[Vote] (5-19) Japan Adjustment Proposals

[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.

 

[Stalker0]

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.

 

[Barna1]

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.

 

[Stalker0]

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.

 

[Barna1]

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.

 

[Stalker0]

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

 

[Legen]

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.

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, 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% 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 " 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 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.

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 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.

 

[Stalker0]

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 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.

 

[Legen]

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 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 science for a faster Steel timing.

I'm not as set on Progress, but it has the merit of having the most 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.

 

[pineappledan]

Your proposal also removes all the 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 edge on your start (nearby natural wonder, a faith monopoly, etc.)

 

[Legen]

Your proposal also removes all the 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 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.

 

[azum4roll]

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.