1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Japanese units always fight at full strength?!??

Discussion in 'Civ5 - Strategy & Tips' started by hardcore_gamer, Sep 13, 2010.

  1. civ_king

    civ_king Deus Caritas Est

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2006
    Messages:
    16,368
    At Agincourt they only had front barding, the horses got killed after the horses turned around (thus showing the exposed rear)

    Much faster before, still faster after 50kg of barding and 125kg of knight and his armor
     
  2. Pragmatic

    Pragmatic Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2001
    Messages:
    539
    I've been browsing over the special abilities, unique units, and unique buildings for the different civilizations. It looks like each civilization was given something game-breaking, just to give each their own chance to shine.
     
  3. gamesguy

    gamesguy Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2010
    Messages:
    7
    And why would the horses turn around and expose their rear in a frontal charge?:rolleyes:

    By the time we see full barding on cavalry the Japanese had guns.

    Proof?
     
  4. Hawkwood

    Hawkwood Man-at-Arms

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2008
    Messages:
    235
    Location:
    Denmark
    Samurai vs Knight.

    Agincourt was battle were many factors influenced the English victory, it's very likely the English would have lost if Henry didn't send the Longbowmen into melee, and the English would have lost if they weren't defending a hill with sharpened stakes in front and forests on the flanks after a week-long rain. How much the arrows of the Longbowme contributed to the victory is controversial, and we could discuss it for 9 pages without reaching a conclusion.

    Can we get back on topic?

    I think it's says something about the balance of the game, when everyone thinks one of the civs is OP. People talk about how Japan will dominate, without considering that their UUs doesn't seem as good as others. People mention how Rome, Greece or the Ottomans are going to dominate, because they have strong UUs entering play at the same time, while not thinking that the Greek UA doesn't add much to early warfare, the Ottomans UA has been bashed as useless and the strength of Rome's depends on how many different buildings can be constructed in one city.

    Can't we just say that the every bonuses different civs get are better than those of CIV, and wait until we get the game to determine which civ is strongest?
     
  5. civ_king

    civ_king Deus Caritas Est

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2006
    Messages:
    16,368
    They spent over 1000 years being bred for strength and speed, after all, a knight on a slow horse is going to get shot at more than a faster horse. The reason was palisades that the knights couldn't get through, plus Longbow>>>Yumi in terms of distance, accuracy and power

    Badly accurate guns still get massacred by knights because Knights had their armor modified to defend against guns, ever heard of "proofing"?
     
  6. gamesguy

    gamesguy Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2010
    Messages:
    7
    That's not proof. You think the Japanese didn't breed their warhorses for strength and speed?:rolleyes:

    Wrong again, by the time the knights to the English lines they have long since been dismounted.

    The real reason the barding could not deflect the arrows was that the barding's top portion was very weak and the longbows were fired in an arc, which easilly penetrated the weak top armor. But apparently you didn't know that.

    Wrong again. Proofed armor didn't work in Europe and it won't work in Japan. You cannot proof the whole armor and you can forget about armoring the horse against guns. Once his horse was shot down, a gendarmes was just a tin can on foot wearing 80 lbs of armor waiting to die. There is a reason everyone in Europe abandoned the full body plate of the early cuirassiers in favor of just a small chest plate and unarmored legs the later ones wore.

    17th century Japan also had the best guns in the world at the time, and in their own wars guns easilly slaughted armored cavalry.

    Completely false. The longbow was actually a very primitive weapon. The laminated bows the Asian countries used were far superior and resembles modern composite bows. They had less draw weight for more power, you didn't need the arms of a gorilla to draw one.

    Like I said earlier, if you're going to be anal retentive about historical accuracy in a game where Ghandi allied with Bismarck to fight in the blitzkrieg of 1320 against Washington, you should at least get your damn facts straight.
     
  7. Hawkwood

    Hawkwood Man-at-Arms

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2008
    Messages:
    235
    Location:
    Denmark
    Full armour was abandoned in the middle of the 17th century because the proof armour was too heavy. Full plate armour was proof against the guns of the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries.
    How can they be the best if they were imported from Europe?

    So now we not only have katanaplonkers spewing bull**** about how the katanas were better than any other sword, we also have yumiplonkers spewing bull**** about how the yumis were better than any other bow?

    Both sides are stating falsehoods and this discussion doesn't have anything to do with the topic.
     
  8. Auncien

    Auncien Prince

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2010
    Messages:
    431
    I'm sure that the falling shards of sky will hit a few of the japanese units and even the odds. :lol:

    In all seriousness though, this ability just makes them a little better at aggression. You get them running due to low health and they'll die just like any other unit.
     
  9. gamesguy

    gamesguy Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2010
    Messages:
    7
    Japan didn't adopt guns until the mid 17th century, and full plate certainly was not proof against them. For example the Imperial cavalry was utterly slaughtered at Leipzig by the Swedish musketeers.

    Japan adopted the gun extremely enthusiastically, they had made the guns with superior quality steel and made several improvements that allowed the matchlock guns to fire in the rain and to be used decently at night.

    Katanas are not better than any other sword, I don't know where you get that from, Samurai rarely used it in an actual battle anyways.

    Yumis are not better than any other bow, if I had to pick the "best" bow it'd probably be the Turkish bow, which had a record range of nearly a kilometer. Yumis were laminated bows, which was basically a variant of the composite bow, and much superior to simple wood bows like the longbow. They required much less force to draw, and consequently when drawn with the same force could deliver more power to the arrow.
     
  10. Iceciro

    Iceciro Special Ability: Decimate

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2006
    Messages:
    1,944
    Location:
    in ur empire, takin ur cities
    And you guys are complaining about Samurai vs Knight in a game where you have one leader from the ancient times up until you launch a spaceship that reaches Alpha Centauri?
     
  11. Jonkenden

    Jonkenden Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2008
    Messages:
    41
    Location:
    Sweden
    That doesn't make their actual smithing ways inferior, that's an issue with their material.

    I don't have simple wallhangers, I have proper blades in my collection that are well balanced. I don't contest the effectiveness of european blades so, ye.
     
  12. civ_king

    civ_king Deus Caritas Est

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2006
    Messages:
    16,368
    1) There was vastly more breeding going on in Europe so logically they would get stronger/faster breeds faster
    2) Agincourt was ugly
    3) Guns started being used in European warfare in the 15th century, plate armor started getting phased out in the 17th century. The term bulletproof comes from shooting plate armor and showing it didn't pierce the armor, the dent usually was decorated to show that, the particularly good armorers used a pistol at pointblank range range.

    4) You're using Leipzig as a counterexample :cringe: The French were outnumbered 2:1 in terms of soldiers and artillery! Napoleon had 38,000 casualties while the others had 54,000. Oh and you do realize that Leipzig was in the 19th century right?

    5) And how many of those Japanese used (steel) plate armor? (besides, by then they were starting to phasing out full plate), lol, you said superior quality steel and Japanese in the same sentence!

    6) Range of almost a kilometre? I need proof for that

    PS 80lbs isn't that cumbersome with a good pack on and far less with good plate armor

    And yes, we are arguing about Samurai vs. Knight
     
  13. Kordanor

    Kordanor Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2010
    Messages:
    210
    From the manual:

    Therefore it's still a pretty huge bonus, but not as huge as it was assumend before.
     
  14. Naxle

    Naxle Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2010
    Messages:
    11
    Location:
    Sidmouth
    YEESS! :goodjob:
    I always wanted a very very long game.

    This ability sound interesting-though where would it be most useful? Bottlenecks and really drawn out battles I suppose. I keep forgetting that there aren't stacks anymore.
     
  15. Schuesseled

    Schuesseled Deity

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2008
    Messages:
    2,081
    lol 20 - 40 times, sire the granary will be constructed in 400 turns.
     
  16. gamesguy

    gamesguy Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2010
    Messages:
    7
    Proof?

    Does not change the fact that arrows pierced the weak top barding on horses and killed them.

    Muskets have more power than pistols, and generally only the chest plate was bullet proof. The horse also does not have that luxury. A bullet proof suit of armor is a huge hinderance once you are de-horsed.

    Seriously? You didn't see the part I said about the Swedish musketeers?

    There is more than one battle of Leipzig.

    The main advantage of the musket was always their ability to kill the horse. A guy on foot wearing 80 lbs of armor isn't going to be doing much.

    And yes Japan used superior steel in their guns.

    http://www.servinghistory.com/topics/Turkish_bow

    The long bow was very backward, it relied on simple brute strength. Composite and laminated bows like the Turkish and Asian bows are simply technologically superior.

    80 lbs is far too much to be slogging around on foot engaging in melee combat.
     
  17. ClasuSiosa

    ClasuSiosa Thespian of the Sword

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2007
    Messages:
    143
    Location:
    Tol-in-Gaurhoth
    On topic: I think the military prowess of Japan will have to used early to make a significant difference, the hit and run of cammel archers for one will decimate them, and they will fall behind in tech/$$$/culture even before they have Samurai

    Off Topic: 80lbs is less than what the marines carried on the shores of Normandy and you cant say they didnt fight well.

    The Samurai have never been accuratly portraid in civ, they are always the Katana carrying footmen in the high style Bushido, the actually effective "Samurai" would cut off your head if you called them Samurai, Samurai means "One who serves" which were "men at arms" of the early/pre-Senguku period.
    The real "Samurai" were mostly mounted archers. Their horses were smaller and slower than european horses. Their bows were less powerfull but more accurate and could be fired from hose-back. The horses had a very smooth gait allowing for more accuracy, but slower speeds. The temperment of the Japanese horses aswell as their size precluded them being shock troops, nor could they support (comparitively) much armor. Japanese armor was made out of laqured leather or paper, due to the lack of metal and the wet climate metal armor was ineffective. The Japanese are famous for their elegent weapons, but their other weapons are forgoten, such as 7ft long swords, clubs, axes, 20+ft spears (youd think they were trying to make up for something :lol:), guns, flails, etc.
    Note: Nunchucku are a Hollywood manufacture, not a real Japanese weapon!

    Samurai vs. Knights: I would bet on the knights, because, 1. Better Armor, 2. Faster horses, 3. Larger men, 4. Larger Horses(fighting platforms), 5. Sheilds, 6. Shock combat v. archery skirmishing; swords are not a factor, they are just different; Knight sword + Shield v. Katana? Draw.

    Back on topic: I think it all balences out in the end, and different civs apeal to diffenent playing styles, Civilization as usual...:crazyeye:
     
  18. Rathelon

    Rathelon Prince

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Messages:
    423
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    I've played Japan, and their unique ability is good, but not game breaking. They die just as easily as any other equivalent unit (no extra health), you just will take more casualties against them. Pretty much like WWII - they fight to the last man and we paid a lot of blood island hopping in the Pacific.
     
  19. Brawndo

    Brawndo Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2010
    Messages:
    255

    Uh no, sorry. Hollywood and the internet taught me that katanas can cut an inferior European broadsword in half, they wouldn't lie. Katanas can also deflect bullets if you spin them fast enough


















    :D
     
  20. ClasuSiosa

    ClasuSiosa Thespian of the Sword

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2007
    Messages:
    143
    Location:
    Tol-in-Gaurhoth
    LOL!!!!:lol:

    Id prefer an Oh-Song-Do from Korea to either actually.:p
     

Share This Page