MadDjinn, I noticed in another thread that you're taking "requests" for LP's. Not that you can play them all immediately, of course, but I'd like to put in a request to bump one of them up a bit on your todo list. I'm about at the end of my rope with America. Would it be possible to get you to play a game with them? I play Continents, Deity, all normal settings. I don't typically turn ruins off (tried it once only) b/c the only early leverage I can get with the Americans is an extra ruin (perhaps two, rarely) due to extra sight range with my first units. After that, though - I'd been trying to go "tall" with them, but it just doesn't work for me, even with significant reloading. After watching your Rome LP I decided to try a less peaceful semi-ICS approach, but I came to a couple of conclusions - 1) Rome is pretty good. Their early Iron units are relatively much more useful now that they've pushed back the late-Iron techs. Plus, their build UA is more powerful for support infrastructure. I suspect you might have hit on perhaps the best civ for early wars there, though I don't play Siam either. 2) I've about satisfied myself that "Continents" is a much harder setup than "Pangea" on a Deity setting. The AI civ fratricide is more pronounced, and allows more time for the human player to build a few wonders. But I could be missing something. Anyway, about America. On your blog, you've got the "mid-tier" civs listed as... "Denmark, America, Mongolia, Germany, Iroquois, Spain" I think you edited that tier, because page 3 of your civ analysis originally included... "Rome, America, Mongolia, Inca, Spain, Germany" I remember posting "huh?" back when you originally published a link to your blog in the June/July patch notes thread. It looks like you subsequently moved Rome up to tier 2, and the Iroquois up from tier 4 to tier 3. Those changes seem reasonable. (Looks like you also moved the Inca down from tier 3 to 4.) But it still looks like you're seeing something about the Americans that I'm not. What is it? I'd rate them soundly in the last tier (Greece, China, Japan, Inca, Egypt, Ottomans) and actually significantly worse than most of those, from my experience they're even worse than one of your "water maps only" civs (England) even on a Deity/Continents setup. Don't get me wrong, I love their extra sight range. But I can't see a way to leverage it.** I don't expect to be able to play America on Deity and win, frankly. I like to play one difficulty level up from "beer-sippin" to evaluate strategies. But I was able to beat Immortal right out of the box (ie, first game played) with them pre-patch, and was at least competitive on Deity. I was able to stay close long enough on Deity for their late game UU's to come into play. Now, not so much. (Not even close, honestly.) I'd like to see you show me what I'm doing wrong. ** - leveraging sight range: This is a very nice UA. It allows me to zip around without stressing over ambushes. But I think the benefit from it decreases for experienced players. It gives "peace of mind", not a leverage opportunity. Edit: well, I do find City-States and other civs a bit sooner. Then, the American tile-buying UA is just short of worthless in my experience. ps - England: From your accent I suspect you're either British or perhaps from one of the Commonwealth countries. Rating them "water map only" might be a political move on your part to influence the devs to give them a little love. Anyway, a three-hex sight ranged longbowman - now that's a leverage opportunity.