[Vote] (5-19) Japan Adjustment Proposals

[Stalker0]

I thing to point out on proposal B....the chart there suggests that there is roughly equal parity to a nerf between the curent model adn the "XP = science and culture" model. And in terms of absolute yields that is true.

It is important to remember the speed at which you gain those benefits though. For example, it takes 40 XP to go from level 4 to 5. So the new proposal could have gotten 35ish science and 35 culture while the leveling mechanic hasn't given you a single new bonus yet until you actually get to level 5. So over time the new proposals would be generating yields earlier than the current proposal, and yields now > yields later. Is that enough to make the new proposal yield neutral or even actually a buff....its hard to say at first glance, but I wanted to note that as the chart can be a little misleading.

 

[azum4roll]

Would be nice if someone can plot an actual graph for me.

 

[Stalker0]

Would be nice if someone can plot an actual graph for me.

You summoned me?

This is starting with barracks + dojo (aka 40 xp).

Effectively what this shows is that at most XPs the new proposal will generate more yields than the old. That changes mostly around ~210 XP when the majority of the level Proposal B is trying to catch up.

 

[azum4roll]

You summoned me?

View attachment 667978

This is starting with barracks + dojo (aka 40 xp).

Effectively what this shows is that at most XPs the new proposal will generate more yields than the old. That changes mostly around ~210 XP when the majority of the level Proposal B is trying to catch up.

Just what I wanted! The red line will also shift right with more starting XP while the blue "curve" stays in place. It's definitely a nerf for the Emperor AI.

 

[hokath]

This is a tough one...
There are no other proposals to nerf Japan, are there?

Edit: This one might fix the xp problems https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...aps-for-one-that-works-only-vs-humans.684630/
Which makes me like the initial proposal most.
However, that vote is going toward No at the moment quite heavily.

 

[Anarcomu]

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

There is a difference between arguing about why you think those are good proposals or not, and directly asking to vote no. Starting your post as you did, is -in a way- considering that everyone should have the same way of seeing things that you have, disregarding their own capacity of taking decision.
Explaining why you personally dislike changes, instead of bruteforcefuly asking others to vote no, would have been better.

I'm convinced this is the wrong way to change Japan. There are other ways to de-tune without fundamentally changing what is an interesting and fun civ to play.

This is a rephrasing which would have been entirely fine in my book. You don't try to force your vision on others and clearly state that this is your opinion.

Edit : typo

 

[pineappledan]

This is a tough one...
There are no other proposals to nerf Japan, are there?

There was a big japan/france discussion thread in the main forum if you want to check it out.

There were lots of ideas. A few total overhauls were proposed, like bringing back the sakoku stuff, removing all the faith, removing all the science, etc. The ones that Azum and I proposed are the ‘safer’ suggestions to come out of it, because the community members that gave their input generally like Japan’s current schtick, and don’t want bigger changes.

Edit: This one might fix the xp problems https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...aps-for-one-that-works-only-vs-humans.684630/
Which makes me like the initial proposal most.
However, that vote is going toward No at the moment quite heavily.

That proposal basically removes all XP bonuses to unit training and vs other AI and then gives double XP vs humans. I think if the changes were more modest, like adding a little extra XP vs humans and just reducing the XP bonuses on training and on AI vs AI combat people would have been more receptive. As formulated it is a radical change.

 

[Legen]

As far as I can tell this all spawned from Japan winning a few too many science victories?

The thing going on about Japan is that the AI is performing really well with the civ at high difficulties, but really poorly at lower ones. The scientific victories at Emperor are an indication of what is going on, rather than the problem itself.

Japan's leveling mechanic has an exponential growth; the yields grow exponentially based on the new level, while the experience needed for each new level grows linearly. This design was intended to push Japan to focus on having a small number of elite units, instead of just throw a large army at the enemy. However, it also means that AI Japan becomes exponentially more powerful with difficulty, as each extra difficulty level increases both AIFreeXP (extra starting experience) and AIFreeXPPercent (extra experience in combat). At high levels, AI Japan can field a large number of elite units, instead of the intended small core of elite units a human can, and reach those higher levels with ease long before a human player can.

We already saw this happen before when Gazebo experimented placing the leveling mechanic on the UA, hoping to address AI Japan's poor performance before Medieval. And we had reports of Deity players stating how AI Japan was 10 techs ahead when everyone else was at Classical, making it the most broken AI by far at high difficulties. At lower difficulties, AI Japan was not performing anywhere close to that. And, in human hands, it was underwhelming. Eventually, the mechanic moved back to the Dojo, at a lower potency, and the current defense/military building mechanic took its place to cover Japan's early game.

The science victories are an indication that the leveling mechanic is acting again, just like it did before, since the Dojo is Japan's only source of extra science. And AI Japan performing poorly at Warlord (ranking 36th out of 43 civs, from 3rd at Emperor) is another indication in this direction. Moreover, AI Nobunaga has the lowest science/spaceship flavors in the game (meaning this AI isn't even trying to get a science victory, unlike AI Sejong or AI Nebuchadnezzar), yet wins SV at a comparable rate to scientific civs (visible in the first published 3.6 test), indicating that this leveling mechanic alone is performing better than the entire kit of dedicated scientific civs in AI hands at higher difficulties. And, of course, that also means AI Japan is getting way too much culture than intended as well, not just science.

24a is a big change that has entire new abilities that will require DLL coding

It is very easy to implement, purely with XML/SQL.

 

[Rekk]

Neither 24a nor 24b reward the "elite units" direction that Japan currently has.

 

[pineappledan]

It is very easy to implement, purely with XML/SQL.

Huh. TIL

 

[Stalker0]

So here's how I'm leaning right now.

I think Proposal A might be a buff in nerf's clothing, hard to say, but the idea itself doesn't do anything for me.

The OG proposal is the most straightforward one. A couple of key nerfs, nothing fancy, no possibility of a stealth buff. It just does the job.

Proposal B is also a question of.... is this actually more a buff than an nerf in some ways? As my graph above shows, there are several points where you would make more in the system than the old. However, it would address the AI bonus XP scenario.


For me it comes down to this.... if you think Japan is legitimately too strong, I think the OG proposal is the right approach. If you think Japan is fine in human hands, and is only OP in AI hands with their extra bonuses, proposal B seems a way to fix.

 

[Zakuzelo]

Of the non-no options, I wouldn't mind voting for B if it didn't cut the bushido boats. Those are fun as hell, gives Japan a way to effectively use the admiral half of their UA, and while they're good, I'm not convinced in the slightest that they're a serious contributor to the civ being overpowered in AI hands.
But it does, so...

For me it comes down to this.... if you think Japan is legitimately too strong, I think the OG proposal is the right approach. If you think Japan is fine in human hands, and is only OP in AI hands with their extra bonuses, proposal B seems a way to fix.

We never did have an actual discussion of how strong Japan feels in human hands. Most unfortunate.

 

[Stalker0]

We never did have an actual discussion of how strong Japan feels in human hands. Most unfortunate.

In my hands, Japan feels like one of the strongest civs, that's how I feel.

 

[Legen]

Both OG and proposal B remove the military buildings from receiving yields on the UA, leaving only the defensive ones. Thing is, since the intent is for a nerf, then these two proposals indirectly involve the proposals that want to nerf God of War and Goddess of Protection. Even if none of the Japan proposals pass, the civ may still see a nerf depending on what pass on those two other threads, as it's no secret that an UA that affects both Walls and Barracks would be affected by those.

And on this topic, it is to argue if the thing both find overpowered is Japan itself, or the current state of those two pantheons. God of War has been reported to be a bit too easy to found now, and work too well with Authority. Thing is, God of War is also benefitting quite well from two other proposals: one that gave Brute Force to Spearman, and one that replaced Authority's garrison bonus for a Barracks one. When I did preliminary tests for God of War, I did without these two implemented, so the founding speed felt decent; taking out barbarians wasn't as fast without the Brute Force Spearman, the Barracks wasn't getting buffs from policies (and therefore, needed help from the pantheon to have economic worth), plus I had to keep a garrison in each city that could be hunting barbarians instead. After that congress session passed, I instead found myself with a larger and stronger barbarian hunting force roaming around; God of War now feels much easier to pull off than when I made those preliminary tests. Anyone playing Authority + God of War with all those changes combined now has quite an easy time (no wonder both nerfs to God of War mention Authority in their rationale), so it's natural that Japan would feel powerful in this environment.

Before Protection split the Barracks to God of War, the former was pretty much unfoundable for most civs, but Japan's UA allowed Protection to found a religion and be solid source of Ancient Era yields. However, it required special planning, since focusing on the two Ancient buildings that had a maintenance cost, as well as the largest production cost (110 ), made for a unusual build. After the split, Protection is much more accessible for everyone (which was the intent behind the proposal), but I find Japan's UA to be overall weaker and less interesting with the current Protection, compared to the old one. You get overall less faith per city, you don't need the same economic planning and considerations that the old one did, and the UA isn't as satisfying with it as before because the pantheon no longer needs its help to be able to found; any civ has good odds at founding with Protection.

Given that both War and Protection were changed exactly to be easier to found, it is no wonder that pineappledan complains in his rationale for nerfs that Japan is too safe at founding; the UA that originally was making an unfoundable pantheon a reasonable one to found is now interacting with two that are more accessible to everyone and don't need help from Japan's UA to do so. And pineappledan's complaint that the defense/military building yields is a boring mechanic also makes sense in this context: both War and Protection are quite straightforward to play now. In contrast, you needed to know what you were doing with the old Protection even with Japan's UA help, as it was very easy to go on negative gold when focusing on Walls and Barracks during Ancient Era; it was not a trivial build, and players sometimes asked for help to figure out how to make this UA mechanic work.

Since there are proposals to nerf both God of War and Goddess of Protection, as well as one to remove Brute Force from the Spearman that should affect God of War, I think we should be wary of outright nerfing Japan. This civ may already see indirect nerfs during this session anyway on this front, and the direct nerfs can easily end as being over the top in such context.

 

[Stalker0]

Since there are proposals to nerf both God of War and Goddess of Protection, as well as one to remove Brute Force from the Spearman that should affect God of War, I think we should be wary of outright nerfing Japan. This civ may already see indirect nerfs during this session anyway on this front, and the direct nerfs can easily end as being over the top in such context.

Lets not forget the tribute proposals though, that would be a direct buff to authority type civs.

 

[Stalker0]

Since there are proposals to nerf both God of War and Goddess of Protection, as well as one to remove Brute Force from the Spearman that should affect God of War, I think we should be wary of outright nerfing Japan. This civ may already see indirect nerfs during this session anyway on this front, and the direct nerfs can easily end as being over the top in such context.

Legen,

You are saying to not nerf japan, but you also put in a proposal to nerf Japan. So are you pushing for a No vote on this one?

 

[Legen]

Lets not forget the tribute proposals though, that would be a direct buff to authority type civs.

Do those tribute proposals interact with God of War in any way? Of what I remember of them, they aren't as straightforward on this pantheon as the replacement of garrisons for barracks yields.

Also, I don't find Authority to be a mandatory tree for Japan, I find Tradition and Progress to have their own merits. Tradition does a much better job at capitalizing on the GWAM birth mechanic, and Progress can pull a Longswordman Rush strat (of which Japan is the premier civ to do so, given that both UU and UB are in Steel) much faster than the other two trees. I've enjoyed successes with both trees and enjoyed the difference in playstyle that they allow; I actually prefer them over Authority.

Legen,

You are saying to not nerf japan, but you also put in a proposal to nerf Japan. Did something make you change your mind?

My proposal doesn't aim to nerf Japan, it aims to replace two mechanics that I find to not be working anymore as intended (yields on defense/military buildings, and on leveling) for something that is, hopefully, of comparable power. The numbers may not be right in this version, since it's something new, but the intention is to be neither a buff, nor a nerf, in human hands. And, in the meanwhile, break AI Japan's current sensitivity to difficulty handicaps. That's why I named my proposal as a Japan tweak, instead of a Japan nerf. I guess the Magi missed it when they grouped the three Japan proposals, hopefully it doesn't affect how people vote.

The defense/military building one was clearly aimed at the old Goddess of Protection. Gazebo mentioned that he wanted Japan to be more defensively minded than France, and this mechanic is how he tried to do so. Not only you would have a defensive infrastructure readily available due to your UA pushing you in this direction, you would be adopting a pantheon whose bonus effect (healing) works specifically in friendly territory. As such, Japan players would be less inclined for conquest than France players. However, with the changes to Goddess of Protection, Japan's UA is redundant; meanwhile, the new God of War has no push to stay in friendly territory and defend, it instead pushes you to go to war anywhere you can instead. Neither pantheons currently need help with founding either, so Japan's UA is more of a bloat in the current environment.

This defense/military building mechanic was also intended to aid Japan's early game, since its uniques kept being moved all to Medieval (specifically, to the Dojo) and leaving the civ without anything interesting until then (no more "fight at additional strength when wounded" on all units from turn 1, no more culture on fishing boats and atolls, no more melee naval units building fishing boats). The interaction with the old Goddess of Protection helped keep Japan's early game interesting, since it wasn't so trivial to use correctly; it is no longer the case, and the new God of War isn't really better in this regard. This mechanic simply no longer fulfills this intended role either.

The leveling mechanic simply has scaling issues between human and AI, as well as between AI difficulties, none of which were intended at any point. In human hands, it is not currently tuned for a scientific victory; it is often reported to be something fun for two eras, and quickly fall off by Industrial. This is expected, since the yields don't scale with era; however, high difficulty AIs can keep it relevant for longer due to the experience handicaps interacting with the exponential (with levels) nature of the mechanic. I don't think anyone wants a mechanic that is only meant to carry a victory type for high difficulty AIs, and quickly falls off when you play with this civ.

 

[Legen]

@Stalker0 Actually, I think the thread's title is bound to affect the votes. It misframes my proposal, which doesn't make sense in the context or a nerf, as you stated:

I think Proposal A might be a buff in nerf's clothing, hard to say, but the idea itself doesn't do anything for me.

Can you address the title and the current votes? My proposal is meant to be a tweak only, not a nerf (nor a buff).

 

[pineappledan]

Since I have weighed in on the others I may as well weigh in here too:

24a:

My thoughts:

• 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.
• The proposal cites Japan's 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.
• This condenses Japan's entire UA onto a massive reward for a single game event: 50% GWAM completion and 250, 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.
• As you might expect with this narrowing of the UA effects and rewards, this also makes Japan more rigid re: gameplay. The proposer said this about current Japan:

Also, I don't find Authority to be a mandatory tree for Japan, I find Tradition and Progress to have their own merits. Tradition does a much better job at capitalizing on the GWAM birth mechanic, and Progress can pull a Longswordman Rush strat (of which Japan is the premier civ to do so, given that both UU and UB are in Steel) much faster than the other two trees. I've enjoyed successes with both trees and enjoyed the difference in playstyle that they allow; I actually prefer them over Authority.

That's gone now with this change. 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 3GPeople types and 1000/ every 5 turns for 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.​

​

I think 24a proposal is a step back. It removes 2 different gameplay mechanics and replaces them with a bonus stacked on top of a pre-existing one. This will narrow the civ, and remove parts of their gameplay that its own proposer has praised, and that other players might really like.

 

[Barna1]

Neither 24a nor 24b reward the "elite units" direction that Japan currently has.

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.