America in Civ7 new rules.

[Boris Gudenuf]

Unique Cavalry is actually going to be kinda awkward because like, are they "upgrading" into tanks and keeping their traits ? Are they becoming obsolete ?

As posted, US Army's late 19th century Cavalry was far more versatile than just about any other 'modern' cavalry, Ironically, the US Army was one of the few that had NO cavalry units upgrade to tanks: the Cavalry Branch absolutely refused to convert to tanks so most of the new tank commanders either transferred or had already transferred into the infantry, the original Branch that controlled tank units, or into the new Armored Branch.

Which could provide background for America to get a special Upgrade path for its Modern Age Cavalry:
Cavalry ("Yellowlegs")
Armored Cavalry
Air Cavalry

The Armored Cavalry Groups were composed of light tanks, armored cars, armored infantry and self-propelled light artillery, and were the reconnaissance, screening, pursuit units of 1943 - 44 (all the traditional 'cavalry' roles) and in addition, had a ferocious defensive capability when needed: On the northern flank of the Bulge in December 1944 a German infantry division attacked the 102nd Armored Cavalry Group: 7 infantry battalions against 2 battalion-sized cavalry squadrons - and after three days had to call off its attacks completely, because, as the division commander reported, there were no leaders left in any of his infantry regiments. The officers and senior NCOs had been leading the attacks and had all been shot down. Every vehicle in the armored cavalry units had .50 caliber machineguns mounted on them, and every M2 .50 caliber machinegun came with a tripod so it could be dismounted for defense. Over 150 .50 caliber machineguns had simply massacred the German attacking forces.

From the Armored Cavalry came the 1st Air Cavalry Division of Vietnam fame, and the air reconnaissance and attack units in the modern brigades. Again, the US Army pioneered many of the modern air assault techniques which are now being heavily modified again as a result of the lessons of the Ukraine and Middle East fighting, but it would not be out of place to give a nod to the originals in the Game.

In every case, from horse cavalry to air cavalry, the emphasis should be on versatility: the ability to attack, move, and/or defend better than anybody else's similar units. Armored Cavalry and Air Cavalry, in fact, should just about be the fastest ground units in the game.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Be careful with your late-technology UU wishes. Thanks to the Tercio Effect, you may see air cav duking it out with Napoleonic infantry.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Be careful with your late-technology UU wishes. Thanks to the Tercio Effect, you may see air cav duking it out with Napoleonic infantry.

No, I won't, because if they perpetrate anything that silly I will cancel my pre-order, never play the game and confine my 2025 - 2027 gaming to Anno 1800, Anno 117, and Farthest Frontier. Civ and I will go our separate ways and good riddance to them.

 

[Acepox]

Stopping at WWII, though, arguably ends the game at the peak of the American application of Industry to Warfare. People still don't usually appreciate how utterly and completely the USA dominated that war through sheer, massive production. Examples:

The Essex class of fleet aircraft carriers was the largest class of capital ships built in the 20th century. Put another way, the USA from 1942 to 1945 built more Essex class carriers than all the aircraft carriers built by all the other navies in the world combined during the entire war.
In addition America formed and equipped 100 fully mechanized divisions: twice as many mechanized OR motorized divisions than the entire Axis (Germany, Japan and Italy) ever managed. And in addition sent over a half-million vehicles to the Soviet Union in Lend Lease and equipped the entire Free French Army, which numbered 15 divisions by the end of the war.
When Roosevelt said in 1941 the USA would gear up to produce 50,000 aircraft in a year, people thought he was joking. In 1944 the USA produced 98,000 combat aircraft, more than Japan, Germany, and the USSR combined.

So, in keeping with Industrial Supremacy applied to Military, I suggest possible American Uniques:

The Essex class fleet aircraft carrier. Get 1 free every time you build 1 and automatically recovers 20% of any damage every turn (US Navy damage control parties were very well trained and the best equipped in the world).

Arsenal of Democracy: every time the USA builds a tank, artillery, aircraft or naval unit, it gets 2 of them.

As to other possibillities, I agree that iconic as it is, the Homesteader as a civilian 'Settler' unit doesn't have as much utility in the Modern Age as it would if available earlier. Other 19th - 20th century possibilities, some of which I've posted on before:

Yellowlegs - the US Cavalry of the late 19th century, the first regular cavalry forces to fully embrace the old motto of moving mounted and fighting dismounted using breechloading rifled firearms. Cavalry that negates any anti-mounted bonus in their opponents?

Fire Direction - The US Army's Fire Direction Centers, formed just as WWII was starting, gave their artillery more flexibility in shifting and massing fires than any other army. It required a huge investment in telephone and radio communications networks, but it meant that US Army artillery dominated every battlefield. So, perhaps every 3rd Tier Modern Age American artillery uni costs 50% more, but can fire twice in a single turn.

USMC. The United States Marine Corps pioneered many of the techniques of modern amphibious assault in the 1930s, and nobody in the world could put a multi-divisional force on a hostile shore and keep it there except the British, and they used a lot of American techniques and equipment to do so. This could either be a secial Promotion for American infantry and tank units, or a Unique Unit.

The more I think about it the more I like the idea of US Marines as a unique unit.

To this day, US Marines enjoy brand recognition far beyond any other similarly-sized military formation. They are the quintessential representation of American military might and pride.

Totally disagree with @Trav'ling Canuck 's assertion that they'd wouldn't be appropriate for the entirety of the modern era because, as I've said, they were founded as early as 1775 and have remained relevant all along American history.

The US Marine could combine the aspects of industriousness and power projection by being combat capable both at sea and on land, which allows the US to have both a massive navy or a massive army at a moment's notice, as well as making amphibious assaults far safer.

As opposed to other civs, I would make Generals Commanders less important to the US military, which has long relied on mission command, trusting its low level officers with the autonomy to take on opportunities to maintain the initiative and momentum of the force.

 

[Krikkit1]

The more I think about it the more I like the idea of US Marines as a unique unit.

To this day, US Marines enjoy brand recognition far beyond any other similarly-sized military formation. They are the quintessential representation of American military might and pride.

Totally disagree with @Trav'ling Canuck 's assertion that they'd wouldn't be appropriate for the entirety of the modern era because, as I've said, they were founded as early as 1775 and have remained relevant all along American history.

The US Marine could combine the aspects of industriousness and power projection by being combat capable both at sea and on land, which allows the US to have both a massive navy or a massive army at a moment's notice, as well as making amphibious assaults far safer.

As opposed to other civs, I would make Generals less important to the US military, which has long relied on mission command, trusting its low level officers with the autonomy to take on opportunities to maintain the initiative and momentum of the force.

Be a good continuity with the Norman predecessor UA as well.

 

[Acepox]

As opposed to other civs, I would make Generals Commanders less important to the US military, which has long relied on mission command, trusting its low level officers with the autonomy to take on opportunities to maintain the initiative and momentum of the force.

So far, the only idea I've come up with to realize this is Great Captains: more numerous, but less individually consequential. I liked @Wabnosa 's ideas about GGs on page 1 that could be incorporated here.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

The more I think about it the more I like the idea of US Marines as a unique unit.

To this day, US Marines enjoy brand recognition far beyond any other similarly-sized military formation. They are the quintessential representation of American military might and pride.

Totally disagree with @Trav'ling Canuck 's assertion that they'd wouldn't be appropriate for the entirety of the modern era because, as I've said, they were founded as early as 1775 and have remained relevant all along American history.

The US Marine could combine the aspects of industriousness and power projection by being combat capable both at sea and on land, which allows the US to have both a massive navy or a massive army at a moment's notice, as well as making amphibious assaults far safer.

As opposed to other civs, I would make Generals Commanders less important to the US military, which has long relied on mission command, trusting its low level officers with the autonomy to take on opportunities to maintain the initiative and momentum of the force.

mm US Marines a replacement of Infantry?

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

The more I think about it the more I like the idea of US Marines as a unique unit.

To this day, US Marines enjoy brand recognition far beyond any other similarly-sized military formation. They are the quintessential representation of American military might and pride.

Totally disagree with @Trav'ling Canuck 's assertion that they'd wouldn't be appropriate for the entirety of the modern era because, as I've said, they were founded as early as 1775 and have remained relevant all along American history.

The US Marine could combine the aspects of industriousness and power projection by being combat capable both at sea and on land, which allows the US to have both a massive navy or a massive army at a moment's notice, as well as making amphibious assaults far safer.

As opposed to other civs, I would make Generals Commanders less important to the US military, which has long relied on mission command, trusting its low level officers with the autonomy to take on opportunities to maintain the initiative and momentum of the force.

Just a few comments:

In fact, the USMC did not have much of an impact on US military operations until the 20th century. They were in existance throughout the 19th century, but, for instance, the amphibious landing at Vera Cruz in the Mexican War was done entirely by Army troops and the US Navy without any input from the Marines, and amphibious operations in the Civil War along the southern coasts were also done almost entirely by by Army troops, not Marines.

The land/sea/air capabilities of the USMC did not develop until the 1930s, when the Maine air units perfected the dive-bombing technique (and Ernst Udet, chief of developments for the Luftwaffe, copied them and even bought a Marine dive bomber to take back to Germany for tests) and Marine ground units worked out the techniques for mechanized landing craft and modern amphibious actions that the US used so extensively throughout WWII.

And while the US military makes a great deal of their 'mission-type orders' those developed only after WWII as they tried to copy the German Auftragstaktik. US ground tactics in WWII in fact were copied from the WWI French and very rigid, relying on 'phase lines' and top-down planning for almost everything. US small units could operate independently, but that wasn't according to their doctrine. And the 'independence of the small-unit commander' disappeared completely in Vietnam, when a company commander could have direct communication with the Pentagon - and get orders directly from every commander above him from battalion to Theatre level.

The military that most extensively 'devolved' command functions to lower levels and relied on the independence of the lower commanders to get inside their opponents' 'decision loop' was the German Wehrmacht 1933 to 1945, and that system proved to be sadly insufficient to cope with American (or Soviet) Industrial warfare: independent small-unit maneuver does not succeed or even survive in the face of overwhelming firepower from artillery and aircraft.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Just a few comments:

In fact, the USMC did not have much of an impact on US military operations until the 20th century. They were in existance throughout the 19th century, but, for instance, the amphibious landing at Vera Cruz in the Mexican War was done entirely by Army troops and the US Navy without any input from the Marines, and amphibious operations in the Civil War along the southern coasts were also done almost entirely by by Army troops, not Marines.

The land/sea/air capabilities of the USMC did not develop until the 1930s, when the Maine air units perfected the dive-bombing technique (and Ernst Udet, chief of developments for the Luftwaffe, copied them and even bought a Marine dive bomber to take back to Germany for tests) and Marine ground units worked out the techniques for mechanized landing craft and modern amphibious actions that the US used so extensively throughout WWII.

And while the US military makes a great deal of their 'mission-type orders' those developed only after WWII as they tried to copy the German Auftragstaktik. US ground tactics in WWII in fact were copied from the WWI French and very rigid, relying on 'phase lines' and top-down planning for almost everything. US small units could operate independently, but that wasn't according to their doctrine. And the 'independence of the small-unit commander' disappeared completely in Vietnam, when a company commander could have direct communication with the Pentagon - and get orders directly from every commander above him from battalion to Theatre level.

The military that most extensively 'devolved' command functions to lower levels and relied on the independence of the lower commanders to get inside their opponents' 'decision loop' was the German Wehrmacht 1933 to 1945, and that system proved to be sadly insufficient to cope with American (or Soviet) Industrial warfare: independent small-unit maneuver does not succeed or even survive in the face of overwhelming firepower from artillery and aircraft.

With this. US Armed forces amphibious warfare is better represented with different concepts instead of a UU. it could be Civ ability as per new rules... 'Sea Land and Air'?
But still 'Yellowlegs' Cavalry can still be 'self upgrades' even as a tank... Shermans with footsloggers flanking left and right? representing ability to deny enemy Antitank total advantages. ?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The more I think about it the more I like the idea of US Marines as a unique unit.

To this day, US Marines enjoy brand recognition far beyond any other similarly-sized military formation. They are the quintessential representation of American military might and pride.

Totally disagree with @Trav'ling Canuck 's assertion that they'd wouldn't be appropriate for the entirety of the modern era because, as I've said, they were founded as early as 1775 and have remained relevant all along American history.

The US Marine could combine the aspects of industriousness and power projection by being combat capable both at sea and on land, which allows the US to have both a massive navy or a massive army at a moment's notice, as well as making amphibious assaults far safer.

These abilities feel more in line with a potential British Redcoat/Royal Marine. They had much more of an impact in what would be the Modern Age in game.

Edit: Well, I stand corrected.

 

[Acepox]

Just a few comments:

In fact, the USMC did not have much of an impact on US military operations until the 20th century. They were in existance throughout the 19th century, but, for instance, the amphibious landing at Vera Cruz in the Mexican War was done entirely by Army troops and the US Navy without any input from the Marines, and amphibious operations in the Civil War along the southern coasts were also done almost entirely by by Army troops, not Marines.

The land/sea/air capabilities of the USMC did not develop until the 1930s, when the Maine air units perfected the dive-bombing technique (and Ernst Udet, chief of developments for the Luftwaffe, copied them and even bought a Marine dive bomber to take back to Germany for tests) and Marine ground units worked out the techniques for mechanized landing craft and modern amphibious actions that the US used so extensively throughout WWII.

And while the US military makes a great deal of their 'mission-type orders' those developed only after WWII as they tried to copy the German Auftragstaktik. US ground tactics in WWII in fact were copied from the WWI French and very rigid, relying on 'phase lines' and top-down planning for almost everything. US small units could operate independently, but that wasn't according to their doctrine. And the 'independence of the small-unit commander' disappeared completely in Vietnam, when a company commander could have direct communication with the Pentagon - and get orders directly from every commander above him from battalion to Theatre level.

The military that most extensively 'devolved' command functions to lower levels and relied on the independence of the lower commanders to get inside their opponents' 'decision loop' was the German Wehrmacht 1933 to 1945, and that system proved to be sadly insufficient to cope with American (or Soviet) Industrial warfare: independent small-unit maneuver does not succeed or even survive in the face of overwhelming firepower from artillery and aircraft.

Yeah, mostly true.

I have to push back on the idea that direct communications with upper echelons of command eliminated any sort of initiative or independence, though. That is incorrect. Comms are never perfect, even in this day and age, always subject to the opinion of the enemy's jammers or mother nature's environmental hazards. Thus you can't expect comms to be reliable and guarantee command and control over far-flung units. You can either add echelons in theater, or trust your low-level commander to do what's right in accordance with his commanders' intent.

Mission command is indeed far more modern a development than the USMC itself, and it has remained relevant since its inception. Most prevalent in the news recently as NATO has been trying to teach their Ukrainian counterparts in this way of war.

Nonetheless, I think it remains a good idea to take some artistic liberties in applying our modern ideas about the USMC to their broad history, for simplicity's sake and gameplay reasons.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Yeah, mostly true.

I have to push back on the idea that direct communications with upper echelons of command eliminated any sort of initiative or independence, though. That is incorrect. Comms are never perfect, even in this day and age, always subject to the opinion of the enemy's jammers or mother nature's environmental hazards. Thus you can't expect comms to be reliable and guarantee command and control over far-flung units. You can either add echelons in theater, or trust your low-level commander to do what's right in accordance with his commanders' intent.

Mission command is indeed far more modern a development than the USMC itself, and it has remained relevant since its inception. Most prevalent in the news recently as NATO has been trying to teach their Ukrainian counterparts in this way of war.

Nonetheless, I think it remains a good idea to take some artistic liberties in applying our modern ideas about the USMC to their broad history, for simplicity's sake and gameplay reasons.

Although to some extent the Royal Marines of the British navy did it first, one continuing characteristic of the USMC would be "Projection" - that is, the idea that every warship can 'project' a certain amount of power onto land, in the form of landed Marine contingents. In Civ VII this would work well because the Civ (America, Vespucciland, United States of Profit, whatever) would be Modern Age, so the Marines should not be mistakable for Vikings or other pre-gunpowder riff-raff. This could allow, as happened IRL, a warship to seize an undefended city with a landed Marine contingent (holding it for any length of time, of course, would be another matter), or land, disable a fortification, and return to the ship on the following turn. The extra flexibility this could give to 'ordinary' naval operations would neatly fit the Marine ethos and be applicable throughout the history of the Corps.

As for communication, I have to quote a French general in the Crimea in 1856, the first war in which telegraph wire communications connected the battlefield with Paris and London. The general commented that it "was like being on the shocking end of an electric wire, which paralyzes all movement."

The preferred method in Vietnam, as a former company commander once confessed to me, was that the commander took the communications techs firmly in hand and pointed out that they worked for him, not the Grand Poobah up the line, and that communications with the Poobah contingent would break off whenever it was in the commander's interest. This came as only a mild surprise to me, because from German archive documents I knew that similar 'comm failures' were common in the German Wehrmacht whenever a subordinate commander wanted 'freedom of movement'. Unfortunately for the Wehrmacht, this became known and failure to maintain communications became a punishable offense later in the war.

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

So... it's the Marines! Kudos to all who predicted it.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

So let's put this thread to rest. The official discussion is finally here. https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/new-civ-guide-america.693612/

Like it or not. We all have to face it. Just like Mexican having Soldaderas as UU.