Designing America for Civ7

[Phrozen]

I don't think a tank should be the American UU. If it has to be a very late game unit the B-52 is a better option.

 

[jsciv69]

I don't think a tank should be the American UU. If it has to be a very late game unit the B-52 is a better option.

America has produced and still produces some of the best Tanks in the World. The Abrams is very much an American symbol of power. I would have the M60 as a replacement for Tanks. And upgrades to the Abrams.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

America has produced and still produces some of the best Tanks in the World. The Abrams is very much an American symbol of power. I would have the M60 as a replacement for Tanks. And upgrades to the Abrams.

Just a note: the ubiquitous/Unique American Tank (Medium Tank) would be the M4 Sherman, produced in greater numbers than any other American armored vehicle (and second only to the T-34 in World Tank Production numbers) and supplied during and after WWII to over 40 other countries in over a dozen major variations of engine, armor, and armament. There's a reason why the graphic of the M4 has been used for the generic Tank Unit in Civs past.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

^ T34 also represented (medium) tank in Civ5

Actually in Civ6 i'd like to see Medium Tank represented by T-26 (which were either license built or reverse engineered Vickers 6-ton Mark E which were Vickers export tanks)

 

[jsciv69]

I think there should be successive upgrades with Tanks. Just as with Warriors upgrading all the way to Mech. Infantry. For instance with America. We start with the M4 Sherman, upgrades to M60 upgrades upgrade to M1 Abrams

 

[BuchiTaton]

Since late game UUs are not so usefull for specific civs better give each modern kind of government one or a set of UUs. Then Socialism, Capitalism and Fascism nations would share some characteristic "ideological block" units.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

^ T34 also represented (medium) tank in Civ5

Actually in Civ6 i'd like to see Medium Tank represented by T-26 (which were either license built or reverse engineered Vickers 6-ton Mark E

 

[Sirsquier]

I missed a lot, but what I meant abt america being powerful is I'd like it not to be a c-d teir civ... like b-a teir. I just don't like it when a nation like IDK the maya (who were really weak irl) are not just one but 2 or 3 tiers above a world power. It just kinda breaks the feel of the game for me. By no means do I want any civ (looks at Babalon) to feel like a cheat.

 

[BuchiTaton]

I missed a lot, but what I meant abt america being powerful is I'd like it not to be a c-d teir civ... like b-a teir. I just don't like it when a nation like IDK the maya (who were really weak irl) are not just one but 2 or 3 tiers above a world power. It just kinda breaks the feel of the game for me. By no means do I want any civ (looks at Babalon) to feel like a cheat.

And for that every element of the design is important included the UU, but the late eras UUs that are usually suggested for America are mostly of very little use. A powerfull USA civ need strong bases not just late OP units.

At least we can reason that both Maya and Babylon represent two of the real birth places of civilization so a strong start must be obvious for them, also unlike real world on CIV they would have access to more even distributed resources and environments. But does America need to start with half the techs already borrowed on a continent far from other civs?

If we want a strong America but can not give them the advantage of be Modern Europe 2.0 on a depopulated free continent, then at least design it as a fast expansionist and explosive immigration civ as it was, if not you get another generic small civ with fancy late game units.

 

[Zaarin]

the maya (who were really weak irl)

What do they teach in schools these days?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

What do they teach in schools these days?

I mean if we're ranking them against other European powers in the 1500s and later that could be an accurate argument.
But if we're ranking them against other Pre-Colombian societies in the Americas they were definitely powerful, if not the most powerful.

 

[Zaarin]

I mean if we're ranking them against other European powers in the 1500s and later that could be an accurate argument.
But if we're ranking them against other Pre-Colombian societies in the Americas they were definitely powerful, if not the most powerful.

I mean, metrics of power are a highly subjective category, but Mayan astronomy far excelled contemporary European astronomy until the invention of the telescope, the Maya had zero centuries before the Europeans, etc.

 

[BuchiTaton]

I think the best way to put it is that if CIV have a world´s generation like the real one the game would not be so balanced.

 

[Evie]

And for all their weaknesses, the Mayans outlasted the Aztecs and Incans by a lot, with their last independent polity only falling in 1697.

 

[BuchiTaton]

And for all their weaknesses, the Mayans outlasted the Aztecs and Incans by a lot, with their last independent polity only falling in 1697.

The 19th century Cruzoob also deserve a mention.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I mean, metrics of power are a highly subjective category, but Mayan astronomy far excelled contemporary European astronomy until the invention of the telescope, the Maya had zero centuries before the Europeans, etc.

Yeah I wasn't necessary agreeing with the statement, or disagreeing. Though when it does come to some advancements you do have a point in regards to astronomy.

I think the best way to put it is that if CIV have a world´s generation like the real one the game would not be so balanced.

Maybe that's why the Maya were so weak? They were surrounded by water and couldn't build as many cities close to their capital as they wanted.

 

[Sirsquier]

What do they teach in schools these days?

I don't go to school and never have.... I was referring in reference to other nations, and I was mostly judging it by military might, expansion, technology compared to others around ect. (So like Rome, America, Britannia, Polish-Lithuania, Germany, Mongolia, ect.)

 

[Zaarin]

I don't go to school and never have....

Might not want to admit that on the internet while living in a country with compulsory education.

I was referring in reference to other nations, and I was mostly judging it by military might, expansion, technology compared to others around ect. (So like Rome, America, Britannia, Polish-Lithuania, Germany, Mongolia, ect.)

Your metrics are skewed because you're not comparing like to like. For one thing, your list spans two thousand years; can you properly compare America and Rome? Rome's cell phone technology was certainly two thousand years behind America's, but America's controlled territory is considerably smaller--who wins? I have two other problems with your metrics: 1) they overemphasize military empires at the expense of less militant powers (because we can never have too many domination civs ) and 2) they go against the spirit of Civ's alternate history. Civ would be a very boring game if Rome, China, and the United States were the only viable civs.

That being said, ignoring the first two metrics, the Maya are still competitive on the third. Their calendar and astronomy were far more precise than anything available in the contemporary Old World, they had advanced mathematics and engineering, they had large, clean cities, they are one of only two civilizations to independently invent the alphabet (along with the Phoenicians)...

 

[Sirsquier]

Might not want to admit that on the internet while living in a country with compulsory education.

Yeah I didn't mean I'm uneducated, just I don't go to school. My mother basically sends the school a letter, which allows me to not go.... I get an education through books, online classes, ect. Basically I get to study what is important (history, science, math, english, ect.) at a pace I want, (which mean I work through the summer.)

TDLR I'm homeschooled

 

[Sirsquier]

Your metrics are skewed because you're not comparing like to like. For one thing, your list spans two thousand years; can you properly compare America and Rome? Rome's cell phone technology was certainly two thousand years behind America's, but America's controlled territory is considerably smaller--who wins? I have two other problems with your metrics: 1) they overemphasize military empires at the expense of less militant powers (because we can never have too many domination civs ) and 2) they go against the spirit of Civ's alternate history. Civ would be a very boring game if Rome, China, and the United States were the only viable civs.

That being said, ignoring the first two metrics, the Maya are still competitive on the third. Their calendar and astronomy were far more precise than anything available in the contemporary Old World, they had advanced mathematics and engineering, they had large, clean cities, they are one of only two civilizations to independently invent the alphabet (along with the Phoenicians)...

Alright sooo, yeah I mentioned this but I said, how they are technologically compared to others at the time.
Two I believe both U.S. and Rome are S tiers, so because this is a game we need to make them A tiers (so they aren't win cards)
Three yeah I wasn't saying the Maya were bad (B tier is by no means a bad tier) I just wouldn't make them stronger than two of the greatest world powers...
So basically if a civ is IRL a F tier move it up to a C tier. If civ is IRL S move it down to a A. Keep Civs that are IRL C-A the same as they are....
Basically buff the weak guys so they're the harder ones to play but not too much and nerf the strong guys so they're just a bit stronger...