Civ Discussion - America

[A_Most_Foolish_Fool]

I apologize as I realize I kind of derailed things by bringing up the 4th age in the context of America's kit being future-proofed. That said, I do suspect the devs will continue to tweak the Modern Age (and of course there are also rumors of a 4th age in the future) and so I do appreciate the space to both talk about the Modern Civs as they are as well as speculate on what Modern Civs will look like in a context where the full kit is used (regardless of whether that is due to further balance changes like we saw in the Spring or whether it is due to new gameplay elements like a 4th Age). All of this to say, thank you for taking the lead on making these threads and starting these discussions!

 

[Leucarum]

...which is kinda what I feared these threads would turn into.

It's not *that* hard to get a feel for what the modern civs bring to the table. Unless you're strictly playing multiplayer (which most of us aren't, I'd guess), simply put a house rule or limit on yourself to make the era more interesting. Personally I tend to just choose not to beeline right for certain techs/civics... on Immortal that tends to give the AI a real shot at challenging victory, it gives me time to actually explore whatever civ I've chosen, and it makes the game a whole lot more interesting. That's a personal play choice on my part but it's simple enough for anyone to do, and it's no different from things I used to do in older civ games either (I used to avoid chopping if at all possible, for example). You could argue that doing so shouldn't be necessary and that's not something I completely disagree with it, but all we can do is play the game we've got at any given moment.

I think that there are some modern age civs - America included - that bring some fun mechanics to the table that are worth discussing, which is why I ultimately decided to continue the threads. My hope is that someday those mechanics get more of a chance to shine, and in the meantime we can talk about them. I get that a lot of people would prefer to just beeline victory and shorten the game as much as possible, and that's fine, but it's not really going to contribute all that much to these conversations either.

...and even if you *did* want to beeline victory as quick as possible, America is pretty dang good at that. Spend your influence on a science city state and choose the free techs, then take advantage of Robber Barons to befriend ever other city state on the map to slingshot yourself through the science tree towards factories (if you're worried about there not being all that many city states spawned in modern age, simply plan ahead and don't settle as aggressively in exploration... more open space = more city state spawns). Hoover up every resource you can, quickly accumulate your railroad tycoon points (you can probably outright buy a lot of your railroads and factories and you'll have plenty of slots), and win the game.

I think I felt a bit obligated to reply as I have for all the other ones.

When the modern civs were being announced the designs seemed more interesting than they ended up when playing them... America though never grabbed my attention even pre-launch. A large part of why I play Civ is for "what-if" scenarios - with modern civs almost all being current powers there are very few I gravitate towards. That's why Buganda, Siam and Nepal interest me thematically, but Nepal is pretty much the only one which clicked mechanically too, and the circumstances for a fun Nepal game are rare... America is arguably the least "what-if" of the civilizations out there, which I think contributes to me never wanting to have them in my rotation of favoured Civs in any Civ game...

All things considered I should probably refrain from the modern threads.

 

[j51]

I actually haven’t played America yet but just wanted to add that these are great threads and thanks for starting them Bengalryan!

 

[UWHabs]

Problem with UU in the modern era is that I feel by that time, military has really switched to being about ranged combat. Commanders are levelled up, you're getting better range on your boats and artillery, and planes make an appearance. So melee units are just not worth it.

The prospector is still one of the best UU in the game, if only to bring in those *&^% resources that are just outside of your city rings. And at least thematically, if I have a civ that's a big spaced out and has some open space, it makes me want to play as America to fill in my empire.

 

[Berrern]

Personally I tend to just choose not to beeline right for certain techs/civics... on Immortal that tends to give the AI a real shot at challenging victory, it gives me time to actually explore whatever civ I've chosen, and it makes the game a whole lot more interesting. That's a personal play choice on my part but it's simple enough for anyone to do, and it's no different from things I used to do in older civ games either (I used to avoid chopping if at all possible, for example). You could argue that doing so shouldn't be necessary and that's not something I completely disagree with it, but all we can do is play the game we've got at any given moment.

I've started doing this in my recent games too, as beelining a victory simply got too boring, makes the Modern age a drag, which I hated.
What I do now is to try to complete all legacy paths, and get to within 1 turn of winning any of them.

In Modern age, you simply have to make your own fun! For example, I enjoy blocking my enemies from getting close to winning, such as if I see that an AI has completed a space project or two, I find their city with the Launch Pad and conquer it Or raze a couple of their cities with factories

It's a shame you can't do anything to hinder their Explorers, well except for excavating all the artifacts yourself!

It makes the Modern age a lot more interesting, and as you say, lets you explore the strengths and weaknesses (there aren't many in Modern) of your civilization!

Haven't played America yet in this manner, I'll aim to do that in my next game and contribute more to this thread!

 

[stealth_nsk]

Maybe we could extract modern age discussion from this thread as a separate thread? It's offtopic, but interesting.

 

[pjotroos]

It's not *that* hard to get a feel for what the modern civs bring to the table. Unless you're strictly playing multiplayer (which most of us aren't, I'd guess), simply put a house rule or limit on yourself to make the era more interesting. Personally I tend to just choose not to beeline right for certain techs/civics... on Immortal that tends to give the AI a real shot at challenging victory, it gives me time to actually explore whatever civ I've chosen, and it makes the game a whole lot more interesting. That's a personal play choice on my part but it's simple enough for anyone to do, and it's no different from things I used to do in older civ games either (I used to avoid chopping if at all possible, for example). You could argue that doing so shouldn't be necessary and that's not something I completely disagree with it, but all we can do is play the game we've got at any given moment.

I think my issue with Modern age is a little different. It's not what you do in that age that trivialises the game, it's what you've already done before that. You have already formed alliances. You have already invested several points into your talent trees, giving you all kinds of stat bonuses and multipliers. You are able to send several trade routes straight away. And your science, gold and culture income is going to be heavily influenced by which city-states you managed to ally. That's why I find modern culture, science or economy civs a little underwhelming - their bonuses get lost in the sea of other multipliers.

But that's also what makes America stand out as a top tier modern pick. Influence matters. Resource slots matter. Production matters. They are the things you can't infinitely stack through other means. I always feel the difference when I play the Americans, whereas it's hardly a case in a Russia or a French Empire game.

 

[bengalryan9]

I think my issue with Modern age is a little different. It's not what you do in that age that trivialises the game, it's what you've already done before that. You have already formed alliances. You have already invested several points into your talent trees, giving you all kinds of stat bonuses and multipliers. You are able to send several trade routes straight away. And your science, gold and culture income is going to be heavily influenced by which city-states you managed to ally. That's why I find modern culture, science or economy civs a little underwhelming - their bonuses get lost in the sea of other multipliers.

Fair, but it's not like this is unique to Civ 7 - the late game has always sucked pretty much throughout the entire series and a lot of other similar games as well.

 

[vorlon_mi]

I agree with the overall challenge that Modern civs have, distinguishing themselves since the potential snowball built in Antiquity and Exploration can provide a formidable advantage for the player.

My main comment with America -- having played them in one of my first games -- is that their unique buildings have names VERY SIMILAR to key buildings: Railyard vs. Rail Station, Steel Mill vs. Factory vs. Ironworks. Unlike Civ6, where the a civ's unique building is a replacement for the standard building, the Civ7 building is its own thing, not connected to the victory conditions. The player will NOT make any progress towards the Economic Legacy path by building a Railyard or Steel Mill. Building an Ironworks next to a Railyard will NOT complete your unique quarter.

TL;DR Be careful, so that you don't suffer unintended consequences.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

America was the first Modern Age Civ I played 'way back several Patches ago, and even though I was still learning the game, it was an easy win.

Which, I think, points up how strong Production and Gold are in the game. Have either one, and you can build up your cities fast into whatever kind of powerhouse you think you will need, crank out units to sustain a war (or a defense), build whatever units or structures are needed for the Legacy you are pursuing.

Have both, like America does, and you can steamroller the game. I still remember fondly being able to buy my first three railroad stations and factories to start the Economic Victory at a gallop . . .

And what is your preferred predecessor civs of two previous Ages? is Norman your favorite intermediate?

 

[UWHabs]

Fair, but it's not like this is unique to Civ 7 - the late game has always sucked pretty much throughout the entire series and a lot of other similar games as well.

In many ways, 7 has the best chance to reset and re-form alliances in the modern age. It would be pretty historically accurate, to have countries that were previously stuck in hundreds of years of war, to end up banding together by ideology.

But that's also what makes America stand out as a top tier modern pick. Influence matters. Resource slots matter. Production matters. They are the things you can't infinitely stack through other means. I always feel the difference when I play the Americans, whereas it's hardly a case in a Russia or a French Empire game.

I think because in all the game, influence and resource slots are like the 2 pieces that aren't massively inflated through the game. Yields, specialists, etc... all grow over time, but there aren't a lot of ways to add resource slots (and going from exploration -> modern you lose arguably the best way to increase them with camels). And influence, no building gets an adjacency to influence. Sure, those +1 and +2 here or there can add up over time, but even with all that, the costs increase at the same time, and there's more that you can use it for (endeavours, sanctions, city states, etc...).

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

And what is your preferred predecessor civs of two previous Ages? is Norman your favorite intermediate?

"Preferred choices" depends largely on what kind of map and game I want to play.
If I'm playing a Pangaea map, for example, which guarantees the Distant Lands will all be islands, then a naval-heavy Civ is the best choice: Chola or Majapahit, for example.

If I am playing a Cavalry-focused leader like Charlemagne or Genghis, Normans or Bulgaria are even better than Mongolia, unless I am planning All Conquering All The Time.

My first America game mentioned above was a Maya - Norman - America sequence, entirely by accident, but resulted in an American Armored Army in the end with hordes of upgraded Norman Chevalers. Again, by accident: I was learning about the game's massive imbalance in favor of cavalry/mounted units by playing them, not by any prior analysis!

America's Production/Gold emphasis pretty much allows you to run away with the end game with almost any prior Civs: go Economic/Distant Lands in Exploration, you can multiply that Gold easily with America. Go Militant with Mongolia, Normans or Bulgaria, and America's Production/Gold allows you to massively overwhelm your enemies with a tide of units in Modern. Emphasize Science with Abbasids or any of the Science Leaders, and you can crank out high level Science buildings almost at will with America.

Right now, if I had to characterize the game without descending into the interminable Civ Switching/Ages debate, I'd say that it is somewhat imbalanced in several areas: military units and the Gold Production advantage primary among them. Almost no matter who or which Civ you are playing, Gold and Production can move you ahead of any opponent faster than any other advantage, in my experience.

 

[disjointaccount]

A lot of my playtime in Civ 7 thus far came from games grinding leader XP, where you try to hit every legacy path in every age. In the modern age particularly, this really favours generalist civs. So I've played a lot of America, as production, gold and influence are pretty much always good.

That's kind of all I have to say, in spite of them being probably my most-played modern civ. They're not the absolute best for any single win-con, but they're never bad.the UU is probably the weakest part of the kit just because it has the inherent problem all infantry UUs do of being infantry.