Making Samurai Wars More Realistic


#1

How can it be made more real?

  1. Adding ammo for missile units and after the ammo finishes, switching to daggers/short swords.
  2. Adding buildings where you may be able to put your troops in and fire.
  3. Adding castle and city maps for seige and defense.
  4. Adding a morale meter. (Opposing side with the lowest morale troops will route fast)
  5. Adding real battle strategies. Example: Flanks exposed = units route fast.
  6. Adding tiredness percent to units. (Shows how better they can fight and run for now - decreases a little as you move or fight, increases after resting which means not moving the unit)
    Just some of my ideas.

#2

It would be cool if we could see the amount of enemies we killed on multi-player


#3

Agreed. 9.3/10 - IGN


#4

Hey man… These are good ideas.

It would be good to add a morale bar and stamina bar. It could be integrated into the circle that controls a unit. Green as stamina and Grey as morale…
However…

  1. Real battle strategies do work
  2. When flanks are exposed the attacking unit receives no damage
  3. Adding buildings and castles doesn’t apply to this type of game
  4. Ammo would be annoying…

Thruzan


#5

unit status meters

Yes that’s a good idea. One of my design principles is to make the simulation as transparent as possible. No secret recipes or hidden variables. Players should be able understand the state of a battle from a quick glance, and apply sound tactical principles in order to win. If something is hidden, it’s because the simulation rules explicitly says so (line-of-sight, fog-of-war, etc).

buildings and sieges

Fortifications are powerful immobile weapon systems, and sieges being asymmetrical are very different from the current meeting engagement type of battles. Need some thought on how to maintain balance and make them fun.


#6

Well, ammo will make it realistic won’t it? And that’s the whole point of the topic.


#7

No, because archers would become useless once out of ammo… Even so, in real war the archers can pickup arrows in the battlefield and the army would have huge stocks of arrows anyways… I don’t think it would be good.

Thruzan


#8

Yeah but they still had set numbers, and in arrowhead in the ground wont be useful. And no, many armies actually had little arrows, so ammo is an essential part to realism/authenticity. Because they had a set amount, you would have to use them wisely


#9

To improve both realism and balance, I’m thinking that missile units probably should have a limit on ammo, and after that they will be low-on-ammo but never out-of-ammo. They will still be able to shoot but with reduced fire power. I don’t think it’s entirely unrealistic that they were able to reuse or resupply ammo in the middle of a battle, at least under certain conditions. Another idea is to have some kind of supply depot unit, e.g. a wagon of ammo that you could resupply from if you are within range. Would be interesting to see some historical info on this.


#10

Awesome. Wagons, makes it interesting.


#11

nice idea (twenty characters)


#12

Hey Guys,
I like the idea now. It makes sense… Lol
So according to what you said, we would have to remove the auto fire function from the ranged units. Other wise the ammo would finish really quickly. It would need to be replaced by a fire-on - command system in which u must drag the aim arrow on a unit to lock on and fire.
Also I would venture to say that the archer close quarters combat be improved so that it is decent enough to 1v1 a samurai unit with 30% health.
Once this stuff is implemented we would really need a tutorial mode… Other wise newbies will have serious problems and might think the game is trash.


#13

A simple tutorial explaining the games mechanics and controls is enough.
Or maybe a video? Haha.


#15

No more men… There are already too much…
Scorpion is a spammer…
Guys go check out what I said on the things we would like to see in SW topic

Thruzan


#16

I actually believe any increase to damage would make the already great archers (who I believe are great and balanced in ability) almost over powered.


#17

I think that the idea of having set numbers you have to have kind of kills the game in a way, because people will want to have all gun battles, or pike battles, or use rush armies, or become the Mongols. People will want to RP these fights, and having set numbers for everything will kill that potential to bits.


#18

Its just my opinion… I don’t think people having an army of a single unit would be good anyways… This is supposed to be based on realistic armies so having only spears or Cav wouldn’t be good… And probably unfair…

Try to reflect on people having an army of 12 Calvary… It would be single sided…
Thruway


#19

I have a compromise. There could be different modes. One is the more casual, choose anything you want (under how much currency you have) and just battle, allowing for more scenarios and reenactments. The other would be tournament mode, where you would be hard pressed to try and use real tactics.


#20

Some thoughts, there are two different levels here. One is the simulation level, that for example calculates how fast and far arrows fly, and how easy they penetrate different kinds of armour. The other is the scenario level, that may put restrictions on the amount of ammo or the type and quality of armour. My view is that it is the developers job to make the best simulation engine possible but that, as I mentioned in the other post, players should have complete freedom to choose scenarios parameters. So the way I see it, these different modes would correspond to scenarios. There may be different versions of the simulation, but only as a linear evolution of the engine over time.


#21

Okay… I understand nikodil… What do you think about the lock-on ranged fire function? And the damage change/improvement?

Thruzan