[Vote] (8-24) Japan

[hokath]

It's relevant information but it isn't a requirement. This is why we have the [Art] tag which specifies the creation of new art.

I admit it is my fault that I did not mark some of these proposal as complex: database+art in the processing phase. I was too caught up in the DLL issues.

 

[Legen]

That is not acceptable.
Voters need to be able to see all parts of the thing they are voting on. It is not enough to say that something will exist AFTER people agree to it; what the Tartara and the 3 shrines look like is relevant information.

Nothing in the VP Congress Guide suggests what you say. It even mentions that the label "Artwork" can be used to classify a proposal, as follows:

Artwork: Requires creating or editing art assets. Note that this often requires database changes, but those changes are included in the umbrella of this label.

 

[msw1]

Yeah I think Torii need to boost popping great writers/artists/musicians or they are basically useless.

 

[jarcast2]

Art assets for Kondei (icons, 3d model).

 

[Hinin]

Art assets for Kondei (uses same 3d model as Heavy Skirmisher).

As I said, there is a fully functional 3d model for the Kondei wearing samurai armor in @Putmalk's Senkogu Jidai scenario (you can fin it there and see what it looks like in one of pineappledan's comments above).

 

[hokath]

@Legen I realised you didn't specify the strength of the theming bonuses. You have +4 faith but you also need the culture/tourism number (that isn't on the tooltip) and any extra conditions you wish to apply.
See https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/8-16-france.690982/ as an example

 

[Legen]

@Legen I realised you didn't specify the strength of the theming bonuses. You have +4 faith but you also need the culture/tourism number (that isn't on the tooltip) and any extra conditions you wish to apply.
See https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/8-16-france.690982/ as an example

I had the strength of the theming in the proposal part of my original thread, as follows:

• Unlocks access to 3 variations of Hokora (miniature Shinto shrine), a standalone building with the following characteristics:
  • Cost: 10 Production.
  • Each version comes with 2 slots of a different type of Great Work (Writing, Art/Artifact, Music).
  • Each version is mutually exclusive with each other in the same city.
  • Theming requires 2 Works of the same type and from your Civilization, any Era.
  • +4 base theming bonus, and +4 Faith if Themed.

The reason it doesn't appear on the part you copied is because it uses the standard wording in the game's tooltip, which only informs of the extra yields part, without the theming's strength. It was meant to roughly show how it would appear in game.

 

[hokath]

Aha nice, I will correct the OP
Apologies

 

[jarcast2]

As I said, there is a fully functional 3d model for the Kondei wearing samurai armor in @Putmalk's Senkogu Jidai scenario (you can fin it there and see what it looks like in one of pineappledan's comments above).

Thank you. This model blends the Keshik bow with a Japanese knight model I saw. It's perfect.
I updated the file above.

 

[Legen]

@hokath While at it, can you add the following part of the original description in the UA's part of this thread? It came to me that people might not be always checking the original thread for details:

• Valid unit types: Recon, Melee, Gunpowder, Mounted Melee, Armor.

Also, the removed heal on kill is 10 HP, not 15.

 

[gwennog]

Hi @Legen,

New proposition for Tatara, more in adequation with your vision.

 

[SuperNoobCamper]

Both base proposal and D are tied at 37 votes (i just voted for base to make it 38).
I have a question for the sponsers, what is the point of removing the samurai and replacing it with a heavy skirmisher? Practically speaking heavy skirmishers in general are defensive units that require extremely open terrain or a road network to function properly as a hit and run unit which does not seem to suit Japan's aggressive expansive playstyle.
Also it's worth noting that they are much less effecient at generating GG despite having the same GG II promotion since ranged units gain less XP from combat than melee units.

I do not have a strong opinion on Tori since it really needs to be play tested for proper assessment (does not really state that it boosts GW, GA or GM bulb for instant yield) and an important change brought with it is the removal of Dojo and transfer of 8 virtues promotion to the UA os it becomes available from turn 0.
Tatara does not seem very interesting but it competes with a rather lame building, the Kabuki theatre so it's not really a big deal.

 

[Legen]

Tatara does not seem very interesting

The Tatara is meant to address multiple limitations in how Japan is played, since their kit is very streamlined into specific choices. The Tatara does so by supporting the change in the UA, which gets to trigger GWAM progress from Great Engineer birth, and which is the flashier part of the proposal.

Flavor-wise, the Great Engineer birth is meant to capture how smiths from Japan became legends and inspired myths, like Masamune, Sanjo Munechika (credited with inventing the katana, and protagonist of a Shinto myth and Noh play) and Muramasa. For an example of such myths, see this video from 10:19 to 15:40.

Mechanically, it allows Japan to trigger the UA during peacetime (addressing a very old complaint) and to not be pigeonholed into Authority for its Great General faith purchase, since Tradition can now support the UA with Great Engineer Faith purchase. This breaks one of the streamlining parts and gives you two options in how you want to approach Japan in each of your games.

The other mechanical change is regard replacing the +1 on Defensive buildings in the UA, originally intended to help Japan's early game, with a proper Ancient UB. The current UA places those yields on an expensive and non-economic building, while also pigeonholing Japan into Goddess of Protection; going for another pantheon practically means wasting the current UA's early yields. The Tatara allows you to get proper yields from an actual economic building, and, instead of limiting you to one pantheon choice, it has synergies with five distinct ones for you to choose:

• God of Fire: +2 Faith to Forges, and a clear choice for when you spawn with a mine-related monopoly in sight.
• Goddess of Wisdom: yields in cities with a specialist, of which the Tatara provides a slot of, and buffs.
• Goddess of the Home: her bonus Food helps feeding the Tatara's extra specialist, and the extra Production from the second Engineer (and Tatara's bonus to them) lets you proc the pantheon's yields on building completion more often. Furthermore, the addition of the Hokora as a cheap building is basically a free proc for the pantheon.
• Goddess of Beauty: benefits from the Tatara's extra Engineer and Production to compete for Wonders, making it a much more reliable pantheon. Furthermore, Great Engineers triggering GWAM progress means the pantheon's Faith from Great Works can come in play earlier than usual.
• Tutelary Gods: a pantheon that normally struggles with founding, it benefits from the Tatara's extra Engineer slot to produce up to 3 Faith per city in Ancient Era. And both the pantheon and the UB stack bonus yields on the same specialist.

It also addresses an old complaint that Japan's UA GWAM procs are most often gated to Medieval Era, since Japan's militaristic bonuses are only unlocked at Steel. Moving the virtues to the UA, and adding Great Engineer as another trigger, means that Japan properly enjoys an UA throughout the whole game, as people often want UAs to be. Which reminds me:

I suspect the Eight Virtues -- though nerfed -- will make this a very strong ancient era rushing civ, and I think we have enough of them.

This would make sense in the 2UC context, but not in the 4UC. The issue is that Japan's current kit is heavily biased to Authority, a tree which rewards early aggression, despite the civ lacking both an early UU and militaristic bonuses to accomplish that. Which tends to run into issues if your closest neighbor(s) happen to have an Ancient or Classical UU, like Egypt and Greece. And the 4UC integration is going to add more Ancient/Classical UUs, further restricting how reasonable it is to play Authority with Japan. As examples:

• Assyria: new Ancient UU, unique class.
• Babylon: new Ancient Spearman UU, on top of the already existing Ancient Bowman.
• Carthage: either a new Ancient Horseman UU, or a new Classical Skirmisher UU.
• Celts: new Classical Skirmisher UU.
• Huns: new Ancient Horseman UU.
• India: new Ancient Archer UU.

Moving the virtues to the UA helps ensuring Authority remains a viable path in such context, and that it isn't simply eclipsed by Tradition with the addition of the Tatara + Great Engineer in the UA.

 

[SuperNoobCamper]

The Tatara is meant to address multiple limitations in how Japan is played, since their kit is very streamlined into specific choices. The Tatara does so by supporting the change in the UA, which gets to trigger GWAM progress from Great Engineer birth, and which is the flashier part of the proposal.

Flavor-wise, the Great Engineer birth is meant to capture how smiths from Japan became legends and inspired myths, like Masamune, Sanjo Munechika (credited with inventing the katana, and protagonist of a Shinto myth and Noh play) and Muramasa. For an example of such myths, see this video from 10:19 to 15:40.

Mechanically, it allows Japan to trigger the UA during peacetime (addressing a very old complaint) and to not be pigeonholed into Authority for its Great General faith purchase, since Tradition can now support the UA with Great Engineer Faith purchase. This breaks one of the streamlining parts and gives you two options in how you want to approach Japan in each of your games.

The other mechanical change is regard replacing the +1 on Defensive buildings in the UA, originally intended to help Japan's early game, with a proper Ancient UB. The current UA places those yields on an expensive and non-economic building, while also pigeonholing Japan into Goddess of Protection; going for another pantheon practically means wasting the current UA's early yields. The Tatara allows you to get proper yields from an actual economic building, and, instead of limiting you to one pantheon choice, it has synergies with five distinct ones for you to choose:

• God of Fire: +2 Faith to Forges, and a clear choice for when you spawn with a mine-related monopoly in sight.
• Goddess of Wisdom: yields in cities with a specialist, of which the Tatara provides a slot of, and buffs.
• Goddess of the Home: her bonus Food helps feeding the Tatara's extra specialist, and the extra Production from the second Engineer (and Tatara's bonus to them) lets you proc the pantheon's yields on building completion more often. Furthermore, the addition of the Hokora as a cheap building is basically a free proc for the pantheon.
• Goddess of Beauty: benefits from the Tatara's extra Engineer and Production to compete for Wonders, making it a much more reliable pantheon. Furthermore, Great Engineers triggering GWAM progress means the pantheon's Faith from Great Works can come in play earlier than usual.
• Tutelary Gods: a pantheon that normally struggles with founding, it benefits from the Tatara's extra Engineer slot to produce up to 3 Faith per city in Ancient Era. And both the pantheon and the UB stack bonus yields on the same specialist.

It also addresses an old complaint that Japan's UA GWAM procs are most often gated to Medieval Era, since Japan's militaristic bonuses are only unlocked at Steel. Moving the virtues to the UA, and adding Great Engineer as another trigger, means that Japan properly enjoys an UA throughout the whole game, as people often want UAs to be. Which reminds me:


This would make sense in the 2UC context, but not in the 4UC. The issue is that Japan's current kit is heavily biased to Authority, a tree which rewards early aggression, despite the civ lacking both an early UU and militaristic bonuses to accomplish that. Which tends to run into issues if your closest neighbor(s) happen to have an Ancient or Classical UU, like Egypt and Greece. And the 4UC integration is going to add more Ancient/Classical UUs, further restricting how reasonable it is to play Authority with Japan. As examples:

• Assyria: new Ancient UU, unique class.
• Babylon: new Ancient Spearman UU, on top of the already existing Ancient Bowman.
• Carthage: either a new Ancient Horseman UU, or a new Classical Skirmisher UU.
• Celts: new Classical Skirmisher UU.
• Huns: new Ancient Horseman UU.
• India: new Ancient Archer UU.

Moving the virtues to the UA helps ensuring Authority remains a viable path in such context, and that it isn't simply eclipsed by Tradition with the addition of the Tatara + Great Engineer in the UA.

Thanks for elaborating but you did not really address my main concern.
Why are the Samurai -an old as the game itself unit that wasn't really problematic or overpowered- gone and replaced by a less effecient unit?

 

[pineappledan]

To summarize the previous arguments re: the samurai:
- The samurai as portrayed in the game do not portray the highest/most emphasized form of Japanese medieval combat, which was horse archery. From the first 5 sentences of the Wikipedia article on samurai:

From about 1000 to 1450, samurai fought mainly as mounted archers.

- the Samurai contributes to a profusion of sword-themed components in the original Japanese kit, with a sword-wielding samurai, a dojo where people practice their swordsmanship, a UA named after the samurai-class military government, and a leader carrying 3 different swords in his portrayal.
- the Kondei is a term for a military caste that pre-dates the samurai, and would therefore be a bit more true to the time period it unlocks. That is not to say that samurai did not exist in the medieval period, but their political and institutional heyday is more early modern period (ie. renaissance)
- some people (like me) don’t like how both the UU1 and UU2 unlock on the same tech, making Japan’s tech priorities too flat and inflexible.

Re: your criticism about mounted ranged units not generating XP as fast, that sort of depends. As ranged attackers you tend to put more hits on targets with them, thus generating more XP. It is true that you aren’t tanking with them though.

I agree that, in addition to the art problems, the Tartara is a bit of a mess mechanically. It also somehow found a way to steer even harder into the swords swords swords thing.

 

[Legen]

Thanks for elaborating but you did not really address my main concern.
Why are the Samurai -an old as the game itself unit that wasn't really problematic or overpowered- gone and replaced by a less effecient unit?

I didn't propose the Kondei, and I'm not particularly excited with it replacing the Samurai either, both due to it being anti-synergistic with Japan's kit (as you listed), and due to not fully agreeing with the historical explanation given by the original proposer of the Kondei. The original proposer was Hinin, and his argument was related to Japan's current kit featuring too many katanas, and that a mounted archer would be both more historical and less stereotypical.

Here's what I replied in the (a) thread:

I think this proposal went too far in trying to correct stereotypes, to a point of introducing another stereotype. The main issue I have with the Kondei is that the rationale for this unit overemphasizes the combat styles of the Kanto region, which is where you find the largest plains in Japan, and how the samurai fought during the Kamakura period. The rest of the country is mountainous and doesn't support proper cavalry tactics, with the armies raised outside Kanto heavily emphasizing infantry tactics instead.

This is seen first in the early Heian period, in the clash between the emerging Yamato empire, who adopted an infantry based style with many influences from the Tang dynasty, and the Emishi, a conglomerate of defeated kingdoms and local tribes in the East (where you find the Kanto region) that relied on horseback archery. Another illustrative case is the comparison between the Shimazu, who ruled in the Western part of Japan and for whom less than 15% of the army was composed of cavalry, and the Hojo, who ruled in the Kanto region and had 27% of their armies as cavalry.

The reason why you see ritualized horseback archery associated with the samurai is strongly related to the Minamoto, who established the first shogunate and were from the Kanto region. Unsurprisingly, they established their seat of power there, specifically in the Kamakura city, and formed a code of conduct for warriors, a form of proto-bushido, that was known as the way of the bow and horseback. The issue starts in the Mongol invasions of Japan (and the final years of the Kamakura period), with the Samurai moving towards both mass infantry and shock cavalry tactics. This is no coincidence, as the clash of that proto-bushido, which emphasized individual combat, and the Mongol tactics, which emphasized group tactics, resulted in deep changes in how the Japanese warrior code and tactics would develop.

By the time the Sengoku Jidai started, the common troop formation was to have a large contingent of ashigaru wielding pikes and forming a spear wall, alongside foot samurai wielding shorter weapons and covering the weaknesses of that formation (excessively rigid against flanking maneuvers, not reliable when an enemy passed through the pikes, unsteady morale against heavily armored opponents). The samurai would still have a preference for polearm weapons, but shorter blades and percussive weapons were not uncommon in such mixed ashigaru-samurai formations, especially so if the battlefield included heavily forested terrain (not conductive for pike formations). This was specially prevalent in armies raised outside the Kanto region, as the armies of that region (especially the Takeda) would push shock cavalry tactics much further than the rest of the country.

And on the katana part, the fundamental issue there is that the way pre-gunpowder infantry melee combat is set right now revolves around having one melee unit that is specialized against mounted units and one that isn't, but is stronger overall. Portraying the Samurai with polearms would also require, for visual readability's sake, to also make them an anti-mounted unit that obsoletes the Pikeman, which is currently reserved for the Tercio at Renaissance. This is something that applies to all civilizations, not just Japan; everyone has swords as the stronger weapon, or representation of an elite unit, for foot melee units in Classical and Medieval eras. As such, I don't see the current Samurai representation as an issue of the civ; I think the rationale would only make sense for a rework of how pre-Renaissance infantry units are balanced and designed.

Besides, it's not as if historical artwork didn't portrait samurai on foot using swords in the battlefield.

Spoiler The artwork :

Thing is, the historical relationship between the Samurai and the Ashigaru is already similar to the one we have in-game between the Longswordman and the Pikeman. The thing about swords vs polearms, which weapon is more effective depends on how heavily armored you are, with heavy armor favoring the use of the sword. You can see more about it in this video, in which he discusses his revelations about the relationship between swords, polearms, armor and formations after participating in a medieval battle re-enactment. In short, he points out how armor negates so many of the advantages of polearms, and that the sword was arguably just as much a primary weapon as the polearm for the heavily armored Knights, but meant for a different phase of the battle: when in close press.

Mounted archery also kept falling out of favor in Japan over time, notably after the Mongol invasions. This is visible in the evolution of the Japanese armor; the favored armor of the mounted archer Samurai, the O-yoroi, was known for being very heavy and only practical in a mounted context, and found to be cumbersome against the Mongols, who were particularly prone of shooting the enemy horses and leaving the (unwillingly dismounted) samurai fighting on foot. By the time of the Sengoku Jidai, the O-yoroi was already seen as anachronistic by the Samurai class, and a lot of that has to do with most clans favoring an infantry and shock oriented approach and, therefore, types of armor more practical for dismounted combat.

 

[azum4roll]

Also it's worth noting that they are much less effecient at generating GG despite having the same GG II promotion since ranged units gain less XP from combat than melee units.

A common misconception IMO. In practice both melee and ranged gain XP at a similar rate. The XP amounts are designed around that after all.

 

[Legen]

A common misconception IMO. In practice both melee and ranged gain XP at a similar rate. The XP amounts are designed around that after all.

The virtues promotions extend how long the melee units stay in combat before needing to retreat for healing, though. That's especially noticeable if stacked with Authority's heal on kill. For Japan in particular, melees end generating more XP and GG points simply because they can stay in the frontline longer than usual.

 

[SuperNoobCamper]

A common misconception IMO. In practice both melee and ranged gain XP at a similar rate. The XP amounts are designed around that after all.

If your ranged units end up generating the same amount off GG as melee units i.e. they end up engaging in melee fights you are simply playing suboptimally.

 

[Rekk]

i.e. they end up engaging in melee fights

No, that's not how ranged units are able to generate as much XP as melee units.