The Japan Thread

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

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.

Surprised you didn't mention the Vasa. Though one could spin that into a positive assuming it eventually generates massive amounts of tourism late game.

 

[BuchiTaton]

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.

Like said I wont defend I-400 as a militar wonder but still I think is kind of unfair to turn this into a "Negative UU" ...

1- Both I-400 and Surcouf were under a situtation where even a "postive" submarine design would not have changed the whole development of the war at that point. An experimental submarine cant do much when your country is invaded by land by your neighbor, then constantly harassed by your own allies.
The I-400 class neither had chance to do much at the state of the war for Japan and all their canceled operations.

2- Compare Surcouf to I-400 is also inequitable, the range and nature of both were different. Surcouf were mean to combat at closer range while I-400 was supposed to strike strategic objetives with their planes from a longer distance.

3- Surcouf not represent anything particularly popular about France, I mean whole post-WW1 dont have anything attractive to be put in game for France anyway. On the contrary Japan naval focus and their WW2 planes is something that is actually the most popular representation of Japanese military history only behind the Samurai and other Shogunate options.

 

[Evie]

The problem is portraying the I-400 as a submarine carrier. Sure, it's easily grokable - but it's also gross misrepresentation of what they were.

It carried *three seaplanes*. Most large surface warships carried that, if not more. It does not translate into them being carriers, or them being able to carry out carrier operations. It certainly does not justify giving them carrier capacity in the game. And the same goes for the I-400. It would make sense as a submarine with a large line of sight (representing the best use of a small selection of seaplanes: scouting), though that would not be interesting, but three planes in game terms simply lack the numbers to be replaced as a full unit of planes.

For a submarine carrier to be meaningful beyond reconaissance, one of two things must be true: either the individual planes must pack enough of a punch individually that their lack of number is completely overshadowed by the ability to deliver them stealthily, or else planes must be small enough and cheap enough to deploy in large numbers from very limited space (or both).

(Yes, this essentially describes a missile submarine. Which are essentially carrier submarines, except that they're carrier submarines that actually work).

 

[BuchiTaton]

(Yes, this essentially describes a missile submarine. Which are essentially carrier submarines, except that they're carrier submarines that actually work).

This last part actually is what I have in mind for I-400 so maybe your point is that I-400 should not actually work as floating airfield, I guess. So I would agree in that.

One more time I think that there is not point to argue about real capacities of militar units in a game that is not even close to represent realistic combat. The point should be the mechanics and role in game and Sentoku could work in game as an one era earlier "missile submarine", so instead of allow it to carry regular air units it use their Seiran as "missiles", whatever if they return, can be intercepted, carry one or three, their damage value, etc. is a ballance issue. Of course have the advantage of not need Uranium.

Anyway I am of the idea that Samurai is the always to go unit for Japan anyway. Explore unique and different options should not be limited by how ineffective or anecdotic their historical source is. We must remember that some people here was pretty OK with give Maya as a regular combat unit something based on a single event of the use of four vessels with wasps on dummies to repel the assault of a city, from a source that also include multiple events of people turning into animals (Naguals) to combat with the capacity of fly and throw snakes to tie up their enemies.
You know the Nahual would be an awesome UU for the Maya that people would love!

 

[Evie]

The problem is that if you want a UU for Japan that reflects WW2, there are a large number of better options, naval and aerial, than a hypothetical submarine carrier based on the idea that the I-400 might have carried out kamikaze missions. You could have the Yamato as a unique battleship, the Shokaku as a unique carrier, the Zero as a unique fighter, the Betty as a unique Bomber (with bonus for naval attacks), the Kamikaze as a unique cruise missile, all of which are much more recognizable, with a much better earned reputation, than the I-400.

I know they're called unique units, but it's long since been established that they're representative/iconic units as Humankind named them. The point has never been to go for something unusual and only ever used by that country. Which is good, because in military technology, usually, the more unique the weapon system, the less likely it actually did its job.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Victor Hansen in his essay about the Battle of Okinawa referred to the kamikaze attacks there as the first historical instance of a mass cruise missile attack. If 'kamikaze' were to be a Unique/Iconic Unit for Japan, Okinawa was also the first (and only) use of the Yokosuka Ohka (or Oka = Cherry Blossom) rocket-powered kamikaze attack craft: basically a 1200 kg (2600 pound) bomb with a rocket engine behind it, two tiny wooden wings and the victim/pilot seated right behind the bomb/warhead. I think they hit and sank about a dozen US warships, but nothing larger than a destroyer: a classic example of Much Effort for little purpose, but a distinctive graphic for a Kamikaze unit.
On a personal note, my father was a newly-minted Second Lieutenant in the US Army on Okinawa and 25 years later still remembered the sound of the Okha's rocket engine as it went into a dive towards its target at 1000 kph!

 

[Patine]

Victor Hansen in his essay about the Battle of Okinawa referred to the kamikaze attacks there as the first historical instance of a mass cruise missile attack.

So, not the V-2 attacks on London?

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

So, not the V-2 attacks on London?

The V-2 (or A-4, its official designation) was a ballistic missile, not a cruise missile.

I think Hansen did get it wrong in that the German V-1 WAS a 'cruise' missile which was used in mass attacks before the Battle of Okinawa. On the other hand, they were not used much against military targets, since the 'doodlebugs' were so inaccurate they couldn't be expected to hit anything smaller than London. (Slight exaggeration, but they did have a CEP of over a kilometer, which made them pretty useless against any moving target, like a military unit)