Americans suck

[Farm Boy]

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

Except that nobody plays those.

Heheh, thank you for clearing that up for me, I must have been somewhat confused as to some of the games I have played. The amazing G-Max Oracle tells all!! But only about how other people play games. Darn.

Seriously though, there is nothing wrong with different civs having uniques that shine in different eras. Late era uniques naturally suffer disadvantage when all you are willing to consider are games that start in the era of lemur-skin underwear and crushed-rock toilet paper, however, I am still glad that the variety exists. Wouldn't it suck if everybody had an axe, chariot, or warrior unique? Either way, I get the feeling that many civfanatics would rather roll any of the U.S. presidents on a random start rather than Mao or the Burger King.

Sorry for the ramble, but I am now intrigued thinking about various lemur undergarments and need to check a couple, um, niche websites.

 

[CornPlanter]

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".

By that rationale, about 30 civilizations out of 34 are sucky. 4 remaining are Inca, Persia, Egypt and Rome, in no particular order. Aztecs, Mali and Babylon can be questionable.

 

[revengeofmakno]

By that rationale, about 30 civilizations out of 34 are sucky. 4 remaining are Inca, Persia, Egypt and Rome, in no particular order. Aztecs, Mali and Babylon can be questionable.

I am sure that each of us would rate the 34 in a different order but I doubt that many would put the Americans anywhere near the top. Your cutoff point for applying the "suck" label or a derivative of it is just different than what others might use.

I think the original idea was that, in general, the later the UU and UB come into play, the more challenging it becomes to have an era in which one can make a big push. Obviously, there are variations in that as some UU and UBs are clearly stronger than others but the earlier you can employ them, the easier it is to win.

 

[Spectrite]

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".

However, they are far from being the only weak civ. In fact, some are worse. So I don't know why America is singled out.

 

[plasmacannon]

For those who tech to the end, and conquer with tanks, inf and marines, might have encountered a few Navy SEALS.
If you let them grow to Malls and beyond, they can catch up tech-wise, and in the end have inf and tanks for you to deal with, instead of riflemen.
More of a pain than N.A. at that point.

 

[Ray Patterson]

However, they are far from being the only weak civ. In fact, some are worse. So I don't know why America is singled out.

Simple: the writer is American and would like America to be a more playable civ. Makes sense: as a Dutchman I am delighted that the Netherlands are a tremendously awesome civ to play. Dikes ftw

But, as I said, I don't think America is bad. UU/UB are not that important generally speaking. I agree with a previous poster that there's just a precious few civs that are truly awesome. Seeing as how America has THREE leaders, none of which is horrible (meaning mostly: none of which is protective), and one of which is really strong (Washington), America is a good civ. Not top tier, but average or better.

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

I disagree. America is only bad for earlier starts. If your game starts at modern or future era, then they are much better than most other civs. OTOH, Russia and Germany still suck regardless of era. While research institute sounds great in theory, you don't really need the extra GPP/research by the time Superconductors are researched... As for assembly plants, they don't add anything useful ata ll.

As for the Dutch, I'd say they are not as good as people'd think for ancient starts, since the crucial stages of a game tend to occur before Steam Power. Even though I greatly enjoy building dikes, I usually already have won the game effectively by that time.

 

[insaneweasel]

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?

In the late game, you should have enough units to crush the opposition through sheer numbers.

Early game, stronger UUs like the quechua and the war chariot are huge advantages, because they provide relatively higher bang for the hammers spent.

 

[obsolete]

If you let them grow to Malls and beyond, they can catch up tech-wise...

LOL, I think you are REALLY over-rating that UB.

 

[plasmacannon]

LOL, I think you are REALLY over-rating that UB.

Probably.
I don't play the Americans that much.
When I do, I have still done well.

The Mall does bring in more gold than the Stock Exchange of England, and it is a building I would have built as any other empire, so, it really is a good UB.

We would all love to have it earlier, of course, but, if your games run long, with having to defeat several empire in the modern age+ timeframe, it will obviously be generating alot of gold for your empire.

 

[CornPlanter]

I think the original idea was that, in general, the later the UU and UB come into play, the more challenging it becomes to have an era in which one can make a big push.

Chariots rush. Axe rush. Horse Archer rush. Riffles. Cannons. Elephants+cats, occasionally. Nukes. Those are probably the best big pushes and every civ has them. Only a handful of UUs can really help to make a better push. The 4 I listed before and some more (forgot Keshiks, Vultures and some others probably).

I am sure that each of us would rate the 34 in a different order but I doubt that many would put the Americans anywhere near the top.

Nor anybody would put them near the bottom. Leave alone describe them as "suck". Even Tokugawa/Japan does not "suck", and it's widely accepted as the worst civ.

 

[Farm Boy]

Puppies suck. Kittens have advantages much earlier, like aiding in your early meme push.

 

[G-Max]

Puppies suck. Kittens have advantages much earlier, like aiding in your early meme push.

 

[G-Max]

Chariots rush. Axe rush. Horse Archer rush. Riffles. Cannons. Elephants+cats, occasionally. Nukes. Those are probably the best big pushes and every civ has them.

Chariots? Axe rush? How are chariots and axes suppose to beat fortified Archers with City Garrison I in a city with +20 to +40% defense?

Swords > axes for taking cities.

Also, if you're not already #1 in score by the time Gunpowder is discovered, ur doin it rong.

 

[Skwink]

Chariots? Axe rush? How are chariots and axes suppose to beat fortified Archers with City Garrison I in a city with +20 to +40% defense?

Swords > axes for taking cities.

Also, if you're not already #1 in score by the time Gunpowder is discovered, ur doin it rong.

If you read these forums a lot, you would know that the scoreboard is unimportant.

 

[CornPlanter]

Chariots? Axe rush? How are chariots and axes suppose to beat fortified Archers with City Garrison I in a city with +20 to +40% defense?

You need more chariots and/or get them earlier. If you at least actually followed other peoples games you would know how common and effective chariots and axe rushes are. Even if you never tried it yourself.

Swords > axes for taking cities.

lol. Evidence?

Also, if you're not already #1 in score by the time Gunpowder is discovered, ur doin it rong.

Lol. Evidence? Or just because you said so?

 

[Ghpstage]

Chariots? Axe rush? How are chariots and axes suppose to beat fortified Archers with City Garrison I in a city with +20 to +40% defense?

Swords > axes for taking cities.

Using this exact same train of thinking Rifles > Swords and Artillery > Catapults!

Swords will end up facing far more Archers, in cities with higher culture defenses and likely having Walls, still need Axes as stack defense and will have to take more cities, of course Iron Working is also of questionable economic value in most games wheras Animal Husbandry and Bronze Working have huge economic value.

 

[vicawoo]

You guys should chill out. These forums aren't the type where you get into bitter arguments every thread you post in (unless you're the ever tactful obsolete). Not going to get into

Late game UB/UU aren't very useful, very true. But except for some really good UU/UB, UU/UB's aren't very great in the first place. Most players don't lose every game they don't have praetorians, so regular units/buildings work just fine.

Most important factors are in order skill/map/traits/unique whatever, so leaders with good traits will compensate for poor unique(s). Charismatic and philosophical are very good traits, so Lincoln and Washington tend to be good leaders. People have mixed feelings about Roosevelt, though.

 

[Spectrite]

Chariots? Axe rush? How are chariots and axes suppose to beat fortified Archers with City Garrison I in a city with +20 to +40% defense?

By having more numbers. In a chariot or axe rush, you build a lot of units and suicide at least half of them to weaken the archers so that the remaining units can win.

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

Chariots? Axe rush? How are chariots and axes suppose to beat fortified Archers with City Garrison I in a city with +20 to +40% defense?

Swords > axes for taking cities.

Also, if you're not already #1 in score by the time Gunpowder is discovered, ur doin it rong.

As other noted, swords can come in considerably later than axes depending on how quickly you got iron working (I wouldn't beeline for it unless my start is entirely covered with jungle). Suppose you get an early copper, you can potentially whip out 5+ axes at 2000 BC and brute force your way into a non-protective capital city. Unless you are playing immortal+, then there should be <3 archers in enemy city for you to plow through.

As for chariots, then have the advantage of mobility and you can easily make a bunch of them very early on as well.

On higher difficulties and especially on island maps, it may be hard to be a leader in score/power/tech before well into industrial era.