Few Play as American Civ?

[King Kalmah]

The problem is that in the hands of the AI Lincoln and FDR build like 3 or 4 cities then get stopped by whatever warmonger is closest.Washington can survive,but is normally towards the middle in most of the games I see it in.

When I play as the USA I choose Lincoln and he gave me a nice 143k win on noble around 1500 or AD...

All in all a nice Civ,but needs a earlier UU and UB for the AI to kick ass with it...

 

[D666]

I suspect the reason why the American civ is so lame is that the designers bent over backward to avoid favoring them as the 'home team'.
Its about multicultural sensitivities (and possibly marketing considerations).

Alternatively, maybe they just didn't know what they were doing, as with the Incas and their Quechuas. Oops.

 

[Norsemen]

I'm not always sure how to best leverage Charismatic, and so it sort of goes to waste in a lot of my games. Roosevelt OTOH has a trait combo (Ind,Org) that's easy to leverage without really even trying.

Charismatic works well with mounted warfare. AGG/DEF does not affect mounted units but CHA does. More frequent promotions also makes your units to heal faster since a promotion heals a unit. Since mounted warfare rely on speed for effectiveness, faster healing will create a synergy.

 

[King Pluto]

Charismatic works well with mounted warfare. AGG/DEF does not affect mounted units but CHA does. More frequent promotions also makes your units to heal faster since a promotion heals a unit. Since mounted warfare rely on speed for effectiveness, faster healing will create a synergy.

In addition, CHA also is the only trait to boost siege units.

I'm not a pro, but CHA is one of the easier traits to leverage simply because there isn't much that changes. You get extra happiness passively (and from Monuments which you probably build anyway) and faster promos on your units. Very little micro or extra planning needed, and the boosts always help.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Their leaders don't stand out in any particular way, their not a lightning rod like Sitting Bull, or Ghandi are, their not particularly religiously crazy (weird isn't it)

Not when you think about the country at the times the in-game leaders oversaw it. Washington does care a fair bit though, just not to the zealous extent of your Isabellas, Justinians, or Zaras.

All 3 leaders have good trait combinations, but none of them have AMAZING trait combinations. That plus their lack of an elite UU or UB (or functionally any UU/UB most games) is what keeps people from using them.

In practice it's sometimes better to be running an American leader than say Toku when you can't war, and sometimes even ahead of leaders like Hattie when there's no rush target. That said, in any one game there will be multiple better leaders for whatever you're doing. USA is too bad for the elite-unique cheesers and too good for the cherry tappers.

 

[r_rolo1]

Not when you think about the country at the times the in-game leaders oversaw it. Washington does care a fair bit though, just not to the zealous extent of your Isabellas, Justinians, or Zaras.

All 3 leaders have good trait combinations, but none of them have AMAZING trait combinations. That plus their lack of an elite UU or UB (or functionally any UU/UB most games) is what keeps people from using them.

In practice it's sometimes better to be running an American leader than say Toku when you can't war, and sometimes even ahead of leaders like Hattie when there's no rush target. That said, in any one game there will be multiple better leaders for whatever you're doing. USA is too bad for the elite-unique cheesers and too good for the cherry tappers.

That is why I sometimes think that all the players should be forced to play with Sid of the minors atleast once No UU, no UB, no traits ... good for learning how to play solid without having to rely on traits or uniques ...

Anyway, on topic, while the traits not being so spetacular as that, I do think that the american UU and the UB get a lot of undeserved flak. The UU is not that good, true , but the UB is absurdely good if you are still really fighting for the win by that time ( as most of the people don't play their real level, this is not tht common, but that is not the devs fault ). The bonus is pretty substantial , especially in ages where war weariness rises fast...

 

[Lone Wolf]

Not when you think about the country at the times the in-game leaders oversaw it.

To be fair, the rather peaceful nature of Lincoln and FDR doesn't fit the presidents who presided over wars at all. Some of the AI personalities are completely arbitrary (Frederick being another major culprit here).

 

[Iranon]

Roosevelt actually has my favourite traits in the game. But my preference of ORG over FIN is quite narrow, hardly relevant compared to getting the earliest and most powerful set of Uniques instead of the latest one.

Agreed on the personalities btw.

 

[gps]

To be fair, the rather peaceful nature of Lincoln and FDR doesn't fit the presidents who presided over wars at all.

Well, you can't blame them for starting any of the wars they were forced into.

Some of the AI personalities are completely arbitrary (Frederick being another major culprit here).

Frederick in real life was at times as much a warmonger as he was a philosopher and modernizer. I think it's not quite easy to really get that wide (and sometimes inconsistent) range to be played properly by an AI.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Just increase his UnitBuildProbs and WarRands while making him likely to trade techs. AI's like Justinian or Zara Yaqob are both better warmongers and modernizers then Fred, and Willem or Mansa are better techmongers. Quite a lot of AI's are deliberately ******ed in their XML (Tokugawa being the most blatant case).

 

[plasmacannon]

I suppose America could have a Daniel Boone type of frontiersmen UU.
Like the Explorer Recon unit, but a musketman UU. It could have Woods1 &Guerilla1.
He was 55 years old, when Washington became president, so I guess, he would be the leader still, unless someone wants to include the Continental Congress years and it's delegates.

Still, America would only find this a useful scout, on later start games or huge maps, but it's ability to get woods2 &guerilla2 quickly, would make it useful for combat out of cities.

Other leaders would be more combat oriented, such as:
Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) fought Barbary Pirates, purchased the Louisiana Territory
Andrew Jackson (1829-1837) Battle of New Orleans in 1815, and vs indians, got us Florida
James K. Polk (1845-1849) Mexican–American War, annexed Texas, got California too
Ulysses S. Grant (1869-1877) Civil War
Theodore Roosevelt (1901-1909) Rough Rider Calvary in 1898
Harry S. Truman (1945-1953) WW2 first use of a Nuclear weapon, Creation of NATO, Korean War, Cold War begins
Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953-1961) First Supreme Allied Commander Europe in 1951, Cold War

So, in reviewing some of our ancient history, some of these would probably be Charismatic, others Protective. As some of the land deals were peacefully negotiated, others were at the tip of a gun.
America has been involved in a lot of wars over its lifetime, usually in defense of other nations.
Of course, we do have 2 Civ4 leaders with the combat oriented Chrismatic trait.

 

[JBryan314]

To be fair, the rather peaceful nature of Lincoln and FDR doesn't fit the presidents who presided over wars at all. Some of the AI personalities are completely arbitrary (Frederick being another major culprit here).

I think these two were probably two of the more peace loving Presidents we've had. In fact, the Civil War kept Lincoln in a depression that lasted basically his entire time as President. All he wanted was for the war to end. And Roosevelt really was forced into WWII, and knew that this was a war between good and evil.

I think that Jefferson would have been a good one to put in the game, though you can't go wrong with Washington, Lincoln and FDR. These three are good representation.

 

[digitalcraft]

I'm already an American, it's not as much fun to pretend I'm an American.

If they wanted an American warmonger, Andy Jackson would be a good choice. That guy was crazy.

 

[King Kalmah]

If they wanted an American warmonger, Andy Jackson would be a good choice. That guy was crazy.

Thats the thing though about this game is that they wanted the most famous types of leaders of the Civs represented.Don't get me wrong Andrew Jackson would be great,but the reason that America has the leaders it has is due to the fact BTS had a WW2 scenario and the Colonial Scenario pretty much forced Washington to be in the game.

Lincoln I think is the best leader due to his traits,but oddly enough no Civil war Scenario...

FDR is also very interesting if you are in a peaceful situation,but nine times out of ten it will be war sooner or later.

Washington is cool,but yeah I wish they would have had Andrew Jackson or Zachary Taylor because they both were in the Military for decades and would be a unique prospective to the American game play experience.To bad in Civ5 they didn't go that route.

 

[Antilogic]

With regards to the UU, something more like the minuteman, which actually served in a combat role, would probably be a better choice--a cheaper musketman-type unit (or even rifle-type unit, to move the era in which it appears). Or, give the French a cannon UU and give the extra-move musket UU to the Americans to represent the speed at which the militias were deployed in the field.

Other leaders would be more combat oriented, such as:
Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) fought Barbary Pirates, purchased the Louisiana Territory
Andrew Jackson (1829-1837) Battle of New Orleans in 1815, and vs indians, got us Florida
James K. Polk (1845-1849) Mexican–American War, annexed Texas, got California too
Ulysses S. Grant (1869-1877) Civil War
Theodore Roosevelt (1901-1909) Rough Rider Calvary in 1898
Harry S. Truman (1945-1953) WW2 first use of a Nuclear weapon, Creation of NATO, Korean War, Cold War begins
Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953-1961) First Supreme Allied Commander Europe in 1951, Cold War

So, in reviewing some of our ancient history, some of these would probably be Charismatic, others Protective. As some of the land deals were peacefully negotiated, others were at the tip of a gun.
America has been involved in a lot of wars over its lifetime, usually in defense of other nations.
Of course, we do have 2 Civ4 leaders with the combat oriented Chrismatic trait.

Ugh, Jefferson is not a good pick for a warmonger president--he was explicitly neutral during in the Napoleonic Wars and was actively opposed to the building of a blue-water navy. Men like Grant and Eisenhower were not particularly warlike in their administrations, and strictly speaking Theodore Roosevelt wasn't either although he was part of the McKinley administration leading up the Spanish-American War. Jackson and Polk are fair to count amongst the aggressive group, if that's what you are going for.

Theodore Roosevelt is an interesting choice for other reasons, though (and they were considering him at one point in the game--you can find his concept art in the files). And I'm not a fan of modern leaders, so I'd gladly back TR over the underrated Truman, Eisenhower, or even FDR.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The UU is not that good, true , but the UB is absurdely good if you are still really fighting for the win by that time ( as most of the people don't play their real level, this is not tht common, but that is not the devs fault )

I do feel somewhat that this is a misconception of yours. Most deity players choose windows that allow them to cut down the AI and get on the AI's level before it runs too far away to catch. For most, the game turns into a question of "can I reach mil trad+gunpowder and/or rifling and/or steel fast enough" rather than "oh look, this is hard so I can't win yet".

Because of the ball rolling down hill effect in civ, either you get that ball started rolling fast enough or you don't and when you don't, you're probably going to lose to the rather outrageous bonuses high level AI have.

Mechanically, the game was designed around attack windows (facts in favor of this argument: walls+castles, the counter-unit setup, and the overwhelming advantage yielded by 12+ str gunpowder units). The earliest total end-game attack "window" is probably tac nukes, because you can effectively attack/defend with those right until someone wins.

However, I'm not sure I can name a persons who consistently posts deity wins here that can't have attained a winning position by the late renaissance or early industrial. That's before the mall. Good as it is in absolute value, in relative value it really only helps with clean-up. It's not strong enough to catch a runaway AI on high difficulties.

For those late game UU to truly be game changing you'd probably have to give them something like 40 str (panzer) or 32 str (SEAL). Actually, that's not too unreasonable compared to earlier UU in terms of %str boost. Panzers would actually get an attack window where they are utterly devastating (excepting nukes, air power disadvantage, etc which would still beat them). SEALs would become a solid pick for the rest of the game.

The funny thing? The % games a UU makes a difference in winning or losing would still leave USA/Germany far behind egypt/persia/inca/rome/etc. Crazy right? But those late UU aren't even CLOSE to that power!

 

[Lone Wolf]

That's why I dislike the Warlords Redcoat and Cossack nerfs.

 

[plasmacannon]

Most of us start the game on ancient.
For those who want to start later, say in the Modern age. Then, America & Germany become more appealing.

 

[whitelaughter]

Most of us start the game on ancient.
For those who want to start later, say in the Modern age. Then, America & Germany become more appealing.

For games starting ancient, it would be nice if created colonies were weighted towards America/Germany/Netherlands so that we acquired allies with interesting UUs.

 

[Antilogic]

For games starting ancient, it would be nice if created colonies were weighted towards America/Germany/Netherlands so that we acquired allies with interesting UUs.

Many European nations have the Americans as their colonial offshoot, so you get at least one of the three on a regular basis.