Humankind - Americans discussion thread

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Their ability is about land grabbing, and they can get Fame Stars based on territories.

Everyone can get fame stars based on territories, affinities increase the fame gained from the goal tied to their affinity. The land grab ability was pretty much useless in the Lucy open dev version, expansionist would really benefit from being able to move inside other cultures territories no matter if they have open borders or not.

Based on Lucy version I would say americans would probably be the weakest pick of all contemporary choices if they don't get an overpowered ability, unit or infrastructure, because in the end it is fame that matters and if you pick the affinity who you may not even be able to fufill, you are giving up valuable fame.

Aesthete and expansionist feels like they could be merged, in the Lucy open dev the way I produced influence was by controlling territories, there is no basic influence quarters that work the same way as the other quarters, commons quarters give +2 influence, very little and feels like that it is more about stability. Effectively playing as an Aesthete may end up meaning playing as an expansionist and vice versa.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

What affinity would even fit americans in the first place?

• Militarist, well I think with militarist they mean cultures like Zulu or even Soviets, Americans seems to be known to lose wars due to public opinion and have not used conscription for about half the contemporary era. Only reasons to make US militarist is because they have been in several wars and they spend alot on military, but the first apply to many countries and the second don't consider the %. US don't even come close to being as militaristic as a culture like Soviets. Just having a large, strong army don't mean militarist, neither do fighting wars.
• Merchant, may look good to you consider that US have had a massive trade deficit since half the contemporary era which is basically the opposite of merchant.
• Scientist, seems like one of the more fitting affinites, better than merchant and militarist, harder to find anything against this affinity except wanting to give it to another culture or having a more fitting affinity.
• Agriculture, only a small amount of americans is involved in agriculture and while the abilities may make some sense, other countries have had even larger population growth.
• Aesthete, americans do have global culture influence and both abilities fit, probably a better choice than scientist.
• Builder, from what I have been told americans infrastructure is not the best, builder is probably not the most fitting.
• Expansionist, yes if we assume we don't play as countries, which I think we can assume otherwise how do you explain all the culture shifts going on. Americans have global influence, probably surpassing the british empire. Main issue is the lack of direct territorial expansion, which is why the assumption not playing as countries must be made for it to really work.

So doing this we can reduce americans affinity choices into 3, scientist, aesthete and expansionist. Scientist americans seems as a safe choice but it is hard to find anything particular special, cultures like Koreans seems more fitting. Aesthete seems quite fitting and abilities make alot of sense and there don't seems to be any issues with that pick. Expansionist have issues with territorial expansion, but global influence is basically the thing americans is probably most famous for. So basically at the end the choice seems to be between aesthete or expansionist.

So why expansionist, I can see a few reasons:

• Another culture will be aesthete and they only want one aesthete or so per era.
• In theory aesthete don't require much military play and they want to encourage americans to atleast be somewhat aggressive.
• Expansionist ability require you to build up diplomatic relationships and get open borders, aesthete can potentially ignore diplomacy, thus americans may not act like a superpower.
• Maybe there is some space exploration, polar exploration or other late game things expansionist can do to get more fame stars.

 

[8housesofelixir]

Militarist, well I think with militarist they mean cultures like Zulu or even Soviets, Americans seems to be known to lose wars due to public opinion and have not used conscription for about half the contemporary era. Only reasons to make US militarist is because they have been in several wars and they spend alot on military, but the first apply to many countries and the second don't consider the %. US don't even come close to being as militaristic as a culture like Soviets. Just having a large, strong army don't mean militarist, neither do fighting wars.

Militarist in this game probably implies powerful mobilization ability (thus the militia ability) and an overall focus on military, no matter winning wars or not (EM Poland lost a lot of wars, not to say the Zulus who could win battles but lost the war eventually). USA definitely fits these criteria considering the militia-conscription tradition (and 2nd Amendment, to a certain degree), a strong emphasis on military techs, as well as the global military presence. As for military spending - why should % matter? The quantity of military spending alone is enough to do the justification.

There is also a reason why the American EQ is clearly militarily themed. All the other Expansionist before (besides Assyrians, which is just a Garrison) didn't receive a design like this, even Roman Archs and Russian Churches have a second focus to fulfill a non-military theme (Roman-influence, Russian-faith). As I said in the post above, the devs clearly focused on the military part of the US with their design; it is just the affinity isn't Militarist.

Personally I would still view the culture as a potential candidate for Militarist.

Expansionist have issues with territorial expansion, but global influence is basically the thing americans is probably most famous for. So basically at the end the choice seems to be between aesthete or expansionist.

Expansionist in this game is not about global influence, and their territorial expansion ability very likely won't receive fundamental changes for a long while.

 

[grug]

Expansionist in this game is not about global influence, and their territorial expansion ability very likely won't receive fundamental changes for a long while.

I know it's basically over and done so complaining doesn't mean much, but I totally agree. To me, the US's global influence in the Cold War was due to alliances and ideological pressure (represented in game by alliances, obviously, and by "converting" a territory using influence), economic wealth and neo-colonialism (not sure if neo-colonialism, ie using financial interests to influence state policy, could be represented, but certainly having money generation is easy enough), and military strength and covert intervention (represented by having a lot of advanced units, and by having black ops which may or may not be included by some kind of espionage system). None of those abilities involve taking over territory, as with every other Expansionist culture so far. Even when the US did participate in taking over territory, as with the liberation of France, South Korea, and Kuwait, or the conquest of West Germany, Japan, and Iraq, it led within a few years to their self rule, which means it doesn't get the extra fame of the Expansionist affinity from a gameplay perspective.

What's worse, at least for me, is that in total the current design seems sort of just generic. I can understand having Expansionist for gameplay reasons - that was something I considered in my early speculations, of whether Expansionist needed to be present in the Contemporary Era not to represent history but to let you take over anyone with a little too much fame in the endgame. But while it's probably too early to judge the culture design without knowing the Legacy Trait or having any confirmed information on the EQ besides what's on the wiki, it seems to me to be sort of lame. America has a strong unit, military bases, and a design based on the fact that it is a global superpower. Without any further information, that could be any culture that invests in its military. Where are the aircraft carriers, or lend lease act, or even CIA coups, which would make playing an American superpower unique from other cultures? What makes America distinctive? Unless we see something more, all this design really has to say is that America has a strong military, but I don't feel particularly compelled to play a culture with that design in the endgame.

Just to close my little rant on a positive note tho, I do love the art.

 

[Narcisse]

There is also a reason why the American EQ is clearly militarily themed. All the other Expansionist before (besides Assyrians, which is just a Garrison) didn't receive a design like this, even Roman Archs and Russian Churches have a second focus to fulfill a non-military theme (Roman-influence, Russian-faith). As I said in the post above, the devs clearly focused on the military part of the US with their design; it is just the affinity isn't Militarist.

Personally I would still view the culture as a potential candidate for Militarist.

I don't know if it was said here as it was said on discord (as you know already ), but really don't overthink too much the data from the wiki for contemporary cultures, I mean there are reasons why vip have been asked not to share any informations about it.
Don't minsiterpret me, I don't know how it will going for Americans design and Expansonist goals and ability, but dev are working hard, a lot of things should evolute until the release.

My point of view, as someone which initially expected Aesthete, to be honest only for the culture bomb ability we saw in Lucy . I really think than expansionist is a better call than militarist. I don't imagine playing USA, in any offensive or defensive design in the purpose of highlighting their capability of crushing enemies and being the best for killing units. Expansionist really has more opportunity to offer more subtle conflict related gameplay than just running battles and killing armies.

Again I understand the point about "land grabbing" which is not thematically fitting, but let's hope for some ease on expansionist affinity instead, which will make the abstraction more fitting.
I think than a lot of proposed design by the community are coherent for Americans too, but the design aimed by the dev, seems to be thought of on a more global view of the whole era, which will offer in-game situations which will much more closely look to the Cold War. (when basically any of the other affinity will never especially give this opportunity in my opinion, and so just make them feel generic).

Well we will see. A degree of abstraction is needed. I mean, for exemple, if we overthink agrarian affinity, some of agrarian cultures don't fit with the "stealing" populations ability BUT fit with the second ability which generate pop. But at the end, it don't stop me of stealing pop with the unfitting culture because it's fun, and "what if ...". So I accepted than not the entirety of an affinity must totally match, but obviously atleast one part. I accept this, because, a lot of cultures I want to be added in the game, basically, fit with the philosophical meaning of some affinity, but don't fit with any of the abilities.

 

[Catoninetales_Amplitude]

I'm curious, could you tell us why you guys went with the F-35?

A quick chat with our lead designer yielded two bits of information: The F-15 had been considered, but was swapped for the F-35, because the latter was intended from the start as a multi-role aircraft with carrier-capable variant as opposed to an air superiority fighter later adapter with a strike variant. Furthermore, this decision was made quite some time ago, before the F-35s current reputation was quite as pronounced.

 

[Elhoim]

IMO, something that defined the Cold War was the americans and soviets fighting in other countries than its own, IMO, trying to implement favorable regimes.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Militarist in this game probably implies powerful mobilization ability (thus the militia ability) and an overall focus on military, no matter winning wars or not (EM Poland lost a lot of wars, not to say the Zulus who could win battles but lost the war eventually).

With that argument a culture like Swedes have even more reasons to be considered militarist than US even though they did not fight any wars for like 200 years, because they had during cold war one of the most powerful militaries, many different home made weapon systems, a serious degree of conscription and did all of these with a much smaller population than a country like US.

There is also a reason why the American EQ is clearly militarily themed. All the other Expansionist before (besides Assyrians, which is just a Garrison) didn't receive a design like this, even Roman Archs and Russian Churches have a second focus to fulfill a non-military theme (Roman-influence, Russian-faith). As I said in the post above, the devs clearly focused on the military part of the US with their design; it is just the affinity isn't Militarist.

I don't think that matters.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

Personally, I would have thought Merchant would be the logical affinity, but I understand why they chose Expansionist and the Defense Agency. It is sometimes interesting to play with aspects of a country that one considers secondary, elevated to primary. However, I have to agree with what other people have said about the F-35. I know it wasn’t intended this way, but it feels like a joke. If a stealth aircraft is desired, the F-22 or B-2 would be much better choices.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Personally, I would have thought Merchant would be the logical affinity

Making money, yes. Doing merchant stuff like trading to earn more money, probably not or there is better fits.

 

[Narcisse]

hm, I don't know how much the F35 is problematic, but just in case, the F-22 almost have the same design than the F35 from what I've read on reddit (some part of the artwork would match more to the F22 apprently, the reactor for exemple), so it could be renamed Raptor (which sound emblematic as Lightning). No idea if it fit the same role, modern warfare vehicles and equipments are not really my thing.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

I think Raptor is an air superiority fighter, designed to destroy other aircrafts while Lightning would be multi-role aircraft that have good ability against any sort of target.

 

[ost]

I think the issue of most appropriate affinity is going to be by far the most challenging in the contemporary era - although America is probably the most difficult of all cultures - having a reasonable claim to many affinities. I probably would've preferred Scientist. Alternatively if the expansionist affinity transitioned to a focus on soft power in the Contemporary era it would be very suitable.

The "Lightning" EU seems like a fairly strange choice because the F35 will be flown by many countries, while the Raptor is exclusively used by the US military (if I'm not mistaken). However, I think the B29 would have been a better choice. I'm no military historian but I was listening to a podcast recently on the so-called "bomber mafia" a cadre of influential air force generals that supported strategic bombing as a way to win wars. This doctrine was used to varying degrees of success in WWII, and the Korean War. Given that almost 4000 B29s were built, and the cost of the program far exceeded the Manhattan Project, I think it would have been the most "Emblematic" choice, in my opinion.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Keep in mind you are playing as a civilization, which is a combination of up to 6 different cultures. The fact Lightning being used by many countries don't matter because you are not playing as country but as a civilization, like your civilization could represent something like US + western europe.

There is even stranger emblematic units, like Cuirassiers which I'm pretty sure was used by several different powers and overall seems more generic than a specific aircraft. French cavalry was also during Napoleonic war claimed by their opponents to be brave but inferior horsemen, but overall quite successful due to their tactics. The same was said about the infantry, a prussian musketeers supposedly could fire 3 times as fast as a french ones but lacked the tactical flexibility of the french and thus could be defeated.

 

[8housesofelixir]

With that argument a culture like Swedes have even more reasons to be considered militarist than US even though they did not fight any wars for like 200 years, because they had during cold war one of the most powerful militaries, many different home made weapon systems, a serious degree of conscription and did all of these with a much smaller population than a country like US.

I don't think I have ever said something like "not fighting any wars for a long time doesn't matter when considering if someone is Militarist or not".

IMO, something that defined the Cold War was the americans and soviets fighting in other countries than its own, IMO, trying to implement favorable regimes.

In any case, if the Expansionist's "territorial annexation" ability can be modified into "participate in proxy wars" or "establishing vassal/puppet governments on territories" (cf. Civ V's puppet city mechanic) then it would be a much better fit for both Americans and Soviets (as well as British one Era before). Although a change like this is probably not going to happen for a while.

I don't know if it was said here as it was said on discord (as you know already ), but really don't overthink too much the data from the wiki for contemporary cultures, I mean there are reasons why vip have been asked not to share any informations about it. Don't minsiterpret me, I don't know how it will going for Americans design and Expansonist goals and ability, but dev are working hard, a lot of things should evolute until the release.

I definitely understand what you meant and what other VIPs have said in Discord. However, my point was totally unrelated to wiki data here - what I meant by "militarily themed" is the fact that the EQ is named "Defense Agency". That is a quite obvious reference and doesn't require any speculation.

 

[Narcisse]

anyway, my meaning is more than I prefer encourage the team to improve the design they seems to aim, instead of saying it's too late or directly throwing USA as militarist because the quarter is a defense agency (which have imo thematically way more potential than the Assyrian garrison for exemple) I think than like always, they read the critics and often integrate it.

Sometimes, I'm thinking than the culture bomb from aesthete ability (the one which flip the culture of a territory) looks more like an expansionist ability (if we interpret it as "imposing your culture" , and eventually gain a grievance).

 

[Jkchart]

A quick chat with our lead designer yielded two bits of information: The F-15 had been considered, but was swapped for the F-35, because the latter was intended from the start as a multi-role aircraft with carrier-capable variant as opposed to an air superiority fighter later adapter with a strike variant. Furthermore, this decision was made quite some time ago, before the F-35s current reputation was quite as pronounced.

Thanks for the info!! I appreciate it, and that makes much more sense to me now

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Sometimes, I'm thinking than the culture bomb from aesthete ability (the one which flip the culture of a territory) looks more like an expansionist ability (if we interpret it as "imposing your culture" , and eventually gain a grievance).

Yes, it seems more something an expansionist would do, like setting up puppet governments and things like that.

In any case, if the Expansionist's "territorial annexation" ability can be modified into "participate in proxy wars" or "establishing vassal/puppet governments on territories" (cf. Civ V's puppet city mechanic) then it would be a much better fit for both Americans and Soviets (as well as British one Era before). Although a change like this is probably not going to happen for a while.

Being able to straight up take territories without war seems a bit extreme, I'm not sure how you are going to balance it. If you know someone is expansionist, you would not give them open borders, thus making their ability useless.

I would suggest instead give them the ideology flip ability of aesthete and give expansionist a bonus tied to their affinity tied to how many territories are under their culture influence, like getting access to the resources and having open borders with such territories.

I don't think I have ever said something like "not fighting any wars for a long time doesn't matter when considering if someone is Militarist or not".

So you are basically agreeing that Sweden is a better example of militarist than US, because the only thing I can really find against would be not been at war for 200 years. If you just focus on mobilization part, Sweden have been more militarist than US and the same can be said about alot of countries.

 

[8housesofelixir]

So you are basically agreeing that Sweden is a better example of militarist than US, because the only thing I can really find against would be not been at war for 200 years. If you just focus on mobilization part, Sweden have been more militarist than US and the same can be said about alot of countries.

Again, I don't think I have ever said anything about "just focus on mobilization part". I'm afraid you are merely establishing a strawman to attack at this point, which is going nowhere.

Being able to straight up take territories without war seems a bit extreme, I'm not sure how you are going to balance it. If you know someone is expansionist, you would not give them open borders, thus making their ability useless.

That's how Expansionist works currently, and I'm not in a place to change that. All I can say is their ability offers an interesting playstyle, but the implementation would need a bit of rework. I do agree with one of your previous posts about how Expansionist ability is limited in practice and what would be the possible changes.

I would suggest instead give them the ideology flip ability of aesthete and give expansionist a bonus tied to their affinity tied to how many territories are under their culture influence, like getting access to the resources and having open borders with such territories.

A completely turn from territorial expansion to cultural expansion would work for Americans - or British, to a certain degree. On the other hand, I'm not sure this change is adequate enough for traditional conquerors such as Romans and Spanish.

Personally, I view historical Expansionists as those who were not only interested in territorial expansion but also who can successfully managing the huge territory they have; and this is where Expansionists depart from Militarists. Since wide play penalties such as City Limits are going to be implemented, I would suggest Expansionists having a extra bonus on City Limits or Stability, to help them maintain their huge empire.

One thing I do agree is that Aesthete's Double Income ability is already quite strong, Aesthetes having two very strong abilities is a bit unfair to other affinities, to a certain degree.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

What I would like to see for Expansionists is a way to have a "secondary claim" on territory. They can place an outpost in someone else's territory and receive some benefits from it. (without necessarily claiming it outright)

That way it could be another civ, or a minor power, and you can maintain some of the benefits of empire (and expansionist fame) without the need for conquest.

Possibly....If you switched to a nonexpansionist culture, then those "foreign outposts" would become expensive, and you would either have to annex w war or abandon them.