Considerations on the Tenka Fubu Campaign

[GShock112]

The campaign system appears to be solid and I like its simplicity and straightforwardness but there are some major drawbacks I'd like to see revisited.

I'm playing as Oda, Daimyo difficulty.
I'm only playing this campaign since I bought the game... Do a few battles then stop and restart it so I've had quite a few situations going on and I took some time before gathering my ideas together, waiting for this particular campaign to finish first (alright it's not finished yet but to me it is).

We're ending here with me having my main army bordering Takeda's northernmost territory (it's the peninsula of Noto but I don't recall what the game calls it right now). Takeda right now (Early Spring) only holds 2 provinces in total (the other province is the one south east of their northernmost province as the one in southwest is mine and it's the one where I have my main army) and has 3 armies... one just spawned, 700+ pts worth.

I have another army which is quite battered, in the center of the map which is a result of a combine-army option from 2 armies which almost completely destroyed what originally was Takeda's main army.

I'm now in no position to raise an army in the conquered provinces, nor to reinforce with new units those armies because the system doesn't allow it and, even though I am winning badly (the campaign had me win 3 battles consecutive with one being a major battle with excess of 10.000 men per side and almost 70% casualties taken by Takeda), the nearly vanquished Takeda, with just 2 provinces have raised this huge army which none of my winning armies can match, unless I raise a new army and bring it there to combine with my main army (I will obviously arrive too late).

Not content with that, the system has allowed Takeda to actually maintain 3 armies because I wasn't able to destroy even one of them in these 3 previous victories (I don't think an army can actually be destroyed). This means Takeda is actually besieging some of my home provinces and I am supposed to either lose to their uber new army or fall back, abandoning my conquests, to pursue lesser armies, very weak, that will always escape... taking losses in retreats but just never being destroyed.

It appears to me that there's either something not working or some unbalancement that doesn't prize conquests and offensive operations and, things being like that, the campaign which could be (should be) the main strong point of this game, suffers from a series of repetitive battles, whose outcome doesn't really give the edge to the winning side and are apparently without purpose.

The more you beat them, the more they appear unscathed... but you keep winning because of the experience gained by the units... until, eventually, losing units to garrison your conquests (and you can't replace them with new units : you can only raise new armies and then combine them with the existing armies) and inability to reinforce, will lead your army to be destroyed by far superior numbers (no matter the experience of your units, you will eventually be outmatched by units that attack you from multiple sides).

The system is so strict you can't actually have any armies different from one another as once you raise an army, most of the coins you have go to buy the initial units so the campaign tends to be repetitive since armies are almost always the same (unless you combine them but then you can't "mark" the enemy anymore so you need more armies to build a border the enemy can't pass).

Furthenmore, while the defender can combine multiple armies cornered in one province to lack of movement points (it's what you should do because if the enemy is cornered you can take coins from undamaged provinces: you mustn't let the enemy armies sneak behind you otherwise you must chase them all over Japan!), the attacker can't attack the defender from 2 or more bordering provinces and must attack separately.

To beat this huge Takeda Army... which shouldn't be possible to raise considering Takeda only have 2 provinces now, I'll have to attack with my main army (vastly outnumbered), lose and then hope my second army can win. Essentially by counting the army value in points, Takeda appears to be only very slightly in disadvantage but how is this possible if they only hold 2 provinces and I hold the rest of the map after winning 3 battles in a row (3 or 4 I can't recall)?

In the meanwhile the other minor (200pts) Takeda armies are laying waste to my domains because they can't be destroyed.

See? I win... and I can't complete the campaign.
I smash an enemy and I find it again merged into a new enemy army or besieging one of my provinces somewhere else.
I advance and conquer... and then I can't reinforce... and the enemy seems to be getting even stronger (this has always happened not just this time).

Just my thoughts... I think the whole system is beautiful in its simplicity and it's very solid but with some little tweaks and features it could be put to much better use in the campaign.

1) Armies should be destroyed when their value is too low (split part of the remaining manpower to the owned provinces).
2) We should be able to reinforce them (get money by looting so you have a seasonal income to use for that) in a way that the army composition remains historical (there are many ways to do that)
3) It should be possible to combine attacks from different provinces (make units come to the battlefield piecemeal like reinforcements and flankers do).
4) There should be a chance after a major defeat for the CiC to commit Seppuku.

The big battle I fought and won was a real blast.
I've only had 2 such battles so far since I bought the game and they are very nice to play. It's odd but I never happened to get to the 20th turn as the battle is decided much sooner than that.

Note: The LoS/LoF overlay actually hides the deployment area.
Note2: I think a unit engaged in melee shouldn't be elegible to receive a general.
Note3: I don't think the CiC can join any unit in the Campaign (not in this one at least). Apparently it's useless as in most cases he's too far away to even provide any bonus but I noticed that when the AI has superior numbers (vastly superior numbers) it goes for the CiC to kill him. In these cases the battle is already lost but I haven't seen any effect on the units that were still fighting.
Note4: In regards with the UI perhaps it would be easier for the new players to see the units' ZoC highlighted in some manner. Making use of it to know who to charge and where to move (to block an enemy from charging someone else) is a critical factor in battle.

That's all... for now.

[rbodleyscott]

Note: The LoS/LoF overlay actually hides the deployment area.

Yes. It was too confusing to try to show it all at once.

Thanks for all the feedback.

Both sides have some income that does not come directly from provinces. This is deliberately intended to create some negative feedback so that campaigns are not effectively decided by the first significant victory, as they often weren't historically. So whichever side is losing will have some resilience and be able to recover to some extent from its defeats.

[GShock112]

Both sides have some income that does not come directly from provinces. This is deliberately intended to create some negative feedback so that campaigns are not effectively decided by the first significant victory, as they often weren't historically. So whichever side is losing will have some resilience and be able to recover to some extent from its defeats.

The fact the winning side will have supply and reinforcement problems at the front line is good... what is not good is that you find yourself pitted against a brand new 700+ army when their side is already losing big time on the territories. This is the Daimyo skill... I'm sure at higher difficulty I won't be winning this easy but if things are not tweaked, that 700+ army which will already destroy me as is now, will be even stronger... so the side who wins is heavily handicapped by these design choices and you don't get the feeling that you're winning. All you get is that you're fighting one battle after the other with basically the same army composition (a mirror army or 2 mirror armies combined together) and even if you win you will be grinded to a halt by the factors I'll mention shortly.

There are other ways to slow down the advance (sieges are the main one, garrisoning is the second one, there's winter quarters, armies who split/combine can't move) and that's more than plenty.

What the campaign needs is a supply system... so that you can't actually move freely in enemy territory (unless connected to your own territory, the movement should cost more and I'd say extra supplies required should be paid for) and the option to assault the province castle to end the siege immediately (you take heavy losses, you must still garrison the province and you can't move the following turn).

It wouldn't be a bad idea to design a bigger map with more provinces actually because that would definitely make the campaign last longer and be full of surprises.

Simplicity is beautiful but comes at a cost.
Really... the campaign should be the MAIN event in this game and it's worth an effort in small steps.

[GShock112]

So this was the situation... after winning all battles and conquering everything but 2 of the Takeda provinces (Ichiodani and Kanazawa), instead of attacking the only standing Takeda army in Takayama with my army still besieging Ichiodani, I fell back to Gifu and combined with my other standing army. In the following turn, Takeda moved to Ichiodani but my huge army moved there too and they retreated so Ichiodani was conquered instantly and after the winter pause this is what you can see now in the picture below.



Ichiodani can't support my big army (1464pts) which is out of supply. Takeda has built a new army which has combined with the one it freely moved and now they have a huge army (1883pts not out of supply and that province can hold 1154pt so it SHOULD be out of supply) plus one more army in Kanazawa.

Takeda, which only holds 2 provinces now has a total army points of 500+1883 and no supply issues (no manpower issues and no money issues either... no issues whatsoever despite multiple defeats) =2383 army points (excess of 30.000 men).

I haven't spawned my new army yet but you can see the situation: 1883 vs 1464 in favor of the enemy. This is the opposite of what it should be.

If I spawn a new army in Gifu it will retreat if attacked by the big Takeda army, whereas the goal should be to have it merge with my big army (which will lose manpower now since it's out of supply) and attack Takeda's big army (to what avail? They will spawn a new one and if I move from Ichiodani the Takeda will take it with the other army).

I can't attack the Takeda big Army so I should attack the smaller army (many men but apparently very weak quality). It will probably withdraw and Takeda's big army will become even bigger unless it moves away... in this case I've got to chase it (to what avail? Even if it retreats and loses manpower it can never be destroyed).

Put yourselves in the chase situation: numbers don't allow to win the fight vs the Takeda big army and if I move from Ichiodani, Takeda will capture it again with its second army (so what did I earn by conquering it?) and if I chase the smaller army I will eventually run into the big one which will destroy my own army.

I think something's very wrong here.

[rbodleyscott]

Ichiodani can't support my big army (1464pts) which is out of supply. Takeda has built a new army which has combined with the one it freely moved and now they have a huge army (1883pts not out of supply and that province can hold 1154pt so it SHOULD be out of supply) plus one more army in Kanazawa.

The large Takeda army will certainly be out of supply, but the army tooltip only reports supply issues for your own armies, not for enemy armies (although their attrition will be reported in the log window).

[GShock112]

That's really secondary in view of the rest... the Takeda are defeated time and time again and they have 3 times my manpower levied.

[rbodleyscott]

That's really secondary in view of the rest... the Takeda are defeated time and time again and they have 3 times my manpower levied.

Leaving aside the fact that 3 times is something of an exaggeration, and that they are scraping the barrel whereas your troops are now experienced veterans, and the possibility that your reports of the enemy numbers are in fact overestimates due to the fog of war factor (see manual):

How many troops have you lost from attrition and putting units into garrison?

It was a well known phenomenon for armies to become weaker as a conquest continued, due to these factors, often allowing the enemy to turn the tables on them.

There has to be some negative feedback so that there can be some to-ing and fro-ing in the campaign, otherwise you may as well play one skirmish game and say you have won a campaign.

[Paul59]

I haven't spawned my new army yet but you can see the situation: 1883 vs 1464 in favor of the enemy.

If you have not raised your new armies yet then this is not a true reflection of the strategic position, the situation should swing back in your favour when you spend your revenue on raising new armies.

[GShock112]

The problem is at the strategic level here:
I can't add new units to my frontline army (which at present is the only one I have) and I can't make much of the increased money from the newly conquered provinces because when I raise a new army it will be far and inexperienced. I don't know what the AI will do but I must think what I'd do in its place as player and I would attack of course.

So I must fall back to Gifu to buy time to merge my new army with the old one.
That means I conquered Ichiodani for nothing (and also detached units to garrisons I will inevitably lose). This is not right.

I'm also forced to combine armies to make bigger numbers and get the attrition for lack of supply... but that's not the point. How can Takeda afford to muster so many recruits with just 2 provinces? How many more should I then be able to afford (and I can't)?

Figure: I can raise a new army, and maybe even 2: the first army will take the mandatory crack troops + what I can afford with manpower and the second, eventually somewhere else (because the same province won't have manpower left) with more manpower than I will be able to afford. How comes Takeda doesn't have such restrictions with only 2 provinces left? Mah...

Looks like all it's reduced to is the cat and mouse game. Play battle, try to win and chase armies left and right over the map. The enemy comes back stronger... the more you beat it the stronger it appears to be: even rookie troops will beat you when they have twice your numbers as there's no way to stop them from surrounding you (plus, you'll lose every single unit that routs an enemy to a flank charge during pursuit).

[rbodleyscott]

You only need to fall back for one turn to merge your army with the new force. It isn't particularly likely that Ichiodani will fall in one turn.

You would be wiser to split your forces so that they do not exceed the supply limit. The AI is likely to split his large army if you do, but if he doesn't a) he will be suffering attrition every turn from lack of supply and b) whichever of your armies he attacks will retreat and one of your other armies can nip back into the province he has vacated.

In short, make him chase you round the map and suffer attrition from lack of supply, rather than chasing him round the map and suffering lack of supply yourself.

If it comes to a battle, win the battle and his army will be on the run again until the next winter.

Also, if you haven't already, I suggest you read the manual section on Campaign Strategy (section 19.20 in the English version)

[GShock112]

You only need to fall back for one turn to merge your army with the new force. It isn't particularly likely that Ichiodani will fall in one turn.

I think you're missing the main point. What would a general do?
With an army 17k strong next to you, you don't split, you combine to attack: 1) you can't attack from different provinces, 2) the greater the numbers the enemy gathers, the more likely you are to be defeated (either by flanking or by winning and being routed in pursuit by a flank charge) so you must attack and the sooner the better.

You would be wiser to split your forces so that they do not exceed the supply limit. The AI is likely to split his large army if you do, but if he doesn't a) he will be suffering attrition every turn from lack of supply and b) whichever of your armies he attacks will retreat and one of your other armies can nip back into the province he has vacated.

So you see, you said so yourself - despite winning you get to a stalemate: we either both suffer from attrition (I can't attack that army whether we both split or not) or I fall back on one side and get back forth on the other. This is not what's supposed to happen after you win 3 battles in a row and hold all but 2 provinces.

In short, make him chase you round the map and suffer attrition from lack of supply, rather than chasing him round the map and suffering lack of supply yourself.

I understand but cat and mouse is not what waging war is about: It's about defeating the enemy economically, psychologically and militarly.

If it comes to a battle, win the battle and his army will be on the run again until the next winter.

Having defeated it 3 times already, with the results you can see (and the objections I keep pressing), things being what they are I really see no point in playing, mate, that's the problem: I conquer and gain nothing, I win battles and the enemy is neither destroyed nor weakened.
I have proposed some alternatives to make the campaign more realistic; The campaign is a dynamic environment that doesn't necessarily have to evolve around the historical facts since choices can change history (and battle outcomes too). The difficulty levels are there to tilt the balance and this narrow-mindedness goes right where you just said: either cat and mouse or stagnation.

You can't allow stagnation to the winning side... It totally defeats the purpose of winning... hence of playing.
Well I have proposed some alternatives... what can I say, I'll make ado with what I have and pray Amaterasu you'll consider the options I suggested.

I'll restart now (again) and follow the guidelines in the manual to see if I get better results.... but really how can it come better than that... they only have 2 provinces now...

[Falke_MatrixForum]

The problem is at the strategic level here:
I can't add new units to my frontline army (which at present is the only one I have) and I can't make much of the increased money from the newly conquered provinces because when I raise a new army it will be far and inexperienced. I don't know what the AI will do but I must think what I'd do in its place as player and I would attack of course.

So I must fall back to Gifu to buy time to merge my new army with the old one.
That means I conquered Ichiodani for nothing (and also detached units to garrisons I will inevitably lose). This is not right.

This is realistic , the attacker at the end of their supply line will have longer delays in getting reinforcements to the front line. The conquering was not for nothing since you got the funding from it and not the opponent.

[kongxinga]

I haven't finished a Sengoku Campaign yet, but from what I remember from Pike and shot, your objective is to crush the enemy's will to fight, not necessarily to take all his provinces, although that certainly helps.

IIRC, once you have a +6 victory margin (ie your victories minus his victories) the enemy will give up and sue for peace very soon.

So keep at it, if they combine their army into a doom stack, let attrition kill them. Attrition kills far more effectively than you can a lot of time. Let him siege, then combine and attack his army. Your crack troops + any levies +attrition should turn the tide. Don't be too afraid to split your army to attrition limit. even if he does catch one of your army, you will retreat, and he will lose more units from exceeding the limit than you will lose in the retreat.

The computer does have a tendency to form a doom stack as he loses most of his province. I guess that makes sense, there isn't enough ground to cover to warrant a split. I remember a english civil war campaign where Parliament had a HUGE doom stack sitting in London, while I had 5 smaller stacks all over the place, some sieging, some converging to the knockout blow.

It was shaping up to be an English Seghikara (mother of all battles) when Parliament surrendered to the King.

So in summary, if you can converge your forces and fight him, do so, if not, let attrition get him, if he splits, converge and attack one of the splits. Basically do what you are doing. I think you are almost at victory, probably one more battle of size and its over.

[jomni]

At a historical standpoint, Kofu in Kai province is the actual main Takeda base. It is greyed out in this campaign.
You can assume the extra funds and troops are coming from here.

You are playing at Daimyō level so the AI gets purchase points boost. But as they said, they are too large for their remaining provinces to support. So future year's income may not be enough to replace attrition. They will surrender eventually. No need to really attack if they don't attack you.

Osaka is still in their hands?

[GShock112]

I am questioning a system where the more battles you win and the more provinces you take the more the enemy is helped to prevent you from winning. This is something to leave to the difficulty levels not to sudden money/manpower cheating for the AI.
(it's not uncommon, all games work like that)

I agree with all the considerations in place (by everyone) but the campaign should aim to look at a dynamic situation making the AI do the right things rather than stop the player from winning through unfair restrictions. I guess the system will keep doing what it is designed to do whichever side the AI is in any campaign of the game so it's better to talk "indefinite" and not relatively to the sole Tenka Fubu.

The fact the AI may spawn a new army at the beginning of the new year, after collecting taxes, and that this army does not represent the economic base at disposal is a big problem that should be addressed. I may spawn a new army too that's alright but what can I spawn has to adhere to very strict limitations with funding AND manpower... which is logical and appropriate... as long as the other side has to adhere to the same limitations which doesn't seem to apply here if you look at the manpower comparison shown in the picture (Fog of War may give some uncertainty but I can read Takeda has the advantage: how can it have the advantage with only 2 provinces remaining?).

Unfortunately, whatever I spawn is a photocopy of what I already have and this impacts on the variety, hence the longevity of the game. This new photocopy costs funds and manpower (and upkeep) so if I wanted to have some variation (i.e. the Takeda were historically superior in cavalry numbers and skill while the Oda were more numerous and employing vastly superior firearm power), regardless of the historicity, the 2nd spawning army would have no problems with manpower, coming to life in another province, but it would STILL be a photocopy of the existing armies because the first part of the army is always compulsory so you either have no remaining manpower or you have no remaining funds left after buying the compulsory units.

It is ok but it goes in conflict with what the enemy has.

Projected to the next turns, you will eventually be forced to beat an enemy to combine these armies into your existing ones to face more numerous enemies (we know the battle mechanics: against superior numbers you will either lose to flanking and drop cohesion with the neighboring units or lose to your own pursuers being flanked by the enemy 2nd and 3rd lines: splitting against an enemy that has 5000 green troops more than you is a sure way to lose, no question about that).

Fair enough both sides will suffer from attrition and it's also good that the side who retreats from battle (after battle or prior to battle) takes losses but the cat and mouse game can't solve the fact these movements should be tied to a supply system and that armies out of supply sooner or later get destroyed. The "mouse" can't be given complete freedom of movement.

How long could a general keep his army intact in enemy territory always running away from the engagement? With what supplies could this army be sustained indefinitely? What would the morale of the men be?

The campaign should simulate the supply issues, the loss of armies, and help the winning player who wins on the field by prizing him after the victories.

I see I conquer but can't recruit more units and the more I am winning on the field and in the conquests, the stronger the enemy becomes. So, essentially, the Takeda here are on the run but take no penalties for that (on the contrary, they're helped) while I truly have supply problems since I can't reinforce my existing armies and I certainly can't attack anymore because of an illogical enemy superiority despite having only 2 provinces. That's the "supply" issue applying to me but not to the Takeda armies on the run, avoiding combat turn after turn and forcing me to play cat and mouse... a game where the cat never catches the mouse.... where the mouse will eventually capture territories if left unchecked.

1) Armies should be destroyed when their morale and numbers (army points value) is low.
2) Armies can't be allowed to roam free from one enemy province to the next, completely out of supply: Retreats should go towards the friendly lines, not deeper into enemy territory.

[rbodleyscott]

I am questioning a system where the more battles you win and the more provinces you take the more the enemy is helped to prevent you from winning.

That isn't true at all. Both sides have a fixed amount of off-map income from the start of the campaign. This does not change during the campaign. The AI must pay its existing troops and raise new troops from its treasury the same as the player. The tax added to the treasury each year is the sum of the revenue from the provinces plus the (fixed) off-map income.

This is something to leave to the difficulty levels not to sudden money/manpower cheating for the AI.
(it's not uncommon, all games work like that)

Not this one.

It is the fixed off-map income that is keeping the AI funded when it has lost most of its provinces. It would do the same for you if you lost most of yours.

If you don't like the amount of off map income the game allows, it is extremely easy to make a modded version of each campaign to reduce it (without altering the base game). You only need to change a few values. Here is how to do it, step by step:

1) Go into the Editor.
2) Select New Campaign.
3) Fill in the boxes and create the campaign as a copy of the campaign you wish to play. It will be saved in C:/My Documents/My Games/SJIDAI/CAMPAIGNS
4) Go into that folder and find your campaign, open the folder. Open Campaign.BSF in a text editor (e.g. Notepad).
5) Find line 12, which reads
SetCampaignVar("OffMapIncome", 750, 0); // Player off-map income
Change the 750 to a lower value. (The AI off map income is calculated from this and the relative total province incomes at the start of the campaign depending on the difficulty level set. It does not change during the campaign). The value must be an integer.
6) If you don't want both side's armies to get smaller as a result, you also need to increase the income received from each province to compensate.
Find line 8, which reads
SetCampaignVar("BaseProvinceValue", 150); // base revenue value of province in points
Increase the base province revenue to compensate for the reduction in off-map income. The value must be an integer.
7) If you do this, you also need to reduce the supply multiplier accordingly, so that the manpower and supply limits are not too generous.
Find line 9, which reads
SetCampaignVar("SupplyMultiplier", 6); // Multiply by province value to get the points worth of troops that can be supplied by the province.
Reduce the supply multiplier to compensate for the increase in BaseProvinceValue. The value must be an integer.
8 ) Go into Campaigns in the main menu, your modded campaign is the one with the same name as the vanilla campaign, but at the bottom of the list.

[jomni]

The units are similar but there are slight differences in the army lists. Oda, Tokugawa, Toyoyomi armies have more ashigaru and firearms, Takeda have more cavalry and all are superior, the rest have more Samurai.

The AI is really affected by loss of provinces. Off map income is just there make them have more staying power. The player also have off map income and it will help if you are on the losing end.

Most campaigns end even without conquering the whole map. Maybe it's an issue for you because the Tenka Fubu campaign is a small map and it gives a perception that they have unlimited funds relative to the number of provinces lost.

You can send us the save and we can investigate what's happening.

[rbodleyscott]

The units are similar but there are slight differences in the army lists. Oda, Tokugawa, Toyotomi armies have more ashigaru, Takeda have more cavalry, the rest have more Samurai.

And, of course, if you play the Anti-Oda side, the Ikko-Ikki provinces have completely different units from the Takeda and Asakura provinces.

[rbodleyscott]

The AI is really affected by loss of provinces. Off map income is just there make them have more staying power. The player also have off map income and it will help if you are on the losing end.

Most campaigns end even without conquering the whole map. Maybe it's an issue for you because the Tenka Fubu campaign is a small map and it gives a perception that they have unlimited funds relative to the number of provinces lost.

Yes, we probably need to tweak the relative amounts of on-map and off-map income in this particular campaign, and we will do so in the next-but-one patch.

If anyone wants to try this in advance of that, see above re making a modded version of the campaign.

We suggest the following values:

OffMapIncome 350
BaseProvinceValue 300
SupplyMultiplier 3

[GShock112]

It's not an economic issue only.
New campaign, same problems: Early Spring 1571 Takeda has 5 total armies, I have 3 (one of which is a combined army so I can split to make an average-sized army).

There were 4 battles (3 offensive and 1 defensive) which I all won (I also captured Ueda so the territorial balance is slightly in my favor).

One of the beaten Takeda armies, chased around, ended up in Osaka (which is neutral) and, during the winter season, it went from 190pt to 492pt.
I suppose it was refitted... since it can't be reinforced in this system, but it drew manpower from a neutral province (which is also completely cut out from their territories).

Concept: out of supply army, in neutral territory, becomes stronger instead of becoming weaker... during winter.

This is a design issue not an economic issue... as of the results of this "policy"...

My newly mobilized army is right next to Osaka to chase this refitted Takeda army (not content of that, Takeda mobilized a 4th Army in Kanazawa, so, the result of 4 victories and +1 provinces for me is "slight advantage" for me who am semi-pinned with 1 and a half army in Gifu). Since I'm stronger, the Army in Osaka will retreat from battle until it finally merges with its other forces. That's no small issue because these 492pt are no threat now but they are when they merge into another army. Can't catch it, can't destroy it, all I can do is chase it to stop from merging with other armies... it's absurd, honestly.

Meanwhile, it has drawn one of my armies from the offensive (my newly mobilized army must chase it but Takeda has a free-move army in Kanazawa instead).

All of this because that army was not destroyed for being so weak and out of supply and it was also allowed to refit.