Humankind - Americans discussion thread

[KnightModern]

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.

A-10 was overhyped

if we talk about non fighter being american emblematic unit, b-52 is more suited, battle proven, way older than A-10 yet still suited (and economical) to run in current time, unlike A-10 which is mostly used for low intensify warfare in current times, something that could be done with drone or lower cost airplane like embraer super tucano (shame brazilian emblematic unit isn't that)

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

A-10 was overhyped

if we talk about non fighter being american emblematic unit, b-52 is more suited, battle proven, way older than A-10 yet still suited (and economical) to run in current time, unlike A-10 which is mostly used for low intensify warfare in current times, something that could be done with drone or lower cost airplane like embraer super tucano (shame brazilian emblematic unit isn't that)

It was 'hyped' by its own pilots, who loved flying it because it brought them back alive, and the ground troops it supported, because it was accurate and dependable. Since I was stationed right next to an A-10 unit in Germany and was one of those ground troops being supported in the 1st Gulf War, I stand by my statements: the 'overhypping; was the complaints about it spewed by USAF Brass who never wanted dedicated Ground Support aircraft at all, and that little phenomena predates the USAF: look up the resistance of the US Army Air Force to anything other than Air Superiority and Strategic Bombing before and during WWII. The A-10 couldn't nuke an enemy city or shoot down an enemy high-flying fighter: therefore it was of no use or interest to the USAF command.

In fact, van Crefeld has argued in his book Age of Airpower that the age of manned airpower is, in fact, almost over: unmanned drones, missiles or the rapidly-approaching AI aircraft can do everything a manned air platform can without the necessity of risking extremely expensively trained manpower and the political risk of losing those people. The rise of unmanned air power, in fact, is one characteristic of Recent Warfare that none of the games appear to have caught up with yet.

 

[grug]

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.

I am very curious to see what this ability is. Based on the name alone it seems like they are angling at the use of soft power like I hoped. I still think Expansionist is weird but I feel like they could address that based on what the do with the LT.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

The discussion of Emblematic Units from recent decades brings up an interesting broader point: because, since the introduction of the atomic bomb, major powers haven't fought each other, it's very hard to make judgments about the merits of weapons, because they've only been employed against opponents tactically inferior by orders of magnitude, usually in a context of absolute air control. Taking the A-10 as the example, perhaps if NATO had fought the Warsaw Pact in its prime, it would have emerged that the AH-64 always did better because it could hover, or perhaps the helicopters would all have been massacred by man-portable missiles and the A-10 and aircraft like it would have been the only game in town if dedicated ground attack craft were desired. It's just impossible to say. This is why, while I mentioned possible alternatives, I don't really have a preference among them and my position on the US Emblematic Unit is basically "anything but the F-35."

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.

Because of the ongoing discussion, I just Googled the A-10 and, according to Wikipedia, the plane is still in service and plans have been made for possible extension to 2040. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

The discussion of Emblematic Units from recent decades brings up an interesting broader point: because, since the introduction of the atomic bomb, major powers haven't fought each other, it's very hard to make judgments about the merits of weapons, because they've only been employed against opponents tactically inferior by orders of magnitude, usually in a context of absolute air control. Taking the A-10 as the example, perhaps if NATO had fought the Warsaw Pact in its prime, it would have emerged that the AH-64 always did better because it could hover, or perhaps the helicopters would all have been massacred by man-portable missiles and the A-10 and aircraft like it would have been the only game in town if dedicated ground attack craft were desired. It's just impossible to say. This is why, while I mentioned possible alternatives, I don't really have a preference among them and my position on the US Emblematic Unit is basically "anything but the F-35."



Because of the ongoing discussion, I just Googled the A-10 and, according to Wikipedia, the plane is still in service and plans have been made for possible extension to 2040. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II

This is quite amusing: I brought up the A-10 because of my personal experience with it and its pilots when I was on active duty, and the article cited brings up many of the same characteristics I mentioned, which appear to have extended right into the last few years. Note that the extension of the Warthog's service life is largely a result of the proposed F-35 replacement turning out to be unsuitable: the conclusion that that plane "could not generate enough sorties" is USAF-Speak for "can't keep the d****d plane flying", which sums up the F-35 problem in a nutshell.

 

[KnightModern]

as 'hyped' by its own pilots, who loved flying it because it brought them back alive, and the ground troops it supported, because it was accurate and dependable

there's no need for a-10 resilience anymore

today isn't like first gulf war, a-10 is overpriced

the reason USAF still use A-10 is most likely pressure from the outside, and the fact that US military don't buy wayyyy cheaper but is good enough for low intensify fight stuff like super tucano

and a-10 is from 1977, if we talk about plane that reflect modern american military, as I said b-52 is more suitable, way older and still economical to its current role, and american is one of few cultures that can give bomber as emblematic unit

or use other fighter, f-14, f-22, f-16, f-18, fighters are more famous than an attack plane except f-111

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

today isn't like first gulf war, a-10 is overpriced

ALL manned military aircraft are overpriced: that's why just about every successive procurement results in fewer aircraft and aircraft like the B-52s, which in 1990 were already older than some of their pilots, are kept flying - the USAF simply cannot afford to replace all of them.

 

[KnightModern]

ALL manned military aircraft are overpriced

in a-10 case it's way overpriced because it isn't designed for low intensify fight

when f-35 is overpriced, it's because they trying to do multirole fighter, it's still the top for multirole

while a-10 is already overpriced now due to low intensify fight making the armor & the cannon overkill & waste of money, the only reason a-10 isn't replaced is because USAF & (and to the extend US government) reluctant to buy cheaper planes because of the fact that USAF pilots generally looks down on attack planes

 

[leif erikson]

Moderator Action: Please get back to the topic. leif

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

I'm coming in late, but Aesthete seems like such a natural fit for USA, I'm very surprised to see Expansionist. The way Influence exerts pressure on neighbouring empires and forces osmosis events seems like a perfect fit with modern America.

Expansionist would have been fine for the prior era America, capturing the rapid settlement of the western part of the continent, but is an awkward fit for the modern era. It's possible the dev team is thinking about the western expansion when giving this affinity to America, but I think its a lost opportunity to capture America's current impact on other cultures.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Hopefully it means there are either
1.new ways to ‘expand’ without taking territory from someone else
OR
2. a bigger modelling of civ=\=country...so that the “American” civilization would be the”Free world” ie in Humankind terms Western Europe + NAmerica+Western Pacific =American territory. So possibly a way to capture city territory from your allies/absorb them.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I'm coming in late, but Aesthete seems like such a natural fit for USA, I'm very surprised to see Expansionist. The way Influence exerts pressure on neighbouring empires and forces osmosis events seems like a perfect fit with modern America.

Expansionist would have been fine for the prior era America, capturing the rapid settlement of the western part of the continent, but is an awkward fit for the modern era. It's possible the dev team is thinking about the western expansion when giving this affinity to America, but I think its a lost opportunity to capture America's current impact on other cultures.

Especially given that the Western Frontier and therefore the 'Expansion" across North America was officially declared closed and over by 1890 - which I believe is in the previous (next to last) Age in Humankind.

IF - and I am most emphatically NOT recommending this - you were to try to depict historical United States in the three Humankind Ages that it has existed (Early Modern, Industrial, Modern/Contemporary) I think it would be:

Early Modern: Agrarian - because Post-Revolutionary USA had absolutely Explosive population growth: families of 10+ children were not uncommon, and 90% of the population were rural farmers.

Industrial: Expansionist: The Western Frontier Era: Emblematic Unit could be the Homesteader, an armed and aggressive Unit that builds Cities that start with extra Population, Production, and Quarters. (like, starts out with resources in its region Exploited with Quarters)

Modern: Scientific: because Everybody sends their students to the USA for graduate school, and the number of fundamental breakthroughs and developments from the breakthroughs in the USA research establishments since the 1950s set the pace for the world, largely because so many of the world's best researchers have been working in US labs.