 2018 - 06:11 AM

    Zhayedan

  • Praetorian
  • 2,237
  • Member since:
    03-06-2012

View PostVipus_2017, on 05 February 2018 - 10:58 PM, said:

I think that someone has the wrong era. matchlocks didn't come in till 1500's CE, upwards of 2000 years before our current units. I am also apposed to that tech tree.

 

The statement about matchlocks implies they are trying to stick to a specific time period, which has never been an announced intention. Not only that, even the existing units and generals didn't have much overlap in history. I am totally opposed to gunpowder units because of the balance task they represent, rather than the time period they come from.


juliuspfpf #4 Posted 06 February 2018 - 09:43 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Closed Alpha Gladiators
  • 21
  • Member since:
    08-20-2016

This is an interesting video about early Japan which would fit in the right time period.

 

Watch "Pre-Samurai Warriors - Kofun/Yayoi Era, Japanese Iron Age" on YouTube
https://youtu.be/rTOO7eUt-IQ

 



Vipus_2017 #5 Posted 06 February 2018 - 04:33 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Closed Alpha Gladiators
  • 17
  • Member since:
    11-27-2017

View PostArdez, on 06 February 2018 - 06:11 AM, said:

 

The statement about matchlocks implies they are trying to stick to a specific time period, which has never been an announced intention. Not only that, even the existing units and generals didn't have much overlap in history. I am totally opposed to gunpowder units because of the balance task they represent, rather than the time period they come from.

 

I realize that sticking to a specific era was never necessary. The major issue I see is that to make the game balanced between the the Bronze and Iron age and the Middle ages you are essentially Mega nerfing units from the Middle ages. In no way shape or form would Bronze and Iron of Greek or Roman weapons ever stand up to the steel used by the Japanese. While yes it is a game and they can do what they want, mixing era's like that would destroy the historical accuracy that Total war games are known for. Mixing of the ages would probably be a deal breaker for me on this game, which is sad because they are doing such a good job making it. 

 

If however they had 2 games in 1 with different ques for the different era's I would be more than happy to play all of  them. I have a friend that is way more interested in the middle ages and would definitely join me in playing if they were added. 

 

Anyone who has played Shogun 2 knows how strong the gunpowder units are, but like archers they can be over run by cavalry so I think they could balance them to fit into a game. 



HybridDragon #6 Posted 06 February 2018 - 06:05 PM

    Junior Sergeant

  • Closed Alpha Gladiators
  • 200
  • Member since:
    12-18-2011

As long as Total War: Arena maintains a playerbase long enough, it's probably inevitable that a feudal Japanese faction will be added someday. They already have two Shogun games and so many iconic samurai/ninja/ashigaru unit types to choose from. Maybe they'll even make one of the commanders say "Shameful display!"

 

Matchlocks aside, it's still the same weapons mostly. How much are yaris, yumis, and katanas different from Greek spears/bows and Roman swords? This isn't real life. This isn't even Deadliest Warrior. Historical accuracy goes out the window if you play Shogun 2 online and pit Genpei War samurai against 19th century breech-loading rifles, and the samurai have at least decent odds to win. Everything's a hitbox and statistics represented by a graphical model of a dude with a weapon.

 

I don't really see matchlocks being logically overpowered, anyway. Their main advantages were two things: they required little training compared to bows, and all that fire and smoke and bullets whizzing by are super scary when you only have a sword. They do damage, yes, but more morale damage than kills per volley. I haven't tried it myself, but if you start a Shogun 2 custom battle of equal numbers matchlock ashigaru versus bow samurai, who wins? I'm thinking the bows have a sporting chance.

 

A Japanese faction would probably be most different in terms of commander abilities and unit strengths in general, not weapons (aside from guns and naginatas). Maybe more emphasis on morale and that legendary samurai refusal to retreat. Maybe emphasis on how samurai mastered multiple weapons (like how Foot Samurai in RotS are excellent at both bows and melee). The consumables should be different too. There are some interesting paths to take if you don't worry so much about bronze vs steel.



Ardez #7 Posted 07 February 2018 - 05:48 AM

    Zhayedan

  • Praetorian
  • 2,237
  • Member since:
    03-06-2012

My concern isn't that matchlocks would be overpowered. My concern is that CA may not be capable of balancing them within the environment of TWA. :(

 

That being said, dividing queues into eras is, imo, a really great way to kill the playerbase if they also intend to have other game mode queues. The fewer queues the better for the health of queue times. Player retention is extremely important and long queue times, even 2 minutes compared to 1 minute, can be critical. I don't see any serious reason to separate the queues when this is simply a game and anything can be balanced for gameplay rather than historical accuracy.


Edited by Ardez, 07 February 2018 - 05:48 AM.


THEXPPKILLER #8 Posted 13 February 2018 - 10:06 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Players
  • 40
  • Member since:
    07-18-2015
I'll suggest few changes on this, first of all I don't know why they can't implement samurais in this game same stats different mechanics diferent good and bad things but anyways, first I would delet fire weapons have no sense and I'll make a full branch of ninja units ( Ninja units will be groups of 50 man very good fighters but lower in number very high dmg a decent armor and very fast but they're half of a regular size unit, then they'll have perks such as shuriken like pilums but for example if you hit them frontaly deals less dmg than if you hit them from the back, as normal arrows or javelins but with a higher buff at the back and less dmg at front, then another one would be hide, this will make this unit so hard to be seen I mean at the lvl when your unit is less than 10 units and the viwe range is that close you only will be able to see them at that range making this unit perfect for ambushes and 3 one a little bonuss dmg or speed) Then as I hope will be siege mode I would make a commander specalizated on ninjas that will allow them to climb walls of castle and open gates allowing the entery army to get in ( Don't think this is op because you'll have troops there so they'll get spoted) that's all for ninjas then the other unic unit for samurais could be something like Monk warriors or Monk archers well known unit from shogun 2 that have increased dmg but can be nerfed with low fire of rate or monk warrior 2h warrios with large weapons something like that with that you have normal samurai archers 2 specalzated units and the cav I think would be so cool to see samurais vs romans or greeks won't be historicaly accurated in meanings of time but if the stats are equiparated will be a good thing.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users