View Full Version : Japanese units always fight at full strength?!??


hardcore_gamer
Sep 13, 2010, 04:24 PM
I just finished watching the live stream where they spent almost 2 and a half hour talking about Civ 5 and one thing that caught my attention was when they said that one of the Japanese special advantages was that Japanese army units always fight at full strength even when injured.

For example, if a unit with 6 men has a attack value of 6 while at full strength and only an attack value of 3 when at half strength then the Japanese unit would still retain its full level 6 strength even after having lost half its men and the only way to render it useless is destroying it completely.

This sounds horribly unbalanced to me and by the sound of it could give the Japanese huge advantages over other civs. There is a possibility that he was only talking about the Samurai unit I admit, but the way he phrased this ability did not directly indicate it, or did I miss something? This was a live feed after all so I could not watch that particular moment again to confirm this as a fact.

But if this is true, then is it really a wise design decision?

Discuss.

Louis XXIV
Sep 13, 2010, 04:25 PM
They still have less HP. A Japanese unit of 6 strength, but 2 HP would only need 2 hits to die, while a full strength one would need 10 hits.

It's also their only Unique Ability, so they're at disadvantages in other aspects of the game.

VikingMaekel
Sep 13, 2010, 04:27 PM
That is in fact Japan's SA: Bushido
Works for all their units.

Is it unbalanced? I don't know I'll play the game first
Friendly reminder: Civ is not a wrgame, it is a game where you can have war ;p

Ogrelord
Sep 13, 2010, 04:27 PM
Samurai vs French Musketeers.

Who won by the end of the broadcast? The French.
Rank when game ended:

1. Unknown Player
2. France
3.
4.
5.
6.
7. 2k Greg

Wuddel
Sep 13, 2010, 04:30 PM
Hard to say at this point. You still will know which units are injured and can pick them off with ranged units.

bjbrains
Sep 13, 2010, 04:30 PM
Yea, I wouldn't call it overpowered at all. First off, this isn't Civ 4, and it does not look like there's a direct reduction in strength based on hp (aka, a unit with 2/10 hps fights at 20% strength), so it's not that extreme of a bonus. It also gives you absolutely no economic advantages whatsoever (one of the few that doesn't). And it's not like Japan has an especially early UU to take advantage of it (since Samurai are late medieval, and zeros are late industrial).

dodobird
Sep 13, 2010, 04:33 PM
well the live feed showed injured samurai defeating uninjured riflemen id say thats pretty powerful

Zhahz
Sep 13, 2010, 04:33 PM
Discuss.

Already been discussed thoroughly.

Schuesseled
Sep 13, 2010, 04:36 PM
Yes very throughly.

I am now of the opinion that the japanese are bloomin awesome. Those samurai were ripping those riflemen apart, until they all died horribly of course.

Polobo
Sep 13, 2010, 04:38 PM
Samurai vs French Musketeers.

Who won by the end of the broadcast? The French.
Rank when game ended:

1. Unknown Player
2. France
3.
4.
5.
6.
7. 2k Greg

Except it was more like Samurai vs. Artillery; the game was lost long before the Samurai came onto the battlefield.

Schuesseled
Sep 13, 2010, 04:51 PM
he started with samurai on the abttlefield but unfortunately for greg, as soon as he pressed next turn the first time, riflemen quickly replaced napoleons other units. I was alike he's beeped, but then the samurai actually did suprisingly well, well at least for a while.

Feyd Rautha
Sep 13, 2010, 05:01 PM
If he'd continued his strategy he could have kept them at a stalemate if he just kept sacrificing units over at the Suez. We pushed him to it.

Granted previous posters were correct. The game was over before he started. Say what you will about lack of expansion in this game as a strategy, but I imagine a few more cities taking advantage of the natural resources in Africa. No costal cities? Barely improved territory? "C'est la vie...c'est la mord" as Napoleon would say in a few turns after the game closed.

FYI, no way I'd ever make it in Immortal either so kudos for lasting 211 turns!

SeismoGraf
Sep 13, 2010, 05:08 PM
Bushido will be strong. In the stream they said you should fight the Japanese with ranged units. Certainly you want to minimize the number of melee attacks on Japanese units, prior to the expected kill. Especially avoid attacking with injured melee units of your own (bad surprise, if you accidentally confuse a Japanese with an English unit).

There will be two types of fights: those against the Japanese or those against all other Civs. The American, Iroquois and English will be a bit special, too, but their UA is comparable to a unit promotion.

From the Japanese perspective, with Bushido they must balance the risk of losing wounded units with taking advantage of their full combat strength. Ranged units will probably benefit less from their UA, because they normally fight from further back and at full health.

All this fighting made me curious to see the detailed combat mechanics/formulas...

migkillertwo
Sep 13, 2010, 05:12 PM
I just finished watching the live stream where they spent almost 2 and a half hour talking about Civ 5 and one thing that caught my attention was when they said that one of the Japanese special advantages was that Japanese army units always fight at full strength even when injured.

For example, if a unit with 6 men has a attack value of 6 while at full strength and only an attack value of 3 when at half strength then the Japanese unit would still retain its full level 6 strength even after having lost half its men and the only way to render it useless is destroying it completely.

This sounds horribly unbalanced to me and by the sound of it could give the Japanese huge advantages over other civs. There is a possibility that he was only talking about the Samurai unit I admit, but the way he phrased this ability did not directly indicate it, or did I miss something? This was a live feed after all so I could not watch that particular moment again to confirm this as a fact.

But if this is true, then is it really a wise design decision?

Discuss.

others have said that they still have fewer hit points. But Greg pointed out in the ustream feed that you can counter this with ranged units, and we saw already that ranged units are very powerful. Indeed, I think we're going to hear a lot of complaints in the future that ranged units are overpowered given that they can destroy units outright from afar.

I personally welcome the change though

InterAl
Sep 13, 2010, 05:25 PM
Before the samurai war part, they talked about how low-tech units cannot destroy high-tech units (mathematically impossible, no less). Yet the samurais did beat the :):):):) out of the riflemen more than once in that video.

Krikkitone
Sep 13, 2010, 05:27 PM
Before the samurai war part, they talked about how low-tech units cannot destroy high-tech units (mathematically impossible, no less). Yet the samurais did beat the :):):):) out of the riflemen more than once in that video.

Samurai< Rifleman

Spear <<< Tank

Louis XXIV
Sep 13, 2010, 05:27 PM
He had terrain, flanking, and a great general, though.

InterAl
Sep 13, 2010, 05:29 PM
Samurai< Rifleman

Spear <<< Tank

Sure, but that's also true in any Civ game. They said it's impossible, yet we clearly saw it's not.

Krikkitone
Sep 13, 2010, 05:35 PM
Sure, but that's also true in any Civ game. They said it's impossible, yet we clearly saw it's not.

They talked about a Drastically higher tech unit

Riflemen are basically the next upgrade from Samurai... 24 v. 18 or something like that?

At that point, the lower power unit can win (although if poth are fully healthy, probably neither will die)
Also if the Samurai has bonuses, they might actually be More powerful


A Tank is probably 3-5 x more powerful than a spear, at that point.
1. A Healthy Tank will never die to a Spear
2. A Healthy Spear will almost certainly die to the tank
3. Even a Spear with extreme bonuses would probably still be outclassed by the tank in power so it would not die


The point is not
Higher tech Always beats lower tech
it is
The Stronger unit will Not lose to the weaker one if there is a big enough gap in their strength. (accounting for health, etc.)

Ahriman
Sep 13, 2010, 05:37 PM
But if this is true, then is it really a wise design decision?
Its really too soon to tell, because we don't know the details of the combat mechanism or how strength degrades as you take damage.

Its not the same as it was in Civ4.

Kordanor
Sep 13, 2010, 05:41 PM
Well, I am also wondering whether its overpowered or not.
But to be able to make a decision about this we have to know first how fights are calculated.

Lets say that my Samurai is at 2/10 and the normal unit is at 6/10.
Now the first question is, with which power these units fight.
I guess the Samurai is fighting with 10. The other unit probably at 6, but as bjbrains stated it might also be different.
Now when these both are matched together, the question is how the fight is calculated.
IF the Samurai does 10 dmg instead of 2, and the normal unit 6 and gets screwed by the samurai I'd agree its too strong.

But we have to take into account the other civ abilities:
Germans: Seem to be pretty weak for me, at least in mid to endgame.
Americans: Also seem to be pretty weak if you arent into heavy tile buying.
Ottoman: Also pretty weak

but now lets take a look at the stronger (at least in my opinion) civs:
Iroquois - Jungles and Forests as roads? this means you save probably lots of cash for not having to maintain roads, probably huge.
Aztec: Culture for killing other units? Seems huge for me, depends on the amounts you get of course but they might be the only ones who can effectively fight their way to cultural victory.

Personally I like these strong individual characteristics of Civs. But honestly I doubt they will be balanced that well.

Edit: Another question is of course how fast 2k/Firaxis will react in patching obvious imbalances.

Schuesseled
Sep 13, 2010, 05:42 PM
Sure, but that's also true in any Civ game. They said it's impossible, yet we clearly saw it's not.

no they said that killing a tank with a spearman was impossible, they never mentioned samurai and riflemen.

And it think its strange that for an impossible task there is an achievement based on it.

civ_king
Sep 13, 2010, 05:43 PM
Samurai should get absolutely slaughtered by European units, but no they some how are good
(in real life a samurai going toe to toe with a knight would lose horribly)

realism constantly gets sacrificed in Civ

12agnar0k
Sep 13, 2010, 05:46 PM
Yes the bushido ability is pretty cool, however did anyone else notice, the trebuche did hardly any damage when it had low health, so perhaps bushido only works for melee attacks, or doesn't work for siege units.

Schuesseled
Sep 13, 2010, 05:46 PM
Samurai were extremely deadly back in the day, it wasn't until pretty much every soldier could get thier hands on a gun that they went out of fashion.

migkillertwo
Sep 13, 2010, 05:52 PM
Yes the bushido ability is pretty cool, however did anyone else notice, the trebuche did hardly any damage when it had low health, so perhaps bushido only works for melee attacks, or doesn't work for siege units.

considering that the sort of damage that any ranged unit would inflict is purely physical and determined entirely by how much firepower they can project in a given amount of time, I'd say that it is entirely realistic that ranged combat would not be affected by bushido.

Schuesseled
Sep 13, 2010, 05:54 PM
i'm pretty sure it is, he killed an awful lot of units after he got damaged.

Louis XXIV
Sep 13, 2010, 06:02 PM
He killed two. I think that was luck, though. They generally lost to riflemen, they just did a ton of damage before going down.

bjbrains
Sep 13, 2010, 06:05 PM
He killed two. I think that was luck, though. They generally lost to riflemen, they just did a ton of damage before going down.
Don't forget that he almost always had a Great General within two tiles, as well as multiple promotions on top of the free shock 1. Rifleman with 25 versus 18 with samurai isn't especially bad to begin with.

hardcore_gamer
Sep 13, 2010, 06:08 PM
Samurai should get absolutely slaughtered by European units, but no they some how are good
(in real life a samurai going toe to toe with a knight would lose horribly)

realism constantly gets sacrificed in Civ

I don't recall Civ ever aiming to be very realistic.

Also, if would it not do horrible things to game balance if all Asian civs were at a disadvantage just for fighting against Europeans? This isn't a history simulator, if you want one then go play Europa Unuversalis 3.

Polobo
Sep 13, 2010, 06:14 PM
Samurai should get absolutely slaughtered by European units, but no they some how are good
(in real life a samurai going toe to toe with a knight would lose horribly)

realism constantly gets sacrificed in Civ

:deadhorse:

We all agree; and we prefer it that way.

If we wanted realism we'd turn off the computer and go outside.

SeismoGraf
Sep 13, 2010, 06:14 PM
A Katana can cut a body in two pieces with one powerful flourish, but using it on the plate armor of a knight is probably a bad idea. Also, it's not as if these riflemen did wield some shiny M1 Garand, but rather an unreliable and inaccurate piece of equipment available at the late Renaissance, where Rifling has been placed on the tech tree.

civ_king
Sep 13, 2010, 06:14 PM
Samurai were extremely deadly back in the day, it wasn't until pretty much every soldier could get thier hands on a gun that they went out of fashion.

deadly against peasants maybe, their armor could be cut with a knight's sword and the knight's armor would be impervious against a samurai's weapons. Contrary to popular belief the knight's armor wasn't difficult to move in (you could do friggin cartwheels in it!), they weren't slow and their weapons weren't heavy (very few weighed more than four pounds and the majority were three pounds or less)

rastak
Sep 13, 2010, 06:27 PM
Sure, but that's also true in any Civ game. They said it's impossible, yet we clearly saw it's not.


What he SAID was an Ancient era unit cannot defeat a Modern unit.

12agnar0k
Sep 13, 2010, 06:31 PM
i'm pretty sure it is, he killed an awful lot of units after he got damaged.

No, I saw him fire 2 shots against a unit he normally would kill in two shots (the rifleman) and he barely got it under 75% hp. Certainly the HP amount affected the trebuche. The question is, is that limited to siege weapons, or all ranged units.

SeismoGraf
Sep 13, 2010, 07:25 PM
The trebuchet was a beast with 2 ranged attacks per turn and the AI seemed pretty oblivious of the danger. No serious attempt to destroy it. No tactical retreat to bait it onto more open terrain or at least avoid wasting units. How many kills and HP damage did the trebuchet inflict? Too many.

This reminded me of the BattleIsle franchise. Usually the player started with 2:1 or 3:1 numerical inferiority. The only way to win, was to conserve units, utilize choke points and let artillery gain lots of experience, by blasting away wave after wave.

bjbrains
Sep 13, 2010, 08:21 PM
Well, Napoleon hadn't counted on the trebuchet suddenly being able to shoot twice. Also remember that Napoleon is really aggressive and will not give up on wars easily - he's obviously willing to fight out a war of attrition, which he was definitely winning.

ButSam
Sep 13, 2010, 08:37 PM
You people crack me up. If you listen to a lot of the posts, Japanese ability is overpowered, and yet the Japanese ended up losing in the demo game to a force one level up in tech despite having a hold of the primary choke point.

Also, if I interpret the ability correctly, it is only when Japan attacks, not when Japan defends -- so Japanese units are still just as easy to kill, they just are more dangerous on offense.

Louis XXIV
Sep 13, 2010, 08:41 PM
Yeah, Napoleon's war of attrition was practically to his advantage. He waged wars against two other civs at the same time. His failed attempts to get through forced Japan to continue to stay in military mode, while Napoleon both expanded and advanced in tech.

Note: I'm not saying that he did it entirely intentionally. It's possible that he simply wanted to get through and did the other things independently, I'm just saying it wasn't too detrimental to him. In the end, Greg was boned ;)

SeismoGraf
Sep 13, 2010, 09:14 PM
Also, if I interpret the ability correctly, it is only when Japan attacks, not when Japan defends -- so Japanese units are still just as easy to kill, they just are more dangerous on offense.

According to the Civ5 Analyst Site:

Bushido (Japan): Units fight as though they were at full strength even when damaged.

My guess is, that there is a simple linear relationship between hitpoints (HP) and combat strength. Each military unit, regardless of type, has 10 HP. At 5HP the unit has lost half of its men/material. Makes sense. Therefore it fights at only 50% of nominal strength. Half the amount of men - half the amount of damage.

A Japanese unit will always fight with 100% strength, whether it has 10, 5 or 1HP. So it will always inflict maximum damage, but be as "easy to kill" (*), as a regular wounded unit without the benefits of Bushido. My guess. Soon we'll have certainity.

(*) Inflicting major damage on the enemy, before dying, as in the word K.......

_hero_
Sep 13, 2010, 09:28 PM
Japan has absolutely NO economic or cultural bonuses. Most of the other Civs should be able to be ahead of Japan in one category or the other if they play properly. Japan might be great at taking out his nearby neighbors, but on a large map I see him falling way behind lots of other civs towards the late game, and as Greg pointed out, bring a lot of siege against Japan to pick them off before they even get to use their bonus.

mattcrwi
Sep 13, 2010, 09:47 PM
I think people are forgetting what those riflemen did to the spearmen of the city state that was purple near by. It was one hit kills almost every time. Absolutely trouncing them.

jagdtigerciv
Sep 13, 2010, 11:45 PM
Samurai were extremely deadly back in the day, it wasn't until pretty much every soldier could get thier hands on a gun that they went out of fashion.

Erhm. Most samurai became privileged aristocrats and their fighting style became increasingly showmanship and individual dueling that was impractical on any battlefield (or against another non-samurai for that matter). In contrast to say, a European knight, they were not capable warriors for all practicality.

SeismoGraf
Sep 14, 2010, 01:24 AM
deadly against peasants maybe, their armor could be cut with a knight's sword and the knight's armor would be impervious against a samurai's weapons. Contrary to popular belief the knight's armor wasn't difficult to move in (you could do friggin cartwheels in it!), they weren't slow and their weapons weren't heavy (very few weighed more than four pounds and the majority were three pounds or less)

Hmm... I read that the average weight of a simple byrnie (chain mail) with short arms is about 15 kilograms. Then, how can a knight wearing full plate armor not be slow?

hardcore_gamer
Sep 14, 2010, 02:49 AM
Hmm... I read that the average weight of a simple byrnie (chain mail) with short arms is about 15 kilograms. Then, how can a knight wearing full plate armor not be slow?

I think I remember reading a article on cracked where they mention this. I don't remember the name of it, but they did say that knights could actually move fairly easily in their armor.

Hawkwood
Sep 14, 2010, 03:12 AM
Hmm... I read that the average weight of a simple byrnie (chain mail) with short arms is about 15 kilograms. Then, how can a knight wearing full plate armor not be slow?
Because while armour did weigh some (http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=8023), it also granted very efficient protection (http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=11131).

However armour distributes the weight over the body, and a trained man-at-arms (who would be in good shape) wouldn't be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm11yAXeegg) extremely hindered. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMuNXWFPewg&feature=related) Especially considering the fact that plate armour itself was impervious to swords (IE a sword stab to an area not covered with plate would wound, but a stab or cut hitting the plate itself wouldn't cause as much as a scratch).

V. Soma
Sep 14, 2010, 04:42 AM
Please make it clear for me: only the samurai unit has this special "full strength attack" ability...?

stealth_nsk
Sep 14, 2010, 05:01 AM
Please make it clear for me: only the samurai unit has this special "full strength attack" ability...?

No, all units.

Thyrwyn
Sep 14, 2010, 05:07 AM
The Samurai comes with Shock and generates more great generals...in addition to always fighting at full strength :)

I am NOT going to be happy if I start near Japan. Not happy at all. . .

VikingMaekel
Sep 14, 2010, 05:09 AM
Please make it clear for me: only the samurai unit has this special "full strength attack" ability...?

Bushido (the full strenght attack skill) is the Japanese Special Ability
The Samurai as a UU has the Shock promotion immediately and improves the chance of generating a Great General when winning fights

V. Soma
Sep 14, 2010, 05:26 AM
Thanks for the info - uh, Japan will be tough...

Sheng-ji
Sep 14, 2010, 05:30 AM
Japan will need to be fought with large proportion of ranged units, protected from melee by either a good "tanking" unit or cannon fodder units!

Hawkwood
Sep 14, 2010, 05:31 AM
I don't recall Civ ever aiming to be very realistic.

Also, if would it not do horrible things to game balance if all Asian civs were at a disadvantage just for fighting against Europeans? This isn't a history simulator, if you want one then go play Europa Unuversalis 3.
QFT. Civ is game. It may be a game based on and drawing inspiration from history, but in the end Civ is a turn-based strategy game, not a simulation of real history.

If you want a simulation game, go play Paradox Games like Victoria 2 and Europa Universalis 3 (http://www.paradoxplaza.com/games/europa-universalis-iii), they are both excellent, if vastly more complicated than Civ and covering a smaller period of time.

wapamingo
Sep 14, 2010, 05:31 AM
he started with samurai on the abttlefield but unfortunately for greg, as soon as he pressed next turn the first time, riflemen quickly replaced napoleons other units.

Anyone else feels the tech progression is just too fast? there should rarely be 2-tech level gap (level refers to his samurai vs. musketeers = 1 level gap; samurai vs. riflemen = 2 level gap).

Sheng-ji
Sep 14, 2010, 05:41 AM
Anyone else feels the tech progression is just too fast? there should rarely be 2-tech level gap (level refers to his samurai vs. musketeers = 1 level gap; samurai vs. riflemen = 2 level gap).

Yup, but thats the same for all modes of civ, the first mod I shall be making is my Super Marathon mod - name is a work in progress - which will extend the marathon length by about 20-40 times...

A bit over the top I know, but it's how I play civ 4! I like to have extended battles in each era and like to really appreciate each new tech before moving on to the next!

hardcore_gamer
Sep 14, 2010, 05:50 AM
Anyone else feels the tech progression is just too fast? there should rarely be 2-tech level gap (level refers to his samurai vs. musketeers = 1 level gap; samurai vs. riflemen = 2 level gap).

Perhaps Greg was spending all of his resources creating units to stall his own demise and could not spare as much resources towards research as Napoleon?

Also, don't forget that more cities mean more population and more population means more research and unless I am mistaken there were plenty of things that hinted that Napoleon had more cities then Greg.

SickFak
Sep 14, 2010, 06:27 AM
Before the samurai war part, they talked about how low-tech units cannot destroy high-tech units (mathematically impossible, no less). Yet the samurais did beat the :):):):) out of the riflemen more than once in that video.

Haven't you watched "The Last Samurai"? :D

Schuesseled
Sep 14, 2010, 06:30 AM
Greg was falling behind in the tech tree but he was playing of immortal, besides he did research gunpowder eventually, and he stil built sowardsman and upgraded them to smaurais.

wapamingo
Sep 14, 2010, 06:45 AM
Greg was falling behind in the tech tree but he was playing of immortal, besides he did research gunpowder eventually, and he stil built sowardsman and upgraded them to smaurais.

I kinda skipped through some of the video#2, I know he started the fresh game on Immortal but the saved game - was it played on immortal as well?

And how can 1 civ be 3x higher in score than any other civ. In Civ4 its always a pack leading and some stranglers but I have never seen 1 civ towering above others (especially on supposedly Immortal difficulty).

padlock
Sep 14, 2010, 07:12 AM
In the live stream, I noticed when Greg attacked with a wounded warrior, his strength was listed as the same as it was when it was not wounded. Here's the screenshot:

http://lh4.ggpht.com/_HDcquMlgJpw/TI9zI3F1gWI/AAAAAAAAABU/2yYDUnSkMXc/s400/civ5battle.jpg

This leads me to believe that unlike Civ 4, unit strength is not reduced when wounded.

My theory is that the Japanese power simply means that the unit fights as if it has full hit points, although at the end of combat any damage it it takes will still be subtracted from the actual hit points it had remaning.

Schuesseled
Sep 14, 2010, 07:35 AM
In the live stream, I noticed when Greg attacked with a wounded warrior, his strength was listed as the same as it was when it was not wounded. Here's the screenshot:

http://lh4.ggpht.com/_HDcquMlgJpw/TI9zI3F1gWI/AAAAAAAAABU/2yYDUnSkMXc/s400/civ5battle.jpg

This leads me to believe that unlike Civ 4, unit strength is not reduced when wounded.

My theory is that the Japanese power simply means that the unit fights as if it has full hit points, although at the end of combat any damage it it takes will still be subtracted from the actual hit points it had remaning.

Your half right.

Strength doesn't decrease with damage, but Damage does. When calculating damage that will be dealt to an enemy, your strength and health are considered and so is the enemy strength. With japanese units your health is always at maximum for the purpose of these calculations, therefore a unit with 1 hp will deal the same amount of damage as a unit with 10 hp, this ability is unqiue to japan.

civ_king
Sep 14, 2010, 07:42 AM
Hmm... I read that the average weight of a simple byrnie (chain mail) with short arms is about 15 kilograms. Then, how can a knight wearing full plate armor not be slow?
because they were custom designed for each person and manufacturing involved 5+ artisans who dedicated their life and had centuries of experience to draw on, plus the weight was distributed very finely over the entire body with buckles and harnesses
Because while armour did weigh some (http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=8023), it also granted very efficient protection (http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=8023).

However armour distributes the weight over the body, and a trained man-at-arms (who would be in good shape) wouldn't be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm11yAXeegg) extremely hindered. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMuNXWFPewg&feature=related) Especially considering the fact that plate armour itself was impervious to swords (IE a sword stab to an area not covered with plate would wound, but a stab or cut hitting the plate itself wouldn't cause as much as a scratch).
What he said!

DiRectum
Sep 14, 2010, 07:44 AM
In the live stream, I noticed when Greg attacked with a wounded warrior, his strength was listed as the same as it was when it was not wounded. Here's the screenshot:

http://lh4.ggpht.com/_HDcquMlgJpw/TI9zI3F1gWI/AAAAAAAAABU/2yYDUnSkMXc/s400/civ5battle.jpg

This leads me to believe that unlike Civ 4, unit strength is not reduced when wounded.

My theory is that the Japanese power simply means that the unit fights as if it has full hit points, although at the end of combat any damage it it takes will still be subtracted from the actual hit points it had remaning.
No it looks like it doesnt have full strength. If you look at the unmodified strength of the warrior, it is 6, but his modified strength is 5.52. That this 5.52 is still approaching 6, is due to a terrainmodifier. I think the lowered strength, is because he is wounded.

I am not sure, because has also some kind of negative modifier, which i cant identify/read. Perhaps meaning wounded?

Schuesseled
Sep 14, 2010, 07:48 AM
thats regarding the percentile bonuses below that, you'll notice that the spearman has 9.31 instead of 7.

Basically it shows you what your strength is after modification of bonuses such as terrain and promotions.

Krikkitone
Sep 14, 2010, 08:05 AM
Apparently the calculation is approximately

Damage unit A takes from unit B
=(Unit B Strength*Unit B hitpoints/Unit A Strength)* factor

(with all modifiers apllied to the strength.. hit points not being a modifier)

where the factor is about 1/2


As for the barbarian, he has 2 modifiers
-33% Open Terrain
+25% Fortification
= -8% total

-8% of 6 is -0.48
for a total of 5.52

Hit points don't affect strength at all

Louis XXIV
Sep 14, 2010, 08:14 AM
Your formula right there shows that unit strength is affected by hit points. Unit strength*hit points/unit strength means that the actual combat strength is less for a damaged unit (except Japan). It doesn't penalize you twice for the damage, but it still penalizes you.

Krikkitone
Sep 14, 2010, 08:19 AM
Your formula right there shows that unit strength is affected by hit points. Unit strength*hit points/unit strength means that the actual combat strength is less for a damaged unit (except Japan). It doesn't penalize you twice for the damage, but it still penalizes you.

The combat Effectiveness of the unit is affected by hit points (except for Japan)

The Strength is totally and completely Unaffected by hit points.

Louis XXIV
Sep 14, 2010, 08:21 AM
OK, I think we're actually in agreement, just disagreeing on the terms. The point people are making is that damage to the unit affects damage inflicted (it could be like Civ3, where both units have the same combat chances per hit regardless of the amount of HP, but it's not). Japan's bonus is to not have combat penalties to the amount of damage inflicted because the unit is damaged.

Stile
Sep 14, 2010, 08:59 AM
Your half right.

Strength doesn't decrease with damage, but Damage does. When calculating damage that will be dealt to an enemy, your strength and health are considered and so is the enemy strength. With japanese units your health is always at maximum for the purpose of these calculations, therefore a unit with 1 hp will deal the same amount of damage as a unit with 10 hp, this ability is unqiue to japan.
So could the Japanese have a battle where both units die?

Krikkitone
Sep 14, 2010, 09:03 AM
So could the Japanese have a battle where both units die?

Yep.... I think Kamikaze is one of their achievements (kill a unit with a 1 hp unit)

padlock
Sep 14, 2010, 09:08 AM
Ok, here's all the data I've gathered from that particular combat

First Battle:

Spearman:
Modified Strength: 9.31
Hitpoints: 10

Brute:
Modfied Strength: 7.02
Hitpoints:10

Listed Expected Result: Spearman inflicts 7 points of damage, brute inflicts 5


Second Battle:

Spearman:
Modified Strength: 9.31
Hitpoints: 5

Brute:
Modified Strength: 5.52*
Hitpoints: 2

Listed Expected Results: Spearman inflicts 6 points of damage, Brute inflicts 2

Now we need to figure out what would make those numbers work. Krikittone, the formula you posted doesn't quite match this data, especially for the second battle.

*It appears that the reason why the Brute's modified strength is less for the second battle is because the fortification bonus dropped from 50% to 25% which suggests that attacking a fortified unit reduces the fortification's effectiveness.

Krikkitone
Sep 14, 2010, 09:20 AM
Well ways the formula probably has to be modified.

1. Str/Str ratio... probably not 'straight'
since the first combat shows that the ratio is not the same... so possibly a more weighted one that tends toward 1
(3*Str1+Str2)/(3*Str2+Str1)
or something like that

2. hp effect, probably not 'straight' again... possibly hp+X

(which is annoying, since that unnecesarily complicates combat... if you don't want that big an effect from str differences, then don't have large str differences in the game.)

padlock
Sep 14, 2010, 09:37 AM
The closest thing I can come up with is:

Expected Damage done by unit A = Strenght A / (Strength A + Strength B) * (Hitpoints A + 3)

It comes pretty close for the above battles.

It means that the average damage for 2 full life equal strength units would be 6.5 which sounds about right.

It also means that a full health unit will do 3.25 times more damage then one with only 1 life left.

Krikkitone
Sep 14, 2010, 09:41 AM
The closest thing I can come up with is:

Expected Damage done by unit A = (Strenght A / Strength A + Strength B) * (Hitpoints A + 3)

It comes pretty close for the above battles.

It means that the average damage for 2 full life equal strength units would be 6.5 which sounds about right.

You mean?
Expected Damage done by unit A = Strength A / (Strength A + Strength B) * (Hitpoints A + 3)

That would probably work...a unit couldn't do more than ~13 hp worth of damage and if the variation is +-2....getting an expected damge of 12=surekill... would be fairly hard (you would have to be 12 times stronger than your opponent)

padlock
Sep 14, 2010, 09:43 AM
You mean?
Expected Damage done by unit A = Strength A / (Strength A + Strength B) * (Hitpoints A + 3)

That would probably work...a unit couldn't do more than ~13 hp worth of damage and if the variation is +-2....getting an expected damge of 12=surekill... would be fairly hard (you would have to be 12 times stronger than your opponent)

Yes, I had the bracket in the wrong spot. Thanks for the correction, I'll edit my previous post.

It also means that a unit has to be approximately 3.4 times as strong to have a 50% shot at killing a full health opponent in a single combat.

Ahriman
Sep 14, 2010, 11:15 AM
who dedicated their life and had centuries of experience to draw on
Medieval armorers were vampires!

So could the Japanese have a battle where both units die?
Any faction could do this (assuming damage is done simultaneously rather than sequentially). Japan is just more likely.

Apparently the calculation is approximately
Damage unit A takes from unit B
=(Unit B Strength*Unit B hitpoints/Unit A Strength)* factor
(with all modifiers apllied to the strength.. hit points not being a modifier)
where the factor is about 1/2
Source? This seems like guesswork.
This would imply:
a) Full strength units kill each other in two attacks (on average)
b) Half health units deal half damage.

which suggests that attacking a fortified unit reduces the fortification's effectiveness.
I like that idea a lot. I hope you are correct.

Schuesseled
Sep 14, 2010, 11:55 AM
So could the Japanese have a battle where both units die?

Well ti would depend on if any faction could do it, battles where both participants have horribly low hp may indeed result in the death of both units, or they may have coded it so that one units survives no matter what, we just don't know.

@ariman half health units certainly don't deal half damage

First Battle:

Spearman:
Modified Strength: 9.31
Hitpoints: 10

Brute:
Modfied Strength: 7.02
Hitpoints:10

Listed Expected Result: Spearman inflicts 7 points of damage, brute inflicts 5


Second Battle:

Spearman:
Modified Strength: 9.31
Hitpoints: 5

Brute:
Modified Strength: 5.52*
Hitpoints: 2

Listed Expected Results: Spearman inflicts 6 points of damage, Brute inflicts 2

Spearman goes from 10 health to 5, and 7 damage inflicted to 6.

If it was half damage then it would have inflicted 3.5 damage in the second round.

Hawkwood
Sep 14, 2010, 12:20 PM
Spearman goes from 10 health to 5, and 7 damage inflicted to 6.

If it was half damage then it would have inflicted 3.5 damage in the second round.
Wasn't the spearman Japanese? Or have I misunderstood something (couldn't watch the stream)?

Schuesseled
Sep 14, 2010, 12:22 PM
It was german

First half was german, second half palyed as japan.

You can wastch the stream now, you realise.


http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/9553042
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/9553920

Ahriman
Sep 14, 2010, 12:23 PM
@ariman half health units certainly don't deal half damage
Which is my point.

It was an implication from the assumed model; if data doesn't match this, then it means the model is wrong.

padlock
Sep 14, 2010, 12:26 PM
After examining a few more combat odds, I'm going to amend my best guess formula to the following:

Average damage done by Unit A = Modified Strength A / (Modified Strength A + Modified Strength B) * Damage Factor

Where Damaga factor = 5 + .8 * Hit Points remaining A

That means that a unit with full strength would have a damage factor of 13 and one with 1 life left would have one of 5.8. At half life, the damage factor would be 9.

The Japanese would always have a damage factor of 13.

Additionally, it seems that the damage factor is different (a bit lower) for ranged attacks.

Schuesseled
Sep 14, 2010, 12:29 PM
Which is my point.

It was an implication from the assumed model; if data doesn't match this, then it means the model is wrong.



which was my point. Don't worry, i wasn't attempting to prove you of being wrong, but the person who posted that formula.

Ahriman
Sep 14, 2010, 12:38 PM
I think we are violently agreeing with each other.

Schuesseled
Sep 14, 2010, 12:42 PM
You had better be! :mad:


:lol:

cracked
Sep 14, 2010, 01:26 PM
Personally, I wouldn't be that surprised if a well trained samurai could defeat a poorly trained group of riflemen. It would not be beyond the realms of possibility in reality.

As it goes, Napolean seem to do a pretty good job of drawing greg out. Admittedly he was encouraged by the viewers to do so in his attempts to attack a city. With the french development of artillery I really would not have expected him to survive that long afterwards. He would have lost the chokehold if he didn't come out and try to attack the artillery and would have been cut down if he pushed forward of his defensive positions.

I'll wager the Japanese traits provide its best advantage when they are technologically equal with its rivals, but I don't think anyone can say whether or not this will be a gamebreaker until they play it. My thoughts are that it probably won't be that significant unless intelligently used.

Militarily, I'd suggest that throughtout the game the French will be more capable due to

1) the strength of their units and
2)ability to unlock social policies more quickly.

e.g.

They should be capable of seizing land more quickly (through liberty policies), gain a tech lead, then take advantage of both in the rennaisance and industrial periods.

Talk of the Japanese being overpowered before we've all played the game thus seems a little premature.

Wuddel
Sep 14, 2010, 01:34 PM
Also they have UUs that upgrade into each other. The Muskeer has extra strength, so its likely to survive more battles and rack up promotions, this will ease their life as rifleman, and finally they excell as foreign legion units with all that promotions.

bhavv
Sep 14, 2010, 01:38 PM
Japanese units always fight at full strength.

Germans sometimes get an extra 25 gold when killing barbs, and may capture units that are weaker than warriors.

Iroquois move faster in forests.

Very balanced! ... Not!

Ahriman
Sep 14, 2010, 01:43 PM
Balance is achieved at a faction level, not a UA level.

Germans appear to get very good UUs (especially the panzer).

Japanese Samurai are good, but the zero seems potentially fairly mediocre.

Similarly, Ottomans appear to have a weak UA, but two very strong UUs.

bhavv
Sep 14, 2010, 01:45 PM
Balance is achieved at a faction level, not a UA level.

Germans appear to get very good UUs (especially the panzer).

Japanese Samurai are good, but the zero seems potentially fairly mediocre.

Similarly, Ottomans appear to have a weak UA, but two very strong UUs.

How do you know any information on the UUs, and where can I find it?

Meaning what their stats are and what they do, not just the names.

Aegis
Sep 14, 2010, 01:45 PM
Personally, I wouldn't be that surprised if a well trained samurai could defeat a poorly trained group of riflemen. It would not be beyond the realms of possibility in reality.

Which is reminiscent of this scene in The Last Samurai:

S77c72lJ2gM

Ahriman
Sep 14, 2010, 01:55 PM
How do you know any information on the UUs, and where can I find it?

Meaning what their stats are and what they do, not just the names.

http://well-of-souls.com/civ/civ5_units.html

We don't know the details for every UU, but we know a lot of them.

Schuesseled
Sep 14, 2010, 02:54 PM
Japanese units always fight at full strength.

But this also increases thier usefullness at low health, and therefore increases thier chances of dying,(because you'll be putting them in more danger) which is bad

Germans sometimes get an extra 25 gold when killing barbs, and may capture units that are weaker than warriors.

Allows you to build up large numbers of units without producing them, which means you can use your spare hammers to build wonders, develop your economy or culture, plus the german UU's are arugably better than the Japanese

Iroquois move faster in forests.

And i think they can use them instead of roads to form trade routes, improves economy allows for faster and larger expansion around forested areas. Thier longhouse building gives a very nice bonus to production in cities that have large amounts of forests, and thier UU can roam the forests in thier territory and outside wreaking havoc

Very balanced! ... Not!

Does that change your opinion at all.

In the end you can always just play japanese if your playing competitvely, and if you only play single player then consider not playing japanese as a challenge.

civ_king
Sep 14, 2010, 05:44 PM
Medieval armorers were vampires!


Any faction could do this (assuming damage is done simultaneously rather than sequentially). Japan is just more likely.


Source? This seems like guesswork.
This would imply:
a) Full strength units kill each other in two attacks (on average)
b) Half health units deal half damage.


I like that idea a lot. I hope you are correct.

Trades were generally hereditary so you could be learning what worked and what didn't from your father starting as early as age eight

Ahriman
Sep 14, 2010, 07:52 PM
Trades were generally hereditary so you could be learning what worked and what didn't from your father starting as early as age eight
I like my explanation better.

Do *you* see a lot of armorers walking around on the street during the day? Well, do you?

civ_king
Sep 14, 2010, 08:40 PM
I like my explanation better.

Do *you* see a lot of armorers walking around on the street during the day? Well, do you?

Maybe I used past tense for a reason

bernlin2000
Sep 14, 2010, 08:58 PM
Yea, I wouldn't call it overpowered at all. First off, this isn't Civ 4, and it does not look like there's a direct reduction in strength based on hp (aka, a unit with 2/10 hps fights at 20% strength), so it's not that extreme of a bonus. It also gives you absolutely no economic advantages whatsoever (one of the few that doesn't). And it's not like Japan has an especially early UU to take advantage of it (since Samurai are late medieval, and zeros are late industrial).

I hadn't heard any mention anywhere that this was changing from CivIV (units strength being directly determined by how much hp they had left), so it seems safer to assume it's still the same, unless you heard different somewhere? Their UA seems overpowered, but I think it's likely balanced by other civs taken advantage of their UA in a military fashion, when possible. Otherwise, though, they will have a significant military advantage, I know their unique crossbowman is crazy-good in CivIV against stacks

Louis XXIV
Sep 14, 2010, 10:45 PM
In the video, the degradation of strength seems less pronounced. It's hard to tell from a couple of fights vs. barbs, though.

Schuesseled
Sep 15, 2010, 03:20 AM
You should really call it degradation of damage, as strength doesn't alter at all with Hp.

Bu it is certainly less pronounced, from what we saw a spaerman at half health did only 1 damage less than when he was at full health.

adam_grif
Sep 15, 2010, 03:48 AM
You should really call it degradation of damage, as strength doesn't alter at all with Hp.

Bu it is certainly less pronounced, from what we saw a spaerman at half health did only 1 damage less than when he was at full health.


It's probably Average Damage = HP*Strength


I'd say the Spearman thing was a statistical outlier. In the Japanese game, the pikemen from the city state got absolutely shredded whenever they weren't at full health.

Trine
Sep 15, 2010, 04:47 AM
Samurai should get absolutely slaughtered by European units, but no they some how are good
(in real life a samurai going toe to toe with a knight would lose horribly)

realism constantly gets sacrificed in Civ

*snip*

As for the OP, please wait until you actually get a chance to PLAY the game before you start your 'unbalanced', 'overpowered', or 'broken' threads.

Infiltrator
Sep 15, 2010, 05:15 AM
Guys, with the amount of culture the French get, they could have had a LOT more unlocked in the Honor or Autocracy tree to make up for what they lack in combat naturally.

Lightzy
Sep 15, 2010, 06:48 AM
Given equality of tech, or even some disadvantage, I think the japanese will steamroll any other player.
Just get all the economic trees and pump out masses of units to suicide on the enemy and it looks unlikely that you'll ever lose a war

Ahriman
Sep 15, 2010, 06:52 AM
Given equality of tech, or even some disadvantage, I think the japanese will steamroll any other player.
Just get all the economic trees and pump out masses of units to suicide on the enemy and it looks unlikely that you'll ever lose a war

Except that you have no economic advantages at all, and so you may well have less territory, worse tech, fewer units/resources or smaller population.

We'll have to see.
They'll be very strong in the medieval age with the samurai, but who knows how they'll do the rest of the time.

Louis XXIV
Sep 15, 2010, 07:13 AM
Given equality of tech, or even some disadvantage, I think the japanese will steamroll any other player.
Just get all the economic trees and pump out masses of units to suicide on the enemy and it looks unlikely that you'll ever lose a war

And how do they plan to get parity in economic trees if they face against France, for example? Or if they do get economic trees, what's to stop someone from getting Honor and balancing Japan's military advantage? I feel Japan might be the best all around military civ in the game (followed by China, followed by Ottomans, followed by either Songhai or Greece), but I don't think they are without disadvantages.

civ_king
Sep 15, 2010, 07:26 AM
Oh what the :):):):) ever. I'm sorry but you obviously know nothing about Samurai or the Japanese. Don't start up stupid 'Samurai vs Knight' debates when you haven't got a clue in the first place.

As for the OP, please wait until you actually get a chance to PLAY the game before you start your 'unbalanced', 'overpowered', or 'broken' threads.

Uh the knight is: Taller (reach), stronger, has much stronger equipment (weapons/armor stronger because the iron supply is not crappy Japanese iron). The knight also would be more adaptable in combat (fought many types of opponents while the samurai fough against samurai). If the knight went with great swords he would have a sword 5-6ft long, weighed up to about 6lb. If he went with a one handed sword he would take his trusty wooden shield (could easily block samurai's attacks) have a sword length of 3.5-4ft and weigh up to about 4lb. The armor would be impenetrable from either a katana, wakizashi or yumi.

If you want to debate feel free to reply in a PM

Jonkenden
Sep 15, 2010, 07:45 AM
Uh the knight is: Taller (reach), stronger, has much stronger equipment (weapons/armor stronger because the iron supply is not crappy Japanese iron). The knight also would be more adaptable in combat (fought many types of opponents while the samurai fough against samurai). If the knight went with great swords he would have a sword 5-6ft long, weighed up to about 6lb. If he went with a one handed sword he would take his trusty wooden shield (could easily block samurai's attacks) have a sword length of 3.5-4ft and weigh up to about 4lb. The armor would be impenetrable from either a katana, wakizashi or yumi.

If you want to debate feel free to reply in a PM

It's fun to debate effectiveness of japanese samurai versus the knights of the west, but they are so vividly different styles. Japanese sword smithing versus european? not too far from eachother really, I'd say they are simply different and one can debate wich is better to their heart's content. I love both styles and got a collection of blades from both.

SickFak
Sep 15, 2010, 08:11 AM
Ah the infamous samurai VS knight debate...

Lightzy
Sep 15, 2010, 08:19 AM
Except that you have no economic advantages at all, and so you may well have less territory, worse tech, fewer units/resources or smaller population.

We'll have to see.
They'll be very strong in the medieval age with the samurai, but who knows how they'll do the rest of the time.


other civs don't really have that much of an advantage..
Nothing you can't completely offset by, say, having one or two more cities than them or luckily landing on better tiles.. regular civ stuff.
Japans bonus actually lends itself to a brutal playstyle over all ages and regardless of starting position, on land on sea or in the air. even if your economy is 1.5 as strong as japans, japan will still kill you because each of its units can be counted as two or even more units offensively (since units don't usually die in one round of combat as we've seen). you simply wont be able to replace units quickly enough to survive.
That is, if the japan player plays intelligently and zerg rushes.

I'm willing to bet that japan will be the most powerful civ of choice in multiplayer.
that UA is way strong :)

silentknight111
Sep 15, 2010, 08:42 AM
Yes very throughly.

I am now of the opinion that the japanese are bloomin awesome. Those samurai were ripping those riflemen apart, until they all died horribly of course.

Sounds like the ending of "The Last Samurai" :)

civ_king
Sep 15, 2010, 08:59 AM
It's fun to debate effectiveness of japanese samurai versus the knights of the west, but they are so vividly different styles. Japanese sword smithing versus european? not too far from eachother really, I'd say they are simply different and one can debate wich is better to their heart's content. I love both styles and got a collection of blades from both.
Actually Japanese sword smithing was inferior because they took much longer to use steel because there is very little good iron in Japan.

From experience I can tell you that a reproduction European sword is clumsy, handles poorly and is heavier than the original, I have used a real European sword and they are exceptionally well balanced

obsolete
Sep 15, 2010, 07:07 PM
Since reading this thread I decided to head over and take a look at that video. I'm about 3/4 done it now, taking a break. One thing I'm wondering about (though a bit off topic) was when they showed the civopedia while typing in Panzer for the German UU. The image we see is not a Panzer, but a Tiger I.

bjbrains
Sep 15, 2010, 07:11 PM
Since reading this thread I decided to head over and take a look at that video. I'm about 3/4 done it now, taking a break. One thing I'm wondering about (though a bit off topic) was when they showed the civopedia while typing in Panzer for the German UU. The image we see is not a Panzer, but a Tiger I.
You mean a Panzer 6, known as the tiger?
The tiger is a panzer too :P

Insanity_X
Sep 15, 2010, 07:45 PM
Since reading this thread I decided to head over and take a look at that video. I'm about 3/4 done it now, taking a break. One thing I'm wondering about (though a bit off topic) was when they showed the civopedia while typing in Panzer for the German UU. The image we see is not a Panzer, but a Tiger I.

Panzer is short for Panzerkampfwagen. which my best translation would be "armour strugle car". Applying logic to the translation would produces "armoured battle vehicle" a good description of a tank.

A Panzer is litterally a german tank, no matter which model is used.

jagdtigerciv
Sep 15, 2010, 09:21 PM
Uh the knight is: Taller (reach), stronger, has much stronger equipment (weapons/armor stronger because the iron supply is not crappy Japanese iron). The knight also would be more adaptable in combat (fought many types of opponents while the samurai fough against samurai). If the knight went with great swords he would have a sword 5-6ft long, weighed up to about 6lb. If he went with a one handed sword he would take his trusty wooden shield (could easily block samurai's attacks) have a sword length of 3.5-4ft and weigh up to about 4lb. The armor would be impenetrable from either a katana, wakizashi or yumi.

If you want to debate feel free to reply in a PM

Yup. I tried to explain this earlier in the thread!

obsolete
Sep 15, 2010, 09:55 PM
You mean a Panzer 6, known as the tiger?

I understand, it's just any time I hear talk about panzers, it's always been about the Pz I to IV. The Panthers, Tigers, and Kings tend to always be in a special category of their own. Anyhow, no big deal.

Back on topic, I have a feeling my #1 civ to master will be Japan. I just SUSPECT like present, the economy may be a bit hard to get going. That trait for half-priced tile purchase perhaps may make up for the weaker units. We'll see.

gamesguy
Sep 15, 2010, 10:25 PM
Uh the knight is: Taller (reach), stronger, has much stronger equipment (weapons/armor stronger because the iron supply is not crappy Japanese iron). The knight also would be more adaptable in combat (fought many types of opponents while the samurai fough against samurai). If the knight went with great swords he would have a sword 5-6ft long, weighed up to about 6lb. If he went with a one handed sword he would take his trusty wooden shield (could easily block samurai's attacks) have a sword length of 3.5-4ft and weigh up to about 4lb. The armor would be impenetrable from either a katana, wakizashi or yumi.

If you want to debate feel free to reply in a PM

And then the Samurai pulls out a bow and shoots the knight's horse from under him because they were mostly armored horse archers throughout their history.

If you're going to be anal retentive in a game that is not realistic in any form, then at least get it right.

civ_king
Sep 15, 2010, 10:57 PM
And then the Samurai pulls out a bow and shoots the knight's horse from under him because they were mostly armored horse archers throughout their history.

If you're going to be anal retentive in a game that is not realistic in any form, then at least get it right.

That horse would have barding so you can't shoot it out

gamesguy
Sep 15, 2010, 11:03 PM
That horse would have barding so you can't shoot it out

Agincourt was a great french victory where their armored knights plowed through the English bowmen, deflecting every arrow with their plate armor and barding.:)

civ_king
Sep 15, 2010, 11:08 PM
Agincourt was a great french victory where their armored knights plowed through the English bowmen, deflecting every arrow with their plate armor and barding.:)

That was why they developed barding, duh!

PS The Courser is much faster than a Kiso

PPS The Battle of Agincourt was largely decided by terrain

gamesguy
Sep 15, 2010, 11:27 PM
That was why they developed barding, duh!
The French cavalry had barding at Agincourt, the arrows pierced them.

PS The Courser is much faster than a Kiso

Is that before or after 50 kilos of armor?

civ_king
Sep 15, 2010, 11:52 PM
The French cavalry had barding at Agincourt, the arrows pierced them.



Is that before or after 50 kilos of armor?
At Agincourt they only had front barding, the horses got killed after the horses turned around (thus showing the exposed rear)

Much faster before, still faster after 50kg of barding and 125kg of knight and his armor

Pragmatic
Sep 16, 2010, 12:58 AM
I've been browsing over the special abilities, unique units, and unique buildings for the different civilizations. It looks like each civilization was given something game-breaking, just to give each their own chance to shine.

gamesguy
Sep 16, 2010, 01:14 AM
At Agincourt they only had front barding, the horses got killed after the horses turned around (thus showing the exposed rear)

And why would the horses turn around and expose their rear in a frontal charge?:rolleyes:

By the time we see full barding on cavalry the Japanese had guns.

Much faster before, still faster after 50kg of barding and 125kg of knight and his armor

Proof?

Hawkwood
Sep 16, 2010, 03:04 AM
Samurai vs Knight (http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm).

Agincourt was battle were many factors influenced the English victory, it's very likely the English would have lost if Henry didn't send the Longbowmen into melee, and the English would have lost if they weren't defending a hill with sharpened stakes in front and forests on the flanks after a week-long rain. How much the arrows of the Longbowme contributed to the victory is controversial, and we could discuss it for 9 pages without reaching a conclusion.

Can we get back on topic?

I think it's says something about the balance of the game, when everyone thinks one of the civs is OP. People talk about how Japan will dominate, without considering that their UUs doesn't seem as good as others. People mention how Rome, Greece or the Ottomans are going to dominate, because they have strong UUs entering play at the same time, while not thinking that the Greek UA doesn't add much to early warfare, the Ottomans UA has been bashed as useless and the strength of Rome's depends on how many different buildings can be constructed in one city.

Can't we just say that the every bonuses different civs get are better than those of CIV, and wait until we get the game to determine which civ is strongest?

civ_king
Sep 16, 2010, 08:01 AM
And why would the horses turn around and expose their rear in a frontal charge?:rolleyes:

By the time we see full barding on cavalry the Japanese had guns.



Proof?

They spent over 1000 years being bred for strength and speed, after all, a knight on a slow horse is going to get shot at more than a faster horse. The reason was palisades that the knights couldn't get through, plus Longbow>>>Yumi in terms of distance, accuracy and power

Badly accurate guns still get massacred by knights because Knights had their armor modified to defend against guns, ever heard of "proofing"?

gamesguy
Sep 17, 2010, 12:15 AM
They spent over 1000 years being bred for strength and speed, after all, a knight on a slow horse is going to get shot at more than a faster horse.

That's not proof. You think the Japanese didn't breed their warhorses for strength and speed?:rolleyes:

The reason was palisades that the knights couldn't get through, plus Longbow>>>Yumi in terms of distance, accuracy and power

Wrong again, by the time the knights to the English lines they have long since been dismounted.

The real reason the barding could not deflect the arrows was that the barding's top portion was very weak and the longbows were fired in an arc, which easilly penetrated the weak top armor. But apparently you didn't know that.

Badly accurate guns still get massacred by knights because Knights had their armor modified to defend against guns, ever heard of "proofing"?

Wrong again. Proofed armor didn't work in Europe and it won't work in Japan. You cannot proof the whole armor and you can forget about armoring the horse against guns. Once his horse was shot down, a gendarmes was just a tin can on foot wearing 80 lbs of armor waiting to die. There is a reason everyone in Europe abandoned the full body plate of the early cuirassiers in favor of just a small chest plate and unarmored legs the later ones wore.

17th century Japan also had the best guns in the world at the time, and in their own wars guns easilly slaughted armored cavalry.

plus Longbow>>>Yumi in terms of distance, accuracy and power

Completely false. The longbow was actually a very primitive weapon. The laminated bows the Asian countries used were far superior and resembles modern composite bows. They had less draw weight for more power, you didn't need the arms of a gorilla to draw one.

Like I said earlier, if you're going to be anal retentive about historical accuracy in a game where Ghandi allied with Bismarck to fight in the blitzkrieg of 1320 against Washington, you should at least get your damn facts straight.

Hawkwood
Sep 17, 2010, 01:31 AM
Wrong again. Proofed armor didn't work in Europe and it won't work in Japan. You cannot proof the whole armor and you can forget about armoring the horse against guns. Once his horse was shot down, a gendarmes was just a tin can on foot wearing 80 lbs of armor waiting to die. There is a reason everyone in Europe abandoned the full body plate of the early cuirassiers in favor of just a small chest plate and unarmored legs the later ones wore.
Full armour was abandoned in the middle of the 17th century because the proof armour was too heavy. Full plate armour was proof against the guns of the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries.

17th century Japan also had the best guns in the world at the time, and in their own wars guns easilly slaughted armored cavalry.
How can they be the best if they were imported from Europe?


Completely false. The longbow was actually a very primitive weapon. The laminated bows the Asian countries used were far superior and resembles modern composite bows. They had less draw weight for more power, you didn't need the arms of a gorilla to draw one.
So now we not only have katanaplonkers spewing bull**** about how the katanas were better than any other sword, we also have yumiplonkers spewing bull**** about how the yumis were better than any other bow?

Both sides are stating falsehoods and this discussion doesn't have anything to do with the topic.

Auncien
Sep 17, 2010, 01:38 AM
I just finished watching the live stream where they spent almost 2 and a half hour talking about Civ 5 and one thing that caught my attention was when they said that one of the Japanese special advantages was that Japanese army units always fight at full strength even when injured.

For example, if a unit with 6 men has a attack value of 6 while at full strength and only an attack value of 3 when at half strength then the Japanese unit would still retain its full level 6 strength even after having lost half its men and the only way to render it useless is destroying it completely.

This sounds horribly unbalanced to me and by the sound of it could give the Japanese huge advantages over other civs. There is a possibility that he was only talking about the Samurai unit I admit, but the way he phrased this ability did not directly indicate it, or did I miss something? This was a live feed after all so I could not watch that particular moment again to confirm this as a fact.

But if this is true, then is it really a wise design decision?

Discuss.

I'm sure that the falling shards of sky will hit a few of the japanese units and even the odds. :lol:

In all seriousness though, this ability just makes them a little better at aggression. You get them running due to low health and they'll die just like any other unit.

gamesguy
Sep 17, 2010, 02:15 AM
Full armour was abandoned in the middle of the 17th century because the proof armour was too heavy. Full plate armour was proof against the guns of the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries.

Japan didn't adopt guns until the mid 17th century, and full plate certainly was not proof against them. For example the Imperial cavalry was utterly slaughtered at Leipzig by the Swedish musketeers.

How can they be the best if they were imported from Europe?

Japan adopted the gun extremely enthusiastically, they had made the guns with superior quality steel and made several improvements that allowed the matchlock guns to fire in the rain and to be used decently at night.

So now we not only have katanaplonkers spewing bull**** about how the katanas were better than any other sword, we also have yumiplonkers spewing bull**** about how the yumis were better than any other bow?

Both sides are stating falsehoods and this discussion doesn't have anything to do with the topic.

Katanas are not better than any other sword, I don't know where you get that from, Samurai rarely used it in an actual battle anyways.

Yumis are not better than any other bow, if I had to pick the "best" bow it'd probably be the Turkish bow, which had a record range of nearly a kilometer. Yumis were laminated bows, which was basically a variant of the composite bow, and much superior to simple wood bows like the longbow. They required much less force to draw, and consequently when drawn with the same force could deliver more power to the arrow.

Iceciro
Sep 17, 2010, 02:47 AM
And you guys are complaining about Samurai vs Knight in a game where you have one leader from the ancient times up until you launch a spaceship that reaches Alpha Centauri?

Jonkenden
Sep 17, 2010, 03:41 AM
Actually Japanese sword smithing was inferior because they took much longer to use steel because there is very little good iron in Japan.

From experience I can tell you that a reproduction European sword is clumsy, handles poorly and is heavier than the original, I have used a real European sword and they are exceptionally well balanced

That doesn't make their actual smithing ways inferior, that's an issue with their material.

I don't have simple wallhangers, I have proper blades in my collection that are well balanced. I don't contest the effectiveness of european blades so, ye.

civ_king
Sep 17, 2010, 10:01 PM
That's not proof. You think the Japanese didn't breed their warhorses for strength and speed?:rolleyes:



Wrong again, by the time the knights to the English lines they have long since been dismounted.

The real reason the barding could not deflect the arrows was that the barding's top portion was very weak and the longbows were fired in an arc, which easilly penetrated the weak top armor. But apparently you didn't know that.



Wrong again. Proofed armor didn't work in Europe and it won't work in Japan. You cannot proof the whole armor and you can forget about armoring the horse against guns. Once his horse was shot down, a gendarmes was just a tin can on foot wearing 80 lbs of armor waiting to die. There is a reason everyone in Europe abandoned the full body plate of the early cuirassiers in favor of just a small chest plate and unarmored legs the later ones wore.

17th century Japan also had the best guns in the world at the time, and in their own wars guns easilly slaughted armored cavalry.



Completely false. The longbow was actually a very primitive weapon. The laminated bows the Asian countries used were far superior and resembles modern composite bows. They had less draw weight for more power, you didn't need the arms of a gorilla to draw one.

Like I said earlier, if you're going to be anal retentive about historical accuracy in a game where Ghandi allied with Bismarck to fight in the blitzkrieg of 1320 against Washington, you should at least get your damn facts straight.
1) There was vastly more breeding going on in Europe so logically they would get stronger/faster breeds faster
2) Agincourt was ugly
The field of battle was arguably the most significant factor in deciding the outcome. The recently ploughed land hemmed in by dense woodland favoured the English, both because of its narrowness, and because of the thick mud which the French knights had to walk through.[20][21] An analysis by Battlefield Detectives has looked at the crowd dynamics of the battlefield.[22] The 1,000–1,500 English men-at-arms are described as shoulder to shoulder and four deep, which implies a tight line about 250–300 men long (perhaps split in two by a central group of archers). The remainder of the field would have been filled with the longbowmen behind their palings. The French first line contained men-at-arms who had no way to outflank the English line. The French, divided into the three battles, one behind the other at their initial starting position, could not bring all their forces to bear: the initial engagement was between the English army and the first battle line of the French. When the second French battle line started their advance, the soldiers were pushed closer together and their effectiveness was reduced. Casualties in the front line from longbow arrows would also have increased the congestion, as the following men would have to walk around the fallen. The Battlefield Detectives episode states that when the density reached four men per square metre, soldiers would not even be able to take full steps forward, lowering the speed of the advance by 70%.[22] Accounts of the battle describe the French engaging the English men-at-arms before being rushed from the sides by the longbowmen as the mêlée developed. The English account in the Gesta Henrici says: "For when some of them, killed when battle was first joined, fall at the front, so great was the undisciplined violence and pressure of the mass of men behind them that the living fell on top of the dead, and others falling on top of the living were killed as well". Although the French initially pushed the English back, they became so closely packed that they are described as having trouble using their weapons properly. The French monk of St. Denis says: "Their vanguard, composed of about 5,000 men, found itself at first so tightly packed that those who were in the third rank could scarcely use their swords",[23] and the Burgundian sources have a similar passage. In practice there was not enough room for all these men to fight, and they were unable to respond effectively when the English longbowmen joined the hand-to-hand fighting. By the time the second French line arrived, for a total of about eight thousand men (depending on the source), the crush would have been even worse. The press of men arriving from behind actually hindered those fighting at the front.
3) Guns started being used in European warfare in the 15th century, plate armor started getting phased out in the 17th century. The term bulletproof comes from shooting plate armor and showing it didn't pierce the armor, the dent usually was decorated to show that, the particularly good armorers used a pistol at pointblank range range.

4) You're using Leipzig as a counterexample :cringe: The French were outnumbered 2:1 in terms of soldiers and artillery! Napoleon had 38,000 casualties while the others had 54,000. Oh and you do realize that Leipzig was in the 19th century right?

5) And how many of those Japanese used (steel) plate armor? (besides, by then they were starting to phasing out full plate), lol, you said superior quality steel and Japanese in the same sentence!

6) Range of almost a kilometre? I need proof for that

PS 80lbs isn't that cumbersome with a good pack on and far less with good plate armor

And yes, we are arguing about Samurai vs. Knight

Kordanor
Sep 18, 2010, 09:48 AM
From the manual:

Effects of Damage
A damaged unit is less effective when attacking than a fully-healed unit. The more damaged
the unit, the less its attack – melee or ranged – will damage an opponent. The actual
formula is more complex than this, but as a general rule a unit’s damage output is reduced
by half the percentage of HPs that it has lost. In other words, a unit that has lost 5 HPs (50%)
has the amount of damage it does reduced by 25%, and the damage a unit that has lost 9
HPs (90%) inflicts, is reduced by 45%.

Therefore it's still a pretty huge bonus, but not as huge as it was assumend before.

Naxle
Sep 19, 2010, 11:54 AM
Yup, but thats the same for all modes of civ, the first mod I shall be making is my Super Marathon mod - name is a work in progress - which will extend the marathon length by about 20-40 times...

A bit over the top I know, but it's how I play civ 4! I like to have extended battles in each era and like to really appreciate each new tech before moving on to the next!
YEESS! :goodjob:
I always wanted a very very long game.

This ability sound interesting-though where would it be most useful? Bottlenecks and really drawn out battles I suppose. I keep forgetting that there aren't stacks anymore.

Schuesseled
Sep 19, 2010, 12:09 PM
lol 20 - 40 times, sire the granary will be constructed in 400 turns.

gamesguy
Sep 19, 2010, 05:46 PM
1) There was vastly more breeding going on in Europe so logically they would get stronger/faster breeds faster

Proof?

2) Agincourt was ugly

Does not change the fact that arrows pierced the weak top barding on horses and killed them.

3) Guns started being used in European warfare in the 15th century, plate armor started getting phased out in the 17th century. The term bulletproof comes from shooting plate armor and showing it didn't pierce the armor, the dent usually was decorated to show that, the particularly good armorers used a pistol at pointblank range range.

Muskets have more power than pistols, and generally only the chest plate was bullet proof. The horse also does not have that luxury. A bullet proof suit of armor is a huge hinderance once you are de-horsed.

4) You're using Leipzig as a counterexample :cringe: The French were outnumbered 2:1 in terms of soldiers and artillery! Napoleon had 38,000 casualties while the others had 54,000. Oh and you do realize that Leipzig was in the 19th century right?

Seriously? You didn't see the part I said about the Swedish musketeers?

There is more than one battle of Leipzig. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Breitenfeld_(1631))

5) And how many of those Japanese used (steel) plate armor? (besides, by then they were starting to phasing out full plate), lol, you said superior quality steel and Japanese in the same sentence!

The main advantage of the musket was always their ability to kill the horse. A guy on foot wearing 80 lbs of armor isn't going to be doing much.

And yes Japan used superior steel in their guns.

6) Range of almost a kilometre? I need proof for that

For many years their efficiency and excellency could be seen from historical records, where in the Ottoman Era the record distance for an arrow shot was 845.5m.

http://www.servinghistory.com/topics/Turkish_bow

The long bow was very backward, it relied on simple brute strength. Composite and laminated bows like the Turkish and Asian bows are simply technologically superior.

PS 80lbs isn't that cumbersome with a good pack on and far less with good plate armor

And yes, we are arguing about Samurai vs. Knight

80 lbs is far too much to be slogging around on foot engaging in melee combat.

ClasuSiosa
Oct 06, 2010, 09:18 PM
On topic: I think the military prowess of Japan will have to used early to make a significant difference, the hit and run of cammel archers for one will decimate them, and they will fall behind in tech/$$$/culture even before they have Samurai

Off Topic: 80lbs is less than what the marines carried on the shores of Normandy and you cant say they didnt fight well.

The Samurai have never been accuratly portraid in civ, they are always the Katana carrying footmen in the high style Bushido, the actually effective "Samurai" would cut off your head if you called them Samurai, Samurai means "One who serves" which were "men at arms" of the early/pre-Senguku period.
The real "Samurai" were mostly mounted archers. Their horses were smaller and slower than european horses. Their bows were less powerfull but more accurate and could be fired from hose-back. The horses had a very smooth gait allowing for more accuracy, but slower speeds. The temperment of the Japanese horses aswell as their size precluded them being shock troops, nor could they support (comparitively) much armor. Japanese armor was made out of laqured leather or paper, due to the lack of metal and the wet climate metal armor was ineffective. The Japanese are famous for their elegent weapons, but their other weapons are forgoten, such as 7ft long swords, clubs, axes, 20+ft spears (youd think they were trying to make up for something :lol:), guns, flails, etc.
Note: Nunchucku are a Hollywood manufacture, not a real Japanese weapon!

Samurai vs. Knights: I would bet on the knights, because, 1. Better Armor, 2. Faster horses, 3. Larger men, 4. Larger Horses(fighting platforms), 5. Sheilds, 6. Shock combat v. archery skirmishing; swords are not a factor, they are just different; Knight sword + Shield v. Katana? Draw.

Back on topic: I think it all balences out in the end, and different civs apeal to diffenent playing styles, Civilization as usual...:crazyeye:

Rathelon
Oct 06, 2010, 09:50 PM
I've played Japan, and their unique ability is good, but not game breaking. They die just as easily as any other equivalent unit (no extra health), you just will take more casualties against them. Pretty much like WWII - they fight to the last man and we paid a lot of blood island hopping in the Pacific.

Brawndo
Oct 07, 2010, 06:24 AM
Samurai vs. Knights: I would bet on the knights, because, 1. Better Armor, 2. Faster horses, 3. Larger men, 4. Larger Horses(fighting platforms), 5. Sheilds, 6. Shock combat v. archery skirmishing; swords are not a factor, they are just different; Knight sword + Shield v. Katana? Draw.




Uh no, sorry. Hollywood and the internet taught me that katanas can cut an inferior European broadsword in half, they wouldn't lie. Katanas can also deflect bullets if you spin them fast enough


















:D

ClasuSiosa
Oct 07, 2010, 07:50 AM
Uh no, sorry. Hollywood and the internet taught me that katanas can cut an inferior European broadsword in half, they wouldn't lie. Katanas can also deflect bullets if you spin them fast enough

LOL!!!!:lol:

Id prefer an Oh-Song-Do from Korea to either actually.:p

delra
Oct 07, 2010, 10:47 AM
If you think Bushido is overpowered, try rushing Scouts with Chinese Great General. :-)

Lyoncet
Oct 07, 2010, 11:03 AM
If you think Bushido is overpowered, try rushing Scouts with Chinese Great General. :-)

There's gotta be a Sun Tzu quotation that sums this up.

ClasuSiosa
Oct 07, 2010, 11:21 AM
First know thy self, then know thy enemy, then correct thy balance!

Zhahz
Oct 07, 2010, 01:26 PM
I didn't even notice bushido ability when I played my Japan game - it had minimal noticeable impact and I was ultra aggressive. I think it's overrated. The samurai great general boost is the better part of Japan, and that's not unique to Japan (companion cav get it too, for ex).

Collic
Oct 07, 2010, 02:35 PM
Bushido would be a bigger deal if the military aspects of the game were currently more challenging. As it stands they are easily matched, or surpassed by other unique abilities.

I do wonder what impact it has for multi-player though - anyone care to comment ?

As an aside, I do love the civ abilities in this game, they all add a lot more flavour than the civ iv equivalents.

Unconquered Sun
Oct 07, 2010, 04:39 PM
I do wonder what impact it has for multi-player though - anyone care to comment ?


Attracts newbies and gets them stomped by better mp civs. Like France.

bluedevil99
Oct 07, 2010, 04:44 PM
From what I've seen the bushido ability is actually very strong for the AI on higher difficulties. The reason is the AI tends to spam units and fight these ridiculous wars of attrition where they throw massive numbers of units at each other with no particular tactics. Between Bushido, and Nobunaga's tendency to build melee units which require less strategy (as opposed to Elizabeth who often builds lots of longbows and leaves them sitting out in the open), Japan can have a big advantage in a slugfest.

And of course, it's also a classic facepalm moment when you reduce a bunch of Tokugawa's riflemen to near death with your line of artillery, and forget that those wounded riflemen still have the muscle to break through your infantry chokepoint and slaughter all of your shiny instruments of doom...