KorKhan
Since: Dec, 2009
Aug 30th 2015 at 2:14:40 PM
•••
Add this rather nattery entry to Cannon Fodder to that list.
- That said, using cannon fodder is not usually that effective or cost effective in this particular game whether you use them tactically or operationally. You can use them tactically by adding cheap units to a stack and have them absorb the worst of enemy missiles and attacks or to attack an enemy they cannot defeat to soften that enemy. However, cheap units typically have bad morale and unless you are risking a leader to help them, they will break easily before causing much damage to the enemy. When they break and run this will reduce morale of other units, so they might end up doing more damage to you than to the enemy. Using cannon fodder operationally by creating an entire stack of cheap units to attack an enemy stack, soften the enemy stack and then attack it with another more powerful stack is even less effective. It takes time to create a big stack, and you have to keep paying upkeep until it is done and used. When you use it, it will probably do little damage to the enemy stack because of the morale problem. The enemy on the other hand will take little damage, gain experience and recover losses quickly unless you attack the same turn. Thus you could argue that the game deconstructs the cannon fodder trope. It is a possibility but the game also shows you, with unusual realism, why it doesn't really work very well. Medieval II Total War for comparison, plays the trope straight. During a crusade you can quickly recruit cheap, low stats but high morale crusaders quickly and further increase their morale with other stuff.
Sensemaker
Since: Feb, 2014
Aug 31st 2015 at 12:42:15 AM
•••
Kindly explain what you think is wrong with it in its current form (not the same as the form above). In the current form it is clearly a discussion how the game treats the trope "cannon fodder" arguing that the game deconstructs the trope (I agree that this was less than clear previously). The description of how the game treats the trope requires some mention of strategic issues. This does not make it a "walkthrough". We are not forbidden from menioning strategic issues when describing how a game treats a trope.
Just made a few edits, removing Example Indentation and Averted Tropes and shortening some overly-long entries. As I unfortunately had to remove some potentially interesting information, I'll add it here for reference. Just remember that TV Tropes is not Game FA Qs.
- Video Game Historical Revisionism: Fall of the Samurai averts this in the usage of traditional units. The samurai caste had been more or less entirely defanged as warriors since the inception of the Edo period, and the Boshin war had both sides using modern weapons and professional armies (or armies-in-the-making). Traditional weapons like spears and bows were used during the opening stages because they were all that were available, not because of any wish to preserve the 'old ways'. It is, however, solely the player's choice if they want to make use of traditional units; they're not required, as firearms are available from the beginning with every faction.
- Boss in Mook Clothing: The Imagawa, Hatakeyama and, bizarrely, Amako seem to be the clans most prone to this. Looking at the campaign map, it's not hard to see why this is the case; Imagawa start with three trading partners, two of whom are allies and all of which are major clans. Takeda and Hojo tend to become quite powerful, thus increasing Imagawa's trade income, and although Tokugawa are usually wiped out within the first few turns, Imagawa almost always takes the opportunity to smash Oda while their army is weakened from fighting Tokugawa. Hatakeyama are scattered all over the map and thus prove quite resilient to any attempt to take the out early, and Amako start with some good resources, including a gold mine, and will almost always take out Mori quite early.
Hide / Show Replies