If Giants existed in BC times...

[KissBlade]

Then the world will be ruled by a race of giants. So I can understand the thematically of how giant nations obliterate nations with spears and slings. But theme is something that should be separate from balance. There are some nations that are just completely butt hurt from theme (Jomon for example with their no shield LA policy) and some nations that just completely OP it (Niefel & Hinnom). It's hard to enjoy the theme of a game if turn 12 I'm crowding behind my walls hoping for my Dragon to get back in time to hopefully fend off big guys with swords looking to kick my ***. Heck that's almost like being back in junior high.

[HoneyBadger]

Well, I'm of the opinion that LA Jomon, and related Nations, should get an "air shield" bonus with their O-yori: a 40% air shield for their heaviest "samurai" armour, and a 20% for the regular samurai variety.

Also, Jomon could conceivably have a capital-only nagamaki-wielding unit, that would get a x2 bonus to larger creatures, if you wanted to mod one in. That doesn't sound like it would be too balance-destroying, and it's reasonable, for a Nation that had a history of fighting and winning against giant demons, and big ogrish goblins.

[Sombre]

Originally Posted by HoneyBadger

Well, I'm of the opinion that LA Jomon, and related Nations, should get an "air shield" bonus with their O-yori: a 40% air shield for their heaviest "samurai" armour, and a 20% for the regular samurai variety.

I can't see the sense in that.

You can argue their armour is better than other armour against certain kinds of missiles, but translating that into dominions as an air shield is just silly.

I like Jomon not having shields. I agree they're a bit crippled by it.

[HoneyBadger]

Sombre:

I don't see why that would be silly, given the confines of the game. Just because this is represented by an effect that can *also* be produced through magic, doesn't necessarily mean that it's always a supernatural effect. The "Air Shield" supernatural effect represents (atleast in my imagination), the deflection of arrows and the obfuscation of the shape of the target's body, through a "heatwave" type distortion effect. Maybe I'm somehow wrong in that interpretation, but I consider it reasonable and viable.

And that's exactly what samurai armour was designed to do, to deflect blows and arrows, and to obfuscate the shape of the samurai's body.

I would ofcourse want to see the Prot value of Samurai armour to be lowered, accordingly, to balance against the suggested "airshield" effect, but samurai armour (especially the heavy version) is so bad, as it stands, that the Prot is about all it's got going for it.

There was a big difference in the relative sharpness of medieval European swords (which were commonly pretty blunt, when used in larger battles), and pre-colonial Japanese swords, and the way each was used, and the differing armour styles reflect those differences.

European swords were meant to be used over and over, to hammer the target into submission, with the side-effect of the possibility to ransom the still-living loser. Japanese swords, ideally, were intended to be used once, fatally.

So, European armour was designed to resist blows and distribute damage, whereas, if you got hit by a well made katana, by a samurai who was skilled in kendo, you'd be lucky if a blow just crippled you.

Impact was still a consideration, in Japanese armours, just like deflection was considered in European armours, but it's a matter of degree of emphasis.

Both styles had their advantages and disadvantages, but the way samurai armour is currently simulated in the game is quite a bit off. It could be bulky, but not nearly as bulky as it's portrayed in the game, and it was designed to allow a lot of flexibility and freedom of movement.

Another consideration is the respective size of horses, and the way mounted combat tended to be handled. Horses tended to be smaller in the East than in the West, being bred from rugged Mongolian ponies in the East, and bred for toughness, compared to the horses in the West, which were bred for size. That means that armour in the East were more likely to be lighter, designed for mounted use with bows and light lances, compared to heavy Western armours, that would actually lend their weight to the impact of a heavy lance-charge. Both used swords in mounted combat, and both developed weapons to combat mounted enemies, including the aforementioned 'Nagamaki'.

Keep in mind that what the game represents as samurai armour, and the katana, were both developed relatively late in Japan's military history, after the Mongols had already made their abortive invasion attempt, while European types of armour, as represented in the game, are considerably less specifically defined. Armour in an "Early Era" of Japan, would certainly not have involved the No-Dashi/katana, or the O-yori "great armour" of the Samurai. Both items, realistically, would have been confined to the Late Age, only.

[Sombre]

You want samurai armour to have a 20-40% chance of magically deflecting huge boulders, nether darts, seeking arrows, misc AN projectiles etc. Why not just ask for it to have higher prot againt missiles? That would make far more sense and is just as unlikely to get in the game.

[Endoperez]

Originally Posted by HoneyBadger

There was a big difference in the relative sharpness of medieval European swords (which were commonly pretty blunt, when used in larger battles), and pre-colonial Japanese swords, and the way each was used, and the differing armour styles reflect those differences.

European swords were meant to be used over and over, to hammer the target into submission, with the side-effect of the possibility to ransom the still-living loser. Japanese swords, ideally, were intended to be used once, fatally.

So, European armour was designed to resist blows and distribute damage, whereas, if you got hit by a well made katana, by a samurai who was skilled in kendo, you'd be lucky if a blow just crippled you.

European swords weren't as sharp as katanas, but I'm not sure what you mean by "relative sharpness". Even western blades could cut through flesh and bone with relative ease, severe hands and achieve similar feats of "shrapness". Even so, you could grab a western sword by the blade without hurting yourself. (The videos probably have nothing to do with each other, so it's not the same sword.)

I've read a good article about the difference between a sharp edge and a beveled edge and how both will cut and why a beveled edge keeps it's cutting ability even when it hits metal, but unfortunately I can't find it right now.
I did find an old ARMA essay on a theoretical fight between a knight and a samurai:
http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm

According to that, European armor succeeded in nullifying the cutting ability of swords. A sword, even a katana, can't cut through plate. Japanese armors were never as good, so katana could be used to cut through a samurai's armor and cripple him just like you said.

Both styles had their advantages and disadvantages, but the way samurai armour is currently simulated in the game is quite a bit off. It could be bulky, but not nearly as bulky as it's portrayed in the game, and it was designed to allow a lot of flexibility and freedom of movement.

I agree with this. From the above article:
"Generally speaking, European plate armor was designed primarily as a defense against sword points and other bladed weapons, whereas, Japanese armor was primarily designed more as a defense against arrows and spears. Significantly, it frequently had open feet and hands and a design that permitted archery. The knight's encased armor by contrast was idealized more for mounted charge with lance and or for dismounted close-combat. Japanese heavy armor contemporary with the period of the High Middle Ages knight was not considerably lighter than European plate."

The first bolded part implies that some kind of air shield or arrow parry ability wouldn't be out of the line.
The second bolded part implies that heavy samurai armor should have (at most!) as high encumberance as other heavy armors.

Besides, if the EA Oni already had samurai armor, surely it would be further improved. Since Jomon is getting an overhaul any way, it would be nice to have the armors finetuned. The encumberance could be lowered by 1 for all ages, or perhaps LA Jomon could get new type of armor with similar protection but lower encumberance and defense penalty.

[cleveland]

Originally Posted by KissBlade

But theme is something that should be separate from balance.

Hinnom, Ashdod, Niefel, et al are indeed very powerful, and most nations could never beat them 1-on-1. Or even 2-on-1.

But therein lies the balance. "Superpower" themed nations MUST be dogpiled early & often. Non-superpowers must immediately ally & embargo against them, and kill anyone who won't. In that sense, the nations are quite balanced; it's player passivity & stupidity that creates the imbalance.

I suspect it's a rather brilliant effort to abolish the "NAP-3 with everything in sight, turtle until turn 90, then wish/SC my way to victory" approach that's so popular, and soooooo boring these days. Kudos KO.

[MaxWilson]

Originally Posted by cleveland

Hinnom, Ashdod, Niefel, et al are indeed very powerful, and most nations could never beat them 1-on-1. Or even 2-on-1.

But therein lies the balance. "Superpower" themed nations MUST be dogpiled early & often.

And of course if the nations had existed in real life, sans megalomaniacal pretenders, the human nations would have had plenty of incentive to gang up on the insane cannibalistic giants.

-Max

[KissBlade]

You guys are still missing the point. To suggest that the fix for a nation is to "gang up on them because they are too powerful" is already acknowledging their imbalance. If a nation can destroy you one on one then you're not going to be having a whole lot of fun being that one they attacked. So what if he's not going to win the game? You won't either.

[MaxWilson]

Originally Posted by KissBlade

You guys are still missing the point. To suggest that the fix for a nation is to "gang up on them because they are too powerful" is already acknowledging their imbalance. If a nation can destroy you one on one then you're not going to be having a whole lot of fun being that one they attacked. So what if he's not going to win the game? You won't either.

Oh, are we talking about the game? I thought we were having fun speculating about alternate histories where Dom3 was real. As far as the game goes, I wouldn't mind seeing other nations buffed a bit. I have a slowly-ongoing project to improve all nations to the point where I wouldn't mind playing them by e.g. changing built-in weapons and removing cap-only restrictions on mages. Currently it seems like many nations are optimized for small maps or are otherwise unfun for my playstyle.

-Max