About America's starting date....

[pokeravi]

I think America should start at 1775 instead of 1605. I know it might seem a bit late, but starting at 1605 not only makes it innacurate since you'll be fighting the British when you're supposed to be part of the British Empire, but there wasn't really any anti-British sentiment until after the French and Indian Wars in the late 1760s. Just my two cents.

 

[a1Basco]

Well, America(The united states area at least) was first settled at that time. The time seems fine really. Otherwise, the U.S. wouldn't stand a chance at all.

 

[Gunner]

I understand and concur that the current date doesn't make much historical sense, but still support it just so that an American player won't have to wait quite so long to be able to play.

 

[Rhye]

1775 would be too late for a player who wants to play as America. It might take 2 hours.

 

[Surtur]

1775 would be interesting though because you would take over more and better developed cities. And for Britain it would make more sense to colonize America. At the moment you know that you will lose the cities anyway in a few turns.

 

[McA123]

Yeah, as Britain I never build any cities within the US flip area. Waste of settlers in my opinion.

 

[pokeravi]

Yeah fact is I lose the cities so early since the starting date is so early. >_>

 

[McA123]

But then, who wants to wait that long to play as America? I think it's fine the way it is.

 

[seamus75]

My understanding of the game is to depict global realism (without being wholly linear). That said 1776 is the more accurate choice, though it is late game.
But a later date allows for an established Eastern seaboard, Quebec, and a flourishing Caribbean - all done on someone elses dime & time. With a greater unit boost at the US birth there are plenty of existing cities to flip & conquer & allows the US to be a viable player.

I don't have a problem waiting; but for those that do, play as one of the Europeans for the first half, settle the Americas & maintain those cities after the flip - just as Americans instead of Franks, Brits or Spaniards.

 

[Gunner]

You might have to wait a couple of hours. It would be unbearable.

 

[Spartan117]

its not really that long, go watch a tv show

 

[Surtur]

I think the starting date thing should be changed a bit. When you choose to play a certain civilization then the game autoplays until a fixed date (as it is know). But when you actually play the game starting dates should be a bit more random (+/- 20 turns maybe).
For America this would mean: If you want to play America then the game will autoplay until 1605. But if you play an European civilization for example then it can happen that America spawns far later in the game. So as Britain you would never know when they spawn.

 

[onedreamer]

My understanding of the game is to depict global realism (without being wholly linear). That said 1776 is the more accurate choice, though it is late game.
But a later date allows for an established Eastern seaboard, Quebec, and a flourishing Caribbean - all done on someone elses dime & time. With a greater unit boost at the US birth there are plenty of existing cities to flip & conquer & allows the US to be a viable player.

I don't have a problem waiting; but for those that do, play as one of the Europeans for the first half, settle the Americas & maintain those cities after the flip - just as Americans instead of Franks, Brits or Spaniards.

well I find this solution very interesting ^^

 

[Elhoim]

I think that spawning America a little later would be nice, as right now there are not much european colonies in that area. Many times I appear and there are no cities that flip to me! Besides, I don´t think that the extra waiting would hurt so much, as many of us just go to do something else with the current wait time, and some minutes more would not make a difference.

 

[dh_epic]

Yeah. While I agree that 1776 might be too late, I do agree that 1605 is too early. Technically, that's only one century (20 turns) after the "New World" is even discovered. It really discourages Europeans from colonizing North America.

1700, plus or minus 10 turns, would be better for gameplay (and realism, in a roundabout way).

 

[OzzyKP]

I still like 1605.

The start dates for England, Germany, France & Spain aren't necessarily the dates they were unified nations, but were approximate dates for when their roots as a people were first put down. Which would clearly be 1605 (1607) for the United States. If people want 1776 for America, then why not 1492 for Spain when the Moors were driven out and when Castille & Leon united? Or 1066 for England? Or 1871 for Germany?

1776 is the date of the formation of the United States of America as an independent political unit. Our government dates to then. But Americans as a people date to the first settlers. I certainly don't intend to downplay the significance of 1776, it is huge and important, but I don't think it is the appropriate date for the "start of America". Nor does a split the difference move of 1733 work.

 

[dh_epic]

The top concern has to be gameplay. 1605 might be all well and good for history books, but when it basically discourages England from even *trying* to settle some of its New World locations, we've destroyed more realism than we've added.

 

[Barak]

I preferred 16095 as well for a few reasons. Firstly, it gives the American player a chance to build (unless more units, settlers and techs are given to the Americans). Second, it allows room to expand for the American player once European settlers and tropps arive.

One other thing i noticed in congress is when playing as America, Germany claimed an American city that had german immigrants, while Germany had never setteld the new world. (1.15)

 

[Elhoim]

I preferred 16095 as well for a few reasons.

Isn´t that a bit futuristic? j/k

 

[Barak]

Isn´t that a bit futuristic? j/k

Indeed it is fat-fingered the numbers 1605 is naturally what I meant