For those voting on either 24 or 24b, who I understand to consider Japan of needing a nerf, I ask you to reconsider that these two proposals have the wrong nerf for this civ.
The issue is on the removal of naval melee bonuses. Japan has one of the strongest flavors for a naval theme among the civs present in the game, dating back to Vanilla. Japan not only had its iconic "fight at full strength when wounded" affecting all units, this civ also had as its second UU the Zero. This unit was historically classified as a carrier fighter, and most of its career was in naval battles in the Pacific. So, while not technically a naval unit in this game, it nonetheless reinforces this civ's naval theme due to its historical role, extending the naval theme well beyond Japan's Medieval period. And both Firaxis and VP would expand this theme, from yields fishing boats + atolls, to Great Admirals granting GWAM progress in the Capital.
And this GWAM progress from a Great Admiral birth gives Japan a clear incentive to build a strong navy. The Dojo's promotion on naval units is meant to support it, with the melee ones being chosen for coherence with the civ's orientation and synergies toward melee combat. Without this promotion on naval units, the UA ends with a disconnected component, and even dysfunctional against other militaristic civs. For instance:
- Greece: up to +25%
CS on naval units with their UA
- France (or the Huns, depending on this session): +10% CS per previous attack on the same unit in the turn, works on naval units
- Persia: +1
Movement and +15% CS during Golden Ages, works on naval units
- Sweden: an extra +15% CS from leadership auras, which applies to Great Admirals as well
- Assyria: up to +45 experience to all units, including naval units
- Zulu: units require 25% less experience to level up, including naval units
They all boost their naval units in combat, even though they have no special incentive to build a navy, and regardless of the varying levels of naval relevance in their history. For instance, Greece has a good claim for a naval theme due to the Battle of Salamis, in which they defeated a much larger Persian fleet and changed the course of the war in Greece's favor. Meanwhile, few records remains of Persia's overall naval performance, with the remaining ones coming from Greek records, and not in a good light. Nonetheless, both civs enjoy military benefits to their naval units, and that is not controversial (Greece is even among the listed top 6 civs in the Emperor AI tests, with a similar winrate, and
OP even suggests increasing Greece's possible CS naval bonus to +40%). Yet, the OP's rationale claims that Japan, who has its own record of lopsided naval victories, has to field a generic navy instead because, apparently, achieving near total annihilation of the Korean fleet with minimal losses at the Battle of Chilcheollyang means Japan's navy was a rabble? And ignoring how little sense it makes for a civ with strong naval orientation to be disadvantaged against ones with no particular naval orientation, like those above, or that Japan has its own share of impressive victories in its naval history.
In fact, another such victory is the Battle of Tsushima. Led by Togo Heihachiro, a samurai who experienced the Meiji Restoration and became known as "the Nelson of the East", Japan's navy accomplished what is considered the most decisive major naval battle ever recorded. As described by the British Admiralty in 1915:
"
So was consummated perhaps the most decisive and complete naval victory in history. No major Japanese unit had been seriously damaged, and only three torpedo boats sunk. One hundred seventeen Japanese officers and men had been killed, and 583 wounded. On the Russian side 12 major units, four destroyers and three auxiliaries had been sunk or scuttled after being disabled, and four major units and a destroyer captured. Of all Rozhestvensky’s motley but imposing array, only one armed yacht and two destroyers got through to Vladivostok. The toll in casualties was terrible, in the worst Russian tradition: 4,830 killed, 5,907 prisoners, 1,862 interned.…Not in [Britain’s] most successful war had we obtained a command of the sea so nearly absolute as that which Japan now enjoys." - Julian Corbett
Just as curious as the result, though, is how that was achieved. Among the many factors for this victory, there is one mention for the tactics adopted by Togo in a
documentary, where a veteran rear admiral and a historical consultant describe it as follows (
emphasis mine):
9:12 - "
People say that Togo employed the tactic of 'Crossing the T' in the Battle of Tsushima, taking position ahead of and perpendicular to the adversary's ships. But the actual maneuvers of the ships were like this... Togo's real tactics was more of a 'rotating attack', which was similar to the classical 'Kuruma Gakari' formation of Uesugi Kenshin in the medieval Japan."
11:27 - "
Admiral Togo maneuvered to change the engaged side: his Division 1 turned en masse, taking a course away from their adversary and thereupon turned around to open fire on the Russian ships from the left side. As a result of this maneuver, the firepower of the Japanese ships became as powerful as it was at the beginning of the battle."
From the Russian perspective, it is as if the Japanese ships that they had focused heavily on the first half of the day had fully healed in the middle of the battle; any guns or plating they managed to disable on the right/starboard side were replaced by intact ones on the left/port side. The Dojo's promotion on naval units is a good representation of what this tactic accomplished. And if Togo took inspiration from Uesugi Kenshin's Kuruma Gakari formation, instead of being just a similarity, then it is particularly thematic for even lategame Japanese ships to receive the Dojo's promotion.
So, of the possible nerfs for this civ, why a naval one? Japan has one of the strongest naval flavors as a civ, featuring some of the most daring and/or decisive naval feats in naval history, one naval bonus that reflects well the tactical advantages they had, a fun naval element in the UA, a long time playing with naval elements and references in their uniques since Vanilla, and with one of its admirals being worldwide compared to Horatio Nelson, one of the greatest names in naval history. There are other ways to nerf this civ that don't require dismantling one its most coherent and historical themes; this congress session already has indirect nerfs for Japan proposed, such as the already mentioned nerfs to
God of War and
Goddess of Protection, two pantheons on which the UA's "defense/military building" mechanic is tightly related and which considerably affect how strong the civ feels in human hands. And there are competing hypothesis regarding the AI performance seen in the Emperor AI tests, so the results there aren't so clearly reflective of the actual strength of the civ's kit; more appropriate nerfs may involve in factors outside of this civ. Given the dissatisfaction reported so far in this thread, I think that the naval nerf on both proposals 24 and 24b is disruptive enough to merit reconsideration; it is better to think of other measures for now on how to address this civ's balance, rather than be hasty on a wrong way to do so with the current proposals.
