And then here's me playing the Oda on Very Hard for the 27th time...

I remember what a german youtuber once said about picking shimazu: "We picked shimazu because of the intense german fear of a two front war." And I laughed hard at that one. Guess thats the same reason as for everybody else

tfw picked Chosokabe and Oda first.

True, I just pickup the game again and started another shimazu campaign before I even finished my years old save

I'm not a great fan of Shimazu, they are good but not my taste. My 1st campaign was uesugi & i loved it. There might be something wrong with me or i just hate my self. The dragon of uesegi & the Tiger of kai are my favourite because of history. Hojo didn't get the love from shogun 2 that frankly made them meh! History was very different. No love for the siege! only positive for Hojo in shogun 2 is you can build your army in near any configuration as most of your unique units are terrible except fire rockets but you shouldn't spam them. People think shimazu is the stongest in the game it's easily the Oda clan. the unique ashigaru are bonkers, I don't play him really because i think it's no challenge.

You can improve that by using checkerboard formation

I have a pike and shot video going over this. In FotS my favorite strategy is having staggered lines of guns wearing down advancing enemies through attrition.

So using them more offensively?

@@thefather5765 well not really, you just need to wait until the enemy gets just to outside of range before your unit fires at will, then you double click on them to attack. Your matchlocks will move forward and the wait time before they fire will go down a lot. I find it works best with 3 ranks but it's a lot harder to time it than just a wide line.

Fire by Rank is definitely interesting and worthwhile in certain scenarios, the issue is whether or not its worth giving the attention to micro the unit in a busy battle. Personally I would rather have my guns always firing rather than risk having one taking an arrow and the entire unit stops its firing drill.

@@dishonorable_daimyo1498 I haven't really noticed it happen everytime I tried to test it in custom battles and I don't want to risk it in a real battle. But I still think that its worth using for ashigaru but not for samurai. I did samurai vs ashigaru fire by rank and none of them got buggged out or stuck as long as you activated it before the fight and didn't turn it off halfway.

I find fire by rank worth it for the center of the line because most of the time people do not charge their cav up the center especially if the matchlock units have Yari Ashigaru or Samurai behind them. On the flank where they might catch a cav charge and getting that one volley off makes or breaks the unit I tend to leave them off. The Portuguese Tercio should always have fire by rank on the defense and armor makes it so they do not lose men at such a rate that it slows you down.

Thanks my dude! Hop on into discord to keep up to date on all these vids :)))

if you love guns you came to the right place at the right time, I have a stream going of an Aizu campaign and also a Let's Play of an Obama campaign.

Its not really a bug. Fire by rank requires long setup time but provide constant firing after setup. Thus it provide higher throughput. But normal firing requires shorter setup time hence its good for situation where you plan on fire and relocate or you plan on finishing/routing units.

This is pretty old and I need to remake this, a lot of people still want to know how to unlock these units' potential

There is a difference between total range and effective ranged. Total range is simply how far a projectile flies. Effective range is the point at which inaccuracy becomes so high it is not worth firing (for a single soldier). Effective range increases when men are in a group as one of the shots is more likely to find a mark; this is why warfare almost always involved archers, guns, crossbows fielded in regiments and men were taught to fire at groups and not individual targets. When it comes to guns they would often times only fire at an even shorter range than in the games; they were instructed to hold fire until 30-40 meters because that is where the armor-piercing effect was greatest. Beyond that distance accuracy and damage dropped so sharply it was considered wasteful to even try firing.

@@dishonorable_daimyo1498 Yeah I guess they made them short ranged to balance the armor penetration effect instead of simulating it by removing said effect after around 50 meters, although technically they could have started shooting around 200 yards against unarmored Ashigaru units

​@@thatsnomoon4221i am with Daimyo in this one. Even muskets had lower efective range than bows. A musket or matchlock bullet might travel farther, but the shooters aim was not a factor for hitting the target at some point. It was until rifles arrived that this changed. Competent bowmen could hit targets between 200 or 300 meters while a musketeer would have trouble sniping one at 100 meters. Ppl prefered guns because of armor penetration and because it takes some 10 year to train a competent bowmen, while you can teach a guy to be a gunner in two weeks

@@lucaslimal3 This is completely wrong and backwards. 300 meters was the absolute maximum range of a bow, at which point it was completely ineffective against essentially any amount of armor and aiming at anything smaller than a formation was unrealistic. The effective range where they could actually penetrate armor and be aimed reasonably well was was well under 100 meters. Conversely, as early as the arquebus firearms were a lethal threat to all but the best armored men even at hundreds of meters. And aiming at a particular man at 100 meters, while certainly not as reliable as with modern firearms, was a fairly realistic goal. Even out to 300 meters where accuracy had fallen off considerably, it was still astronomically more likely that you would hit your target with a gun than with a bow. But don't take my word for it, read literally any contemporary account from the period. In fact, you don't even have to look that far from shogun 2 to find one of the best examples. At the time of the Imjin war, the Japanese were some of the most avid firearms enthusiasts on the planet and fielded them in large quantities. On the other hand, the Koreans hardly used them but were extremely competent archers. According to the Koreans themselves, they were consistently and significantly outranged by Japanese gunfire. You also don't have to look too far to see that the pop history notion of people only adopting firearms due to ease of training is almost entirely fiction. Takeda Shingen himself ordered that his most capable men be equipped with guns. But why would he waste his best men on something that a peasant can be trained to use in a day? Because the reality is that while learning to shoot a gun accurately is easier than learning to shoot a bow accurately, you only need so much accuracy when you're going to be shooting into large groups of other men. What's far more important is being able to safely and quickly operate your weapon which requires considerably more training for a matchlock firearm as compared to a bow. Even in the extreme case of high draw weight English longbows that did require a lifetime of physical conditioning to use, one of their greatest advantages over the heavy crossbows that were prevalent in continental Europe was that a full time farmer could become an effective longbowmen simply by building up enough strength through his work and irregular recreational shooting with a cheap bow. Meanwhile, crossbowen, similarly to arquebusiers, had to be professional soldiers with the time and money to drill with an expensive piece of machinery just to be able to load it in the midst of battle. Armor penetration was a major reason why firearms rapidly replaced bows. But the other major reason was range. Even with a rate of fire 5-6 times that of a firearm, archers just simply couldn't get in range with enough of them still alive to present a threat. Ease of training was not a reason and I've never seen a single contemporary source suggesting that it was.

it does work

@@dishonorable_daimyo1498 lmao imagine placing every single unit into a giant cluster of troops to hold a gate while the enemy comes from a distance

If you really want cheese stretch a your matchlock unit out in a thing line and put Oda Long Ashigaru behind/ on top of them. Cav units will hit the spears before hitting your matchlocks.

@@jaystrickland4151 I've tried that tactic - the matchlocks fire a volley but then you have to pull them back behind the long yari or they'll take casualties in the melee, especially against enemy infantry. Honestly, spending koku on more long yari rather than matchlocks seems to be best. Double or triple-stack the long yari in wall formation, point them at the enemy and order them to march forward. They'll break every unit they encounter. Add a handful of bow units if the enemy camps on a hill, and 5 or 6 light cav to ride down routed enemy units, and you have an optimal army composition.

you mean the ones that increase gun range/nerf bow range? why? bows are already really bad in comparison and one of their only advantages is their higher range.

@@dishonorable_daimyo1498 bows are bad in reality. They make the newer total wars full arcade, it is better for the more historical ones to make guns better like they should be. Especially ashigura bowman, it took years to train to be decent at firing arrows, ashigaru bows should barely kill cows

yea i dont give a crap about historical accuracy, I'm interested in units that have distinct roles. Guns are short range morale breakers, archers are long range skirmishers, for example. Also the newer games are "arcady" not because of archers, they are arcady because of the degenerate healthpools that make actions indecisive and because melee units lose to themselves on higher difficulties thanks to AI bonuses. You could nerf archers in a game like 3K or warhammer and that would not make them any better because the problems are much deeper than that.

@@dishonorable_daimyo1498 luckily, we can disagree with each other and mod single player with our vision of how our game should play.

WAIT WHAT? what's the mod called? I desperately need a mod that fixes Fire By Rank. There's no mod called "Tany mod" in the results

@@w0lf667 If this is sarcasm, then I misspelled "any mod" as "tany mod" on accident. If you are serious, then there are a couple mods on the Steam Workshop that fix Fire by Rank.

@@quickdrawmcgraw3567 nvm. I wasn't sarcastic and I am being serious. Can you at least send a link or a name for the mod that fixes it? So far I haven't found any mod that fixes Fire by Rank

Tercio=Spanish Terco= Portuguese 😁

Said by a person who obviously does not understand the incredible potency of matchlocks. One unit of matchigaru can get over 500 kills easy, samurai can get over 800-1000. It makes perfect sense they take a long to get. And lmao economic arts, most of them are useless, the best way to make money is max tax + looting. The idea that matchlocks arent worth it should go back to 2011.

i see you want to have "nice" battle, get it with your matchigaru, i'm fine with 40-50 turns legendary campaign, literally end it before you can have 1 mat lol. about max tax and looting, i see you want to have "micro" the high tax and normal after that turn lol looting? really, only tokyo worth doing it with 7k, other provinces meh. Matchlock is only good in pvp but pvp is dead literally@@dishonorable_daimyo1498

best clan if you want guns early you can ship a small army to Kyushu to trigger the Nanban event.

i hope you're joking

@@dishonorable_daimyo1498 No

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/qc6Vgbinl8eycWw.html People in 2023 still peddling the myth that guns are useless in this game.

Idk found them effective if u use pike and shot tactics