Japan worthless?
- Thread starter Zaimejs
- Start date
CornPlanter
Emperor
Well then please tell us the settings on which Samurai is very good UU, if Emperor/Pangea is not Samurai's cup of tea. I do admit it can be hard to see how Pangaea is not the best setting for Samurai but then again I'm just a newb thinking inside the box.
That's a shame. What exactly is that Samurai strategy supposition "optimal strategists" blindly ignore? Lets showcase the goodness that is Samurai, and Roxlimn's too-often-ignored strategy by making a public game? Warlord Challenge: Japan?
caketastydelish
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2008
- Messages
- 9,571
I disagree, they can be upgraded into jet fighters and plus a good enough of a boost will make them worthwhile. They can either just strengthen their original attack (while keeping the boost against against fighters) or better yet, give them a 'kamikaze' ability. Perhaps it would allow them to crash into a much more expensive enemy unit such as a battleship thus sinking it.
I agree the zero needs to go and get replaced by something that isn't dumb.
I feel like the samurai would make a good replacement as a beefed up musket man and should be beefed up. Musket men don't go obsolete three seconds after you get them and the normal Samurai didn't really go until western rifles were moving into the country along with other includes.
I'll admit the longsword men would look weird for japan but the longsword men look weird on most civs and I rarely ever use them because of how skip able they are.
I feel like the samurai would make a good replacement as a beefed up musket man and should be beefed up. Musket men don't go obsolete three seconds after you get them and the normal Samurai didn't really go until western rifles were moving into the country along with other includes.
I'll admit the longsword men would look weird for japan but the longsword men look weird on most civs and I rarely ever use them because of how skip able they are.
maybe make it so that samurai are not obsoleted by metal working (maybe rifling instead) and make then just a little bit weaker (23) thus making them a viable alternative (cheaper earlier to get and still available but still weaker)
zero is ... eh could do with a UB just to round them out Dojo sounds cool, although there are many alternatives Master swordsmith (replace forge) which gives units 15 EXP and 1 extra Production (and forge bonus as well) still needs iron so wouldnt be too OP, or some form of shrine or zen garden?
zero is ... eh could do with a UB just to round them out Dojo sounds cool, although there are many alternatives Master swordsmith (replace forge) which gives units 15 EXP and 1 extra Production (and forge bonus as well) still needs iron so wouldnt be too OP, or some form of shrine or zen garden?
The UUs aren't fantastic, sure, but the UA is more-or-less priceless when it comes to taking cities, especially in the early game. If your catapults/trebuchets get bashed during/on the way to sieges ordinarily it's a hassle trying to repair or replace them or they just do no damage to the city. With Bushido, that's pretty much a non-issue, provided you can actually keep them alive. For a warmongering civ, which is what Japan is, that's all you can ask for. If you want a cultural victory, go for a different civ.
Neither of these would change the situation. Fighters only play a minor role in the game. There's no need for a fighter which is good against other fighters. There's no need for a unique fighter at all.
As for the kamikaze ability, you have a strange idea what improving a unit means.
Neither of these would change the situation. Fighters only play a minor role in the game. There's no need for a fighter which is good against other fighters. There's no need for a unique fighter at all. Even if the Zero was a great fighter, I still wouldn't build more of them than I usually build fighters, which is 2-4 at most. There's just no point having a large fighter airforce. Fighters are for defense. Bombers are the offense. It's better to build more bombers than to build fighters for air sweep to help your other bombers.
As for the kamikaze ability, you have a strange idea what improving a unit means.
Just to point out the obvious, on middle and lower difficulty settings, the AI won't be as advanced, and won't have as many units, so a trio of Samurai, by themselves, can take over a city through direct attack.
Arguably, you could just take over using composite bowmen, but then you'll actually have to build 5 or 6 of the things, which is just total overkill on Prince and below, where those hammers could be better assigned to making buildings. Without rich AI, there isn't as much gold to go around, GPT or otherwise, so you can't just buy everything.
Presuming a lean build through to the Renaissance, the Samurai present a strong opportunity to take over a nearby AI just when you can acquire extra happiness through Notre Dame so as to accommodate extra population.
Your snarky response is typical of self-appointed gurus around here - a large reason why I don't like hanging around and talking about play. I play Civ to enjoy myself. I would prefer talking about it without the drama.
CornPlanter
Emperor
You should double check what I responded to. You started your post with a snarky uncalled offense to people who know how to play. It's only natural you got the response you deserved.
Well, I still highly doubt Samurai are that good on Prince, but I only played Prince once and it was Persia with it's crazy move bonus, so the game was decided long before Longswordsmen.
Would Japan be historically worthy of a culture bonus? While their culture is certainly popular and romanticized, this feels more like a tourism bonus. For the most part they seem to have been relatively stagnant compared to many other nations when it comes to progressive reform.
Either way, I think a production or upkeep bonus would be more historically fitting than a tourism or culture bonus.
Either way, I think a production or upkeep bonus would be more historically fitting than a tourism or culture bonus.
caketastydelish
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2008
- Messages
- 9,571
A battleship costs a lot more to produce than a Zero. If you can instantly sink a Battleship with even a damaged Zero then if anything that UU is overpowered, especially if it's still maintaining it's other bonus (against other fighters). But for the record, this effect would not only be able to be used against battleships but virtually any naval unit in it's era or the past besides submarines.
My only major disagreement here is that you seem to use the term "exception" liberally. I don't see how companion cav and legions are "normal" and berserkers and mai warriors are somehow designated to be aberrant. it's a large subjective leap.
The average unit in Civ V is actually pretty....average. The bonuses that the samurai gets are just normal and on-par. Combined with bushido, they're effective, just not amazing.
Fight fight fight.
I guess that would be true if it was decently balanced (not terribly weak), maybe if they actually got a bonus for being damaged.
Not to get too pedantic and off-topic, but iron working, historically, wasn't a technological advanceit was a logistical one. Crude iron weapons weren't better than bronze weapons, they were just cheaper; iron was more plentiful than copper and tin. Bronze working should allow sophisticated units like hoplites and swordsmen (with copper and/or tin as a strategic resource), and iron working should remove that resource requirement. It wasn't until the development of steel (something that the Civ games have always represented in bizarrely anachronistic fashion) that bronze weapons really became obsolete.
Anyway, back on topic: they'll never do it, but if they really wanted to make Japan better (without overhauling the rest of the game), they should replace the Samurai, not the Zero. Whether it gets promotions or increased strength, whether it replaces the Longswordman or Musketman, the Samurai is a melee unit with only 2 moves, and thus useless. In the real world, infantry have actually been important in every war ever fought; in Civ 5, you only need one or two mounted units to swoop in and take cities after your Composite Bowmen/Artillery/Bombers pound them.
Air units actually synergize very effectively with the Japanese UA, because they're the only ranged units that consistently take damage. So the Zero should stayespecially now that the AI uses Fightersand the Samurai should go.
Pythakoreas
Chef Tain
You have a picture of Gandhi. You're just mad because their unique ability is war-based.
caketastydelish
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2008
- Messages
- 9,571
How about a guarantee to do major damage? In that case it wouldn't be 'a very rarely used attack' thus making the Zero a UU that is actually worthwhile.
Similar threads
