The Japanese

[dexters]

And I think people in general should look up the word "synergy".

I'm quite aware of what it means.

From dictionary.com

Syn·er·gy

1) The interaction of two or more agents or forces so that their combined effect is greater than the sum of their individual effects.
2) Cooperative interaction among groups, especially among the acquired subsidiaries or merged parts of a corporation, that creates an enhanced combined eff

In this sense saying a trait combo has synergy extends far beyond your industrious/agri example. Synergies exist because the SUM OF THE TRAITS is greater than the parts. This definition BTW was mentioned by me several posts ago and was totally ignored. It is exactly what Synergy is. And in the context of our discussion, outside of your narrow definition, Militaristic/Religious most definately have Synergy, the sum of these parts is a versatile powerful and flexible Civ that can move between powerful wartime and peacetime governments and have powerful builder traits with the militaristic bonuses to support its warmongering. After wars, your cities can go culture pretty quicky with very cheap temples and cheap barracks. It is a powerful combo of traits that allows you to turn captured cities into your own military fortresses in no time and avoid flips far better.

------
Civ playtime is incalculable. I'm certianly no Sulla. I play in binges, suffice to say it is a lot.

As for how much I've played Japan, I've played more than 10 games, each on standard map, which means around 24 to 30 hours at least. My first Monarch game on Japanese (my test game) was on a larger map and it was on PTW with a Space Race victory. I forgot how long that took but it was much longer.

I've also lost several games on the Japanese, including a hopeless Island stand on a pangea game that I played to the end (America became an uper superpower that wiped out everyone but me and Egypt and won via Cultural victory).

Anyways, I'm glad you've admitted that you are not perfect. I have no intention of trashing your review although I was surprised by your resistance to my views. When you asked me to write a review of my own, I refused. There was no point. I want to improve your review by steering it a bit more positive. That's all I've been trying to do all along. I had given up a while ago, but I'm more hopeful as of this moment. Perhaps you can see where I'm coming from.

 

[Zardnaar]

The synergy between Japans traits isn't bad. But theres just better civs in the game.

 

[dexters]

Perhaps I should have left a Japanese review, therefore, to someone who makes Japan their main Civ. It would be ideal if those who play a Civ the most could write a review for it, but months after Ision quit, no one was writing them. I thought they were a helpful and necessary series.

I'm not sure if you're apologizing for writing about the Japanese without sufficient experience or rationalizing your right to write whatever you want about the Japanese because no one else stepped up to the plate.

Either way, if you dont feel qualified, don't write it. And if you do write it, you should expect input.

You shouldn't surprised that you'd have someone like me pointing things out to you, and I certainly got a sense you were quite surprised and became very defensive after comments made in a sea of praise from people who quite clearly have never played Japan enough to spot the things I had problems with.

Anyways, I'm happy that you have been courteous to my suggestions thus far and this hasn't turned into an angry flame war.

BTW, if you played Japan in 6-7 games from Regent to Diety the power of the Japanese on the tougher levels should really be quite apparent, yet there's no mention of it. At the very least that should go in. Religious trait is one of the safe ways to play the tougher levels and to some only the viable entry into the higher difficulty levels.

 

[Pfeffersack]

I think the problem with synergy and civ traits is where to draw the line.You can argue every trait combo is synergetic - to some extend.I have no doubt you can find an example or a situation for every trait combo, in which the traits support them in a synergetic manner.However, I would restrict it to direct influence.Examples?

- seafaring and commercial (commerce boost due extra commerce and lowered coruption)
- commercial and scientific (science boost)
- religious and scientific (cheap culture)
- expansionist and scientific (tech lead; SGLs more likely)
and a few more

Combos like mil/rel or mil/sci have not much synergy IMHO, but they have flexibility.And this can be as useful as synergy.Especially on higher levels, where it is often necessary to change plans.

Just my two cents.

 

[bouncelot]

Just thought I'd ask how much Dexter has played civs other than Japan. After all, it's difficult to judge the relative worth of a civ if you don't play a wide variety of civs as your standard...

 

[punkbass2000]

Personnally, I agree that mil/rel are fairly synergistic, it's just that they're both kind of weak traits, especially in C3C. Also, they're synergy only really shines in a fairly militaristic game (which is a problem for all mil civs) and therefore eliminates at least 50% of styles. Militaristic may be the weakest trait overall, IMO. Seafaring has some of mil's advantages and is probably better on 2/3 of all maps, but Spain is only 3rd tier. I recognize there are other factors, but I think anyone would be hard pressed to put the Japanese into the first tier. The Samurai is a decent UU, but not nearly the best.

 

[Longasc]

I deem militaristic to be a weak trait, too.

Agricultural, on the other hand, alone is good enough that you do not really need a good synergy between your traits.

I will try my next Deity game (I am just - at least I assume - about to win my first serious Deity game as the Dutch!) with a non-Agricultural Civ and see if I can do better.

 

[Keirador]

I think the problem with synergy and civ traits is where to draw the line.You can argue every trait combo is synergetic - to some extend.I have no doubt you can find an example or a situation for every trait combo, in which the traits support them in a synergetic manner.However, I would restrict it to direct influence.Examples?

- seafaring and commercial (commerce boost due extra commerce and lowered coruption)
- commercial and scientific (science boost)
- religious and scientific (cheap culture)
- expansionist and scientific (tech lead; SGLs more likely)
and a few more

Combos like mil/rel or mil/sci have not much synergy IMHO, but they have flexibility.And this can be as useful as synergy.Especially on higher levels, where it is often necessary to change plans.

Just my two cents.

Exactly.

dexters- I actually found Japan weaker on higher levels than lower levels, relative to how other civs perform as they level up. I did make mention of Japan being able to change gov'ts quickly, but I thought this was obvious, its not really unique to Japan. I have two reasons for believing them to be weaker as you go higher: The Samurai loses effectiveness, as in high level games combined arms are the best way to take out cities, and while the Samurai is a useful raider (which I mentioned) it can no longer utilize its speed and defense when in a stack. Also, you've mentioned several times Japan's ability to turn enemy cities into productive centers, but I still think that your enemies will be too far from your capital to be useful, especially at higher levels when corruption kicks in. There are exploits to avoid this corruption, but I find that to be cheating.

If I seemed opposed or defensive to your comments, that was not my intent. I'm not oversensitive, I'm a debater. A n automatic response for just about anything to me is a challenge, and I subconsciously expect argument from others. I *do* seek constructive criticism, but I must always remind myself that others are not as combative as I, and perhaps resent me for it. I am not trying to dismiss you and hold myself up, by arguing I seek to better understand the points you bring up. For example, I do not understand your point about making enemy cities productive centers, because of corruption blahblahblah I've said it way too many times now.

As a show of good will I'll edit the review and try to make it sound more neutral. I still refuse to hype where none is deserved, but I will try to avoid sounding negative.

 

[dexters]

I actually found Japan weaker on higher levels than lower levels, relative to how other civs perform as they level up

That has not been my experience. Every Civ gets weaker the higher you go because as human players we don't get any bonuses while the AI gets bonuses. It is how they relatively hold up that's what is more important and Japan's traits and UU makes it hold up much better on the higher levels. Scientific trait alone for example is a trait that is much more desirable in the lower 'easier' levels than on the harder ones. Japan's Militaristic-Religious are two traits that is geared towards high level play. That's just a fact. Religious is a long time favorite of diety players for a long time now.

I'm not oversensitive, I'm a debater

That may be part of there problem. Debating for the sake of debating is not what I'm here for. I merely noted some concerns and it has gone into a long discussion that shouldn't have.

Anyways, good for you for editing it. I'll have a look at it.

--------------------------------------

I think the problem with synergy and civ traits is where to draw the line.You can argue every trait combo is synergetic - to some extend.I have no doubt you can find an example or a situation for every trait combo, in which the traits support them in a synergetic manner.However, I would restrict it to direct influence.Examples?

Not all traits have synergy or some have 'timed synergies' that evaporate with difficulty levels or with the period you are in. Expansionist/Militaristic may have some synergy, but for 90% of the game when you've stopped exploring, the synergy is not there where expansionsit is effectively useless.

Limiting it to your narrow definition is totally missing the big picture and I suspect would require massive rewrites on some of the reviews in this collection since it doesn't appear all the reviews adheres to this strict definition.

Besides, I doubt most people view synergy of traits in that narrow sense. It's all about how well two traits come together to create something that is more than their parts. Splitting hairs like you have is missing the point.

 

[Tomoyo]

Religious is a long time favorite of diety players for a long time now.

From what I've seen, IND, AGR, SEA, and COM were the favorites lately. REL is outdated.

 

[microbe]

@dexters: you don't have to agree with the reviews. Everyone can write one and none is official. Give Keirador a break, OK?

I like Japanese and am playing an SG with it. It's great. But I would not bug someone like mad if he doesn't like it as much as I do.

The reviews aren't meant to please everybody. They are just personal opinions.

 

[Arathorn]

Religious is a long time favorite of diety players for a long time now.

I see Tomoyo already commented on this, too, but I know of very VERY few upper-echelon players who like Religious. It's pretty generally ignored.

Arathorn

 

[Jopedamus I]

Why religious is not as liked with great players? I'm only an emperor-player, but I like it very much. Main reason is that 2-turn anarchy and those cheap culture buildings are also great to protect from "culture-jumps". Industrial(in conquest), scientific, exp, seafaring and mil are not as useful in my opinion. Only agr and com are better. But as I said, I'm not a great player and I would like to hear why rel isn't so good in levels above Emperor?

 

[Arathorn]

Most of us only change governments once. Often (say 65% of the time), it's to Republic. The rest of the time it's to Monarchy (if LOTS of war is expected) and then it's never changed again. Since the change comes early, being religious saves maybe 2-3 turns of anarchy, which is very minimal (although it's magnified in effect from coming so early). With C3C, that may change as Communism is so powerful, but a govt. change is a very rare event. Saving time in it just isn't that big of a deal.

Also, most of us prevent culture flips by not building cities in jeopardy (that is, build them where there's no overlap possible). That and/or razing cities that encroach upon us culturally. Temples are awfully expensive even at 30 shields for their benefit, doubly and triply so early in the game. Even as a religious civ playing Sid or a tough deity game, I'll often not build temples at all...or just a very very few. Other games, I'll build a bunch, but only when the expense justifies it and that's typically not until I have banks....

In C3C, militaristic is very useful simply because armies are so brokenly powerful. A single army is almost a game-winner and the extra promotion chances of militaristic civs is actually quite significant in getting those elites with which to go fishing. Not for every game, but it has a tremendous value when used.

Seafaring depends greatly on the map. For archipelago maps, it's incredibly powerful, as those early contacts can keep you in the tech race (even ahead) quite easily. For pangea maps, it's not valueless, but it's certainly much more limited in value -- still a couple early curraghs make great contact finders.... Even on a pangea, I'd rather be seafaring than religious. For a random map, it's no contest.

Scientific is another "flavor of play" trait. I can use it quite effectively up through deity (although I don't find a lot of enjoyment in it). Timing new ages well can turn the single bonus tech into 8 or 10 quite easily. At Sid (and to a large extant, deity), techs are so expensive, it's just so much more economical to steal that I don't see tremendous benefit to scientific. Note -- I'm not sure I'm in the majority on this viewpoint.

etc. etc. Religious just doesn't offer a whole lot. And the other traits all do.

Arathorn

 

[Jopedamus I]

Thank you, Arathorn, for a nice and informative reply. Maybe I now know reason for being "stuck" on emperor-level..

 

[tupaclives]

I'm on a Mac and so only have Vanilla but nonetheless I have found Japan to be one of the strongest civs out there, and I've played and won with each civ on at least emperor and on diety with france, china, iroqouis... and Japan. Even on diety the ability to build temples quickly is huge. border city near a culturally powerful enemy? Whip or pay for a (cheaper)temple and you can rest a bit easier, oh crap thats a very large civ thats just declared war on me, well ill pop a couple of (cheaper) barracks and start pumping out troops. They are a balance of power civ but for me at least thats what makes them so strong. China is a fabulous warmonger but id rather wage the long bitter wars of the IA and modern era (which happens to me a lot at diety) with ajciv like Japan.

The tier system doesnt sit well with me but thats just an opinion, because really its not the be-all and end-all. Babylon is ranked first tier but i despise it, it doesnt suit me at all but thats just because of my style of play. I love france (my favourite civ) yet its only 2nd tier, why? because its all subjective and depends on the views of the reviewer. Any civ can win on any map using any victory conditions at any difficult. Its just a matter of picking a civ which you enjoy playing with.

 

[Mirc]

I'm on a Mac and so only have Vanilla but nonetheless I have found Japan to be one of the strongest civs out there, and I've played and won with each civ on at least emperor and on diety with france, china, iroqouis... and Japan. Even on diety the ability to build temples quickly is huge. border city near a culturally powerful enemy? Whip or pay for a (cheaper)temple and you can rest a bit easier, oh crap thats a very large civ thats just declared war on me, well ill pop a couple of (cheaper) barracks and start pumping out troops. They are a balance of power civ but for me at least thats what makes them so strong. China is a fabulous warmonger but id rather wage the long bitter wars of the IA and modern era (which happens to me a lot at diety) with ajciv like Japan.

The tier system doesnt sit well with me but thats just an opinion, because really its not the be-all and end-all. Babylon is ranked first tier but i despise it, it doesnt suit me at all but thats just because of my style of play. I love france (my favourite civ) yet its only 2nd tier, why? because its all subjective and depends on the views of the reviewer. Any civ can win on any map using any victory conditions at any difficult. Its just a matter of picking a civ which you enjoy playing with.

Coldn't agree more!!!!
My favorite civ is Rome, but here it's a 3rd tier civ!!!!!!!!

tupaclives, you are the !! !