The Japan Thread

[luca 83]

To simulate the situation in Japan in 1500 -1600 there would be a puppet emperor a series of clans at war with each other, and always the same: a symbolic leader can no longer hold up a complex game

I mean in a feudal struggle situation such as the Sengoku period of feuding fiefdoms and an example of how fixed representative leaders are outdated because the simulation is too complex to be represented by a single leader

 

[Phrozen]

I mean in a feudal struggle situation such as the Sengoku period of feuding fiefdoms and an example of how fixed representative leaders are outdated because the simulation is too complex to be represented by a single leader

Most Civs are not usually based on one time period but rather the full spectrum of their golden age(s) or height of power. My design for Japan takes pieces from various pieces of Japan's history. The Jinja is a Shinto shrine and its ability represents that Japan's native folk beliefs were never really replaced by Buddhism. Meiji Restoration of course references Japan's modernization but Japan had always taken technology and ideas from both China and Korea.

 

[luca 83]

Most Civs are not usually based on one time period but rather the full spectrum of their golden age(s) or height of power. My design for Japan takes pieces from various pieces of Japan's history. The Jinja is a Shinto shrine and its ability represents that Japan's native folk beliefs were never really replaced by Buddhism. Meiji Restoration of course references Japan's modernization but Japan had always taken technology and ideas from both China and Korea.

It is absurd to think of a civilization at its peak when you are a single settler ! The rise and fall must be simulated during the game, also influences, cultural, a variety of consequences to brought to England the empire and victory on the throne

 

[dagriggstar]

I won't go into specific abilities etc because we don't know what mechanics will be in VII (Like, what if there are no military/economic/diplomatic government slots). My points of emphasis would be
- Alliances. Japanese alliances should be 'better' than a generic civ. A civ 6 example might be your works are automatically themed with a cultural alliance
- Writers. I think Japan could fill a nice niche as the "great writer" civ
- Late game military. I think part of the reason the late game is boring is a lack of uniques available. I had a lot of fun in 5 with a mod that gave them enhanced aircraft carriers to go with their Zeroes.

I don't like getting into super-specific stuff I think that's what Europa Universalis is for. Civs space in the market is simple computerised world history board game.

 

[AffineConstant]

I won't go into specific abilities etc because we don't know what mechanics will be in VII (Like, what if there are no military/economic/diplomatic government slots). My points of emphasis would be
- Alliances. Japanese alliances should be 'better' than a generic civ. A civ 6 example might be your works are automatically themed with a cultural alliance
- Writers. I think Japan could fill a nice niche as the "great writer" civ
- Late game military. I think part of the reason the late game is boring is a lack of uniques available. I had a lot of fun in 5 with a mod that gave them enhanced aircraft carriers to go with their Zeroes.

I don't like getting into super-specific stuff I think that's what Europa Universalis is for. Civs space in the market is simple computerised world history board game.

Why would Japanese alliances be any better? A traditionally isolationist country for much of its history, then an imperial power that setup and dropped alliances at sheer convenience like anyone else, then a quasi forced dependence on another power for defense. If this had been Britain, a country that managed international politics so well it hasn't been invaded for a thousand years and won 3 world wars (if you include Napoleon which you should) on the trot by deftly crafting alliances I'd say sure, but not Japan (which only recently barely patched anything up with South Korea over history from 80 years ago).

Japan isn't really noted for terribly many writers than any other culture either, at least not of novels though you could argue definitely comics making up for some of that. Over the last 40 years music has exploded their second only to the anglosphere, though they've not exported it as well as say South Korea. I could see an argument for a specific more modern day Japanese Prime Minister having an advantage in culture generation and such overall. Maybe an econ/culture leader from the 80s or 90s.

The enhanced aircraft carriers doesn't make any sense either, the "zeroes" are an iconic piece of history fair enough, but most of the carriers were awkward converted escort carriers in WW2, the opposite of anything special there.

 

[Evie]

Everyone's carrier fleet was mostly escort and light carriers, which were to some degree or another limited (the Independance less so), hardly a reason to dismiss the quality of that nations' carriers.

In terms of fleet carriers, though, the Japanese purpose-built pre-war designs - the Dragons (Hiryu, Soryu, and their later cousins of the Unryu class) and the Cranes (Zuikaku, Shokaku) - were very fine carriers, a match for any carrier built before the Essexes. But carrier UUs seem like a difficult concept to make work.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Note that before and during World War Two, there were only 3 nations in the World that built or half-built more than 1 aircraft carrier: Britain, Japan, and the United States. Of those three, they all built very good Fleet Carriers before and during the war, but during the war the USA built more fleet carriers than the entire rest of the world combined and doubled.

"Numbers have a quality all their own" - Lenin

Also, note that there were real differences in 'design philosophy' among the Big Three: the British made sure their carriers were well-protected, with side armor and armored decks, while the Japanese and USA both concentrated on carrying as many aircraft as possible and launching and recovering them as fast as possible. The culmination of that was probably the Essex class, which could carry up to 80 aircraft and launch or recover aircraft faster than any carrier built before the war. US wartime carriers also benefitted from technological advances in Damage Control, like anti-fire Foam, that gave them much more survivability.

ANY UU from the late game eras is, alas, of only marginal use in the game so far. Carriers even more so because many maps (Pangaea!) give them no real capability to get close to most targets, and they require too much Production to build multiple carriers and their air components that are required to overwhelm a city's defenses or destroy a Battleship before it gets close enough to whack a carrier. The balance in the game is 'off', for aircraft carriers between their potential uses and their costs.

 

[dagriggstar]

Well when I think of an example of a "cultural alliance" I think of the Anglo-Japanese alliance. Between that and post-WWII Japan it's enough for me. The overall design goal is for a faction that can be "behind" everyone else and then catch rapidly back up. Others should be incentivised to keep Japan around too (otherwise when they get weak they just get eliminated).

I'd consider Japan to stack up pretty well when it comes to literature. Potentially the first novel ever written (obviously up for debate depending on your definition of 'novel') and more probably the first written by a female on its own is pretty notable. The Heian period is definitely a part of Japanese history. I think defining great works of writing to strictly novels is a bit western centric anyway, so haiku (poetry more generally) and manga to me should count.

I just threw out the carrier idea because it was fun to play. If you want a faction to have a carrier UU they'd be my choice. I dislike adding units to the game that don't have unique versions. You have a unique carrier it gives you a different gameplay experience. But it's still useless if they aren't well designed in the first place.

I also consider that when designing a civilization roster overall, Japan fit better as a "modern" faction rather than anything earlier in the game. Of all the potential factions from Asia, I'd rather have modern Japan than modern China/India/Indonesia/Burma/Vietnam etc. Even though you can obviously make Japan a strong Medieval powerhouse.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I just threw out the carrier idea because it was fun to play. If you want a faction to have a carrier UU they'd be my choice. I dislike adding units to the game that don't have unique versions. You have a unique carrier it gives you a different gameplay experience. But it's still useless if they aren't well designed in the first place.

I mean that's a fair point. However out of all the units that don't have a unique version, I think a unique carrier would be at the bottom of the list.

 

[Haig]

I personally love late game uniques, especially if the civ has some unique unit/building in early game too. Example: Germany with Hansa and U-Boat.

It gives this nice reward for me to build and use and gives flavor, even if it is not game-winning to have Mustangs in atomic era.

I would love if Japan would get both Samurai and Yamato Battleship!
Yamato never decided a battle, but in Civ's "what-if" world maybe a fleet of them would conquer the pacific ocean..

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I personally love late game uniques, especially if the civ has some unique unit/building in early game too. Example: Germany with Hansa and U-Boat.

It gives this nice reward for me to build and use and gives flavor, even if it is not game-winning to have Mustangs in atomic era.

I would love if Japan would get both Samurai and Yamato Battleship!
Yamato never decided a battle, but in Civ's "what-if" world maybe a fleet of them would conquer the pacific ocean..

Please to note that both of the Super Battleships, Yamato and Musashi, were sunk by carrier aircraft. Like the Minas Gerais, this is a place where the Unique was not War Winning in its era.

IF Japan has to get a late-game Naval Unique, a representation of the Type 93 wakeless oxygen torpedo, the "Long Lance", might be more appropriate:
Every Japanese Warship not an Aircraft Carrier of Industrial and later Eras gets a Torpedo Attack: a single Range 2 Strength 60 attack against Naval targets only. The Japanese ship has to pass through a Japanese Harbor tile to 'resupply' with torpedoes before it can use this attack again.

Not war winning, but very, very dangerous and more likely to survive even in a hostile air environment than a Super Target.

 

[Evie]

I get what you’re doing with the refillable torpedoes, but I’d actually argue that the torpedoes should be a melee attack vs gunfire being the ranged one… Maybe a range 1 for the torpedoes instead of range 2, with gunfire remaining at range 2.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I get what you’re doing with the refillable torpedoes, but I’d actually argue that the torpedoes should be a melee attack vs gunfire being the ranged one… Maybe a range 1 for the torpedoes instead of range 2, with gunfire remaining at range 2.

That's certainly another (and much simpler!) way to do it, but I was trying to make the torpedo a somewhat unique attack form to go with its Unique status.
Also, the effective range of the Type 93 was 22 km with a max range at 34 - 36 knots of 40 km, which doesn't make it appreciably shorter ranged than the guns mounted on cruisers, destroyers, and other non-capital ships of the time - and the range was about twice that of other navies' torpedoes in the same period, and that extra long range was one of the major advantages of the weapon in service in the early actions of 1942 - 43.

Possibly then, a higher Melee Factor for all ships to represent the extreme effectiveness (50 kph speed and larger warhead) at ranges under 10 km with Japanese Destroyers also getting a Ranged Factor of 2 Range (only against Naval Targets to avoid Torpedo Attacks against coastal Districts!) to represent the Ambush tactics they could use with it at much longer ranges . . .

 

[Evie]

Interesting, I didn't think it would be that long-legged!

That said, the practicality of using torpedoes at that kind of range when you a)only get a couple shot and b)it takes a long time for that shot to get there, during which your target may decide to go just about anywhere else (15 minutes or so for a 22km shot, close to 40 minutes for a 40 km one, etc) is a bit questionable - which may be why the Japanese settled on a shorter range of around 10km as the effective range of the long lance (at least against mobile target). They did of course score a few hit at greater range, luck and all, but practical strategy was a bit more close up than that.

Guns, meanwhile, could reload, and had much faster travel time so could cycle multiple shots in a row and adjust their aim, so while not longer legged, perhaps more practical at longer ranges.

 

[BuchiTaton]

Good timing! Today (JST) was the 80th aniversary of the IJN I-400 submarine launch, first of the Sentoku submarine aircraft carrier class. The largest WW2 submarine type, with the capacity of carry and deploy three Aichi M6A Seiran attack floatplanes, armed with Type 91 torpedos and bombs. These submarines had global range, designed to perpetrate surprise attacks in strategic places like the Panama Canal.
The whole history of the Sentoku is related to some of the popular elements about the IJN in WW2, commit Pearl Harbor like attacks, japanese naval planes, torpedoes, the plan to attack Panama was supposed to be kamikaze at some point, and in the later Ulithi atoll battle an interesting event was the idea to paint the Seiran as american planes to deceive the enemy, something that was seen as dishonorable by some of their pilots.

In gameplay terms the Sentoku allows to have an actually unique units that mix the capabilities of the submarines and carriers, also as a very "ninja-like" unit.

 

[Evie]

The main problem I'd have with the I-400 and similar Sentoku is that...they just weren't much good. Even on paper: carrying two or three seaplanes is hardly carrier capability: most warships larger than a light cruiser in the Pacific carried 2-3 seaplanes (and the Tone carried 6!)! And as was demonstrated time and time and time again, in an ocean as large as the Pacific, you don't actually *need* a submarine for a carrier force to sneak up on a target. What you do need is enough plane on your carrier to maximize the punch that your sneak attack will have, something that 2-3 seaplanes per ship was never going to cut it as. Especially when those Seaplanes are only marginally better than the average seaplane in the Pacific, and actively worse than most actual carrier planes. Not to mention that, part of the point of a carrier is having a base your pilots can return to, which is somewhat less effective is the base is hiding underwater while the pilots are trying to return.

They're one of those ideas that sound awesome when you hear it but become catastrophically bad when you actually get into the nitty gritty of how it works. You know, like Rocket-powered interceptors. And, much like rocket-powered interceptors, they were part of the late-war Axis strategy of "Throw every crazy idea at the wall and hope for dear life something actually works" (spoiler alert: nothing worked).

Not to mention, of course, that while it may be hard to make a unique unit of a unit that never actually won (like the Yamato and Musashi), it's even harder to make a Unique Unit of a unit that never actually *fought*. Which is the case of the I-400, which just sat around preparing for missions that never came. That fairly clearly speaks of a unit with far too limited a use profile to actually offer anything of value to the war effort.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

The I-400 is right up there with the other Great Submarine Idea that didn't work so well in practice, the French submersible Surcouf, a 'submarine cruiser' second only to the I-400 in size amongst WWII submarines at 3300 tons (surface displacement), which carried 2 203mm (8 inch) guns, 2 37mm antiaircraft guns, 4 .50 calibre antiaircraft machineguns, a floatplane, 10 torpedo tubes, a compartment to carry 40 men (a platoon!) - and I think the crew could be issued cutlasses if everything else failed to work.
The idea was that she had a long enough range (19,000 kilometers) and capacity to provide support for the French colonies around the world and fight off almost anything smaller than a cruiser she might encounter. In practice, the 203mm guns took forever to bring into action after surfacing and were so close to the water level that their visual rangefinder only worked to about half their actual range, she surfaced and submerged much slower than a regular submarine, and in the event was seized by the British in 1940 to avoid her falling into German hands and then sank in the Caribbean in 1942, probably after colliding with an American freighter.
Sic Transit . . .

 

[BuchiTaton]

Well I can agree about the real practical outcome of the Sentoku. But, this suggestion is an option under two points:
- In gameplay terms would be an unit that justify unique capacities. For the average player a submarine/carrier mix unit is something both easy to understand and interesting to try. The level of real effectiveness or any historical parameters is never proportionaly represented by the stats of in-game units, so there is not reason to start with this one.
- Many people here have already stayed that any odd and anecdotic reference can turn into an UU, included some referenced only from a mythologized text.
So I dont see problem with some weapon that atleast were supposed to be used under a better outcome of the war and that is actually unique instead of just a ship or plane with some different stats.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Perhaps what Civ VII 'needs' is a class of Negative Unique Units - unique units from history that were total failures but so distinctively bad that they deserve to be inflicted on a gamer or AI.

Off the top of me head examples:

I-400 and Surcouf, as discussed

The Roman anti-elephant Flaming Pigs (that were an absolute Requirement in any miniature Roman Army back in the 1990s!)

the Fairey Battle aircraft - an attempt to use a heavy bomber defensive turret in a fighter plane, resulting in a fighter with no speed, no maneverability, and no chance of surviving a mission.

CSS Hunley - which sank itself three times while sinking one enemy warship, probably a record among historical Kamikaze missions.

The Davy Crockett - US man-portable tactical nuclear weapon, which could spread radiation further than its launcher could fire: a 'one-shot' weapon, especially where the survival of its own crew was concerned.

 

[HktkNban]

The idea of a submarine carrier (I-400) or a submarine gunboat (Surcouf) is personally very interesting.
But perhaps they are only to the liking of a few warship enthusiasts.

Many Civ players think this way: "In the atomic era, the game is already as good as over. Therefore, unique units in the late game are worthless."

I like military units from the World War Era and Cold War era, but unfortunately it seems that the majority of Civ players are looking for ancient and medieval units.
In the end, it is clear that Japan's unique unit in Civ 7 is likely to be the ever-familiar "Samurai" or "Ashigaru".