Humankind - Americans discussion thread

[j51]

Before getting into the affinity argument: The splash card is awesome! Just perfect. Maybe my favorite yet.

About the alignment: I didn't play the Open Dev, but if from reading about the affinities, Expansionist does not sound like it makes sense for Contemporary America. (It would, however, fit perfectly if the US was in the Industrial era, but that's neither here nor there.)

All the arguments here make a lot of sense then for America being an Aesthete culture. That would best represent America's soft power.

Two other affinities would also work IMHO:

Some people have mentioned Scientist for America, and I think it's worth considering in more detail. In the Contemporary era the US is very much where the biggest technological landmarks have happened: The Manhattan Project, The Apollo Program, and The ARPANET all jump to my mind first. Even during COVID, in spite of all of it's foul-ups on the administrative front, the US still rushed out the most effective and ground breaking vaccines in record time. Compare the mRNA vaccines to those developed in China, Russia, or the UK. And US research institutions still dominate. Probably something close to 90% of the worlds best universities are still in the US. (Edit: that's probably an over-estimate, but it's at least 80% I'd reckon.)

The reason that US Research still dominates, however, brings me to why Agrarian is an equally good fit: America's research is so good, not because of some innate American skill, but because the best and brightest minds the world over still come to the US to do their work. Thus the "Land of Plenty" ability suits the US more than any culture in the game. Also, American agricultural science and (sigh) big agribusiness is a huge factor in the Green Revolution around the world during the last 50 years.

 

[8housesofelixir]

For the record, I am very much in line with Amplitude's design philosophy of creating Expansionist as an independent affinity - that is, separating Expansionist from Militarist. IIRC this is probably the first time a 4x game trying to do this, most of the 4x game view strong military power and territorial expansion as the same thing.

And as a result, it is also not easy to define Expansionist, or to define an Expansionist gameplay.

The current debates very much show that the Expansionist is being a bit of the odd one out in terms of all the affinities. Does it means the culture focuses on territorial expansion? Does it means the culture focuses on soft power leverage? Does it means the culture can not only gain a lot of territories like Militarist, but also successfully control them? Or does it already conflicts with part of the Aesthete, and should be merged with Aesthete?
(I guess these are probably questions belong to another thread though.)

In any case, we'll see. I hope and believe that Amplitude will eventually figure the answer out.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

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.

Roman or Spain did not use some sort of peaceful territory grab either, atleast not how it work in the game. Adding more city limit or stability make more sense, it also mean your empire may peform poorly if you don't stay expansionist which may make some sense. I would still suggest moving the culture conversion part from aesthete to expansionist because probablt all expansionist empires would need to find some sort of unity amongst it various people or it would collapse. Argubly what separate successful expansionists from less succesful conquerors, is the ability to maintain territories rather than expanding. No empire could be maintined on just military might.

About the alignment: I didn't play the Open Dev, but if from reading about the affinities, Expansionist does not sound like it makes sense for Contemporary America. (It would, however, fit perfectly if the US was in the Industrial era, but that's neither here nor there.)

Agriculture, builder or merchant seems better fitting than expansionist for industrial era americans, to represent the groundwork for its contemporary superpower status. While territorial expansion happened the defining things seems to be immgration, building up the infrastructure and industralization.

The current debates very much show that the Expansionist is being a bit of the odd one out in terms of all the affinities. Does it means the culture focuses on territorial expansion? Does it means the culture focuses on soft power leverage? Does it means the culture can not only gain a lot of territories like Militarist, but also successfully control them? Or does it already conflicts with part of the Aesthete, and should be merged with Aesthete?
(I guess these are probably questions belong to another thread though.)

Militairst don't even have to mean the culture managed to expand at all, norsemen for example in the end did not manage to expand much but was still so well known for their military prowess that they was used as elite bodyguards by the byzantine emperor.

Yes it should be the ability to maintain territories that define expansionist, Romans for example was not really special in terms of military compared to the greeks and others, it was their ability to integrate various cultures, flexibility of their citizenship and ability to unite various people who allowed them to expand and grow stronger while others failed to do the same.

Aesthetet is the strangest affinity in the game, the only thing aesthetic about influence as far as I can tell is the ability to claim wonders. There is no aesthete quarter, closest is the common quarters, but it is more about stability. There is also some infrastructure, like theaters but these can only be built once per city. Aesthete basically have to beome expansionsit to fufill their goals. The abilities also make no sense for atleast Edo Japanese who was famous for their isolationism so I'm not sure why they should have tourism and ability to change other territories ideology. They could maybe be given builder as their affinity instead.

 

[grug]

Roman or Spain did not use some sort of peaceful territory grab either, atleast not how it work in the game.

Actually, both the Romans and the Spanish did have peaceful territorial acquisition as well as conquest. Rome would sometimes create client states before annexing them, as with the Seleucids, one of the last empires of Alexander's generals. The Spanish empire also inherited a number of lands in Europe, like when it intervened in Portugal's succession crisis to create the Iberian Union without outright conquest.

Agriculture, builder or merchant seems better fitting than expansionist for industrial era americans, to represent the groundwork for its contemporary superpower status.

I'd argue that Expansionist would actually be much more important to America in the Industrial Era, as it would literally not exist if it had not expanded into Indigenous, Mexican, French, and Spanish lands in this period. As far as this being the basis of Contemporary power, the US wouldn't need a two ocean navy in the first place if it didn't stretch from the Atlantic to Pacific coasts along with several island territories. Westward expansion was also a driving force behind infrastructure projects and encouraging immigration.

Aesthetet is the strangest affinity in the game, the only thing aesthetic about influence as far as I can tell is the ability to claim wonders. There is no aesthete quarter, closest is the common quarters, but it is more about stability. There is also some infrastructure, like theaters but these can only be built once per city. Aesthete basically have to beome expansionsit to fufill their goals. The abilities also make no sense for atleast Edo Japanese who was famous for their isolationism so I'm not sure why they should have tourism and ability to change other territories ideology. They could maybe be given builder as their affinity instead.

Influence isn't the same as culture yields in Civ. Instead, it is a combination of cultural and political sway. Aesthete doesn't just mean artistic, it means someone who is highly cultured, which includes things like court culture and ideological influence. That is why commons quarters are described as an "epicentre of the city's political apparatus," and why they provide stability along with influence, because influence is as much about government and administration as it is about art and architecture.

I'd also disagree that Aesthete inherently requires expansion. Advancing your ideology requires civic points, which requires stability, which is easier if you don't expand too much. While ideology is not directly tied to influence yields, it is tied to influencing territories and whatnot.

Following this logic, Edo Japan actually had a highly developed ruling ideology and their current Legacy Trait, Shogun's Authority, emphasizes their political stability after the Warring States period. This is along with a blossoming of popular art and literature for the more cultural side of things.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Actually, both the Romans and the Spanish did have peaceful territorial acquisition as well as conquest. Rome would sometimes create client states before annexing them, as with the Seleucids, one of the last empires of Alexander's generals. The Spanish empire also inherited a number of lands in Europe, like when it intervened in Portugal's succession crisis to create the Iberian Union without outright conquest.

Which is very different from just sending an army and pay some gold like how it is done in the game, and the special thing about these empires was their ability to administrate and keep together large territories.

I'd argue that Expansionist would actually be much more important to America in the Industrial Era, as it would literally not exist if it had not expanded into Indigenous, Mexican, French, and Spanish lands in this period. As far as this being the basis of Contemporary power, the US wouldn't need a two ocean navy in the first place if it didn't stretch from the Atlantic to Pacific coasts along with several island territories. Westward expansion was also a driving force behind infrastructure projects and encouraging immigration.

Many expanded at that time, US expansion was not all that special for the time period and immigration seems more the deciding factor, for the expansion rather than the expansion leading to immigration. Even the agriculture abilities fit quite well, taking population from other players seems very fitting for industrial US. It should also not be forgotten that US was one of the first countries with railroads and overall infrastructure development of the time seems to push more towards builder while keeping expansionist for cultures like Russian and British.

Influence isn't the same as culture yields in Civ. Instead, it is a combination of cultural and political sway. Aesthete doesn't just mean artistic, it means someone who is highly cultured, which includes things like court culture and ideological influence. That is why commons quarters are described as an "epicentre of the city's political apparatus," and why they provide stability along with influence, because influence is as much about government and administration as it is about art and architecture.

The main issue with commons quarters is they just give +2 influence, a makers quarter can give something like 20+ industry and do stack with each others. The main way I found to gain influence was to expand since each city and territory give a bunch of influence and if you have enough it take care of the influence. Atleast to make money I needed to build up things that fit merchant, like harbours and merchant quarters, but for aesthete there was basically nothing.

Following this logic, Edo Japan actually had a highly developed ruling ideology and their current Legacy Trait, Shogun's Authority, emphasizes their political stability after the Warring States period. This is along with a blossoming of popular art and literature for the more cultural side of things.

Which don't explain at all how an culture famous for its isolationism should have tourism and ability to change others ideologies. While Aesthete may fit Edo Japanse, the abilities that come with it don't seems to fit at all, which you can say the same about expansionist Americans.

 

[grug]

Which is very different from just sending an army and pay some gold like how it is done in the game, and the special thing about these empires was their ability to administrate and keep together large territories.

Both the annexation of the Seleucids by the Romans and the union with Portugal by the Spanish involved sending in military forces to back up their claims, so while you are definitely right it is pretty different in practice, I think it is an abstraction that ultimately works for peaceful expansion.

Which don't explain at all how an culture famous for its isolationism should have tourism and ability to change others ideologies. While Aesthete may fit Edo Japanse, the abilities that come with it don't seems to fit at all, which you can say the same about expansionist Americans.

I didn't get a chance to play the Lucy OpenDev or any Aesthete cultures, but couldn't the influence bomb ability also be used defensively to get rid of foreign influence? I don't know if that is an option, and if it is if it would actually be useful, but that could work for a less expansionist gameplay. So to use a historical example, Japan expelling Catholic missionaries could be seen as using an "influence bomb." Not so true of the tourism ability of course, and like you say they weren't really spreading their ideology around either. But my point is that Aesthete works for Edo Japan because, from a gameplay perspective, they got fame for generating influence, even if it was mostly internal cultural influence in that period. Expansionist, however, gives extra fame for claiming territories, which as we have been debating over only applies to Americans in a metaphorical sense in Contemporary.

 

[8housesofelixir]

norsemen for example in the end did not manage to expand much

Just want to point that out - they did expand a lot. Norse/Vikings just lost most of these territories after 2-3 centuries, and even in that 2-3 centuries they had serious troubles maintaining them. I guess that is the reason why they are not Expansionists. (The same criteria can be applied to the Mongols, who had much better governing skills but lost what they had conquered much faster.)

Yes it should be the ability to maintain territories that define expansionist, Romans for example was not really special in terms of military compared to the greeks and others, it was their ability to integrate various cultures, flexibility of their citizenship and ability to unite various people who allowed them to expand and grow stronger while others failed to do the same.

Romans were quite special in terms of military compared to all their neighbors actually - but other than that I very much agree with your reasoning here. At least I personally view "ability to actually control and rule territories" as what made (historical, that is) Expansionist empires unique.

The main way I found to gain influence was to expand since each city and territory give a bunch of influence and if you have enough it take care of the influence. Atleast to make money I needed to build up things that fit merchant, like harbours and merchant quarters, but for aesthete there was basically nothing.

There are a lot of ways of gaining Influence, actually.

The primary sources of Influence after early game, at least in Lucy, were from Religion, Civics, Ideology Axis, and EQs, instead of Infrastructures that tied to territories. Many of these sources are not tied to or limited by numbers of territories - for instance, there are 2 Religious Tenets that gives 1 Influence per population - so you can have a small empire with a high Influence output.

I do agree that a lot of Influence outputs are tied to Religion and Faith, which can be kind of limiting sometimes. (On the other hand, if you are focusing on building a Religion, there won't be any issue with your Influence output. It is also quite realistic considering how Religion works in pre-modern society.)

Which don't explain at all how an culture famous for its isolationism should have tourism and ability to change others ideologies. While Aesthete may fit Edo Japanese, the abilities that come with it don't seems to fit at all, which you can say the same about expansionist Americans.

In case of the Aesthete theme - Aesthete can be fairly defensive within Humankind's design.

The influence offense and defense in HMK works like this: Every faction generates a certain amount of Influence. The faction with a relatively high Influence output can influence other's territories; but if other factions have a similar Influence output, they can resist the influence. As a result, the main way for Influence defense is also having a high Influence output.

From this standpoint you can see why Edo Japan can be Aesthete and Isolationist at the same time: Edo Japan's high influence output - coming from their LT - means they can easily resist or fight back other's influence offense.

Moreover, as @grug said: Yes, Aesthete's culture bombing ability can be used in their own territories for get rid of foreign influence. If you are playing as Aesthete and find one of your territory is partly under other's influence, you can culture bomb it to instantly take it back. It works like that in Lucy.

These features of Aesthete means they can be either offensive or defensive, which created a lot of interesting gameplay choices. Besides Edo Japan, both Italians and Austro-Hungarians in Industrial Era are designated defensive Aesthetes as well - Italians can receive a lot more Stability in case an Osmosis Event or Civics Backlash happens, while A-H can outright slow down other's influence conversion. In any case, the devs have provided the Aesthete gameplay a lot of flexibility.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

I would still give Edo Japanse builder or agriculture over aesthete, both seems much closer to reality and have no isolationism issues, except maybe the immigration part of agriculture. Some estimates seems to indicate that the Japanse population grew from 12 million in 1600 to 28 million in 1700, which is more than double the population in 100 year. Also Edo was one of the largest cities in the world at the end of early modern time.

There are a lot of ways of gaining Influence, actually.

The primary sources of Influence after early game, at least in Lucy, were from Religion, Civics, Ideology Axis, and EQs, instead of Infrastructures that tied to territories. Many of these sources are not tied to or limited by numbers of territories - for instance, there are 2 Religious Tenets that gives 1 Influence per population - so you can have a small empire with a high Influence output.

I do agree that a lot of Influence outputs are tied to Religion and Faith, which can be kind of limiting sometimes. (On the other hand, if you are focusing on building a Religion, there won't be any issue with your Influence output. It is also quite realistic considering how Religion works in pre-modern society.)

Religion can give your various things, influence is just one option and only religion can have that option per tier.

 

[8housesofelixir]

I would still give Edo Japanse builder or agriculture over aesthete, both seems much closer to reality and have no isolationism issues, except maybe the immigration part of agriculture. Some estimates seems to indicate that the Japanse population grew from 12 million in 1600 to 28 million in 1700, which is more than double the population in 100 year. Also Edo was one of the largest cities in the world at the end of early modern time.

Would like to give a comment on the agriculture - the agricultural productivity of Edo Japan, was in fact, pretty meh.

Japan's huge population raise in Edo Era was mostly because of a long period of peace after over 200 years of non-stop warfare; and the massive population was supported by developing unclaimed lands, instead of agricultural advancement in increasing productivity per acre.

As a result, when Japanese Islands ran out of unclaimed farmable lands in 18th century, the country's food supply gradually became inadequate to feed the population - Japan's population growth largely stopped from early 18th century to mid 19th century. A total of four large famines occurred in this period, two of which wiped out more than 1 million people each time. The overpopulation issue was so severe that, certain poor regions of Japan began to develop a custom of abandoning elderly family member into the mountains, since the family cannot afford to feed them. Japan only escaped from this Malthusian trap in the Meiji Era; many policies of the Meiji government were about easing the overpopulation issue, such as sending Japanese to immigrate overseas, developing Hokkaido as a breadbasket, as well as colonizing Taiwan and grew rice there.

As for Edo's huge population, the city was mostly feed by fishing industry based in Tokyo Bay instead of land based agriculture. An Agrarian that focuses on Food output from costal tiles would be interesting, but overall, judging by the actual agricultural productivity of Edo Japan, I won't put them on the list of Agrarians.

 

[Maximus_Prince]

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.

I appreciate the honest and detailed response I’ve given my thorough rebuttal on the F 35 on Reddit, but Reddit isn’t the best place for equal give and take without being emotionally triggered.

The F 35 isn’t my favorite Aircraft. maintenance wise it’s totally better than legacy, but it’s military prowess is still questionable not to mention financially questionable. The F 35 by itself as a fighter sucks and its gun only carries 180 rounds. It’s better off fighting in packs. The F 35 reminds me a lot of the F 111 Aardvark. Tried to be sold to both the Navy and Air Force didn’t work out with the Navy, worked better as a bomber and the Air Force couldn’t quite figure out how to get its money worth from it.

 

[pineappledan]

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.

Based on that info re: multi-role fighter, I'm surprised the F-18 wasn't the ultimate winner. It makes sense this decision was made long ago, before the F-35's turn from promise to infamy.

 

[Maximus_Prince]

Based on that info re: multi-role fighter, I'm surprised the F-18 wasn't the ultimate winner. It makes sense this decision was made long ago, before the F-35's turn from promise to infamy.

I somewhat agree with that but the super hornet was strictly carrier based from American use and only Spain and Australia used the F 18 for CTOL use.

I just realized from their response that they were planning this for quite some time. How far back was Amplitude brain storming this game?

 

[KnightModern]

, before the F-35's turn from promise to infamy.

ehh.... tbh lightning is still suited as emblematic unit

the reputation comes from more transparency, planes in the past have similar level of trouble, worse they're often hiding behind secret budget

too bad if they've planned this long time ago, I still think american is suited more toward militarist but less focused toward "authoritarian"

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I somewhat agree with that but the super hornet was strictly carrier based from American use and only Spain and Australia used the F 18 for CTOL use.

I just realized from their response that they were planning this for quite some time. How far back was Amplitude brain storming this game?

According to the Intro to the Victor Open Dev, Humankind has been 'in development' for 10 Years, which explains a lot about their F-35 choice . . .

 

[Narcisse]

just by curiosity, what is considered as the "best" and most "emblematic" american multirole aircraft since the Lightning got a sort of infamy ? There is not so much possibilities; F-16 Fighting Falcon, F/A-18 Hornet, F-15E Strike Eagle and F-35 Lightning II

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

just by curiosity, what is considered as the "best" and most "emblematic" american multirole aircraft since the Lightning got a sort of infamy ? There is not so much possibilities; F-16 Fighting Falcon, F/A-18 Hornet, F-15E Strike Eagle and F-35 Lightning II

I can't resist throwing in a "Off the Wall" suggestion: The A-10 Thunderbolt II, or "Warthog" as it was known to its crews. I happened to get a chance to talk to the US Air Force officer who was the A-10 liaison officer at Schwartzkopf's HQ during the Kuwait, or 1st Gulf War. He had a desk with a little 'A-10' sign on it, army officers were supposed to consult with him on what the A-10s could do for them and their operations as a ground-attack aircraft. But on the first night of the start of the air campaign, A-10s destroyed several Iraqi radar installations, flying in so low that the radar never picked them up before a stream of 30mm shells obliterated them. The next morning, on his desk he had two signs: A-10 and EA-10 (Electronic Warfare Aircraft).
A few days later, a flight of A-10s blew a pair of Iraqi helicopters out of the sky. Sure enough, the next morning his desk had: A-10 - EA-10 - F-10 on it. After that he started telling the other Air Force liaison officers that they could all go home, because the A-10s could do it all!

And parenthetically, in test exercises against Soviet era and US fighter aircraft they found that the A-10 was very hard to shoot down, because if you throttled back to stay with it, it could out-maneuver you every time and its 30mm cannon was so potent that less than a second in the A-10's sights was fatal for anything smaller than a B-52. But of course, the A-10 was ugly and slow so the fighter jocks in the USAF command hated it and retired it as soon as they conveniently could.

Historically, probably the most-used US 'multi-purpose' aircraft was much earlier: the P-47 (the original "Thunderbolt" in fact) in WWII, which was used as an escort fighter, air superiority fighter, air reconnaissance aircraft, and the US Army Air Force's most potent fighter-bomber, able to carry up to 2 tons of bombs and rockets and strafe with 8 .50 caliber machineguns - in fact, it could carry a bomb-load heavier than the medium bombers at the beginning of the war!

 

[Narcisse]

thanks for your insight Boris !

 

[Ferris Bueller]

And parenthetically, in test exercises against Soviet era and US fighter aircraft they found that the A-10 was very hard to shoot down, because if you throttled back to stay with it, it could out-maneuver you every time

Did they try using missiles?

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Did they try using missiles?

My understanding is that they couldn't fire live munitions during the exercises against manned aircraft, so they 'painted' the targets with the radar/infrared and other targeting methods and possibly computer-simulated the effects of a potential missile strike. Many of these exercises and their results were classified tippy-top secret at the time (1990 - 1992) and I don't know if more detailed information was released since then - I retired from the US Army in 1992 and haven't kept up with all the details since.

It should be noted, though, that the A-10 was hard to shoot down even if you hit it. One rather well-known (at the time) photo of an A-10 that had been hit by Iraqi ground antiaircraft fire showed a plane missing one engine, riddled wings, a hole in the rear fuselage, and it still returned to base!

 

[zhugejingqi]

Trait: American Exceptionalism
I don't know what this ability is, but when it comes out, it's obvious that modern America is an expansionist.