Vietnam for DLC

[SlickSlicer]

If Serbia and the Inuits can get their own thread, Vietnam can get one.

Appeal to History: Vietnam has an interesting history that stretches back several thousand years. As a civilization, it could be argued that they exist for this long. However, the Vietnamese have suffered from numerous periods of occupation, particularly by the Chinese. At times, the Vietnamese were under foreign domination, such as by the Chinese or French. However, eventually the Vietnamese succeeded in overthrowing their oppressors and creating their own country. In the process, the Vietnamese often absorbed technology and cultural aspects from their oppressors, combining these things with their own traditions to craft something paradoxically syncretic while uniquely Vietnamese. An example of this can be seen in the Vietnamese religion Cao Dai.

Though the Vietnamese were often forced to stand up against larger foes, they had their own periods of conquest and invasion as well. The Vietnamese people, for example, were eventually able to completely erase the state of Champa from the map, a state that had existed in South/Central Vietnam for hundreds of years. The Vietnamese also had varying degrees of success against their other Southeast Asian neighbors. Civil wars crippled the Vietnamese at times, but in some ways the country benefited from them--the states that vied with one another for supremacy found it prudent to seek foreign aid and innovation. Gia Long, for example, had an arguably cosmopolitan court staffed with Portuguese, French and various Southeast Asian (Cambodian, Thai, etc.) ministers.

In light of its long history, several successful dynasties and unique culture, I am advocating Vietnam's inclusion for Civilization V. People often complain that there are a lot of European civs but comparatively few from other parts of the world. Vietnam has a history that rivals that of the other East/Southeast Asian polities (Japan, China, Korea, Siam).

My ideas so far:

Vietnam

Leader: Le Thanh Tong

UA: Attrition (Cities do 30% more damage to all non-siege units when bombarding. Workers are built 25% faster and, when stacked, provide a 10% strength bonus. Defeated enemies within or adjacent to Vietnamese territory grant golden age points)

UU: Huochong [Hand Cannoneer] (Replaces the cannon. It ignores movement penalties on tiles that have forests/jungles and does not require set-up to attack. It keeps both bonuses when promoting)

UB: Water Puppet Theatre (Replaces the theatre, but costs no maintenance. In addition, gives +4 culture if the city has a lake or river within its borders.)

Focuses-Vietnam's unique traits focus on exploiting certain tile types. Using terrain effectively will be of greater importance to Vietnam than some other civs. Vietnam will be able to defend itself pretty well if the player makes use of forests and jungles well. The combination of their deterrent UA, possibility for more golden ages and culture improving UB can give them an edge in the culture war too. While they are best suited to turtling and winning via culture, science or some other peaceful means, Vietnam's UU allows them some flexibility in the mid-game.

Some assorted other ideas:

-The Vietnamese could have a UA that takes into account their history of syncretism, allowing them to mimick abilities of other civs. This was my original idea for their UA.

-The Vietnamese could easily have some kind of modern infantry or artillery unit to take into account their wars against the French and Americans. In my opinion, though, this is not a good idea. It is better to leave modern Vietnam out of the equation in order to avoid angering the large South Vietnamese diaspora/potential consumer base.

-Some kind of jungle UA could make sense for the Vietnamese, I guess.

-The Vietnamese used elephants in warfare, albeit not as much as some other Southeast Asian groups. Some kind of gunpowder elephant unit might be neat, but I think there are enough civs with pachyderms. Also, I'm not sure if the vietnamese ever actually used a combination of elephants and gunpowder weapons, even though both were available to them.

-The Vietnamese could also have fire lances or poison arrows.

UU: Fire Lancer (Replaces the pikeman). Unlike a pikeman, it can attack both indirectly from a distance (like an archer) or engage in melee combat. It has more strength than a pikeman and slightly less than a crossbowman. In addition, it comes with a promotion that lets it avoid movement penalties when moving through forests or jungles.

UU: Fire Lancer alt idea (Replaces the crossbowman. Has a 25% chance of doing a small amount of damage [50% base ranged strength] to any unit, barring itself, surrounding its target. This % chance is calculated separately for each surrounding unit, meaning that every unit surrounding a target has a 25% chance of taking damage rather than the system being "all-or-nothing." Can also damage allies, however, so unit placement is important here.)



UU: Poison Archer (Replaces the composite bowman. Has a 25% chance of poisoning an enemy unit. A poisoned enemy unit will take an additional 10% damage each time it enters combat for the next 10 turns. Elephant units have a 50% chance of being poisoned. The poison promotion continues to crossbowman but vanishes with further upgrades.)

-There are many other respectable Vietnamese leaders throughout history. Le Thanh Tong ruled Vietnam during a particularly notable golden age for Vietnam, however. Ho Chi Minh is a bad choice for Vietnam's ruler: This is not because Ho Chi Minh was terrible per se (he certainly wasn't great though). Rather, Ho Chi Minh is bad because such a choice would alienate the very large number of Vietnamese who live in other countries that had South Vietnamese roots during the Vietnam War. It is also for this reason that I felt a non-modern UU would be more amenable.

The Trung Sisters would be an interesting option for a leader. They are pretty famous, are well-respected and could have humorous diplomatic interactions. They could have opposing personalities in order to make diplomacy with them a bit funnier.

Gia Long isn't a bad choice imo.

[PachaMinnie]

You know your stuff, I support Vietnam.

Also, I'd like to ask about Ho Chi Minh. In your opinion was he a bad man or a good man? Because, I am very interested about him and you seem to know what you're talking about.

[SlickSlicer]

He was an important figure because the Vietnamese needed somebody (or a group of people) to free them from foreign occupation. However, Communist policies tend to be disastrous and Ho Chi Minh's were not a significant exception. In particular, land reform often backfires under Communist regimes, as it did in Vietnam. He was also repressive toward opposition, which is also pretty common among Communist regimes.

I feel like he's good as an anti-colonialist freedom fighter, but I can't really condone Communism or his particular mode of government. Even among Communists there were better leaders like Tito, Khruschev or Castro (opinion).

[mastika09]

Vietnam is legit.

[luciferkid]

UA: Attrition (Enemy units take 10% damage for every turn they are in Vietnam's borders, cities can initiate 2 bombardments per turn and worker units can engage in combat [they have 25% less strength than the standard infantry unit of any given era])

Seems to be too much powerful and it doesn't have any kind of drawback . One thing you can do is nerfing the damage that enemy units receive inside territory by +1/100 per turn and the closer the enemy is near capital,the more damage they can receive . About a drawback,you could limit the efficiency of these bonus around capital only or only in jungle tiles .


Beyond that,I have another suggestion that takes into account their history of syncretism,which is:


UA: When having 2 or more religions in your borders,you can choose which beliefs of them are official,along with the choosing of official religion .

[VicRatlhead51]

I like this idea. Didn't Vietnam also begin using gun powder about the same time as the Chinese too? I think it'd be a great choice for a civ since it helps fill a geographical region and isn't some obscure civ only history buffs know about. I really like the idea of a unique cannon. There are tons of unique swordsmen and longswordsmen but I don't think there's any cannons. That'd be fun.

[SlickSlicer]

Seems to be too much powerful and it doesn't have any kind of drawback . One thing you can do is nerfing the damage that enemy units receive inside territory by +1/100 per turn and the closer the enemy is near capital,the more damage they can receive . About a drawback,you could limit the efficiency of these bonus around capital only or only in jungle tiles ..

Thank you for pointing this out and providing feedback. I was wondering if it was too powerful. When I considered it, none of the aspects of it individually stood out as OP to me. Maybe the 10% damage per turn vs. enemy units could only affect enemies on rough terrain within Vietnam's borders. Limiting it to jungles seems a bit weak to me because jungles aren't really common terrain types...

I can think of a few other ways to nerf it if indeed it is OP. One is to allow workers to be able to fight only in your own territory so that you can't do some kind of goofy worker rush. Another is to change the bombardment thing to make it so that, rather than having 2, you just have slightly more powerful city bombardments or, in later eras only, extra range on city bombardments.

I don't think it's necessary to nerf all three aspects of the trait. A slight nerf should be fine, such as limiting the attrition damage to rough terrain. Given the relative lateness of theaters and cannons, I considered that Vietnam would need a strong UA.

UA: When having 2 or more religions in your borders,you can choose which beliefs of them are official,along with the choosing of official religion .

I don't understand the faith system very well. How would this confer benefits on Vietnam? Would it increase happiness or something?

Faith based UAs are an interesting idea though.

I really like the idea of a unique cannon. There are tons of unique swordsmen and longswordsmen but I don't think there's any cannons. That'd be fun.

That was more or less my line of logic. Originally my idea was for the unit to be a musketman/rifleman replacement, but I realized that there's a ton of those already.

[Hawk]

I like your ideas (that Water puppet theatre's really cool), and I'm in full support of Vietnam being added - I would definitely buy them as a DLC and not even think twice. Good luck!

[istry555]

I do think the Indochina Peninsula needs more representation and Vietnam is the best choice for that, in my opinion. They should definitely be DLC at some point.

There's also Champa, which was a very important and very significant Indochina that lasted from ~ 192-1832, before being gradually conquered by the Dai-Viet starting in 1471. Though I would love Champa--and it was very unique in many ways--it's largely overlooked (an unknown) because it didn't last till modern times.

Khmer/Cambodia is also a good choice, but I'd rather see a new civ as opposed to one from Civ IV and I feel the developers really tried to replace Khmer/Cambodia with Siam/Thailand.

Pagan/Burma/Myanmar is lower on my list. Then, there's also Laos but they've never really interested me that much (no offense to people that might love it's inclusion).

[steveg700]

Thank you for pointing this out and providing feedback. I was wondering if it was too powerful. When I considered it, none of the aspects of it individually stood out as OP to me. Maybe the 10% damage per turn vs. enemy units could only affect enemies on rough terrain within Vietnam's borders. Limiting it to jungles seems a bit weak to me because jungles aren't really common terrain types...

Now I coulda sworn you recently went on record saying you weren't a fan of turtling, yet that's the very strategy of this UA in its entirety....

Anyhoo, yeah, much too strong. Workers being able to fight doesn't really work either. Maybe instead make enemy units suffer damage from pillaging or capturing civilian units. OR, enemy units in Vietnamese territory heal at half normal speed.

Regarding the fire lancer, if it doesn't work like a cannon, don't make it a cannon alt. The weapon's basically a proto-musket, so make it an alternative to the crossbow (sort of like how cataphracts are proto-knights, so they're hosremen).

Regarding the water puppet theatre--well, there's not much going on there. I'd make suggestions, but on the whole, you've over-fixated on the "appeal to history", and haven't fixated sufficiently on the "appeal to gameplay" or "appeal to strategy". Not sure what victory condition this civ lends itself to.

[SlickSlicer]

Anyhoo, yeah, much too strong. Workers being able to fight doesn't really work either. Maybe instead make enemy units suffer damage from pillaging or capturing civilian units.

I don't feel it is too strong. There are other UAs in the game that are easily much better than this. I think the worker idea would be annoying to code though, admittedly. Your substitute idea, on the other hand, has the opposite problem. It sounds completely useless to me. I'd rather err toward giving Vietnam a good UA than giving them a terrible one.

Regarding the fire lancer, if it doesn't work like a cannon, don't make it a cannon alt. The weapon's basically a proto-musket, so make it an alternative to the crossbow (sort of like how cataphracts are proto-knights, so they're hosremen).

It could work as a crossbow alt, but there are already two of those in the game. Instead of a fire lancer, maybe Vietnam should just have a hand cannon unit. It's more unique than a crossbow alt. There are very few (if any) cannon alternates in the game. I'd rather have something new like that than another crossbow, musketman, rifleman or longswordman replacement. Vietnam deserves to stand out (as every future new civ should).

As for other Unique Features, I believe Vietnam should have a water puppet theater. However, I admit that you are right. I focused too much on historicity here rather than gameplay advantages. I think that defensive bonuses work well with culture; the water puppet theater could be oriented toward this instead.

If a greater re-orientation is needed, there are some other things that can be done with the UA, perhaps.

Taking into account all your above criticisms, how would you feel about something like this?:

Vietnam

Leader: Le Thanh Tong

UA: Attrition (Enemy units take 10% damage for every turn they stand on rough terrain within Vietnam's borders; defeated enemies within or adjacent to Vietnamese territory grant golden age points).

UU: Huochong (Replaces the cannon, but it's more like an infantry unit. It ignores rough terrain movement penalties and has balanced strength and ranged strength--slightly less melee strength than a rifleman and slightly less indirect strength than a cannon. The huochong costs less in production than a cannon, seeing as it's more like an infantry unit. It keeps the rough terrain movement bonus when promoting. And of course, like a cannon, it has the usual substantial bonus vs. cities.).

UB: Water Puppet Theatre (Replaces the theatre, but costs no maintainence. In addition, gives +2 culture for every lake tile within a city's borders)

[steveg700]

I don't feel it is too strong. There are other UAs in the game that are easily much better than this, and even Ethiopia's UA is comparable in terms of bonuses.

Nor do I see a good reason for the worker power "not really working" unless it is impossible to code (a matter that I am, admittedly, ignorant on). It would be a unique aspect that would make Vietnam stand apart from others. Didn't Songhai have a power that allowed embarked units to fight back in vanilla civ (something that none of the other civs could do)? If Songhai could have something like that, why can't Vietnam have a power that allows their workers a little bit more impunity against barbarians or as a last resort against enemies?

Ethiopia grants a defensive bonus to its units (and comes with a significant limitation). If you have no defending units, you get nothing. If you do have units, they still have to be emplaced and engage the enemy. Your UA causes every single unit to take damage just from being in Vietnams territory. You could slaughter an entire invasion force (regardless of its size) within ten turns, and that's without Vietnam having to bring a single resource to bear. It's not comparable. The 10% damage thing is a complete non-starter.

Songhai's ability allows a unit to use some of its actual strength to defend itself in the water. That strength is reflected in its production cost. What you're suggesting for Vietnam grants a worker a strength that doesn't in any way correlate to its cost. Forget programming, start with simple logic. So, with 300 hammers, I can build one 36 strength infantry, or I can build build 28 strength workers. With 440 hammers, I can build one 50 strength mech infantry, or six 37 strength worker, still for only 70 hammers. No, they can't attack, but if I'm turtling, that's moot. Oh, and now combine that with bleeding invaders of 10% health per turn. Don't bother with fire-lancers or unique units. You'd never need to produce anything but walls of workers.

Making enemies suffer damage from pillaging or capturing civilian units sounds completely worthless to me. It's certainly a lot crappier than allowing their workers to defend themselves.

Then I guess allowing units to pillage at no movement cost (Denmark) sounds worthless. Giving triple gold for pillaging probably sounds worthless (Songhai). And the various other units like Sipahi that specialize in pillaging, they're worthless too? There are plenty of civ's build around raiding. If you don't find deterring other civ's from pillaging your lands or capturing your civilians to be worthwhile, then I don't know what to tell you except that if your notion of worthwhile deterrence is bleeding out an invasion force to the tune of 10% health per turn, then get ready to never see that in-game.

If coding makes such a proposition truly impossible, another possibility could be giving Vietnamese workers a promotion that lets them buff units that they are stacking with.

That's certainly more reasonable and tactically interesting.

In gameplay terms, I don't think anything needs to be changed. And it's more unique than a crossbow alt. There are very few (if any) cannon alternates in the game. I'd rather have something new like that than another crossbow, musketman, rifleman or longswordman replacement. Vietnam reached its zenith during the gunpowder age. They should have a gunpowder oriented unit, but I want it to be unique as well.

I admittedly was not fixated overly on "appeal to strategy." My main interest was making something for Vietnam that was unique in comparison to other civs. There aren't many theater replacements, cannon replacements or UAs that are similar among the other existing civs.

Well, at some point you gotta prioritize your design goals, because right now they are in conflict. Do you want to represent Vietnam, or do you want to have units just for the sake of replacing units that don't already have yet to be replaced? Did Vietname actually have a unique artillery unit? If the answer is no, move on, instead of trying to shoehorn one in.

There aren't many crossbowmen or rifleman replacements currently. Maybe two of each(?)

[SlickSlicer]

Mathematics is my weak point. You are right on many counts, particularly regarding the workers. I realized that before you even finished typing this new reply. I had edited down my post tremendously before you posted. Your criticisms are thoughtful and good. I am not a video game developer so my experience with ideas like this is greatly lacking. But I'll keep trying to narrow things down here even though it really is futile (I'm not developing the game. I'm just advocating in favor of 'Nam).

Your UA causes every single unit to take damage just from being in Vietnams territory. You could halfway kill an entire invasion force (regardless of its size) in seven or eight turns, and that's without Vietnam having to bring a single resource to bear. It's not comparable. The 10% damage thing is a complete non-starter.

I feel like this is balanced out largely by the rough terrain addendum. So long as the invader avoids or at least plays carefully with rough terrain within Vietnamese territory, they could be safe.

If it needs to be narrowed down further then it could be changed to forests and jungles only. Or it could be altered so that the damage only is incurred if the enemy units end their turns next to Vietnamese [combat] units.

Then I guess allowing units to pillage at no movement cost (Denmark) sounds worthless. Giving triple gold for pillaging probably sounds worthless (Songhai). And the various other units like Sipahi that specialize in pillaging, they're worthless too?

These are useful. I don't believe what you proposed is useful. Ok great...they can damage enemies that pillage them. But that means they lose several turns worth of worker improvements and suffer significant problems associated with pillaging. This is not the same thing as the pillaging benefits that other civs have. The other pillaging bonuses are bonuses that don't come with drawbacks. I believe what you have done here is erected a strawman. Never did I say that pillaging was useless in the game or that pillaging bonuses could not be useful. But what you proposed, in my opinion, would not be useful. It is not a bonus without a drawback. It has a very serious drawback and does not benefit Vietnam directly. It only benefits Vietnam if her enemies are "benevolent" enough to bother pillaging. Even then, however, the benefits are dubious since Vietnam is either losing tile improvements or workers, respectively. Lame.

In short, it doesn't sound like something that's meant to give Vietnam a direct advantage. Instead it sounds like something that's designed to slightly lessen the damage from Vietnam being screwed over. If you want to give Vietnam an ability like that, it'd be better to give them a slight production refund every time they lose a unit, or something.

After reconsidering the whole issue, I think it'd be best to just leave workers out of the whole equation.

do you want to have units just for the sake of replacing units that don't already have yet to be replaced?

I believe that this is important for new civs going forward, personally. In fact, I would go so far as to say that this is more important than adding Vietnam itself. I'd rather they add diverse things than add specific national groups that I happen to like.

Did Vietname actually have a unique artillery unit? If the answer is no, move on, instead of trying to shoehorn one in.

They used hand cannons. While I wouldn't call them artillery, functionally I think you could argue that they could be a reasonable cannon unit replacement.

So this is where we stand I guess...

Vietnam

Leader: Le Thanh Tong

UA: Attrition (Enemy units that end their turn on forests and jungles within Vietnamese territory take 10%* damage. Defeated enemies within or adjacent to Vietnamese territory grant golden age points).

UU: Huochong [Hand Cannoneer] (Replaces the cannon. It ignores forest/jungle movement penalties and has balanced strength and ranged strength--slightly less melee strength than a rifleman and slightly less indirect strength than a cannon. The huochong costs less in production than a cannon, seeing as it's more like an infantry unit. It keeps the movement bonuses when promoting. And of course, like a cannon, it has the usual substantial bonus vs. cities.).

UB: Water Puppet Theatre (Replaces the theatre, but costs no maintainence. In addition, gives +3 culture if there is a river or lake within a city's borders)

*-If this is too powerful, they could nerf it to 5%. Since it's limited to forests and jungles, I think it'd be ok. But this is something that's best discovered through testing/playing.

[steveg700]

Your criticisms are thoughtful and good. I am not a video game developer so my experience with ideas like this is greatly lacking. But I'll keep trying to narrow things down here even though it really is futile (I'm not developing the game. I'm just advocating in favor of 'Nam).

I think at this point, to sell a civ the argument can no longer come from history or geography primarily. Rather, they mainly have to come from gameplay. So it does make sense to try to propose units that haven't been had unique replacements before. I just don't know that Vietnam is the best fit. Is it really a good source to mine if you're looking for radically divergent units and buildings?

These are useful. I don't believe what you proposed is useful. Ok great...they can damage enemies that pillage them. But that means they lose several turns worth of worker improvements and suffer significant problems associated with pillaging. This is not the same thing as the pillaging benefits that other civs have, which you mentioned. The other pillaging bonuses are bonuses that don't come with drawbacks. I believe what you have done here is erected a strawman. Never did I say that pillaging was useless in the game or that pillaging bonuses could not be useful. But what you proposed, in my opinion, would not be useful. It is not a bonus without a drawback. It has a very serious drawback.

Well, it's not designed to encourage players to pillage your lands and capture your units. It's designed to discourage and punish players who would do so of their own volition. I would have the amount of damage be fairly random, so it can't be "mathed out" of relevance. Not enough to one-shot kill a unit at full health, but it could give it a very bloody nose. And if it should kill the unit, the pillaging/capturing doesn't actually happen. Anyway, it was just a spontaneous idea about how to represent guerilla tactics that deter raider tactics. I'm not married to it. Another random idea is to allow workers to build a "booby-trap" on an improved tile that goes off if an enemy unit moves into it.

But your idea to have worker support units they're stacked with is good too. Worth pursuing.

In short, it doesn't sound like something that's meant to give Vietnam a distinct advantage. Instead it sounds like something that's designed to slightly lessen the damage from Vietnam being screwed over. If you want to give Vietnam an ability like that, it'd be better to give them a slight production refund every time they lose a unit, or something.

Defensive benefits on the whole do nothing more than lessen the effect of being screwed over. All they do is deter an attacker by making it too costly to keep up the war. Most defensive benefits make direct engagement desirable, while doing little to deter opportunistic raiding. My mind just went in the other direction.

[SlickSlicer]

I'm not married to it. Another random idea is to allow workers to build a "booby-trap" on an improved tile that goes off if an enemy unit moves into it.

I like this idea significantly better, but it would need some kind of limitations as well. Otherwise they can just booby trap their entire land. There'd need to be limits on what kind of damage it would do, what units it would damage (obviously air units wouldn't be affected), how many such booby traps could be set and so on and so forth. Also this sounds like a unique improvement rather than a UA.

I think at this point, to sell a civ the argument can no longer come from history or geography primarily. Rather, they mainly have to come from gameplay. So it does make sense to try to propose units that haven't been had unique replacements before. I just don't know that Vietnam is the best fit. Is it really a good source to mine if you're looking for radically divergent units and buildings?

Well, judge for yourself. I think hand cannoneers would make for an interesting UU. They'd be an artillery unit with similar mobility and defensive strength as an infantry unit, but at the cost of power. You could call them a jack-of-all-trades artillery unit. Is there something like that already in the game? I dunno. I'm just enamored of this particular concept personally.

I'd resume dialogue over fire lances if I could find some kind of way to make them stand out. One idea could be to make them an earlier replacement--for a composite bow rather than for a crossbow. Another idea could be to keep them as a crossbow replacement, but give them slight AOE damage (they could do minor damage to units surrounding their target). They could also combine both of these ideas.

Defensive benefits on the whole do nothing more than lessen the effect of being screwed over.

This strikes me as kind of hyperbolic. There is a big difference between an anti-invasion shield and an anti-pillage shield. Pillaging, though greatly useful, can be more easily eluded than warfare. The defensive UAs I proposed for Vietnam would give them an advantage one way or another: If the enemy didn't invade, they could build up their culture/cities. If the enemy did invade, they could take advantage of it. In both cases, Vietnam wouldn't suffer for it. But with that pillaging idea, they would have to give up something to gain something. I'd rather they gain something more directly beneficial. Defensive benefits are somewhat indirect, but not terribly so.

I think at this point, to sell a civ the argument can no longer come from history or geography primarily. Rather, they mainly have to come from gameplay. So it does make sense to try to propose units that haven't been had unique replacements before. I just don't know that Vietnam is the best fit. Is it really a good source to mine if you're looking for radically divergent units and buildings?

On this point I agree entirely. Truthfully, there is a lot that can come from Vietnam, however. Their history is long and they used some pretty interesting tactics, weapons and units against their adversaries. This translates well, in my opinion, to unique gameplay options. I've mentioned hand cannons and fire lances so far (neither of which are represented in Civ V in any way whatsoever), but there were a bevy of other firearm units or proto-firearm units that the Vietnamese utilized. Beyond this, they employed creative combat methods in their wars against the French, Americans and other Southeast Asian groups. They could easily have some kind of unique sappers.

In ancient times, prior to Chinese occupation, they had fairly unique customs. Some of these can translate into gameplay elements. For example, they engaged in tattooing and teeth blackening (aesthetic) and also utilized poison arrows (could be a UU archer that can 'poison' enemies). As a Southeast Asian civilization, they used elephants a lot too. My decision to leave elephants out of consideration is mainly due to how prevalent they are in the game already (Carthage, Siam and India). However, there's always something new that can be done with them, theoretically.

The problem is, I'm not a game developer so I think I am weak at expressing this, perhaps. However, I do think Vietnam has a lot of potential. And there is one other thing that I think is as important as what a civ adds to gameplay: Name Recognition. Botswana may be a better country than Ethiopia, but it's not nearly as recognizable. There were many great Central Asian civilizations, but few as famous as the ruthless Huns or Mongols.

This is one point where Vietnam shines. It probably is not the most well known country on Earth, but thanks to the Vietnam War it's certainly a lot better known than many other names people fling around like Hittites, Inuit or Majapahit.

[steveg700]

I like this idea significantly better, but it would need some kind of limitations as well. Otherwise they can just booby trap their entire land. There'd need to be limits on what kind of damage it would do, what units it would damage (obviously air units wouldn't be affected), how many such booby traps could be set and so on and so forth. Also this sounds like a unique improvement rather than a UA.

There are a lot of ways to go about it. One would be to make it a "booby trap" or "mine field" or "punji sticks" UI that goes on a tile but to an enemy it looks like an improved tile. Or perhaps it could set on an improved tile, but effectively turns off the previous improvement. It could also be that you can only set as many traps as you have workers.

In addition to raw damage, could always apply some effect other than outright damage. Punji sticks could inflict a -1 movement penalty. Land mines could demoralizef troops so that they couldn't fortify. Stuff doesn't go away until the unit can heal up. Throw that in with the aforementioned UA I proposed that halved healing while in Vietnamese territory.

Well, judge for yourself. I think hand cannoneers would make for an interesting UU. They'd be an artillery unit with similar mobility and defensive strength as an infantry unit, but at the cost of power. You could call them a jack-of-all-trades artillery unit. Is there something like that already in the game? I dunno. I'm just enamored of this particular concept personally.

Sounds like mortars, basically. We haven't had that yet. We've had "proto-units" like Korea's hwacha and turtle ship, and the Byzantine cataphract. Basically, the approach is simple: you give the civ a unit that closely approximates a later-tech unit in terms of strength. Thus, fire-lancers would be crossbowmen.

We don't have unique cannons or artillery for a pretty straightforward reason: these are the weapons that made war faceless and mechanical, with little to no room for the kind of valor that leads to lasting distinction.

If you can get more specific about Vietnam's tech and tactics, that would provide seeds for additional ideas.

[SlickSlicer]

There are a lot of ways to go about it. One would be to make it a "booby trap" or "mine field" or "punji sticks" UI that goes on a tile but to an enemy it looks like an improved tile. Or perhaps it could set on an improved tile, but effectively turns off the previous improvement. It could also be that you can only set as many traps as you have workers.

In addition to raw damage, could always apply some effect other than outright damage. Punji sticks could inflict a -1 movement penalty. Land mines could demoralizef troops so that they couldn't fortify. Stuff doesn't go away until the unit can heal up. Throw that in with the aforementioned UA I proposed that halved healing while in Vietnamese territory.

I think it should just be invisible to Vietnam's enemies, perhaps.

Like I said, it's a good idea but would need to be limited more than that. Otherwise it's abuseable to the point of being broken, even if limited by # of workers.

Also, I think my revised UA idea for Vietnam is pretty fair. If it only affects enemies that move onto forest or jungle squares, it should give Vietnam's adversaries enough leeway. And if it's STILL too broken, they can just play with the numbers (10%->5%). I don't like the idea of halved healing in Vietnamese territory by enemies, because it is once again too conditional (like the pillaging idea).

Sounds like mortars, basically. We haven't had that yet

Then that is what I want.

We don't have unique cannons or artillery for a pretty straightforward reason: these are the weapons that made war faceless and mechanical, with little to no room for the kind of valor that leads to lasting distinction.

Ironically though, a hand cannon unit would humanize cannons and make them less faceless and less mechanical.

I've edited my idea in the OP substantially.

[VicRatlhead51]

I think the boobie trap UI is kind of cool and really different. I don't believe it's overpowered though. Just replace the fort improvement with it, keep the defensive bonus and make it invisable to enemies. The amount of damage and how it's inflicted might need some testing and tweaking, maybe make it work like a citadel only dealing 1 damage to adjacent enemies rather than 3.

The hand cannon unit is a nice idea. I'd like a unique cannon. I do think you're over complicating it a tad though. Most uniques are similar to what they replace with only slight differences. Maybe the hand cannon could be a cannon that doesn't need to set up but has slightly lower attack power(smaller cannons easier to set up but less power).

The UA where units take automatic damage inside boarders is a little OP. Imagine a city with its boarders expanded a full three tiles and having the great wall. If units took automatic damage in their boarders it would be impossible to take the city, impossible might be a strong word but it'd be ridiculously hard. The boobie trap idea would still be balanced since it could be razed by invaders. I'm looking at this from an American point of view but perhaps -5 happiness penalty for being at war with Vietnam could represent the unrest in the States during the war. Or possibly just a cumulative unhappiness that builds up thelonger you're at war with them. I hate to make everything war based but I don't know enough about Vietnam to suggest a noncombat UA.

[SlickSlicer]

I think the boobie trap UI is kind of cool and really different. I don't believe it's overpowered though. Just replace the fort improvement with it, keep the defensive bonus and make it invisable to enemies. The amount of damage and how it's inflicted might need some testing and tweaking, maybe make it work like a citadel only dealing 1 damage to adjacent enemies rather than 3.

The hand cannon unit is a nice idea. I'd like a unique cannon. I do think you're over complicating it a tad though. Most uniques are similar to what they replace with only slight differences. Maybe the hand cannon could be a cannon that doesn't need to set up but has slightly lower attack power(smaller cannons easier to set up but less power).

The UA where units take automatic damage inside boarders is a little OP. Imagine a city with its boarders expanded a full three tiles and having the great wall. If units took automatic damage in their boarders it would be impossible to take the city, impossible might be a strong word but it'd be ridiculously hard. The boobie trap idea would still be balanced since it could be razed by invaders. I'm looking at this from an American point of view but perhaps -5 happiness penalty for being at war with Vietnam could represent the unrest in the States during the war. Or possibly just a cumulative unhappiness that builds up thelonger you're at war with them. I hate to make everything war based but I don't know enough about Vietnam to suggest a noncombat UA.

The booby trap idea is great, but it strikes me as a UI rather than a UA.

There are ways that you could take the idea and turn it into a UA though. One would be to make it so that Vietnamese forts can be built faster and deal 10% damage (remember that G&K changes the scale from 1-10 to 1-100) to adjacent enemy units. This could work in place of my original attrition idea, I suppose.

UA: Attrition (Forts are built twice as fast and deal 10% damage to adjacent enemy units. Defeated enemies within or adjacent to Vietnamese territory grant golden age points).

However, this seems really weak to me because forts aren't that good. So to sweeten the deal, I think I'd give them one of the other powers mentioned before: Worker stack buffs.

[twersx]

Great arguments, and I fully support Vietnam's inclusion. This thread is an order of magnitude above other civ inclusion threads, in terms of quality

[Oohforf]

Ooh, A Vietnam would be pretty interesting.

In fact, an interesting situation would be to have both of the Trung Sisters as the leaders. Both of them communicating with you in Vietnamese (what ever dialect they had back then) the leaders screen. That would be pretty awesome.

[SlickSlicer]

Ooh, A Vietnam would be pretty interesting.

In fact, an interesting situation would be to have both of the Trung Sisters as the leaders. Both of them communicating with you in Vietnamese (what ever dialect they had back then) the leaders screen. That would be pretty awesome.

I'm not completely enthralled with the Trung sisters, but it could potentially be very humorous in the dialogue. They could give them opposing personalities that conflict with one another during diplomacy. If they want to make Vietnam AI quite entertaining, there is hardly a better option. And female leaders have a certain appeal....

Several modders have had the idea before, iirc, as somebody told me that a lot of mods which added Vietnam in civ 4 added either Ho Chi Minh or the Trung Sisters.

Case in point-

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=157462

http://www.weplayciv.com/forums/down...do=file&id=163

I personally think there are much better representatives for Vietnam than either the Trung sisters (failed rebellion) or Ho Chi Minh (successful rebellion but polarizing as a historical figure).

[Oohforf]

I'm not completely enthralled with the Trung sisters, but it could potentially be very humorous in the dialogue. They could give them opposing personalities that conflict with one another during diplomacy. If they want to make Vietnam AI quite entertaining, there is hardly a better option. And female leaders have a certain appeal....

Several modders have had the idea before, iirc, as somebody told me that a lot of mods which added Vietnam in civ 4 added either Ho Chi Minh or the Trung Sisters.

Case in point-

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=157462

http://www.weplayciv.com/forums/down...do=file&id=163

I personally think there are much better representatives for Vietnam than either the Trung sisters (failed rebellion) or Ho Chi Minh (successful rebellion but polarizing as a historical figure).

Yes, I have the same Trung Sisters leaderhead included in another Civ 4 mod.

Many of my Vietnamese friends speak of Ho Chi Minh with disdain. I don't really know if it would blow over well with the Vietnamese community. :S

Much better choices than leaders such as Truong Chinh or Le Duan, however

I also think that Ho Chi Minh would be a bit too much of a modern leader, as Civ 5 seems to shy away from leaders who were closer to present day.

[SlickSlicer]

Much of the Vietnamese diaspora is South Vietnamese. It is no surprise that they would not think fondly of Ho Chi Minh. It would be a foolish marketing move, thus, to include such a polarizing and controversial figure. It would alienate a good part of the demographic that would be interested in Vietnam to begin with.

So yes, Ho Chi Minh is a bad choice. I agree.

The Trung Sisters are pretty popular and well-known. They would be fairly entertaining. They're not a bad choice at all, but they're hardly the best leaders Vietnam has had in my opinion.

[SlickSlicer]

I'm not sure if this thread is currently in jeopardy or not now that the Serbia thread has been closed. I do want to say, though, that I think the discussion here has been pretty great. I definitely appreciated and enjoyed the feedback and comments provided by steveg700, luciferkid, VicRatlhead51 and others.

I also kept wanting to reply to istry555, but always forgot. I don't see much of anything that can be done with Laos, Burma/Myanmar and Champa. Champa actually has a fascinating history, but it has the disadvantage of being very unknown. It was more or less eliminated as an important state by Le Thanh Tong. After this it limped on, barely, as an unimportant province before being fully annexed by the Vietnamese.

Laos also has a very interesting history under kingdoms such as Lan Xang. Again, however, it suffers from relative obscurity.

Despite (and perhaps even partly because of) their inclusion in Civilization IV, I don't think the Khmer are a good addition at all. They had a brief golden age where they were a 'superpower' of sorts in Southeast Asia. Their role as a regional superpower was quickly taken over by Siam/Thailand and Dai Viet/Vietnam, which were the dominant states in this part of the world until the arrival of Europeans. Vietnam's military history, which is an important factor to consider in a militaristic game like Civ V, is also a bit more diverse than many of its other Southeast Asian rivals. They contended with the Chinese, Mongols, French, Japanese (briefly), Americans and Siamese successfully. They had diplomatic relations with several European states before being absorbed into the French colonial Empire. They're a very obviously superior choice to something like Champa. I'd also wager that they have greater global notoriety than practically anybody else in Southeast Asia, including Siam.

I think the competition for a future Asian civilization right now is between Majapahit and Vietnam. I think both have interesting things to offer, but I'd give an edge to Vietnam simply because of name recognition. I think Vietnam may have more gameplay options as well. I do admit, however, that Majapahit was a pretty great maritime state and could have some interesting naval bonuses.

Also, what do you guys think of the current UX's I listed for Vietnam in the OP? How about the UX's for fire lances and poison archers?

[RideASpaceCowboy]

Vietnam would only work with Ho-Chi-Minh as its leader, and given the noted absence of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Kim Il-sung, and most other prominent villains (with the possible exceptions of Genghis Khan, Nebuchadnezzar, and Attila; who seem to get a pass because they weren't recent rulers), we can't expect the developers to make an exception for him.

[SlickSlicer]

Vietnam would only work with Ho-Chi-Minh as its leader

This makes very little sense. It is about as legitimate as saying that Russia would only work with Stalin, Germany would only work with Hitler or China would only work with Mao Zedong. The history of Vietnam extends far beyond its history with Communism. It is a lot more respectable a country than you're giving it credit for.

Since this statement has no real legitimacy, the rest of your argument is basically irrelevant. I agree that modern ruthless despots are not preferential for a new Civ V civilization. The good thing is that Vietnamese history has lasted for hundreds of years. During this time, they've had several notable heroes/leaders. Why is Ho Chi Minh our only option? The answer is, he's not.

[PachaMinnie]

Vietnam would only work with Ho-Chi-Minh as its leader, and given the noted absence of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Kim Il-sung, and most other prominent villains (with the possible exceptions of Genghis Khan, Nebuchadnezzar, and Attila; who seem to get a pass because they weren't recent rulers), we can't expect the developers to make an exception for him.

I'm sorry, are you saying Ho Chi Minh was a bad guy? If so, you are wrong. Unless, of course you consider Communism to be bad, then I will disagree even more.

[Vlynor]

I'm sorry, are you saying Ho Chi Minh was a bad guy? If so, you are wrong. Unless, of course you consider Communism to be bad, then I will disagree even more.

I assume he's a bad guy to them because they were adversaries of America.

[RideASpaceCowboy]

I'm not saying that Ho Chi Minh or Communism are bad; I'm saying that they are evil. Communism is the very antithesis of the legitimate purpose and functions of government, not only in practice, but in its underlying philosophy as well.

Instead of curbing crime it makes criminals and thieves of all of its citizens, who daily use the State as a weapon with which to rob their neighbors of their every possession. This same State not only steal but enslaves, devaluing human life to a mere social utility and utterly destroying all liberty. Worst of all, this State seeks not only to eradicate faith in God, but to replace Him as the object of worship and devotion in the lives of its subjects. It is the adversary of Life, Liberty, Property, and the Creator who has endowed such gifts to all men. It is EVIL.

[VicRatlhead51]

I'm not saying that Ho Chi Minh or Communism are bad; I'm saying that they are evil. Communism is the very antithesis of the legitimate purpose and functions of government, not only in practice, but in its underlying philosophy as well.

Instead of curbing crime it makes criminals and thieves of all of its citizens, who daily use the State as a weapon with which to rob their neighbors of their every possession. This same State not only steal but enslaves, devaluing human life to a mere social utility and utterly destroying all liberty. Worst of all, this State seeks not only to eradicate faith in God, but to replace Him as the object of worship and devotion in the lives of its subjects. It is the adversary of Life, Liberty, Property, and the Creator who has endowed such gifts to all men. It is EVIL.

Sounds like a lot of propaganda at work. Communism in its purest form would be as close as possible to a Utopia. Every one would be provided for, everyone would be equal. The problem is human nature will never allow it to exist in its purest form. There's no motivation to be a doctor if the janitor gets paid the same as one. There's no motivation to work harder than the guy next to you if you'll both get the same reward at the end of the day. Also, and this is the biggest problem historically, those who have power in communist regimes seem to have a hard time resisting abusing their power. "Communist" governments today are really socialist States that rule under the guise of communism. Governments are really only as bad or evil as the people in power.

[SlickSlicer]

Ho Chi Minh had good and bad traits.

He is, in any case, hardly necessary since Vietnam has had plenty of other worthy leaders. This argument against Communism strikes me as only very tangentially related to this thread, personally. The problem with Ho Chi Minh in Civ V isn't that he was Communist, but rather that he is the bane of every South Vietnamese person's existence. It's far more likely for descendants of emigre South Vietnamese to be consumers of Civilization V than it is for people living in North Vietnam. Outside of that, clearly a lot of Americans and others (though mainly Americans) have some sort of beef with the present Vietnam state. I wouldn't shed tears over Ho Chi Minh's inclusion, but I see it as a dumb idea and hardly a necessity or even a desirable suggestion. Vietnam has a history that extends far beyond the last several decades.

[RideASpaceCowboy]

Sounds like a lot of propaganda at work.

Propaganda from whom? If anything Americans are these days being indoctrinated oppositely of the prevailing opinions of the Cold War era Red Scare. The education system is overrun by teachers schooled in liberal universities and beholden to left-leaning teachers unions, and their socialist sympathies are reflected in their classroom lectures. And most media is even more blatant in its political leanings.

Communism in its purest form would be as close as possible to a Utopia.

I'll wait till Christ comes back at the Resurrection for utopia. In the mean time all that any government ought to be doing is enforcing retributive justice against thieves, rapists, and murderers. Instead, most governments themselves act as thieves and murderers, often in the name of creating heaven on earth.

[PachaMinnie]

I'm not saying that Ho Chi Minh or Communism are bad; I'm saying that they are evil. Communism is the very antithesis of the legitimate purpose and functions of government, not only in practice, but in its underlying philosophy as well.

Instead of curbing crime it makes criminals and thieves of all of its citizens, who daily use the State as a weapon with which to rob their neighbors of their every possession. This same State not only steal but enslaves, devaluing human life to a mere social utility and utterly destroying all liberty. Worst of all, this State seeks not only to eradicate faith in God, but to replace Him as the object of worship and devotion in the lives of its subjects. It is the adversary of Life, Liberty, Property, and the Creator who has endowed such gifts to all men. It is EVIL.

I would perfer if this didn't go into a argument about Communism, while I disagree with you greatly, I will not argue out of respect for the OP.

As for Ho Chi Minh being the leader, I suppose it really depends upon which Vietnam is getting in. If we are going to stride to a more modern Vietnam, Uncle Ho would be the best, he is the best known and fits the time period better. However, if we are going to turn more Medieval/Classical, then find a different leader.

[SlickSlicer]

Propaganda from whom? If anything Americans are these days being indoctrinated oppositely of the prevailing opinions of the Cold War era Red Scare. The education system is overrun by teachers schooled in liberal universities and beholden to left-leaning teachers unions, and their socialist sympathies are reflected in their classroom lectures. And most media is even more blatant in its political leanings.



I'll wait till Christ comes back at the Resurrection for utopia. In the mean time all that any government ought to be doing is enforcing retributive justice against thieves, rapists, and murderers. Instead, most governments themselves act as thieves and murderers, often in the name of creating heaven on earth.

Please create a new thread for this in off-topic discussion. At this point you're just going off on random political/philosophical diatribes.

I would perfer if this didn't go into a argument about Communism, while I disagree with you greatly, I will not argue out of respect for the OP.

As for Ho Chi Minh being the leader, I suppose it really depends upon which Vietnam is getting in. If we are going to stride to a more modern Vietnam, Uncle Ho would be the best, he is the best known and fits the time period better. However, if we are going to turn more Medieval/Classical, then find a different leader.

I suppose that's reasonable. There is stuff that could be done for Modern Vietnam admittedly, but I think the state reached its zenith in an earlier period and there is more stuff that could be done for them at that point anyways.

[VicRatlhead51]

I apologize Slick, I got kind of caught up. I'm not good at resisting bait like that. You're right though, civilization leaders should be chosen from a civilizationss golden age and the Vietnam under Ho Chi Minh can hardly be called a golden age.

[SlickSlicer]

I found a mod for Vietnam. I...don't like it very much.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=419365

The leader is fine. He is a really ancient leader, which is ok since Vietnam was independent very early in history before being conquered by the Chinese.

The ability he gave them is exactly the same as France's except it doesn't expire with steam power. That's not very original and it's probably better than it should be. It also isn't very indicative of Vietnam in my opinion. Viet Cong isn't such a bad idea in theory, but due to the large South Vietnamese diaspora, it wouldn't be very good as an official civ. As a modded civ, I suppose it doesn't matter since he's not selling it to anybody.

He gave them the water puppet theatre and in all fairness probably came up with that idea before I did. I learned about that tradition relatively recently. So kudos to him for that.

[VicRatlhead51]

I kind of wish we could come up with a UA similar to Ethiopia's without being too unoriginal. A bonus vs larger empires seems like it would have been perfect for them since they have been at odds with larger empires for a good portion of their history.

[SlickSlicer]

I agree. It does fit Vietnam. Maybe they could get a culture bonus from fighting larger enemies, but I think now that Ethiopia has done the "bonus vs. larger Empires" thing, it wouldn't come across as really "new" for Vietnam.

[slyone14]

i am so interested in playing one of these vietnam.mods. i went on mods but there are lime 10 of them, which would u.recommend for realism and reputable modders? thank you so.much