Americans suck

[fdgsgds]

It's "who", not "whom", and you can combine any leader with any civilization as long as you have Warlords or BtS.

Hey, hey, hey!! Commas go inside the quotation marks, a thank you.

America is just like Germany in the game. For good periods of time, they both dominated the world, but in Civ4, they are poorly used by the AI; they always lose. But what else could the UU and UB be? Our country didn't officially exist to us until 1776, of course. The Civ5 UU of "Minutemen" is just stupid. Why not just have a "militia" unit for every era? A unit weaker but faster to train than the strongest unit in the era. That's basically what they are.

Navy SEALS are good fighters. March is an extremely usefull promotion...
As for the mall UB, it's probably worthless. Besides, other countries have malls, it's not really unique.

If you don't like America, don't play it. Although, I'm ashamed how it always loses to the AI and it's not very fun to play your own country when it sucks, especially compared to the Incas .

 

[G-Max]

^ How is that even relevant?

You're right; that's not what I should have asked. I should have instead asked "Is there any civ/leader combination that is actually worse than the same leader leading the Americans?"

 

[Sian]

Sid Meyer of Minor

or maybe ... hmm ... Booty of Native

 

[Clam Spammer]

America >> Germany for every leader. No exceptions.

At least America has good (default) leaders to compensate for their poor uniques - unlike, say, Japan.

 

[Thain Esh Kelch]

I don't see how it is relevant that their UU comes late in the game. You don't use stone age era UU's throughout the game anyway?

 

[ValkyrieQueen]

Awww, they're not that bad.

 

[Higher Game]

The mall is actually ok if you're going for a cultural win and you have some of those industrial era happiness wonders; the mall's happiness bonus is frequently enough for an extra draft round, and the extra gold is decent.

The SEAL isn't good at all, but it's at least better than the normal unit, unlike other UU's.

The American leaders do have some solid traits. I'd actually say America is an average civilization, despite the late unique stuff.

 

[obsolete]

The mall is actually ok if you're going for a cultural win...

No it is not. You should already get legendary culture in your cities before this point. And there are other UBs that give 25% boost to culture.

 

[CornPlanter]

I don't see how it is relevant that their UU comes late in the game. You don't use stone age era UU's throughout the game anyway?

Because they come into scene when the game is (usually) decided. While earlier units actually help to decide the game. You don't use stone era UUs through the game, but if they help to get you into winning position during their own era thats good enough.

Immortals can help you to win outright while you can lose the game before you even have a chance at building SEALs.

Also, any advantage grows as in snowball, the earlier you get it the better.

 

[Spectrite]

You're right; that's not what I should have asked. I should have instead asked "Is there any civ/leader combination that is actually worse than the same leader leading the Americans?"

Why are you even separating civ and leader? They're one package. Good leaders can make up for bad civs, and vice versa.

 

[Farm Boy]

Also bear in mind that ancient era starts are not your only option(even if they are the most fun). I do not see why a civ based on a country founded less than 300 years ago should have "unique" advantages earlier in the game. And that, essentially, is the only real thing wrong with the American civ. The leaders and the uniques are all at least passable, just late.

 

[CornPlanter]

In the game, not in real life.

But seriously, they don't get their UU until Industrialism and they don't get their UB until Refrigeration. Lame. What are they supposed to do until then?

UU and UB are far from being game deciding factor. With a very few exceptions.

 

[Higher Game]

No it is not. You should already get legendary culture in your cities before this point. And there are other UBs that give 25% boost to culture.

No plan survives contact with the enemy; late industrial and early modern cultural wins aren't uncommon. The mall sees use because the scientific method path has priority for culture; the wonders are obvious picks, as is biology for more artist specialists. You can do a lot with 2-3 extra happiness, and the gold in a shrine city with settled specialists helps keep the culture meter high (FDR is good at this due to organized, and he makes wonders quickly too; the other leaders don't look as good with the mall). The other cultural buildings are more direct, but aren't necessarily better.

Outside of going down the science path quickly for culture, the mall is too late.

 

[AutomatedTeller]

the mall is a late UB, of course... but it does have a large impact. 20% increase of gold + 3 possible happies.

The seal is late, but is awesome, too, with a ton of bonuses and the ability to heal on the go. Only issue is that it's an infantry unit.

besides - do a late era start, and the american's are at an advantage over civs like Egypt, whose UU and UB are done and over with.

 

[plasmacannon]

America has better starting techs that the Aztecs, Celts and Holy Roman Empire, which all start with Mysticism and Hunting.
America starts with Agriculture and Fishing. You always have a food option in the beginning.
With Roosevelt[IND/ORG] (excellent traits) you can build a lighthouse at double speed and research Sailing/masonry for an early GLH wonder.
I did this on my 2nd city right after I popped mysticism from a good hut and built Stonehenge with some chopped wood.
Free monument and more trade routes. I would have had a tougher time with any of the 3 empires I mentioned above.

With Ag and Fishing one can go for AH or pottery early too, depends on you situation and mood.

Washington gets +2 health and can get +2 happiness from his traits. This is a big help on higher levels when those resourses don't plop in front of your BFC like on Noble, and you start getting unrest earlier.

Lincoln[CHA/PHI] can promote seige units faster, for city conquering and gaining GLs faster for bulbing technologies.

None of the American leaders are bad.
Hey, they even start with a cool Blue color instead of that Pink, China gets.

In multi-player games, one could say, you also start with the advantage that no one has a reason to rush you early either.

If you were to compare leaders alone, some would argue that Roosevelt [IND/ORG] is actually a better leader than HC[IND/FIN]. More so, on Medieval starts or later, when you already have CoL and can build courthouses twice as fast.
Most build supermarkets, and the Mall gives you bonuses for doing, what one might already do.

Just conquer the foes that can tech earlier and maintain tech with the others. When, you build Malls, you will tech more rapidly than the others to victory.

 

[G-Max]

I don't see how it is relevant that their UU comes late in the game. You don't use stone age era UU's throughout the game anyway?

An early UU/UB can give you the edge that you need to establish your dominance. Once you already have more cities/production/research/resources/everything than everyone else does, UUs and UBs don't matter.

Why are you even separating civ and leader? They're one package.

They used to be one package. Not anymore.

Also bear in mind that ancient era starts are not your only option(even if they are the most fun).

By the Gods, you're right! Americans actually kick ass on Modern and Future starts.

Except that nobody plays those.

America has better starting techs that the Aztecs, Celts and Holy Roman Empire,

That's a matter of opinion and strategy.

 

[CornPlanter]

That's a matter of opinion and strategy.

Thats a matter of facts.

An early UU/UB can give you the edge that you need to establish your dominance. Once you already have more cities/production/research/resources/everything than everyone else does, UUs and UBs don't matter.

Very true thats why in general the earlier UU the better. But thats just a generalization. Only a handful UUs can turn the tide of war. Immortals. Praetorians. War Chariots. Quechuas. But I will never believe that someone generally can win with Gallic Warriors but absolutely cannot without them. They are just nearly non-factor. There can be very rare situations that call for Gallic Warriors and are hardly winnable without them... but those are too rare to talk about. So usually whether you have Gallic Warriors now and marines later (if you come to that point) for practical purposes is no different from "you have Swordsmen now and SEALs later (if you come to that point)."

 

[Ray Patterson]

I find SEALS to be relatively pointless. But the Mall, even if it is late, is so powerful that I really like it. Frankly by that time my cities are often in dire need again of both health and happiness, due to the Biology farms kicking in. Combine this with Washington and the modern happiness wonders & broadcast tower, and you can fight huge wars without having to turn up the happiness slider.

Washington is one of my favorite leaders. I've gotten my highest score of all time with him, a domination victory on Prince in 1695. And yes, I had malls by that time.

 

[Spectrite]

They used to be one package. Not anymore.

Please explain? Leaders are still tied to a civilization, and often balance out the civilization's uniques. For example, Germany, Khmer, Russia, and America have strong leaders but weak uniques, while Rome, Korea, Arabia, and China have weaker leaders but good uniques to make up for it.

That's a matter of opinion and strategy.

This whole thread is a matter of opinion.

It's obvious that not all civilizations are equal. Some are better, some are worse. So the Americans happen to be one of the worse civs. I don't see what's so exceptional about that - they aren't even one of the worst.

 

[revengeofmakno]

I am not going to join the dogpile on the originator of this thread. In essence, I agree, the Americans are not one of the preferred civilizations to play. The Civs with the effective early and effective Uunits such as Egypt, Persia, the Incas, Rome, Mali, etc. give one the best starts and there is nothing like a good start in CIV4 in which you take down and take over one or two of your neighbours and get on a real roll. One plays the Americans when one wants a "challenge" which is just a euphemism for a having a civilization that is fundamentally weaker in game terms. So, yes, one could say that they "suck".