So, what is wrong with America?

[cooldude1128]

To be honest, (and as an American) America has been consistently and unwaveringly spectacularly boring and ordinary throughout the entire Civilization series (that I've seen.) Civ4's America was relatively boring, (Malls and SEALS, both late-game and relatively unimportant plus the standard two leader traits that weren't even remotely unique to 'Murica) and Civ5's America was both boring and not a particularly strong leader trait in comparison to the others (Gold purchasing tiles is already apparently inefficient and it's not much good other than things like quickly pushing your borders up against a close empire for cheaper, and an extra sight isn't much of a useful or interesting tactical bonus.)

In Civ6, it doesn't appear much different; while America certainly seems to be powerful this time around, their bonuses and unique units just strike me as significantly less interesting or unique as, say, the Aztec's worker capturing.

 

[skyclad]

So the maximum strategy would be to switch to every form of government once to get all bonuses possible? I hope not.

Yeah if you want a 1% bonus on wonders or GP instead of 10 15 or 20% sure

 

[Atlas627]

To maximize you need to stay with one government until you get full bonuses and when switch to another, never coming back (as there are penalties for that). That sounds easy. The tricky part is what you have the rest of the game to be played while you're gathering those bonuses. You wouldn't want your Wonders to be built during the period of Autocracy or having war during Republic. It requires quite significant planning.

Right. How do I time each of my strategies to fit in the government period best suited to it? Which order should I choose the governments in? When do I need to skip or give up on a government?

 

[qwerty25]

I find it really interesting that America got only 3 out of 175 votes in my "most interesting civ" poll, and that happening on forum where I presume most posters are US players.

*snip*

I think its because America's too young and so our abilities are too "realistic" ish.

Plus all of our current "unique units" can't be made unique. Like stealth fighters, modern armor, etc... Or else none of the other civ's would have the most recent tech.

 

[Atlas627]

I think its because America's too young and so our abilities are too "realistic" ish.

Plus all of our current "unique units" can't be made unique. Like stealth fighters, modern armor, etc... Or else none of the other civ's would have the most recent tech.

The next Civ should just do a Pioneer UU that is a Settler that defends itself (or in this case, maybe a Settler that spawns a Builder or free buildings? Or a Builder UU?), because that's the only thing that's unique to America that isn't late game.

Or a Settler that's cheaper to build. Or something.

The one problem with this idea is that its basically a UA if it applies all game long. I'm assuming that there's a mid/late game Settler upgrade (Colonist?) that founds several buildings and grabs land when it places the city.

Edit: Or the Pioneer could be the Colonist replacement, idk

 

[masda_gib]

In Civ6 I find America interessting but not the most interessting. Because while the Founding Fathers ability might be strong and nice to play with, you KNOW what it will be like mostly. With the aztecs for example I don't know how it will play out.
Thats why America didn't make the vote.

I think its because America's too young and so our abilities are too "realistic" ish.

Exactly because America is such a young civ it should realisticly have some real unique stuff. Because the US really is different history-wise from eg. old european civs I would say.
I guess its just that it's too young/recent to really be able to say what is different and how to represent it in game.

 

[qwerty25]

*snip*
Exactly because America is such a young civ it should realisticly have some real unique stuff. Because the US really is different history-wise from eg. old european civs I would say.
I guess its just that it's too young/recent to really be able to say what is different and how to represent it in game.

Its pretty easy to think of stuff I think. The problem is what fits the early era? Cuz america doesn't have a history for ancient/classical/etc... Like there could be a unique late game units like ICBM or hollywood/silicon valley. But it'll either be overpowered or underpowered because of how late game works. The power of the late game unique bonus is either too easily overshadowed by early unique game effects or too powerful against others.

 

[Siptah]

The problem is not America or how it is, but how it is implemented. There's enough stuff in history of the country to use (Frontier Movement, Melting Pot, American Dream, Interfering in the internal affairs of other countries - they should lead to something unique). Firaxis wants them to be the "standard" nation for some reason. Civ VI seems to be an improvement though.
And I don't have a problem if a bonus applies to an age where the country didn't exist. Egypt getting a bonus for the Sydney Opera house production works similar.

 

[Seek]

I find it really interesting that America got only 3 out of 175 votes in my "most interesting civ" poll, and that happening on forum where I presume most posters are US players.

I think I understand where this is coming from, I consider them most generic too. Every other civ has something really attractive - interesting early military bonus (Scythia, Aztecs, England), wonder bonus (Egypt, China, France), special district adjacency bonus (Japan, Brazil), espionage bonus (France) or GP bonus (Brazil).

America has none of it, and it seems that people do not find late culture bonus, or legacy bonus (as a bonus to brand new mechanic) that interesting.

So, do you think that it may turn out that America is in fact more interesting than it looks like now, or is it a misstep by developers?

To me it seems that America in fact lacks something really unique, but I think that legacy bonus turns out to be very strong, and all those small bonuses will add up to create interesting game play.

I think you are misinterpreting the data; just because America is not the *most* interesting civ to most players does not correlate to "most players think America is the *least* interesting", it just doesn't logically follow.

It might be true, but you can't conclude it from that poll (start another if you're really curious, or better yet, start a top to bottom rating thread).

I know that personally I'd place them somewhere in the middle, as I mentioned in the poll thread (and others have said much the same in this one).

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

As far as I know the legacy bonus is designed to encourage people to switch between the governments but also to en encourage people to stay at their current government for a while.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I assumed that the legacy bonus would be lost when you switched out of a government type. Skimming this thread suggests that might not be the case, can someone clarify?

Legacy bonus is gained when you switch out of a government type. If you stay long enough with a government, you accumulate related bonus, which takes effect in any other government.

 

[Seek]

I assumed that the legacy bonus would be lost when you switched out of a government type. Skimming this thread suggests that might not be the case, can someone clarify?

It stays, thus the name. When you choose a government you get a % bonus to X and when you switch out you retain a portion of that bonus with the portion larger the longer you stay in that government.

It hasn't been made clear whether 1) the base bonus grows the longer you stay in the government or 2) whether there's a cap to the amount that is retained after switching.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Huh, interesting, being to keep some of the aspect of a government after switching out is brand new...

Do we know if we can chain these together, or do we only get legacy bonus from the last government?

They seem to be kept forever.

 

[Wellfooled]

For me America is a contender for first Civilization played (unlike in Civ V after 761 hours played I don't think I've played a game as America even once).

I appreciate that this version of America includes Film Studios as a unique building. As an American myself I feel that movies really are a huge part of our culture. We collect them, quote them, share them, and when we're getting to know someone we even ask "What kind of movies do you like?"

And this America also gives a bonus to national parks. I'm a big hiker and camper and I feel that preserving nature through national parks is one of the most important legacies of the US.

Overall, I like Civ VI's version of America more than past versions. I think it focuses on some of the country's positive traits more than previous Civ games have. It also looks like a good Civ to play in my first game because it doesn't look like it changes how you'd approach the new mechanics too much. That'll give me the chance to get used to Civ VI's new features before I play a Civ that turns them on their head.

 

[Sansa_Stark]

I think you are misinterpreting the data; just because America is not the *most* interesting civ to most players does not correlate to "most players think America is the *least* interesting", it just doesn't logically follow.

It might be true, but you can't conclude it from that poll (start another if you're really curious, or better yet, start a top to bottom rating thread).

I know that personally I'd place them somewhere in the middle, as I mentioned in the poll thread (and others have said much the same in this one).

Yep, you are right, and I know this, I intended to put this into my OP but I forgot. However, even thought we know that the poll results don't prove that they are least interesting, I think they it is strongly hinted by poll results, given how big of a gap is between them and any other civ (and yes I know sample size is really small). I.e., I do think that in reality, if all voters would have to order all civs and assign them 9 points to 1 point, America would still ended last.

you lost me there. Redcoats and Seadogs are not early by any stretch of imagination. OTOH American +5 bonus on starting continent is, so i'd argue that America is good for early conquest and is not shoehorned into one particular tactics (as Scythians with horseman-spamming, for example), and that's one of the reasons i don't particularly like it - i don't like to wage war early. Scythians i like even less.

You're right, "early" was originally tied to Aztecs and Scythia, and then I realized that England has also military bonus as the most important one, and forgot to remove that word.

 

[Big J Money]

Speaking of America, the legacy bonus mechanics were revealed in an article today. Legacy bonus goes up the longer you have a government. When you switch away, it resets to zero, but then it starts going up again. The article implies America has double of both.

 

[Siptah]

can you post the article?

 

[Big J Money]

Speaking of America, the legacy bonus mechanics were revealed in an article today. Legacy bonus goes up the longer you have a government. When you switch away, it resets to zero, but then it starts going up again. The article implies America has double of both.

Edit: Article link is http://venturebeat.com/2016/08/17/why-teddy-roosevelts-fat-face-matters-in-civilization-vi/

 

[Siptah]

thanks!

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

It sound very strong. If you can for example get a 25% faith cost reduction from theocracy then America can get a 50% faith cost reduction. A very flexible bonus as it can make America great at anything.