🚀 go-pugleaf

> I've just completed the short game of Shogun 2 where you need to capture
> 25 provinces and hold Kyoto for 1 year, before the end of 1575, so I
> can't pretend to be a master of the game, but I've given it a pretty
> good bash over several weeks.
>
> I enjoyed it, and have mainly positive thoughts about the game, but I
> think I actually had more fun with Rome and Medieval 2, personally.
>
> Defining why that is though is quite tricky.

Thanks for the review. I agree with most of your findings. I have now 
played through the short and the long campaign, both to victory as 
Shogun, but I haven't yet tried any of the historical campaigns.


> On a purely visual level
> Shogun is mirkier than the other two, certainly atmospheric, and I'm
> sure more advanced technically - but I liked the bold, beautiful and
> very functional maps of the earlier games

Someone else her posted a fair comment that they added so much visual 
complexity that it can bog down mid or low-range systems. It was okay 
for me but in a way I missed the old historic STW map.


> There were some gameplay features that I also felt lacked something:
> When you get a certain number of provinces, you trigger a crisis where
> most of the other forces (allies included) seem to declare war on you.

Heh. That freaked me out in the short campaign but I was ready for it in 
my second run and by then I had made enough key alliances (even gave 
away a daughter's hand in marriage to my greatest foe). In the second 
playing it was me and my family ally as about equal co-owners of 90% of 
Japan. The rest were minor factions whose hatred of me was of no 
consequence.


> This means the loss of a lot of trade revenue so, you start having to
> scrape around for cash which is fair enough - but when you take Kyoto,
> more people attack you, and despite being Shogun, you (well this was the
> case for me at least) find yourself really broke. Cash wise I was better
> off as with half the provinces and being an virtualy unknown clan
> leader! Again, in fairness, much of this maybe down to the choices I
> made, but I don't think so.

As you progress in the game and have more technologies (arts) discovered 
you can make your provinces quite wealthy on their own. Also, it pays to 
do lots of trade with the islands (anchors). You can have many trade 
ships at each port which vastly increases income.


> Having achieved the victory conditions of the short game, you are asked
> if you wish to continue - I chose to do so, but I don't think I will
> keep playing as it looks a bit too much like work without the necessary
> rewards of fun.

I know what you mean. Now that I have completed a second campaign I will 
take a break for a few months before I play again. My brain is exhausted.


> I should say, I've actually had a lot of fun with the game, and the
> battles away from strongholds, I found much more enjoyable. I certainly
> got my money's worth, and others may have no problem with the aspects
> that I found negative. If I hadn't had as much fun wth Rome and Medieval
> as I've had I would probably be a bigger advocate of Shogun 2. I should
> also point out I'm not interested in the net play side of the game, so
> this may be a massive attraction for others.

The general consensus is that EVERYONE wants a Rome 2 Total War game so 
I'm sure its well under way.

I like each of the TW games in their own way but expect the three that I 
will keep playing over and over are Rome, Medieval 2, and Shogun 2.


   - Sheldon