Tweaks for Current Civs in Expansion

[istry555]

I don't understand the confusion.

G&K will be a separate executable so people can still play the vanilla version of the game. Expansions don't include all the files of vanilla. However, G&K will still refer to the file tree of vanilla. Things like abilities, unit and building stats are all handled in the XML. An XML file can exist in both versions, but if you're playing G&K it will only read the G&K version of the file. G&K files can include the new DLL hooks for faith and espionage, vanilla files can't.

Having a G&K ability incorporate faith or espionage while their vanilla counterparts won't is not a big deal. I mean leader traits changed between the expansions of IV. Several leaders have a different combination of traits between Vanilla, Warlords, and BTS. Same thing with UU's and UB's in IV. Depending on the expansion the uniques have different stats and abilities.

The real question is the DLC, which, depending on how Steam and Firaxis handle it, may not get two files and both vanilla and G&K may refer to the same DLC folder. DLC civ abilities may not be changed, then, and it's possible if they release future DLC they may want to make it compatible with both versions to increase sales and thus those civs won't have expansion flavored abilities either if they only use one folder.

[zephyrtr]

I hadn't thought to think of precedent. So perhaps there'll be two versions of the vanilla civs? It feels confusing to me, like if I upgrade, I have to relearn all the old civs. It pretty much also guarantees they'll abandon support for vanilla...

It's not a game decision I would agree with, but it's one they're allowed to make.

[istry555]

In truth, I don't really see them changing that much of the vanilla civs unless they directly interfere with the new mechanics (like Songhai). As odd as it seems, I doubt civs like say Arabia will get a new faith focus and will have pretty much the same abilities.

[steveg700]

I hadn't thought to think of precedent. So perhaps there'll be two versions of the vanilla civs? It feels confusing to me, like if I upgrade, I have to relearn all the old civs. It pretty much also guarantees they'll abandon support for vanilla...

It's not a game decision I would agree with, but it's one they're allowed to make.

Well, I have the Steam bundle for all versions of Civ. I can kick of IV, or IV Warlords, or IV BtS. Lots of options, but it's not dauting or confusing.

[SamBC]

No, I mean in everything. If someone doesn't buy the expansion, they don't have Religion or Espionage in their game. They of course have all the 'vanilla' Civs, but if these Civs' unique bonuses are changed to affect Religion or Espionage, they then become worthless because those features aren't in this player's game, or anyone else's who doesn't have the expansion. That means:

A) Vanilla Civs need two versions of their abilities (confusing)
B) 2k/Firaxis is a huge jerk for penalizing people who don't want to buy their expansion, or
C) Vanilla Civs are barred from uniquely affecting Faith or Espionage

See what I'm saying?

Why couldn't the expansion change some vanilla civs when it's installed? DLCs could do this, in principle, because DLCs can use the same tools as mods (and some more), and mods can do that...

EDIT/PS: My points here apply if the expansion is done DLC-style. If it's done separate-game style, like the Steam versions of CivIV/expansions, it's even simpler, as other posters have indicated.

[wingednosering]

Yeah, I imagine they'll be seperate executables and some UAs, UBs, and even UUs will change.

I never really liked espionage in Civ IV. I'm hoping this time around, they put greater emphasis on scouting and defense (through espionage) than unblockable sabotage.

As for faith altering UAs from other teams...

-Spain is the biggest candidate for a faith switch IMO, but they already have a great UA and are an enjoyable civ to play. Plus they're a vanilla DLC civ, so I imagine they'll still transfer into the new expansion, but they might be neglected.

-As other people have mentioned, the Aztecs could be switched from culture to faith. Personally I think that would be a huge nerf to an already mid-to-low tier team.

-I don't think anybody likes the current Ottoman UA and the Ottomans are the most simple civ right now. Their only real claim to fame is a horribly overpowered UU to make up for their other crappy unique traits. I could see them nerfing the Janissaries a bit and giving them a faith UA.

-Ethiopia! If Ethiopia is one of the remaining civs, they'll certainly have a faith boost of some kind.

-Iroquois could possibly get a faith bonus from nearby forests with their longhouse, but that might be too close to what's been rumoured about the Celts.

-Any civ that gave birth to a significant religion in the real-world could theoretically get a boost. Arabia spawned Islam. Rome sort of incorporates the Vatican. India was the birthplace of three major religions (Buddhism, Hinduism...drawing a blank on the third for some reason).

Sadly, all of those civs are already really well balanced and have great UAs, so I doubt any of them will receive a major boost.

[steveg700]

Good insights, Wing. I agree with pretty much everything. I do have high hopes for espionage though, as it provides another route to research for smaller civ's that have to compete with ICS.

I wonder how viable Tibet would be as a civ.

[wingednosering]

Tibet would probably be too controversial to include, except possibly as a city-state. It's probably best for them to just avoid it altogether.

[steveg700]

(If I hear the word "controversial" again, so help me...)

Who would have any credibility objectiving to a civ like Tibet or Israel being included in Civilization?

What exactly do people think the blowback is for that kind of so-called controversiality?

Video games have been much more controversial than this.

[wingednosering]

You don't want anybody to feel like they can't play a civ because it makes them uncomfortable. That's why Hitler isn't the German leader .

[steveg700]

Why anyone would think Hitler should be the leader of Germany is beyond me (outside of the context of a WWII scenario). When your own people try to wipe your first name and surname out of existence, that's not a good index of greatness.

Let's be clear here: there's a large difference between refusing to do something that's patently offensive and refusing to do something because someone somewhere will object. There's always someone complaining.

But by and large? Zero impact on sales for including Tibet or Israel. Nobody cares about this in the real world. Only in the melodramatic land of the internet.

[MARDUK]

Tibet would probably be too controversial to include, except possibly as a city-state. It's probably best for them to just avoid it altogether.

The greatness of Civ games is that everyone can choose which Civs to play with. If you do not like some Civ in particular, do not take it to your game. IMHO

But by and large? Zero impact on sales for including Tibet or Israel. Nobody cares. Just internet melodramatization.

Agreed. This is just a game after all and we are talking about game play elements; adding as many different and unique Civilizations as possible. All of them add flavor and variety = re-playability to the game. In particular both Tibet and Israel would be truly unique and interesting Civs to include to the game.

Israel could be both religious and espionage Civ, kind of taking ancient and modern eras of Israel to it.

[Heinage]

If there are going to be tweaks to UAs of current Civs for the expansion, I doubt it's going to be very extensive and it's not going to be all about religion and espionage. I think we should be vigilant for placing too much emphasis on this aspect of the game. They're not going to take Spain, Ottomans, Iroquois, Aztecs, Arabia etc. etc. and change their UAs to all have some religious focus to them. And then also add Ethiopia, Israel, Khazars, Tibet etc. etc. and give them all religious UAs as well. At least, I would find that very unusual.
Yes religion is going to add depth to the game, and yes there may be one or two tweaks to 1 or 2 civs with regard to religion, but they can't just very well go and change lots of civs so that they're all geared towards religion in one way or another. Again, that would detract from other aspects of the game which have to remain just as important.

Just saying...lets not get carried away

[Zhenon]

Zero impact on sales for including Tibet or Israel. Nobody cares about this in the real world. Only in the melodramatic land of the internet.

Some of the things you write..... But in this particular case, I agree with you completely!

[Chekko]

I'm kind of against the fact that Unique units replace other units.

Especially if the UU has some kind of weakness compared to the normal one (for example the Slinger).

[Chekko]

(If I hear the word "controversial" again, so help me...)

Who would have any credibility objectiving to a civ like Tibet or Israel being included in Civilization?

What exactly do people think the blowback is for that kind of so-called controversiality?

Video games have been much more controversial than this.

Anti-white? Yeah. Extreme Jews are all about that. Those racists.

[SamBC]

-Any civ that gave birth to a significant religion in the real-world could theoretically get a boost. Arabia spawned Islam. Rome sort of incorporates the Vatican. India was the birthplace of three major religions (Buddhism, Hinduism...drawing a blank on the third for some reason).

That would be Sikhism. Possibly Jainism as well.

[Joketa]

But by and large? Zero impact on sales for including Tibet or Israel. Nobody cares about this in the real world. Only in the melodramatic land of the internet.

Well, including Tibet as anything but part of China risks the game ever being available in China. No one else would care, but you could kiss that market goodbye just due to government censorship. So far, the game has no Chinese language support and I've never seen it on the shelves in Taiwan even though Civ IV was widely available and I bought BTS here when it first came out. Steam is available in Taiwan. I don't know about China, but I'd guess it isn't except by proxy network. Therefore, I don't know that they should be concerned about it. Tibet would make an interesting civ.

[wingednosering]

If there are going to be tweaks to UAs of current Civs for the expansion, I doubt it's going to be very extensive and it's not going to be all about religion and espionage. I think we should be vigilant for placing too much emphasis on this aspect of the game. They're not going to take Spain, Ottomans, Iroquois, Aztecs, Arabia etc. etc. and change their UAs to all have some religious focus to them. And then also add Ethiopia, Israel, Khazars, Tibet etc. etc. and give them all religious UAs as well. At least, I would find that very unusual.
Yes religion is going to add depth to the game, and yes there may be one or two tweaks to 1 or 2 civs with regard to religion, but they can't just very well go and change lots of civs so that they're all geared towards religion in one way or another. Again, that would detract from other aspects of the game which have to remain just as important.

Just saying...lets not get carried away

Agreed. I was just listing options, not saying that everything I listed should be included.

Why anyone would think Hitler should be the leader of Germany is beyond me (outside of the context of a WWII scenario). When your own people try to wipe your first name and surname out of existence, that's not a good index of greatness.

Let's be clear here: there's a large difference between refusing to do something that's patently offensive and refusing to do something because someone somewhere will object. There's always someone complaining.

But by and large? Zero impact on sales for including Tibet or Israel. Nobody cares about this in the real world. Only in the melodramatic land of the internet.

Hitler may have been evil, but he's the most famous leader of Germany. Lots of leaders considered to be evil or cruel have been in civ games. Stalin, Mao Zedong, Genghis Khan, etc. To somebody who cares about the Tibet/China feud, Hitler might be less offensive.

I don't personally care if Tibet gets in (or Israel, but they hold no appeal for me whatsoever), but I doubt the investors would be pleased with Firaxis if they made a choice that knowingly reduced sales.

Putting Tibet in the game would probably not increase their sales by much, if at all. However, putting it in the game prevents any future sale possibilities in China and can prevent poeople elsewhere in the world from purchasing it if they once lived in China, or take the chinese side on the issue.

If Israel were included, they might lose Islamic players (personally I think they'd gain as much as they'd lose here, since I imagine their fanbase will be more pro than anti Israel).

[Kukulcán]

I agree that we will probably not see a Tibetan Civ due to the fact it would prevent sales in China,

But, Israel I think could be introduced with very little backlash and in fact draw in more support than perspective backlash.

[Joketa]

I don't personally care if Tibet gets in (or Israel, but they hold no appeal for me whatsoever), but I doubt the investors would be pleased with Firaxis if they made a choice that knowingly reduced sales.

Putting Tibet in the game would probably not increase their sales by much, if at all. However, putting it in the game prevents any future sale possibilities in China and can prevent poeople elsewhere in the world from purchasing it if they once lived in China, or take the chinese side on the issue.

Good point. From an investment standpoint, it makes little sense to take an unnecessary risk for little gain. On the other hand, we don't have access to their numbers from China, which is probably slim to none. China already produces hundreds of historical strategy and role playing games aimed at Chinese consumers and launched at prices they can afford. I really doubt there's much of a market for Civ 5 in China. Additionally, they've already crossed the line by making Lhasa a city state instead of a Chinese city. Making a Tibetan civ is just taking another step on the same road. It's still unlikely, but I'd love to see it and I'm not ruling it out. I used to think they cared about sales in China, but now I doubt it.

[steveg700]

Well, including Tibet as anything but part of China risks the game ever being available in China. No one else would care, but you could kiss that market goodbye just due to government censorship. So far, the game has no Chinese language support and I've never seen it on the shelves in Taiwan even though Civ IV was widely available and I bought BTS here when it first came out. Steam is available in Taiwan. I don't know about China, but I'd guess it isn't except by proxy network. Therefore, I don't know that they should be concerned about it. Tibet would make an interesting civ.

Well, whenever media gets released in China, it gets censored. In the unlikely event that Civ gets to China, they'd have to pull Tibet out, but then again they'd have to make lots of other concessions as well. The Chinese government doesn't like games that glorify western imperialism, or suggest that freedom and liberty are good social policies, and they certainly won't like this expansion's emphasis on religion, many of which are not approved by the state.

That's the long view. The short view is that this is a game that requires some diversity to keep it a compelling purchase for the market that it currently has.

Hitler may have been evil, but he's the most famous leader of Germany. Lots of leaders considered to be evil or cruel have been in civ games. Stalin, Mao Zedong, Genghis Khan, etc. To somebody who cares about the Tibet/China feud, Hitler might be less offensive.

I didn't say anything Hitler being evil. Most of the great leaders of history were ruthless in their pursuit of power. It's that ruthlessness that many Civ players seek to emulate. Hitler's a bad leader because he led his nation into utter ruin. He's famous because he's a bad guy who actually got his come-uppance, not because he led his nation into a golden age.

Bottom line: if 2k was really concerned about controversiality, they wouldn't have touched religion.

[Zhenon]

I agree that we will probably not see a Tibetan Civ due to the fact it would prevent sales in China,

But, Israel I think could be introduced with very little backlash and in fact draw in more support than perspective backlash.

Does China even BUY western video games? Pirate maybe...

[Joketa]

One tweak that is sure to happen is that the existing civs will need new diplomatic biases. I threw together some numbers below. Some of them are fairly random as Ii just don't know much about the historical diplomacy of all the civs. They will, of course, have balance with the existing biases. I forget where that information was posted. Does anyone remember? Feel free to question my numbers.

America Religion:5 Policies:8
Arabia Religion:8 Policies:3
Aztec Religion:6 Policies:4
Babylon Religion:5 Policies:6
China Religion:3 Policies:6
Denmark Religion:6 Policies:4
Egypt Religion:6 Policies:4
England Religion:7 Policies:7
France Religion:8 Policies:6
Germany Religion:4 Policies:8
Greece Religion:3 Policies:7
India Religion:5 Policies:4
Inca Religion:4 Policies:4
Iroquois Religion:3 Policies:2
Japan Religion:2 Policies:6
Korea Religion:6 Policies:6
Persia Religion:7 Policies:4
Polynesia Religion:3 Policies:2
Rome Religion:8 Policies:5
Russia Religion:4 Policies:9
Siam Religion:6 Policies:4
Songhai Religion:4 Policies:4
Spain Religion:9 Policies:5

[MegaBearsFan]

No, I mean in everything. If someone doesn't buy the expansion, they don't have Religion or Espionage in their game. They of course have all the 'vanilla' Civs, but if these Civs' unique bonuses are changed to affect Religion or Espionage, they then become worthless because those features aren't in this player's game, or anyone else's who doesn't have the expansion. That means:

A) Vanilla Civs need two versions of their abilities (confusing)
B) 2k/Firaxis is a huge jerk for penalizing people who don't want to buy their expansion, or
C) Vanilla Civs are barred from uniquely affecting Faith or Espionage

See what I'm saying?

I would assume that the expansion will be a different .exe and will have independent assets. That way, even with the expansion installed, you could still run the vanilla exe and play with others who don't have the expansion.

That's the way it worked with Civ IV, so I would assume it would be the same with Civ V. Hopefully.

But if the expansion is also associated with a patch that modifies the core game's assets, then yeah, that is a problem.

[zephyrtr]

Well Greg's still been out on what new stuff (patches or expansion) will be given to Vanilla. He confirmed updates to Multiplayer (including animations) are being given to Vanilla, but wasn't sure what else would be ported backwards. Like... will Vanilla get the new Naval units? Or all embarked units being able to defend themselves? What about the Tech Tree?

People have been saying this most likely means they have to stop supporting Civ 5 Vanilla -- since I'm sure more balance patches and DLC will come out post-expansion. If they want to add Civs that have bonuses to Espionage or Religion, basically they can't be Vanilla compatible, so only people with the expansion could buy them. It's a bit tricky. Same if they want to patch in tweaked unique attributes for Vanilla civs--that would be a patch that would only affect G&K.

It sucks because a bunch of my friends may not get the expansion, which means I likely can't do multiplayer with them, unless we hotseat at my house.

It's kinda saying, "get the expansion or be left behind" which, they wouldn't be the first company to demand that of their fans. Capcom does that all the time.

[zephyrtr]

Here's a quick rundown of every Civ who's more than likely to get tweaks, changes or rebalances in Gods & Kings:

America: Perhaps B17s will come at a different Tech?
Aztec: Sacrificial Captives may provide Faith, in lieu of Culture, or provide both.
Egypt: Unique Temple; perhaps produces Faith?
England: Ship of the Line is sure to have tweaks and rebalances.
Germany: Likely Panzers will come at a different tech.
Japan: Likely Zeros will come at a different tech.
Korea: Turtle Ship is sure to have tweaks and rebalances.
Ottomans: If boats now have a natural ability to capture enemy ships, perhaps Barbary Corsairs will be changed to a higher likelihood of capturing ships in this way? It's possible the reduced Naval maintenance costs will have to be nerfed.
Siam: Father Governs Children may cover the new Mercantile or Religious city-states, and it may not. Wats, technically being Buddhist structures, may provide +Faith, not +Culture.
Songhai: River Warlord will have to be overhauled; perhaps granting increased defense to embarked units? Unique Temple; perhaps produces Faith?
Spain: Conquistador may have to be rebalanced, since now all units can defend while embarked.

[steveg700]

It seems unlikely to me that conquistadors will need to be rebalanced. They still have plenty going for them: no penalty attacking cities, extra visibility, and can settle. They'll be fine.

As for the Ottomans, they just sail up to barbarians and take them over. I doubt ship capture will be that easy. I also doubt all ships will be able to do it (just the privateer).

It can pretty much be assumed that temples will be faith buildings, and by extension so will any UB's that take their place. I'm curious about monuments though. They're needed in the early game to provide adequate border expansion for new cities, so I'm wondering it will wind up switched to faith as well, and if so, what will take its place.

[zephyrtr]

Monuments are constructions meant to stand as evidence to something. It CAN be religious, but it's not exclusively so. Personally, 'monument' makes me think patriotic stuff, like Mount Rushmore or Raising the Flag At Iwo Jima. We can't know, but I feel confident it will remain a Culture building. Also, like you say, they're very fundamental to early game.

As for conquistadors, just because they have 'plenty going on' doesn't mean they should take a nerf. That's just not a reason. The usefulness of Spain's UA is pretty luck-dependent, which is why their UUs are so strong. I'd like to see Conquistadors be able to deal damage in retaliation while defending at sea (if boats don't normally do this), or have a higher defense than usual. Something like that.

[steveg700]

Monuments are constructions meant to stand as evidence to something. It CAN be religious, but it's not exclusively so. Personally, 'monument' makes me think patriotic stuff, like Mount Rushmore or Raising the Flag At Iwo Jima. We can't know, but I feel confident it will remain a Culture building. Also, like you say, they're very fundamental to early game.

I think it's safe to say that the ancient-era monuments are more along the lines of totem poles or steles, which are symbols of faith. Small Matter. Bottom line is, civ's will need something to provide culture in that era, and probably something will be needed to add faith as well, so either we'll have a monument plus some other building, or they'll give both faith and culture bonuses to the monument.

As for conquistadors, just because they have 'plenty going on' doesn't mean they should take a nerf. That's just not a reason.

It's a pretty darn compelling reason, in my estimation. It's not as if the uniques are built according to some highly quantitative point system, and now the conquistador's entitled to compensation to balance his points out. It's much more aribitrary than that. The only reason to make a change is if it now loses its specialness and becomes just another knight unit, which it doesn't. It retains a total of three unique qualities, and there are certainly other UU's which receive much more marginal benefits. The embarkation ability was just a way to patch an inadequacy (specifically, the likelihood that this exploratory unit would get slaughtered on the open sea) that's now being addressed across the board.

By comparison, Songhai's UA is lacking without the ability to embark units, and really detracts from its specialness. That I do hope and expect to see corrected.

Btw, embarked units that can defend themselves are just shot from range by enemy units (there are no melee ships yet, after all), thus retailation is not possible.

[SamBC]

I would assume that the expansion will be a different .exe and will have independent assets. That way, even with the expansion installed, you could still run the vanilla exe and play with others who don't have the expansion.

That's the way it worked with Civ IV, so I would assume it would be the same with Civ V. Hopefully.

Though it should be pointed out that CivIV wasn't built using Steamworks, and it didn't use the Steam DLC mechanisms... so we know it's possible to do it the CivIV way, but we don't know if they would choose to do it that way. For that matter, I have no idea how doing it that way would interact with the DLC mechanic that's already been used.

[circuitrider]

Reading this thread brings to mind another game-setting change I would like to be. Currently, there is no way to exclude a civ via the setup screen other than filling up all the slots with specific civ: i.e. no random civs.

What about allowing some way to exclude a civ from appearing as a random civ in a game setup? This may well be off topic, but when discussing changes to different civs it could also be considered here.

If not, maybe it could be moved to a more appropriate thread.

[Shiav]

I pray the they change Russia. The KGB/FSB have been more influential to Russian History than any other group. When you think of Russia stereotypically you see the KGB. Our current and future leader is ex-KGB.

Of course I think it'd be much cooler and make all civs more unique if they simply added another UA/UU/UB/Ux. They wouldn't have to be religious or spy based but this would allow for further specialization making gameplay more interesting. Harder to balance, better to play.

[Joketa]

Reading this thread brings to mind another game-setting change I would like to be. Currently, there is no way to exclude a civ via the setup screen other than filling up all the slots with specific civ: i.e. no random civs.

What about allowing some way to exclude a civ from appearing as a random civ in a game setup? This may well be off topic, but when discussing changes to different civs it could also be considered here.

If not, maybe it could be moved to a more appropriate thread.

I did start a thread about this some time ago. It was not that popular of an idea, but I'm glad someone else agrees with me. "Heh heh! Goodbye Elizabeth, you grumpy old parrot!"

But, back on topic...

I pray the they change Russia. The KGB/FSB have been more influential to Russian History than any other group. When you think of Russia stereotypically you see the KGB. Our current and future leader is ex-KGB.

Of course I think it'd be much cooler and make all civs more unique if they simply added another UA/UU/UB/Ux. They wouldn't have to be religious or spy based but this would allow for further specialization making gameplay more interesting. Harder to balance, better to play.

That would be nice, but it still wouldn't fit in with Siberian Riches as a theme. I just wish they had multiple rulers from different eras so they could have their own UA with a different theme. It seems unlikely, though.

[Shiav]

I never liked Siberian Riches as a theme anyway. For the Motherland/General Winter sound and fit much better. General Winter could fit in both espionage and kreposts, Motherland could fit in espionage and siberian riches.

[Kukulcán]

I never liked Siberian Riches as a theme anyway. For the Motherland/General Winter sound and fit much better. General Winter could fit in both espionage and kreposts, Motherland could fit in espionage and siberian riches.

I agree, but Siberian Riches is a good/powerful UA and if they do decide to change UAs, it probably will not be one.

[Shiav]

I agree, but Siberian Riches is a good/powerful UA and if they do decide to change UAs, it probably will not be one.

War's are not won by armies or battles, but by a single well placed knife. Hopefully if you're creative enough you'll be able to use stealth and subtlety to its greatest effect.

[wingednosering]

I did start a thread about this some time ago. It was not that popular of an idea, but I'm glad someone else agrees with me. "Heh heh! Goodbye Elizabeth, you grumpy old parrot!"

Yes! I'd also like the ability to exclude civs you really dislike using from the random option (think AoM if anybody here ever played that).


I want to reiterate what I said above: the Ottomans are likely to get a massive overhaul. They're a one trick horse right now, since both the Sipahi and Barbary Corsairs are boring and underpowered. To make up for this, Janissaries were made unbelievably overpowered (moreso than any other UU in this player's opinion).

The inclusion of ship boarding and faith gives the developers a great chance to rework the Ottomans and, personally, I hope they take the time to do it right. Faith played a huge role in the Ottoman empire. Heck, they could even tie faith to the strength of Janissaries.

Such a fascinating (and influential) empire should be made into a more appealing gameplay choice. I don't think anybody really likes where they are right now.

Also, even though Spain is a DLC civ and has a pretty great set of uinques at their disposal, it would be laughable for them to NOT get a faith boost of some kind.

[Floating Pants]

Has anyone thought of Japan getting a ninja as a UU for the spy come the new expansion? I know the Zeroes and samurai are both great examples of Japanese military, but I'm expecting at least one unique spy to be thrown in, and wouldn't the ninja fit perfectly?

Also as Shiav mentioned, a unique KGB would be pretty neat as well, but I'd still prefer the ninja.

[zephyrtr]

I imagine famous KGB and shinobi will show up as names for Spies (they're named like Great People are) but besides that, no, I don't think Japan will be getting ninjas. There's no real need to revisit their uniques--why make more work for themselves than there already is?