-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I laughed when Tecmo's Samurai Warriors was cited as being somehow more accurate in depicting battles. 
I'm glad to see I was not alone in thinking all this. And stuff like "Historically, the brilliant warlord Nobunaga Oda was able to comprehensively defeat enemies many, many times his forces' size"....
...well, once at Okehazama, but otherwise he always had a decided edge in numbers in virtually every battle he fought.
But at least he gave the game the props it merits.
...well, once at Okehazama, but otherwise he always had a decided edge in numbers in virtually every battle he fought.
But at least he gave the game the props it merits.
Hi all,
I'm the one that wrote that preview, so to start up, I must apologize that you didn't care for it; evidently the points I was trying to make didn't come across, but that is of course my failing for not propely explaining them.
I'd like to take the opportunity to try and explain better what I meant for you, since I am a big, big fan of Paradox games, and Sengoku especially, so the last thing I want to do is have misunderstandings or a falling out with the Paradox faithful.
So to start:
I never meant to say that Tecmo Koei Warriors games are more accurate in depicting battles through the Sengoku period. What I was trying to say (and hopefully you can go back and see this in the review a second time around) is that during the Sengoku period, individual brilliance, whether tactical or martial, was held in high esteem. TK takes that concept and exaggerates it so you end up with superheroes running around approximations of historical battlefields. I certainly don't treat Warriors games as historically accurate, although I am a fan of the games and appreciate the respect TK clearly has for the period and the personalities.
Secondly, while I can only claim to be an amateur scholar of the Sengoku period, my understanding of the era is that for most of his career, Oda faced multiple threats from multiple sides that combined formed a far larger force than he was able to field.
It was his tactical genius, statesmanship, charisma and a bit of luck (as well as enemies as busy fighting each other as Oda himself) that allowed him to dominate individual battlefields and spread his forces to cover most threats.
I apologize if my history is wayward there, and would appreciate it if people could point me in the direction of additional texts to help catch me up further. Ive been studying the period in my limited spare time for only the past year or so, so I'm always happy to consume more information.
So once again I must apologize if what I wrote made little sense. Without claiming it's an excuse, trying to grow a website while juggling a full time job and life commitments means that occasionally I will rush something and while it makes crystal clear sense to me, it doesn't make much sense to anyone else
Now that you've convinced me to join the forums though, I hope to continue to be a presence here and get to know you all. As I said earlier, I'm a big fan of Paradox!
Matt
I'm the one that wrote that preview, so to start up, I must apologize that you didn't care for it; evidently the points I was trying to make didn't come across, but that is of course my failing for not propely explaining them.
I'd like to take the opportunity to try and explain better what I meant for you, since I am a big, big fan of Paradox games, and Sengoku especially, so the last thing I want to do is have misunderstandings or a falling out with the Paradox faithful.
So to start:
I never meant to say that Tecmo Koei Warriors games are more accurate in depicting battles through the Sengoku period. What I was trying to say (and hopefully you can go back and see this in the review a second time around) is that during the Sengoku period, individual brilliance, whether tactical or martial, was held in high esteem. TK takes that concept and exaggerates it so you end up with superheroes running around approximations of historical battlefields. I certainly don't treat Warriors games as historically accurate, although I am a fan of the games and appreciate the respect TK clearly has for the period and the personalities.
Secondly, while I can only claim to be an amateur scholar of the Sengoku period, my understanding of the era is that for most of his career, Oda faced multiple threats from multiple sides that combined formed a far larger force than he was able to field.
It was his tactical genius, statesmanship, charisma and a bit of luck (as well as enemies as busy fighting each other as Oda himself) that allowed him to dominate individual battlefields and spread his forces to cover most threats.
I apologize if my history is wayward there, and would appreciate it if people could point me in the direction of additional texts to help catch me up further. Ive been studying the period in my limited spare time for only the past year or so, so I'm always happy to consume more information.
So once again I must apologize if what I wrote made little sense. Without claiming it's an excuse, trying to grow a website while juggling a full time job and life commitments means that occasionally I will rush something and while it makes crystal clear sense to me, it doesn't make much sense to anyone else
Now that you've convinced me to join the forums though, I hope to continue to be a presence here and get to know you all. As I said earlier, I'm a big fan of Paradox!
Matt
Hello Matt,
Oda would at times be facing quite a few different alliances of enemies at varying times, but he was still able to muster enough troops (drawing heavily upon provinces he had just conquered to fill out his ranks) to have more raw numbers than his enemies at virtually any point after he had wrested control from the other factions of his family in Owari and defeated the Imagawa at Okehazama. You are correct that the fact that his enemies enjoyed fighting each other as much as him was a big factor in his success, particularly when giving himself and Ieyasu time to grow in power after Okehazama.
However, while Oda was certainly a superb leader and expert administrator, he was (in my opinion) certainly no tactical genius. He was routinely beaten in many minor battles and conducted many ill-advised straightforward assaults on Ikko-shu strongholds. Even the battles for which he was lauded have asterisks. For example, the idea to attack Imagawa Yoshimoto's camp and bypass the main Imagawa force actually seems to have been thought up by a minor vassal (you can read about this in a contemporary record, the Bukoyawa). The myth of guns using rotating fire being the decisive factor at Nagashino was promulgated by a fictional piece written in the Edo period by Oze Hoan (in the Shinchoki)-what actually seems to have happened is that Nobunaga had a 2-to-1 advantage over the Takeda, and managed to envelop the right flank of their army. American Japanese history expert Thomas Conlan has examined this in some depth the last couple of years. For a good and reliable source on Nobunaga, I'd recommend picking up a copy of the Shinchokoki (written by one of his vassals, Ota Gyuichi).
Oda's reputation both in the west and in Japan has been really built up by the Nobunaga no Yabou games and his appearances in manga and anime as the Ultimate Bad Guy. His success was really due to three factors: 1) He had the insight to surround himself with many capable and talented men and wasn't afraid to delegate 2) he had an excellent grasp of economics and trade which gave him the funding he needed to maintain a large standing army 3) he never let a defeat discourage him from moving forward.
And I'm sure no one meant to be all that harsh-after all, you could have mentioned Sengoku Basara instead...
. Welcome aboard from someone who's just as new here.
I didn't think it was dreadful at all. So he was wrong about a historical fact, so what ? This is a preview, not a history paper.
The only 'problem' I had with the preview was that the Total War franchise kept popping up, and we all know PI games are anything but TW games. Furthermore, I think it takes 'cojones' to write about something you didn't like in a preview. I read a lot of reviews on gamespot.com, and I get the idea that they are getting payed by developing companies. For example Mafia II, which I bought loosely based on the review on gamespot .. and that turned out great. /sarcasm
The more I read about this game, the more I want to play it !
The only 'problem' I had with the preview was that the Total War franchise kept popping up, and we all know PI games are anything but TW games. Furthermore, I think it takes 'cojones' to write about something you didn't like in a preview. I read a lot of reviews on gamespot.com, and I get the idea that they are getting payed by developing companies. For example Mafia II, which I bought loosely based on the review on gamespot .. and that turned out great. /sarcasm
The more I read about this game, the more I want to play it !
Last edited:
Yes, I feel the same. I am not that interested in Japan and its history (compared to my interests and knowledge in european history), but all these previews and gameplay descriptions make Sengoku very palatable. I think this game will become more than just an appetizer for CK II.
I think it's justified, as he's approaching the review from from the point of explaining to people who just had a dose of the Sengoku era with Shogun 2 why they should care about another game with the same setting. We may know the the inherent differences between Paradox and Total War games, but there remain hordes of unenlightened heathens out there
It is a nice preview, but I think this is the first time I have seen a Paradox game described as light entertaining strategy
full quote:
full quote:
Every person perceives a game differently. I actually liked the review.
And yes, TW popped up a couple of times, with one of the statements being that the game actually has very little in common with TW, which is actually the statement made here as well.
This wasn't a review, but rather a preview. And I for one think that it was a very positive one. Thanks Matt.
And yes, TW popped up a couple of times, with one of the statements being that the game actually has very little in common with TW, which is actually the statement made here as well.
This wasn't a review, but rather a preview. And I for one think that it was a very positive one. Thanks Matt.
Oops ! Fixed.
I know the previewer ( is that even a word ? ) wanted to show that Sengoku isn't Shogun II TW, but I personally don't like it when people compare games with each other. Especially comparing games to the TW franchise, which happens all too often in my opinion. Nontheless, good PREview.
(See, I got it right this time
)
Oops ! Fixed.
I know the previewer ( is that even a word ? ) wanted to show that Sengoku isn't Shogun II TW, but I personally don't like it when people compare games with each other. Especially comparing games to the TW franchise, which happens all too often in my opinion. Nontheless, good PREview.
(See, I got it right this time
Not sure I see the problem with comparing something that is possibly less known to something that is likely to be more well known. Especially when you use the comparison to highlight certain differences.