Few Play as American Civ?

[JBryan314]

Just curious, but it seems that very few people on the boards talk about playing as (or against, for that matter) the American civ. Is there a reason for this? Are they typically weak leaders in the game, or have other disadvantages that cause people here to shy away when choosing their civ? I have just noticed that few people ever mention it at all, almost as if they aren't in the game at all. Just wondering.

 

[Archon_Wing]

UB and UU come too late to matter. Their leaders are actually rather good.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

A late UU and UB make America somewhat difficult to take advantage of as they only become useful in the modern-ish era. I usually win my games before then.

 

[JBryan314]

Oh. I guess that's how it goes with younger civs.

 

[SamSniped]

If your games do go that late, they're good to play as (especially in my mod (shameless self-advertising ))

 

[xenex]

I think in the AI's hand the American civ is middle of the pack when it comes to how good it does.


Their leaders don't stand out in any particular way, their not a lightning rod like Sitting Bull, or Ghandi are, their not particularly religiously crazy (weird isn't it), like Isabella and Memhed ( I think Memhed is the other one, can't be sure right now) and they aren't war happy either (weird again isn't it) like Monty or Alex.



In players hand I think yet again their middle of the pack when it comes to how well they get played, a huge part of this is their late UU/UB.The only real way to win with America using their UU/UB is either a space victory which isn't that great since, the one way to get a "better" space victory is to get to AC early and the other victory is Dom/Con,both of which would be really hard to do if you mostly just wait for their UU to try and get.

 

[plasmacannon]

As you see, they have their negatives.
They do make up for their late UU and UBs with some nice leaders and great starting techs.
They start with agriculture and fishing. So, they will be able to build up their city's pop quickly.
Rooselvelt is IND/ORG.
I have found him to be the leader who will be the quickest to get to the tech and construct the Great Lighthouse before anyone else.
This gives America an edge in the economy area. Well, on maps that have coast anyway.

I have playing a game as Lincoln lately and doing quite well.
He is CHA/PHI. My units, including recon, mounted, seige and naval units, get promoted quickly.
I ran Pacifism for a 200% Great People growth and popped out GS to bulb techs and GM to upgrade my experienced troops from earlier battles.

There are a lot of variables. The map, whether one is playing multiplayer or solo, difficulty level, trade techs to other AIs, gain allies and bribe one to attack another.
The usual in every game, regardless of leader.
You could even try 'Unrestricted leaders' and select a specific leader to manage the American Empire, depending on your style of play.
Huayna Capac would be good for building wonders and teching.
Zara Yakob would be good for general city buildup.
Boudica would turn you into an early conquering empire.
Hannibal and Napoleon will be able to fight and support the troops upkeep costs.

 

[JBryan314]

I think in the AI's hand the American civ is middle of the pack when it comes to how good it does.


Their leaders don't stand out in any particular way, their not a lightning rod like Sitting Bull, or Ghandi are, their not particularly religiously crazy (weird isn't it), like Isabella and Memhed ( I think Memhed is the other one, can't be sure right now) and they aren't war happy either (weird again isn't it) like Monty or Alex.



In players hand I think yet again their middle of the pack when it comes to how well they get played, a huge part of this is their late UU/UB.The only real way to win with America using their UU/UB is either a space victory which isn't that great since, the one way to get a "better" space victory is to get to AC early and the other victory is Dom/Con,both of which would be really hard to do if you mostly just wait for their UU to try and get.

I don't think it's that weird that the leaders aren't religious fanatics or war crazy, since America was founded in part to escape religious fanaticism and isn't one of many countries routinely going through military coups or civil wars/genocides. It's pretty accurate to me.

 

[JBryan314]

I usually plays as the American civ, but I also play as the Greeks or Romans sometimes.

 

[azzaman333]

Humans tend not to play as the Americans because of their extremely late UU and UB, and in the hands of the AI 2 of the 3 American leaders (Roosevelt and Lincoln) tend to be punching bags. So they end up largely ignored.

 

[Dr.Null]

IMHO America and Germany are both excellent training civs, since you effectively have to get yourself into a winning position without any UU or UB, and since their leaders have good traits.

 

[Verarde]

With their late UU and UB, it's hard to take advantage of that in the late/endgame, mainly because the game is either decided at that point, or you're racing for a different victory than Conquest, or you've already won.

 

[lymond]

IMO, folks put to much stock in UUs and UBs in general. Regardless of how good or bad we rate particular UUs and UBs, when taking the game in a vacuum, they generally have very little bearing on the outcome. Sure, there are a couple of early UUs that border on OP, if you have the resource. Ofc, Quechas are generally consider such and that's why they are banned in HOF, so I kinda throw them out anyway. The point is, you should have success regardless of UUs/UBs. I put more stock into traits and starting techs.

The Americans are all good leaders from a trait perspective, and AG/Fish are flexible starting techs. In fact, Wash is probably the best generic leader in the game, which is why Doc Null is correct in calling them good training civs. Linc and Roos each have a top tier trait or trait combo, while Wash has two very good traits. (EXP is my personal favorite trait, but I don't claim it as the very top trait). I think not relying on uniques is a great way to learn the game.

The American civs don't seem to play as well in the hands of the AIs (they are often picked as pushover civs in HOF), but they are each strong leaders for humans.

 

[jaygilbert]

I'm not an expert player (Warlord-Prince level), but I have really enjoyed playing Roosevelt several times, and building a religious economy. The Industrious trait allows the wonders that really help a religious economy like Sistine Chapel, Sankore, Spiral Minaret, etc, and the organized allows big empires

 

[Kid R]

I think the reason they don't get talked about is that there's nothing really outstanding about any of the trait combos or uniques. Any general discussion of rushes, religious strategies, oracle gambits, super promo combos, or whatever, will choose another civ to highlight what's being talked about. And high-level walkthrough games tend to use a civ that has some kind of edge because, well you need an edge

 

[Archon_Wing]

Well, Roosevelt is the Great Lighthouse man.

 

[tdy99]

I think the designers should have avoided giving any civ super late UUs and UBs.

The Americans could have had:

Frontiersman - explorer that generates 5 gold every turn it is in an unclaimed square

Independence Hall: Replaces jail

 

[fibonacci112358]

Jail? That's a pretty late building, isn't it?

 

[Seraiel]

@ lymond: Incas are not banned from HoF, only from Gauntlet.

 

[goldys_lackey]

I'm not always sure how to best leverage Charismatic, and so it sort of goes to waste in a lot of my games. Roosevelt OTOH has a trait combo (Ind,Org) that's easy to leverage without really even trying.