JFD and Janboruta's Civilisations

[Zantonius Hamm]

What is this?
A wiki?
A new layout for the OP?

It was a great idea to make a wiki! I didn't even think about that. Anyone can contribute, right?

It may be WIP, but I think Tojo's page should have Oda's UA and UU as well, not just the Dojo. May make it look more professional and tidy.

Also, are there any plans to change Oda's uniques further? The Samurai doesn't really fit the rest of the design, and I've always found the UA really boring. Finally: don't you think you should change the Zero to fit better with Tojo's naval focus?

Hopefully I'm not being too obnoxious.

 

[DJSHenninger]

Excellent new trait!

Yeah, that wiki is very interesting.. good idea

I hope Prestige will be released soon, so I can add support for that in a single update ^^

 

[local_hero]

Interesting new UA, I might just pick up Civ for a moment to test it out.

What is this?
A wiki?
A new layout for the OP?

It was a great idea to make a wiki! I didn't even think about that. Anyone can contribute, right?

It may be WIP, but I think Tojo's page should have Oda's UA and UU as well, not just the Dojo. May make it look more professional and tidy.

Also, are there any plans to change Oda's uniques further? The Samurai doesn't really fit the rest of the design, and I've always found the UA really boring. Finally: don't you think you should change the Zero to fit better with Tojo's naval focus?

Hopefully I'm not being too obnoxious.

What do you have in mind for the Zero? A figher without need for oil, which you can be based on the Yamato seems like a strong combination to me. You don't need neither aircraft carriers or bombers (with that vs city bonus of the Yamato) to wreak havoc.

The no oil requisite will free up resources to build other units. However, the bonus against other fighters, admittedly doesn't change the way you play very much. I could imagine a bonus vs naval units and/or perhaps a possiblity to detect submarines. But I'm unsure if this is historically correct, did it perform reconnaissance? Was it able to carry torpedoes? That would make it fun and actually encourage you to build them.

 

[Natan35]

hmmm... lithuania? holy rome?

 

[LeeS]

Folk,

JFD is just using the forum's built-in

formatting command.

Spoiler why did I use the word Folk :

I started to use 'Guys', then realised a significant fraction of the forum's users are not that. I changed to 'Gals', but that seemed condescending and smarmmy in a "trying to court favor" kind of way. I shall now adopt the use of the word 'Folk' in place of either of the other two.

English = the language least likely to provide a non-assumption-loaded neutral term when you want one

 

[Natan35]

Folk,

JFD is just using the forum's built-in

formatting command.

Spoiler why did I use the word Folk :

I started to use 'Guys', then realised a significant fraction of the forum's users are not that. I changed to 'Gals', but that seemed condescending and smarmmy in a "trying to court favor" kind of way. I shall now adopt the use of the word 'Folk' in place of either of the other two.

English = the language least likely to provide a non-assumption-loaded neutral term when you want one

You just said what m8?
(Non-assumption-loaded neutral term? What?!)
(My brain can't into understanding that. Yet.)
(You can use lad\lads, as most people here speak more... British English, I believe.)

 

[Urdnot_Scott]

Lads is specifically male though.

 

[Natan35]

According to (Hebrew) spelling rules, when talking in general(about\to about both male and female) you should use the male form of words. And isn't folk also male specific?
(Also, ladies and gentleman. Duh...)

 

[Urdnot_Scott]

Yeah, Hebrew is the same as most languages in that sense. However English is a special snowflake, since it lacks masculine feminine forms of words, its very difficult to find a gender-neutral catch-all term. Guys, at least in the UK, has shifted towards being gender neutral in certain contexts - so I don't think its too loaded to keep using that. If only we were speaking another language, eh ragazzi?

Anyway, to keep on topic, I love the new Tojo UA just because it looks slightly stronger than the old one, which was a bit on the weak side. Though I do kind of empathise with calls for a slight adjustment of the Zero to fit the naval game a little better. Maybe it should be made into a decision? Adopting the Kamikaze system or something, which increases the damage done to ships by a fraction of the damage taken? Or deal huge damage to the target if killed in the assault? The first decision is pretty Meiji era, so I was assuming it'd be replaced once Meiji is released - but I could be wrong.

 

[Natan35]

Yeah, Hebrew is the same as most languages in that sense. However English is a special snowflake, since it lacks masculine feminine forms of words, its very difficult to find a gender-neutral catch-all term. Guys, at least in the UK, has shifted towards being gender neutral in certain contexts - so I don't think its too loaded to keep using that. If only we were speaking another language, eh ragazzi?

Anyway, to keep on topic, I love the new Tojo UA just because it looks slightly stronger than the old one, which was a bit on the weak side. Though I do kind of empathise with calls for a slight adjustment of the Zero to fit the naval game a little better. Maybe it should be made into a decision? Adopting the Kamikaze system or something, which increases the damage done to ships by a fraction of the damage taken? Or deal huge damage to the target if killed in the assault? The first decision is pretty Meiji era, so I was assuming it'd be replaced once Meiji is released - but I could be wrong.

(Guys, huh? Well, I saw guys with red lipstick and pink jeans yesterday. LOL )
JFD, dreadnought doesn't fit Churchill. Can Lithuania into an update?!
(Lithium doesn't work.)

 

[LeeS]

(Guys, huh? Well, I saw guys with red lipstick and pink jeans yesterday. LOL )
JFD, dreadnought doesn't fit Churchill. Can Lithuania into an update?!
(Lithium doesn't work.)

I think Dreadnought fits Churchill's overlap in High-Level British Public Affairs probably better than any other naval-unit substitution. Dreadnoughts as the "class" of ship after which they were named were probably already horrifically obsolete by the time Churchill was in charge of Naval Affairs during WWI, but the "modern-battleship" concept was not, and I've always assumed JFD was going for a unit that synergized both with the "modern-battleship" concept as well as trying to synergize with at least one of the periods Churchill was (edit) most famously (end-of-edit) in High-Level Service. So, battleship unit = WWI, and fighter unit (Spitfire) = WWII.

 

[Urdnot_Scott]

The Dreadnought is perfect for Churchill - no idea what you're talking about Natan. What would you advocate in its stead? Also, regarding Lithuania, it may be something of a shock to you bro but once someone has said they intend to do something, the amount of times you ask them to do it probably isn't going to have much bearing on the speed with which it is done. Stop asking for Lithuania to get updated!

 

[janboruta]

Dreadnoughts as the "class" of ship after which they were named were probably already horrifically obsolete by the time Churchill was in charge of Naval Affairs during WWI

Not before the Battle of Jutland, at least. Prior to that, it were battlecruisers that were proven ineffective and should be phased out - and Jutland painfully confirmed that, to the British at least (they went out with a bang immediately - heavier German ones took their time to sink). That battle was a model confrontation that both the Royal Navy and the Hochseeflotte were racing towards with their arms race prior to the war. After that, dreadnoughts could peacefully fade away, with their design theories and decisions proven right or wrong, just for the sake of record. And I think "modern" battleships were pretty much all super-dreadnoughts following the same design principle, just with a different arrangement of guns and turrets (3x3 instead of 4x2, for example). But that's not the point of this thread

Churchill's UK is just a very fitting vessel to carry the cultural and historical significance the dreadnoughts had, no matter the tiny discrepancies in time frame, if there are any.

 

[Natan35]

I would suggest other name. Dreadnought is too general.
(Obviously, that's up to JFD)

 

[Urdnot_Scott]

No more general than slinger, camel archer, battering ram, bowman, cossack, great galleas, heavy chariot, horse archer, hussar, longbowman, musketeer, quinquereme, ship of the line, siege tower, war chariot or war elephant. Dreadnought perfectly exemplifies Churchill both in his personality, his history and the civ design in general - it seems a bit like you're just finding problems for the sake of finding problems.

 

[janboruta]

Dreadnought is too general.

I think it's too specific, even.

 

[DoctorMcGann]

"Consult the Tribunal of a Hundred and Four" isn't working for me. Clicking on it does nothing.

Modlist:

Spoiler :

CL's the Zapotecs
City Limits
BlouBlou's Classical age
Events and Decisions (duh)
Faster Aircraft animations
Historical religions complete
InfoAddict
All your civ packs
MC's the Gauls
MC's the Minoans
MC's Thrace
More Great Works
TarcisioCM's Ptolemaic civ
Quick Turns
R.E.D.
Randomize city names
The Seleucids
Submarines ignore borders
Tarcisio's the Iberians
Tarcisio's the Massegatae
Tomatekh's the Goths
EditUnitNames
Unique Cultural Influence
YNAEMP 23

 

[DonStamos]

I think it's too specific, even.

By the time of Jutland, most battleships were called dreadnoughts because they all grew out of the design of this one ship. It's like calling tissues Kleenexes, at least to me

 

[SnowyNix]

Folk,

JFD is just using the forum's built-in

formatting command.

Spoiler why did I use the word Folk :

I started to use 'Guys', then realised a significant fraction of the forum's users are not that. I changed to 'Gals', but that seemed condescending and smarmmy in a "trying to court favor" kind of way. I shall now adopt the use of the word 'Folk' in place of either of the other two.

English = the language least likely to provide a non-assumption-loaded neutral term when you want one

I knew we had to be PC at civfanatics, but I never thought someone would take it this far

 

[Natan35]

No more general than slinger, camel archer, battering ram, bowman, cossack, great galleas, heavy chariot, horse archer, hussar, longbowman, musketeer, quinquereme, ship of the line, siege tower, war chariot or war elephant. Dreadnought perfectly exemplifies Churchill both in his personality, his history and the civ design in general - it seems a bit like you're just finding problems for the sake of finding problems.

Ever since I made the stupid and amazing england split I started noticing 'problems' I never noticed before. Nothing(for example, Alfred the great's uniques kinda don't fit he's rule) is suppose to be perfect though.

@Jan: where you find those? Do you draw them?