France/Japan discussion (patch 3.6)

[pineappledan]

I will repost my summation of by views here and bold the relevant part:

I was excited to see what the AI's, independent of the handicap bonuses, could show us, but ultimately I think this leaves me a bit cold. I don't think the Warlord tests tell us much other than that the AI needs the handicaps in order to win.
At warlord, the AI just has to give a human player a run for their money, but the human is still heavily favored to win. These win %s reflect that. It's not a competitive game mode.
This also brings me back to my older comment: The AI doesn't need to win, it just needs to knock a human out. At Warlord, I think we are seeing the lower end of that reality.
Other observations:

• With time victory gobbling up most of the % wins, all other wins recede in roughly the same order as their speed. The average victory speed for DomV, DiploV and CV all moved back roughly 80 turns. The average SV on emperor was already within 80 turns of 500, so it is just gone. The fastest victory types (domV and CV) are much less affected than the slower victory types (DiploV and SV). I interpret this as the handicaps affecting all victory types fairly evenly. If that weren't the case we would see victory times move a lot further for some victories than others.
• The exception to this victory drought is the absolute top tier civs. There are very few time victories in the top 3. These are all civs that can win an actual victory in the time given.
• Nerf Austria.
• As @L. Vern pointed out, military civs do a lot better in general without the AI bonuses. This makes sense because conquest/wide gives a lot of score, and if no one is winning any other way, the person that simply has the most conquest will have the most score most of the time. We aren't seeing military civs do better, we're mostly just seeing how the game biases score, which doesn't have much bearing on who is actually closest to winning.
  • One exception is domination/Science civs. Assyria and Russia both got their SV's deleted by Warlord. Russia was already at the bottom though
  • Another exception is Domination civs that augment XP and levels. Once again Assyria dropped hard. So did Zulu, and so did Japan. All civs are getting free XP and more % XP from combat, and it looks like taking that handicap away hit those civs hard. Hard enough for them all to go down while all the other Domination civs went up.
  • Mongols, Huns and Spain all stayed at the bottom on both difficulties. The only conclusion is that they're just bad, even when the settings favor them

Zulu also moving from from 20th down to 38th while most other warmongers saw a some upward movement supports your hypothesis that the XP handicaps are making civs that augment that part of the game swing a lot. It seems reasonable to look at lowering this handicap.

Disabling the yields on levelling on the same turn that a unit is built would handle a large part of your concern re: the dojo. If that were done the free XP on handicap would not contribute to the yield inflation.

Ultimately I agree with @Stalker0 , these results are not what I was hoping they would be, and I don't think they tell us much other than the AI isn't good at winning within 500 turns via any method unless it has help

 

[gwennog]

France has a unique Tercio -- a melee unit -- with a very high CS bonus, so his UU augments the conversion chance

If I cannot deny the technical reflection and balance, what can justify in the history of France a UA of enlistment of enemy units beaten in combat?
We could see the notion of enlistment or levée en masse but these relate almost exclusively to the French or the French colonies, so technically not enemies even if, for example the Senegalese Tirailleurs, enlistment was often forced.
If you want to work on the UA around this notion, it is indeed strongly rooted in French military history and the idea is really very interesting but not enlistment on a kill.

 

[gwennog]

The motto could be: "Appel Sous les Drapeaux"
and would suit a long period from the 13th century to the present day (Convocation du Ban et de l'Arrière-ban, enrôlement, conscription, Levée en Masse,...)

 

[Hinin]

If I cannot deny the technical reflection and balance, what can justify in the history of France a UA of enlistment of enemy units beaten in combat?
We could see the notion of enlistment or levée en masse but these relate almost exclusively to the French or the French colonies, so technically not enemies even if, for example the Senegalese Tirailleurs, enlistment was often forced.
If you want to work on the UA around this notion, it is indeed strongly rooted in French military history and the idea is really very interesting but not enlistment on a kill.

If we go for something like a "Grande Armée" flavor, then I'm not against the proposed solution : it uses the existing parts of the French kits much more elegantly, and proposes a playstyle that I like (+ culture galore).

 

[pineappledan]

If I cannot deny the technical reflection and balance, what can justify in the history of France a UA of enlistment of enemy units beaten in combat?
We could see the notion of enlistment or levée en masse but these relate almost exclusively to the French or the French colonies, so technically not enemies even if, for example the Senegalese Tirailleurs, enlistment was often forced.
If you want to work on the UA around this notion, it is indeed strongly rooted in French military history and the idea is really very interesting but not enlistment on a kill.

Okay I'll give it a shot.

Napoleon recruited widely from allied lands, but also conquered and reorganized clients. Poles and Germans in particular.
From Wikipedia:

Diplomatic tensions with Russia, however, became so acute that they eventually led to war in 1812. Napoleon assembled the largest field army he had ever commanded to deal with this menace. The new Grande Armée was somewhat different from before; over one-third of its ranks were now filled by non-French conscripts coming from satellite states or countries allied to France. On 24 June 1812, shortly before the invasion, the assembled troops with a total strength of 685,000 men were made up of:
• 410,000 from the French Empire (present-day France, Italy, the Low Countries, and several German states)
• 95,000 Poles
• 35,000 Austrians
• 30,000 Italians
• 24,000 Bavarians
• 20,000 Saxons
• 20,000 Prussians
• 17,000 Westphalians
• 15,000 Swiss
• 10,000 Danes and Norwegians
• 4,000 Spaniards
• 4,000 Portuguese
• 3,500 Croats
• 2,000 Irish

Today, France is the country with the most foreign recruitment. Their Foreign legion is the oldest and the largest force of its kind in the world, formed out of the old Armee d'Afrique.
The Napoleonic war figures ignore the ongoing recruitment and fighting of French colonial posessions, some of which have become famous in their own right. eg. The Zouaves, the Meharists, Goumiers, Sepoys, etc.

As for the mechanism, conversion from combat is the conversion we have.
Could call the ability: 'Français par le Sang Versé'

 

[der_weihnachtsmann]

The multi attack bonus had no incentive aside from more damage, which meant it didn't matter at all after the target died, or would have died anyways. More up-front bonuses were always more useful. Now with added yields on stacking attacks there is a durable economic motive behind stacking damage on targets. Much more interesting.

I like the directions too, but I feel like the 1 yield per attack is so miniscule that it should just be removed to not contribute to feature bloat.

 

[ma_kuh]

It scales with number of cities though, and presumably era. There's a potential for it to be low-key powerful, especially in an epic or marathon game as you start to take over a continent. Teocalli is evidence enough of that.

Edit: Actually, on second read I think it needs clarification.

Is this supposed to be:
[ +1 (vs Unit) or +1 (vs City) ] in all Cities
OR
[ +1 ] (vs Unit) or [ +1 in all cities ] (vs City)

 

[gwennog]

Okay I'll give it a shot.

Napoleon recruited widely from allied lands, but also conquered and reorganized clients.
From Wikipedia:

It is really a problem to sum up the history of France to Napoleon. Poor us, 800 years of history summarized in a period of 10 years especially since many of these troops were allies.

Today, France is the country with the most foreign recruitment. Their Foreign legion is the oldest and the largest force of its kind in the world, formed out of the old Armee d'Afrique.
The Napoleonic war figures ignore the ongoing recruitment and fighting of French colonial posessions, some of which have become famous in their own right. eg. The Zouaves, the Meharists, Goumiers, Sepoys, etc.

Yes, that's why I was telling you about the Senegalese Tirailleurs, but we can also mention the Algerian Tirailleurs, spahis, tabors,...
As for the Foreign Legion, it is currently made up of 40% of people from Central and Eastern Europe, including many Ukrainians and Russians. I don't believe that France enlisted them by force.
I understand your technical vision and that it is necessary to make an effort of interpretation, to consider that the troops killed and "captured" are an image for the people recruited in the colonies. But I find it reductive, the vast majority of millions of French fighters through the ages were French (And Napoleon our greatest gravedigger).

As for the mechanism, conversion from combat is the conversion we have.

Yes, I understand, so I plead for a slightly different idea (of which you have the secret) around the same theme which is interesting.

Could call the ability: 'Français par le Sang Versé'

Excellent .

 

[gwennog]

Well finally, after reflection, I agree with the idea which will be very interesting to play. You have a second French voice with that of Hinin . The enlistment skill therefore works well (at least played by Canada ). But with the last Motto .

Just, that's not really exact but it's a detail.

Their Foreign ... formed out of the old Armee d'Afrique.

 

[ma_kuh]

Maybe they could conscript soldiers in cities on a trigger, like Authority does on population thresholds?
Not sure of a "culture-themed" way to do that though... my first thought was from allied city-states, but then you're in diplo territory, something France doesn't have motivation towards with the current kit. Maybe on Policy completion? Get a corp of 3 in the capital or something, with all of the free XP and upgrades (unlike the captured ones).

 

[Stalker0]

I like the directions too, but I feel like the 1 yield per attack is so miniscule that it should just be removed to not contribute to feature bloat.

So its easy to miss in the text, but this yield does scale with each and every attack.

So:
1) 1st attack: 0 culture
2) 2nd attack: 1 culture (total: 1)
3) 3rd attack: 2 culture (total: 3)
4) 4th attack: 3 culture (total: 6)
5) 5th attack: 4 culture (total: 10)
etc

So this means attacking a unit 4 times will net you 6 culture. Attacking a city 5 times in one turn earns you 10 gold in every city. It actually can add up pretty quickly.

 

[der_weihnachtsmann]

So its easy to miss in the text, but this yield does scale with each and every attack.

So:
1) 1st attack: 0 culture
2) 2nd attack: 1 culture (total: 1)
3) 3rd attack: 2 culture (total: 3)
4) 4th attack: 3 culture (total: 6)
5) 5th attack: 4 culture (total: 10)
etc

So this means attacking a unit 4 times will net you 6 culture. Attacking a city 5 times in one turn earns you 10 gold in every city. It actually can add up pretty quickly.

That makes more sense, thanks for clarifying!

 

[pineappledan]

It is really a problem to sum up the history of France to Napoleon. Poor us, 800 years of history summarized in a period of 10 years especially since many of these troops were allies

The other two components aren’t from Revolutionary France. Neither are the 4UC components (though the salon is borderline, it used to be the Grande Ecole).

The previous UA’s great work stealing/great work generation on city capture was based on Napoleon’s looting of important historical artifacts from Egypt, Germany, and Italy. At least this UA’s focus on the army and the levee en masse references revolutionary France more broadly, and not Napoleon’s campaigns specifically, since the levee was implemented during the wars of revolution which predate the First Empire by 10 years or so.

 

[azum4roll]

So its easy to miss in the text, but this yield does scale with each and every attack.

So:
1) 1st attack: 0 culture
2) 2nd attack: 1 culture (total: 1)
3) 3rd attack: 2 culture (total: 3)
4) 4th attack: 3 culture (total: 6)
5) 5th attack: 4 culture (total: 10)
etc

So this means attacking a unit 4 times will net you 6 culture. Attacking a city 5 times in one turn earns you 10 gold in every city. It actually can add up pretty quickly.

And is very punishing to the AI who always attacks in full force.

 

[Legen]

It is really a problem to sum up the history of France to Napoleon. Poor us, 800 years of history summarized in a period of 10 years especially since many of these troops were allies.

The other two components aren’t from Revolutionary France.

Pretty much it, neither UB nor the UI are related to Napoleon. On the other hand, it is part of why France has been lacking a coherent theme.

For example, Japan has a solid amount of SV wins in the Emperor run, but no one is getting SVs in warlord. So any civ whose win % includes a good amount of SV of course is going to go down quite a bit.

At the moment, Japan isn't tailored for scientific victories in human hands. The values set for the leveling mechanic are mainly to make it an extra, and has been nerfed from older values (20% less). If we were to make Japan a scientific civ, we'd have to buff either the leveling yields, or how fast Japan can train units (matching the AI handicap bonuses at Emperor or above).

How interested are people in having Japan compete with scientific civs, by the way? I've seen pineappledan pushing Japan for SV, but my impression is that people see Japan firmly as a cultural/militaristic hybrid, with the Dojo's science as an extra.

 

[pineappledan]

It would be more correct to say that I think the Bonuses are entirely inappropriate on Japan, and that I am advocating for the removal of THAT. I think people are focused on the wrong yield, and the wrong component of Japan’s kit.
- Japan is the 2nd most irreligious nation on the planet after only Vietnam.
- the fewer dedicated religious civs we have the better, because it makes the founding race more fun

This isn’t Shotoku’s Heian Japan, this is Nobunaga’s Bakufu. This is the guy who imported huge quantities of guns and oversaw Japan becoming the place on the planet with more firearms per capita than anywhere else. He massacred Buddhist monasteries, erasing Buddhism as a political entity, then his protégés carried on with a brutal inquisition against the Japanese Christians. This is one of the least religious countries on the planet being led by one of the least pious men in its long history.

At the moment, Japan isn't tailored for scientific victories in human hands.

I have won SVs with civs that have fewer direct science bonuses. This is a complete non-issue to me. If anything, the sentiment in the AI test games thread was they wanted more SV civs, and here we are debating the removal of a potential SV candidate.

The values set for the leveling mechanic are mainly to make it an extra, and has been nerfed from older values (20% less).

It’s way more than 20%, because the scaling is exponential. It’s only 20 less at unit level 2.
The base was changed from 5 to 4, and the formula for yields is X^(Y-1), where X is the base amount (4 or 5), and Y is the current level.
Scaling goes like:
4: 1, 4, 16, 64, 256…
5: 1, 5, 25, 125, 525…

edit: it really is 20% lower than it was. The 4x multiplier is outside the exponent. The real formula is 4((x-1)^2)
So the scaling currently goes:
4: 1, 4, 16, 36, 64, 100...
5: 1, 5, 20, 45, 80, 125...

 

[gwennog]

The other two components aren’t from Revolutionary France. Neither are the 4UC components (though the salon is borderline, it used to be the Grande Ecole).

Pretty much it, neither UB nor the UI are related to Napoleon. On the other hand, it is part of why France has been lacking a coherent theme.

I agree but the window is still reduced to late renaissance (the castle by these bonuses is not very connoted medieval) at the beginning of the 20th century.

Something that would be more historically globalizing could give:

In peacetime, +1 Food and +1 Culture in each city per 10 military units. By signing an unfavorable peace, +1 Production and +1 Science in each city and +1 Tourism and +1 Gold if it is favorable (duration depend of the war score). +25% Unit Supply from Population.

but I agree that it would require too much programming.

 

[pineappledan]

The UI really should just be a ‘castle’, and the castle should be named something else. Fortress, Stronghold, or Keep or something.

 

[Zakuzelo]

So yeah, I've now played part of a game with my version of 'Sakoku Japan'.

I definitely think it has every bit as much of a strong theme going for it as 'Shogunate Japan'.
I like that it keeps Nobunaga's Great Person focus, and therefore his VC focus, more open-ended. He has a tool that will help slow down another civ's CV, and a tool that can be used to create more GWAMs, or focus on another GP type like scientists.
You can play this Japan wide and aggressive like I did to leverage the global per city, and use your trade routes to gain strategic CS allies around the map, or you can focus a tall Artistry game and use the %GP rate, combined with a few ITRs to pump out lots of great people, with a dollop of extra happiness for more golden ages.

Overall it felt like a success. Overall I think which one is better hinges on whether people want Japan to be / (Shogunate) or / (Sakoku). I would prefer to drop the faith; the fewer guaranteed founder civs we have the better, imo.

This doesn't change my take on the proposed UA at all. The trade route control aspect is still putting an extra level of control on something you want to be happening as much as you can anyway, and the unused trade route aspect is still not on advantage, just a trade-off, and one that rewards you for just not engaging with a game mechanic. Good to her it's functional and all, though.

Re: giving Japan more ,that Would make Japan a faith civ, or more of one than he is already. Is that what people want? I feel like we have enough of those.

It’s not just about what would make Japan balanced; what roll do we want him to fulfill in the lineup of civs?

What I want is for Japan to be left the hell alone, but that's not going to happen. Science switching to faith is the least disruptive nerf I can see floating around here, and it's still fairly appropriate, so sure, let's go with that.

 

[Legen]

It would be more correct to say that I think the Bonuses are entirely inappropriate on Japan, and that I am advocating for the removal of THAT. I think people are focused on the wrong yield, and the wrong component of Japan’s kit.
- Japan is the 2nd most irreligious nation on the planet after only Vietnam.
- the fewer dedicated religious civs we have the better, because it makes the founding race more fun

This isn’t Shotoku’s Heian Japan, this is Nobunaga’s Bakufu. This is the guy who imported huge quantities of guns and oversaw Japan becoming the place on the planet with more firearms per capita than anywhere else. He massacred Buddhist monasteries, erasing Buddhism as a political entity, then his protégés carried on with a brutal inquisition against the Japanese Christians. This is one of the least religious countries on the planet being led by one of the least pious men in its long history.

Yet, Nobunaga died while attending a tea ceremony at Honno-ji, a Buddhist temple he often visited. He didn't burn monasteries due to an anti-religion stance, he did because those were fortified military bases used by his enemies, including rival daimyo. And if Tokugawa purging a foreign religion is grounds for a civ being non-religious, then Spain may as well lose its faith bonuses due to the Spanish Inquisition and the Reconquista.

And Shinto wasn't hit by any of the stated actions. In fact, it thrived during this period and later benefitted from Buddhism losing political power.

Also, modern stance towards religion is basically how faith costs become extremely high in Information Era, and not representative of how religious people were over most of a civilization's history.

I have won SVs with civs that have fewer direct science bonuses. This is a complete non-issue to me. If anything, the sentiment in the AI test games thread was they wanted more SV civs, and here we are debating the removal of a potential SV candidate.

I think the sentiment was that scientific victories were rare in general, even for scientific civs. Not that there are too few scientific civs. The point is, Emperor AI Japan winning SV as much as it is isn't representative of how the civ plays in human hands. To make Japan a scientific civ as you want, we'd have to increase the values of the Dojo leveling mechanic, regardless of whether Japan ends with Shogunate or Sakoku UA.

Science switching to faith is the least disruptive nerf I can see floating around here, and it's still fairly appropriate, so sure, let's go with that.

Changing the AI handicaps to not involve experience would address the issue, and wouldn't need any changes to Japan. The current handicaps are:

Difficulty: AIFreeXP AIFreeXPPercent
Settler/Chieftain/Warlord: 0 0%
Prince: 10 10%
King: 15 40%
Emperor: 20 60%
Immortal: 25 80%
Deity: 30 100%

The idea is to set those parameters to zero and instead give the AI a combat bonus per difficulty. For instance:

Difficulty: AICombatBonus
Settler/Chieftain/Warlord: 0%
Prince: 10%
King: 10%
Emperor: 15%
Immortal: 15%
Deity: 20%

I expect AI Japan to drop positions with that, like they did when comparing the Emperor and Warlord tests. It is a much far reaching change, though, so I don't know how much support such proposal will have.