COTW - Japanese

Gramphos · October 26, 2001, 12:45

www.civ3.com

Gramphos · October 26, 2001, 12:49

The Samurai look really powerful. The power of a Night with no need for horses and extra good defense.

Boris Godunov · October 26, 2001, 12:54

Hmmm...the WWII history seems to skip from Pearl Harbor to the U.S. "bloody" invasion of Okinawa and the A-bombs. No mention of Japanese imperialism or atrocities in Korea, China and the Philippines. One would think they were the victims!

I can see their German WWII history now being like the Tom Lehrer song MLF Lullaby:

Once all the Germans were warlike and mean,
But that couldn't happen again.
We taught them a lesson in 1918,
And they've hardly bothered us since then...

Gangerolf · October 26, 2001, 13:00

In civ2 their capital was Kyoto, now it's Tokyo.
Why?

Mahdimael · October 26, 2001, 13:09

I noticed the history had been glossed over a bit too...I guess they just wanted to focus on the positive.

As for the samurai, I agree that they will be a very powerful unit. The extra defense and the lack of a need for horses will mean that they should be readily available.

I may have to play with the Japanese first

Boris Godunov · October 26, 2001, 14:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Mahdimael
I noticed the history had been glossed over a bit too...I guess they just wanted to focus on the positive.

As for the samurai, I agree that they will be a very powerful unit. The extra defense and the lack of a need for horses will mean that they should be readily available.

I may have to play with the Japanese first

I hate white-washed history. If students were given the facts so they could make a critical evaluation, it would be a much more valuable and interesting learning experience. Instead we dieify or villify historical figures, gloss over the "bad parts" and turn history into national propaganda. At least, that's how U.S. high school history courses are. It's the only subject where the more classes you take, the stupider you get.

*Ahem*

Will get off the soapbox...

knott · October 26, 2001, 14:29

The rider is a much better unit, that you do not need horses dose not compensate the extra movment point.

Taylost · October 26, 2001, 14:30

The Samurai is a very good unit ... almost too good. After all, why would you play the Chinese when theit UU has the same stats but needs horses? I suppose you might want the Chinese for their civ specific abilities, but I don't think that creates that big of an advantage.

Taylost · October 26, 2001, 14:32

Oops, typo.

"Theit" should be "their."

Frito · October 26, 2001, 14:45

The stats are not the same, the rider has a movement of 3, the samurai's movement is 2.

Lonestar · October 26, 2001, 14:45

Yeah, that hacked me off too....

ruckus9 · October 26, 2001, 16:05

Um I thought samurais used horses. Guess I've been playing too much Total War. Ah it's not that big of a deal; the samurai as it stands (notice the stupid pun) is pretty good.

As for the history, I didn't really read it but I didn't really expect them to bring up the whole atrocities thing. It's a pretty short summary of a history so I find it somewhat understandable.

Ribannah · October 26, 2001, 16:19

Yes, Samurai had horses. In Civ3 these appear out of nowhere: they still have a movement of 2!

All in all, a very disappointing description. Too many details in early history (yet skipping Chinese invasion attempts) and racing through more recent events: what their relationship with the Dutch (Decima), their conquests, and their industrial and scientific accomplishments in the last decades?

Mars · October 26, 2001, 16:30

They're not all that powerful. they are still pretty cool though. Defense and movement don't really correlate so it works to get rid of the horses. I mean while you are defending you can't move and when you're moving defense doesn't matter much when you can go fast

23 Skidoo · October 26, 2001, 16:42

I just don't get the wheel as an early tech for the Japanese. Yeah, they had it, but the only people legally allowed to use it were the Imperial Nobility! Pretty much only the Emperor and his immediate family. The first public use of wheeled vehicles didn't show up in Japan until after 1854 (Admiral Perry brought a miniature locomotive)!

As for horses, only samurai were allowed to ride them. Everyone else walked. A commoner could be arbitrarily beheaded for riding a horse (why it's a big deal in Kurosawa's Seven Samurai).They should have roads early on; it's what made the Tokaido Highway so famous.

Samurai as special units is not very insightful. It should really be Ashigaru Arquebusiers. Japanese were the first in history (that we presently know of) to use the battlefield tactic of coordinated, massed, ranked gunfire; they did this in the 16th century (Oda Nobunaga). Europe first did it in the 17th century: Gustavus Adolphus in the Thirty Years War.

Oh well. Game play, that's the thing.

jdd2007 · October 26, 2001, 16:44

i think the japanese UU is pretty balanced. as for the leaving out of the japanese bad points, i think they did the right thing. when i read the german one, i dont want to see a paragraph about the holocaust. lets keep this light-hearted...

Shadowstrike · October 26, 2001, 17:26

I'm ashamed that they "convinently" left out the massacres in China during WW2, the attack on Pearl Harbour and other such acts that may taint the reputation of an American aligned nation, while they felt no compunctions about doing the same to China, a nation that has not have friendly relations with America at this point. Every nation has its days of glory, and shameful deeds. There should be no double standard in this.

Everybody remembers the Holocaust, but few do of the Japanese massacre of Chinese peasents during the same conflict. Telling only selective truths is an insult and disgrace to the noble ideals of democracy and freedom.

That said, I must admit that the article was well written, and took care not to touch more politically charged events.

ruckus9 · October 26, 2001, 17:39

jdd2007: I was thinking along the same lines as you. Admittedly it's terrible what the Japanese did but then I wasn't so sure if an article about the game should bring it up.

But then again it's still history they're writing even though it is condensed and you should bring up some of the major bad points as well. I mean these things did happen and if we don't remember past crimes, they're bound to happen again.

I actually learned alot of Japanese history (at least the Sengoku period) from a game, but I doubt if a significant amount of people do. It's a tough call for me about the civ3 article, but I do agree history textbooks should present everyone in the same light regardless of the current circumstances.

Anyway I've blabbed long enough. I would say this is off topic but then again the topic is about the cotw update and this does concern it.

jsw363 · October 26, 2001, 17:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I hate white-washed history. If students were given the facts so they could make a critical evaluation, it would be a much more valuable and interesting learning experience. Instead we dieify or villify historical figures, gloss over the "bad parts" and turn history into national propaganda. At least, that's how U.S. high school history courses are. It's the only subject where the more classes you take, the stupider you get.

They want the game to do well in Japan. If they make the Japanese everyone's immediate enemy by portraying them that way, then they'd lose a lot of business. Besides, Firaxis isn't known for its historical accuracy is it. I personally think it was a smart business move.

Does anyone remember the controversy regarding the different version of "Pearl Harbor" that was released in Japan. Similarly, no one wants to go to a movie to see their country commit atrocities.

Mars · October 26, 2001, 17:51

Quote:

They want the game to do well in Japan. If they make the Japanese everyone's immediate enemy by portraying them that way, then they'd lose a lot of business. Besides, Firaxis isn't known for its historical accuracy is it. I personally think it was a smart business move.

I don't think the game does that well in Asia in the first place. I mean there isn't exactly a large number of people from east asia on this board. And from what yin says not many people play the game in japan.

Quote:

Does anyone remember the controversy regarding the different version of "Pearl Harbor" that was released in Japan. Similarly, no one wants to go to a movie to see their country commit atrocities.

I've seen movies about the japanese contanment camps and many of the other bad things the USA has done so i don't agree with you.

jdd2007 · October 26, 2001, 17:58

i just want everyone to know i am taking nothing away from the horrible atrocities the japanese commited in korea, the philipenes and manchuria, but cmon its just a game...

jdd2007 · October 26, 2001, 17:59

the way i see it, its a lose-lose situation for firaxis on this subject. they will get crap if they do, and if they dont. that is my opinion...

Imran Siddiqui · October 26, 2001, 18:00

Quote:

Hmmm...the WWII history seems to skip from Pearl Harbor to the U.S. "bloody" invasion of Okinawa and the A-bombs. No mention of Japanese imperialism or atrocities in Korea, China and the Philippines. One would think they were the victims!

So, you'd like them to detail in excrusiating detail every atrocity by every civ? What happened to the Ukrainian massacres under the Russians (Soviets then)? You want them to focus on the Holocaust in the German description, and killing of Natives under American description?

Are you upset that the Aztec description didn't go nuts on their human sacrifices and what they did to rival tribes?

This Japan bashing is a bit much.

Drake Tungsten · October 26, 2001, 18:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
This Japan bashing is a bit much.

I agree.

Leonidas · October 26, 2001, 18:21

Game companies are in business to make money - hey, they play games in Japan too. They don't want to offend, even if it is a "distortion" of the facts.

I don't consider this "Japan bashing" - it is a historical fact - Japan bombed Pearl Harbour and caused absolute havoc in the Pacific. Even after 56 years, it is something for which Japan has yet to apologize.

Leonidas · October 26, 2001, 18:27

Hmmm, the Samurai has better defense than the knight. . . hmmm. . .

Hmmm, it has the same attack values as the knight. . .

There's only one way to settle this issue:

I need two volunteers: one to equip himself like a knight, and the other to be outfitted like a samurai.

Now the both of you find an empty field somewhere and have at it with each other.

Report back on your findings. . .

Adm.Naismith · October 26, 2001, 18:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
So, you'd like them to detail in excrusiating detail every atrocity by every civ? What happened to the Ukrainian massacres under the Russians (Soviets then)? You want them to focus on the Holocaust in the German description, and killing of Natives under American description?
Are you upset that the Aztec description didn't go nuts on their human sacrifices and what they did to rival tribes?

Detail every atrocity no, not in this contest and with few rows of text available for a long history lesson needs. Mentioning yes, definitely. Enough to give a hook for people who would have taken a while to read more details in proper History book.

You know, curiosity sometime needs just an help, and you have the best of both: a game on a realistic background and an opportunity to let someone to look for more history knowledge. Let anyone the opportunity to open his mind from the cage...

Lord_Davinator · October 26, 2001, 19:40

I agree if you wanna list atrocities then... well every civ would need two pages.... no one is free from guilt.... not the americans not the russians not the chineses and not the japenese.

For the question of samurai's not having horses let me tell you they did use horses but only upper class samurai's used horses to fight most of the other by which I mean the BULK of the samurai fought on foot. So that makes it justifiable to see them on foot...besides they look cooler.

hmmm.... as for a fight between a knight on a horse between a samurai... well it could go either way... samurai's are supposed to be the best swordsmen and those smaurai swords are long...
all of you know about knights... if it was sword to sword I doubt the knight would win... esp. with that bulk of metal on him...

Shiva · October 26, 2001, 21:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Gangerolf
In civ2 their capital was Kyoto, now it's Tokyo.
Why?

Kyoto was the capital of Japan founded in 794 A.D. and remained the capital for hundreds of years. I guess they wanted to go with a modern capital this time.

Guynemer · October 27, 2001, 00:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
So, you'd like them to detail in excrusiating detail every atrocity by every civ? What happened to the Ukrainian massacres under the Russians (Soviets then)? You want them to focus on the Holocaust in the German description, and killing of Natives under American description?

Are you upset that the Aztec description didn't go nuts on their human sacrifices and what they did to rival tribes?

This Japan bashing is a bit much.

If cannibalism was fair game in describing the Iroquois, why gloss over--or outright ignore--the genocides of other civs? Just because there aren't many Iroquois left around to play the game?