[Vote] (5-19) Japan Adjustment Proposals

Approval Vote for Proposal #19


  • Total voters
    97
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
That's exactly my problem with 24b. It looks nice at first, but it removes the additional reward for getting high-level units. I understand that it's exactly the main goal because of the AI bonuses, but it's a fun mechanic I would be sad to see go.
It also shifts Japan a bit more into aggression. Since you get no bonuses now for building units, only fighting with them....it encourages an even more aggressive mindset.

Now realistically how big a deal is that....I mean the bonuses at base levels as for humans is pretty low until military academies, so realistically you do have to do a lot of fighting to get the "real yields". So it makes a difference, but probably not a strong difference.
 
Another slightly strange aspect of 24b: if you're fighting barbarians, this encourages purchasing units as opposed to training them, to allow farming more combat xp and yields. Might not be a major thing, but wanted to point it out anyway.
 
Another slightly strange aspect of 24b: if you're fighting barbarians, this encourages purchasing units as opposed to training them, to allow farming more combat xp and yields. Might not be a major thing, but wanted to point it out anyway.
That would only be a factor if you literally maxxed out a unit's XP and couldn't gain XP anymore (which lets be honest would be very late in the game).

Otherwise 24b doesn't care what xp level the unit starts with, it only cares how much XP you gain, and therefore buying or not buying the unit will make no difference in the vast majority of cases.
 
That would only be a factor if you literally maxxed out a unit's XP and couldn't gain XP anymore (which lets be honest would be very late in the game).

Otherwise 24b doesn't care what xp level the unit starts with, it only cares how much XP you gain, and therefore buying or not buying the unit will make no difference in the vast majority of cases.
There is an xp limit against barbarians. It would be better to start with 10xp than to start with 45xp if you're using the unit to kill barbarians.
 
Last edited:
There is an xp limit against barbarians. It would be better to start with 10xp than to start with 45xp if you're using the unit to kill barbarians.
ahhhhh, a good point I hadn't considered that
 
The proposal cites Japan's :c5science: science bonuses as being a problem to be fixed as one of the reasons to do this change... And then adds a science bonus to the civ in place of one that is removed. proposal 24b resolves the specific issue cited with XP gain to my satisfaction, making this far more radical change unnecessary.
You got it wrong. I mentioned that Emperor AI Japan getting so much science from the leveling mechanic to the point that it can win SV without even trying to, far more than what a human or lower difficulties AI can, is a problem and an indication of an issue in the leveling mechanic. Japan having science bonus is fine, its AI at higher difficulties blowing it up exponentially with experience handicaps isn't.

This UA proposes to remove a unique thing that Japan does -- yields on units levelling up/gaining experience -- and replace it with a 2nd reward on a trigger that Japan already has: GGeneral/Admiral birth. This is a net removal of interactive elements from a civ. The civ is less with this change; it just does less.
I have nothing against the idea of elite units, or the leveling mechanic by itself. I just don't think the current experience handicaps allow for a healthy balance design with leveling mechanics right now. And we shouldn't be keeping an unhealthy design, as much as we may like it.

One reason I propose to move the yields from leveling to GG/GA birth is because both mechanics share similar fundamentals. Units generate both experience and GG/GA points in equal base amounts from combat; going into combat to earn one of them automatically results in earning the other as well (assuming a war against a major civ). The reason why Japan can have rewards for both GG/GA and leveling and have a cohesive design, despite neither of them interacting with the other, is because of that fundament. Both mechanics push you to do the same at their core: focus on units that generate the most points in combat (melee combatants). As such, the resulting playstyle from my proposal will share a lot of similarities with how Japan is currently played.

This condenses Japan's entire UA onto a massive reward for a single game event: 50% GWAM completion and 250:c5science::c5culture:, scaling with era for GGeneral and GAdmiral birth. No other gameplay elements are in the UA anymore. The building yield bonuses aren't interesting, but at least they are a different kind of bonus than the 50% GWAM completion.
The early free Great General is actually an interactive element in itself.

Remember than Japan lacks early militaristic boosts, in contrast to most militaristic civs, due to its "fight stronger when wounded" mechanic being moved to the Dojo years ago. The free Great General gives Japan a pre-Medieval military effect, long before before other civs usually can get a GG themselves, and is flexible enough for both barbarian hunts and early wars. Notably, it makes the Classical Era Swordman rush strat more reasonable, as you can count on a +15% :c5strength: CS aura quite before your opponent can. And, by the time both sides generate a Great General naturally, you have a spare one for a citadel if needed. Last, if you are attacked before Medieval, that free Great General helps dealing with whatever combat bonuses or UU your aggressor is bringing against you.

All of that is far more interactive than the current ":c5culture::c5faith: yields on defense/military buildings" mechanic, nevermind the nerfed version on your proposal. And that free Great General actually interacts with the rest of the UA, unlike the defense/military buildings mechanic; Japan's overall design ends being more cohesive.

If Japan didn't feel locked to Authority/Imperialism before, they are with this. With GGeneral faith purchases unlocked in Industrial, you can get 50% progress towards 3:c5greatperson:GPeople types and 1000:c5culture:/:c5science: every 5 turns for :c5faith:Faith purchasing GGenerals and Admirals. Japan's kit would now revolve around these two faith purchases as core to their late game, to the exclusion of any other concerns or alternative policy paths.
To the Glory of God exists. And you can only buy so many of these two before the faith costs become prohibitive, so being able to buy other types (such as Great Writers, which Progress unlocks) is a valuable asset regardless of which path you take.

Note that faith purchasing Generals and Admirals isn't something you normally want to do early with Japan, as the 50% GWAM progress can put the cost of the next GWAM way too high for your specialists in the Capital to fill, especially if you do like you said. You can generate more :greatwork: GWAM in a game by faith purchasing Writers/Artists/Musicians first, and leave the General/Admiral purchases for later, when the faith cost of the cultural ones is prohibitively high.
 
Last edited:
To the Glory of God exists. And you can only buy so many of these two before the faith costs become prohibitive, so being able to buy other types (such as Great Writers, which Progress unlocks) is a valuable asset regardless of which path you take.

Note that faith purchasing Generals and Admirals isn't something you normally want to do early with Japan, as the 50% GWAM progress can put the cost of the next GWAM way too high for your specialists in the Capital to fill, especially if you do like you said. You can generate more :greatwork: GWAM in a game by faith purchasing Writers/Artists/Musicians first, and leave the General/Admiral purchases for later, when the faith cost of the cultural ones is prohibitively high.
Your other points above make some sense, but I will disagree with some notes here.

TTGOG isn't a reliable option when considering an ancient era policy tree. Now once your in industrial or maaaaaybe medieval, I have a good understanding of my religious situation and whether I can get TTGOG, but not in ancient. So you could say Imperalism isn't always a key policy tree for civ, but authority is.

It's not that Japan can't go other policy trees, but their kit is definitely geared towards authority, and this proposal would increase that further.
 
TTGOG isn't a reliable option when considering an ancient era policy tree. Now once your in industrial or maaaaaybe medieval, I have a good understanding of my religious situation and whether I can get TTGOG, but not in ancient. So you could say Imperalism isn't always a key policy tree for civ, but authority is.

It's not that Japan can't go other policy trees, but their kit is definitely geared towards authority, and this proposal would increase that further.
The TtGoG point is understandable, but I don't agree that Japan is definitively geared toward Authority. From experience and experimentation, Authority has issues with Japan lacking an early combat bonus or UU, which becomes problematic if facing a civ that does have either or both. Moreover, Japan is notably geared for a Longswordman rush due to having both a Longswordman UU and a UB that unlocks on the same tech, and generally wants to reach Steel ASAP. And that means prioritizing :c5science: science, exactly Authority's main weakness.

I also found Tradition to be way better at maximizing the GWAM mechanic. Since you can start working cultural specialists much earlier with Tradition, each GG/GA birth you get generates more GWAM points than if you go Authority instead. So, even if Tradition doesn't get TtGoG and ends with less GG/GA births, you are bound to generate more GWAM points (and the great people) throughout the game nonetheless. This alone put me to question the idea of Authority as the go-to tree for Japan. On top of that, Tradition is overall better at :c5science: science for a faster Steel timing.

I'm not as set on Progress, but it has the merit of having the most :c5science: science of the Ancient trees and, as such, is the most fit for a Steel beeline. I find that this tree is overall better at a Medieval rush on a neighbor and is more lenient with maintenance costs, an issue that tends to come when focusing on military buildings. And while Progress can't maximize GWAM as much as Tradition, nor have the Great General unlock, the Great Writer unlock is still something for a cultural path.

I think all the three trees have a notable benefit from the early Great General, but the long term benefit is less clear. The GG faith purchase also getting culture and science certainly helps Authority, but that tree is the one that most lacks peacetime bonuses in the first place; having some yields added on those GG faith purchase can alleviate that issue.
 
Your proposal also removes all the :c5faith: on Japan's kit, so founding is much less of a sure thing. Betting the farm on being able to found and enhance in time to get TtGoG is just not a viable strategy unless you have some other :c5faith: edge on your start (nearby natural wonder, a faith monopoly, etc.)
 
Your proposal also removes all the :c5faith: on Japan's kit, so founding is much less of a sure thing. Betting the farm on being able to found and enhance in time to get TtGoG is just not a viable strategy unless you have some other :c5faith: edge on your start (nearby natural wonder, a faith monopoly, etc.)
Except that you don't need to? The goal isn't to make Tradition the unquestionable tree for Japan in every aspect, it is enough to make its early game more interesting, which an early 50% GWAM proc from the free Great General would make. In this regard, the removal of military buildings from Japan's UA on your proposal restricts Tradition, instead of expanding.

Also, the removal of Dojo's promotion on melee ships is bound to reduce GWAM procs for Tradition and Progress more than the faith removal, as those two trees don't have Authority's combat bonuses to help their navies.
 
but it removes the additional reward for getting high-level units.
You're already rewarded for getting high level units with every civ, in terms of better and more fun promotions.
 
There is an xp limit against barbarians. It would be better to start with 10xp than to start with 45xp if you're using the unit to kill barbarians.
From the implementation perspective, the cap is only applied to the XP itself, but not anything else associated with it. You gain GG/GA points even if you're at your XP cap against CS (or against barbarians if you have the option turned on), and it'll be the same with this instant yield.

To re-iterate, you always gain the instant yields when you attack a barbarian/CS, even if the unit is at the XP cap. Unless your unit has a -100% XP gained promotion for some reason.
 
From the implementation perspective, the cap is only applied to the XP itself, but not anything else associated with it. You gain GG/GA points even if you're at your XP cap against CS (or against barbarians if you have the option turned on), and it'll be the same with this instant yield.

To re-iterate, you always gain the instant yields when you attack a barbarian/CS, even if the unit is at the XP cap. Unless your unit has a -100% XP gained promotion for some reason.
from CvUnit::changeExperienceTimes100()
Code:
int iModdedChangeTimes100 = min(iMaxTimes100 - m_iExperienceTimes100, iChangeTimes100);
This is the code that gets assigned to general/admiral xp (and unit XP). iMaxTimes100 is the maximum XP a unit is allowed to reach when fight enemies that impose XP limits (barbarians and CS units). If the unit has total XP higher than the max, the unit doesn't gain any more XP, and no GG/GA XP is generated either.

Regardless, it's unintuitive that one should expect to gain yields when the unit doesn't get XP, when the UA specifically states that it triggers when the unit gets XP.
 
Last edited:
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% :c5strength: CS on naval units with their UA
  • France (or the Huns, depending on this session): +10% :c5strength: CS per previous attack on the same unit in the turn, works on naval units
  • Persia: +1 :c5moves: Movement and +15% :c5strength: CS during Golden Ages, works on naval units
  • Sweden: an extra +15% :c5strength: 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.
 
And this GWAM progress from a Great Admiral birth gives Japan a clear incentive to build a strong navy.
No it doesn't. It just exists so Japan gets the full Imperialism and Hero Worship synergy, and doesn't feel bad when his wars take place in the waters. Naval combat still grants yields from Dojo.
Sweden: an extra +15% :c5strength: CS from leadership auras, which applies to Great Admirals as well
Yet they don't get +20% attack on naval units.
Zulu: units require 25% less experience to level up, including naval units
No Iklwa on naval melee units.
 
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
You’re making arguments from vanilla bonuses that either don’t exist or are located exlsewhere. They don’t have much bearing on current vanilla, with or without your change.

Sounds like the easier and better thing to do is just reduce Japan’s naval flavor. You’re arguing as if that’s not super easy to change. Japan still gets yields on level from naval units in both proposals. You proposal removes yields on level and keeps bushido, so it’s just swapping 1 for the other.
"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."
Sounds like Togo’s Japan adopted imperialism for the full strength when damaged bonus.
 
No it doesn't. It just exists so Japan gets the full Imperialism and Hero Worship synergy, and doesn't feel bad when his wars take place in the waters. Naval combat still grants yields from Dojo.
It does, and that argument doesn't change it. You want to generate admiral points to trigger the UA, and having a navy is the most straightforward and reliable way to do so. Plus, Japan's design is intended to allow them to benefit from combat, and not need to rely on conquest.

Yet they don't get +20% attack on naval units.
No Iklwa on naval melee units.
Doesn't change that their navies are stronger than a generic one, the point of my argument.

You’re making arguments from vanilla bonuses that either don’t exist or are located exlsewhere. They don’t have much bearing on current vanilla, with or without your change.
They do, you're just pretending they don't. You're argued that the mix of land/naval bonuses should be exclusive to Denmark, so pointing out that Japan already had it for a long time is relevant.

You proposal removes yields on level and keeps bushido, so it’s just swapping 1 for the other.
Great admirals grant yields on my proposal, as a replacement for the "yields on leveling". The point of this change is that the leveling system has an unhealthy interaction with AI handicaps, so those yields are moved to a trigger that doesn't interact with the current AI handicaps. The swap you mention doesn't exist.

Sounds like Togo’s Japan adopted imperialism for the full strength when damaged bonus.
Or that Imperialism's finisher giving the "Banzai!" promotion is nonsense. Republic America adopts full Imperialism, and now their sailors all scream "Long live his majesty the Emperor!" as their admiral employs a samurai tactic on USS Mikasa.

My opinion is that social policies should avoid copying iconic effects of a civ, even if adjusted to do something that the civ currently doesn't apply it to. Imagine Statecraft letting anyone arrange marriages with a City-State, or current Artistry converting GAP into tourism; it doesn't matter how fitting it may be for that social tree, it is awful for the civ that gets its iconic effect copied.
 
And I would answer the same thing to anyone who ask others to vote no : it is not yours to decide alone, don't try to impose your vision of things to others
Please don't. I don't want any of these passing either, changes to the defensive/military building bonus and bushido boat removal are both unnecessary and ineffective for what this proposal wants to accomplish, but just directly asking people to vote no is a terrible idea and more likely to get them to vote yes than anything else.
On reflection, it was a lazy comment on my part as I was in a rush. I used the word fundamental, because I assumed changing the yields from leveling require changes to the DLL for 24a and 24b. I tried changing these years ago and wasn't able to, perhaps that has changed?

Who sounds like the autocrat here...? Silencing dissent.

I've mentioned above that it was a lazy effort on my part, but I still don't understand the spirit of this comment. I did provide some rationale for why I thought it was a bad idea.
Moderator Action: Would have addressed this earlier but I was on vacation. Asking others (in general) to vote yes or no is perfectly acceptable. Whenever someone argues for or against a proposal, that message is implied and is part of healthy debate. Being so direct about it may not be the most effective tactic, but it isn't authoritarian or an imposition of vision. Everyone else is welcome to argue against anyone who makes such a request, after all, and it's up to the community to decide the final outcome.

However, specifically calling out others (especially by name) who voted for/against something and trying to pressure them to change their votes would cross the line. That didn't happen here.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom