The America Thread

I would shamelessly borrow from Humankind, which has a mid/late- game Settler-type unit that starts a city with extra population AND extra Buildings already built.
In Civ2, there is a similar mid-game settler upgrade unit called the Engineer, that comes with Explosives, as a tech, though it doesn't give extra pop or buildings to new cities, it just has one higher defense, one higher move, builds land improvements (roads, railrods, irrigation, farmland, mines, airbases, and fortresses) and clears forest, jungle, and swamp faster, and can transform terrain. However, like all units in Civ2 outside of scenarios and mods, the Engineer is generally available to everyone (Unique Units were an innovation for the vanilla first implemented in the series in Civ3).
 
Last edited:
In Civ2, there is a similar mid-game settler upgrade unit called the Engineer, that comes with Explosives, as a tech, though it doesn't give extra pop or buildings to new cities, it just has one higher defense, one higher move, builds land improvements (roads, railrods, irrigation, farmland, mines, airbases, and fortresses) and clears forest, jungle, and swamp faster, and can transform terrain. However, like all units in Civ2 outside of scenarios and mods, the Engineer is generally available to everyone (Unique Units were an innovation for the vanilla first implemented in the series in Civ3).
yeah, I remember that one
 
Having an FDR without the New Deal is like having hot dogs without buns. It just doesn't work.


Also, if you don't know what a robber baron is - robber barons were greedy monopolists who led America during the late 1800s (the Gilded Age - seems good on the outside, real horsehockey on the inside!)
In other words, just like the technocrats of today. :evil:
 
McKinley sucks. He probably represents America at its most muscular and imperialistic, but also it’s most grasping and hypocritical. His presidency included illegal and perfidious annexations of allied nations (Hawaii), starting a war using a false flag attack as pretense (the Spanish-American war), which was followed immediately after by America’s occupation of the Philippines, where their colonialist adventure’s brutality was matched only by its pointlessness. McKinley is the face of an America that betrays its own principles of freedom and self-determination so it can get into illegal wars for little or no gain.

… Oh wait maybe that actually makes him perfect?
 
Last edited:
McKinley sucks. He probably represents America at its most muscular and imperialistic, but also it’s most grasping and hypocritical. His presidency included illegal and perfidious annexations of allied nations (Hawaii), starting a war using a false flag attack as pretense (the Spanish-American war), which was followed immediately after by America’s occupation of the Philippines, where their colonialist adventure’s brutality was matched only by its pointlessness. McKinley is the face of an America that betrays its own principles of freedom and self-determination so it can get into illegal wars for little or no gain.

… Oh wait maybe that actually makes him perfect?
If not perfect, then at least indistinguishable from most presidents since . . .
 
AMERICA

Leader: Dwight D Eisenhower
. WWII General and Allied leader and later US President. Post WWII and Korean War America saw prosperity and growth. US reach around the World reached alarming heights. This Era saw the rise of the CIA. And a Nuclear Arms race that made the World hold it's breath. The Military evolved into the most powerful in the World. The Navy turned to Nuclear Powered ships. as America reigns supreme as a military and industrial superpower. America under Ike became a 50 state country. Eisenhower was the 1st elected two-term President in the Cold War Era. The 1950's America was about prestige and exceptionalism. and the population boomed.

Unique Buildings: CIA headquarters, Camp Pendleton, TV Studio
Unique Units: M60 Battle Tank, B52 Bomber, Super Aircraft Carrier, Marines
Great Performers: George Burns, Sammy Davis Jr, Elvis Presley, Frank Sinatra, Louis Armstrong, Benny Goodman, Count Basie, Eddie Van Halen
Great Actors/Actresses: Marlon Brando, Judy Garland, Elizabeth Taylor, Clint Eastwood, Grace Kelly, Henry Fonda, James Cagney, Humphrey Bogart,
Great General: Douglas MacArthur, George Patton
Great Admiral: Chester Nimitz
DID Pattons has anything superior to any other contemporary Main Battle Tanks of similiar capability? I don'treally agree.
I'd say UU should be either
1. Redlegs. 'self upgrading' Artillery that shoots twice. US Army Artillery Corps are peerless, actually the deadliest of the same type. I'd like @Boris Gudenuf to fill in more about this just how superior US Army Artillery Corps compared to everyone else.
This unit replaces regular 'Artillery' of Modern Era.
2. Flying Fortress Bombers.


Aircraft Carriers also seen used by other superpowers as well. actually Japanese pioneered purpose build CVs. IJN Houshou 'Flying Phoenix'.
The Earliest US Navy CV was converted coal freighter. also they did have 'Battle Carriers'. simply because earliest CVs were actually converted Battlecruisers. (Warships being as large as Dreadnought BBs but with less armor and maybe smaller main guns, designed for speed to supplement Dreadnought BBs. too bad the concept of Battlecruisers failed miserably in WW1, so with Two Naval Treaties signed by British Empire, USA, and Empire of Japan which led to self-constrained naval programs. Battlecruisers were amongs the lists 'to be scrapped' ships. Naval Aviations however repurposed them as their very long hulls are enough to make floating runways for fighter size warplanes. and thus many Battlecruisers are converted to CVs. some with original main guns retained. (USS Lexington is an example and I LIKE IT ALOT!)


Also. Supercarriers were not only exclusive to US Navy. someone else did invest in this as well. and this includes People's Republc of China.
Another country that has Supercarrier is United Kingdom (Elizabeth Class).
 
DID Pattons has anything superior to any other contemporary Main Battle Tanks of similiar capability? I don'treally agree.
And, too date, Israel (renaming them the Magach) and Turkey have already outdone the U.S. in the prolific use of M48/M60 Patton tanks in combat situations by a significant degree, each.

T-62's, T-72's, Centurion III's, and AMX-30's are easily the match of M60/M48 Pattons.
 
Supercarriers were unique to America for almost 60 years, from Forrestal to maybe Shandong and Queen Elizabeth, and even those are looking at half the airwing and significantly less size than an American supercarrier, so the US giant carriers remain unique even today.

The Chinese Fujian which is not finished yet, or its follow up type 004, might actually rival them, but that will be after 70 years of supercarriers being unique to America
 
And, too date, Israel (renaming them the Magach) and Turkey have already outdone the U.S. in the prolific use of M48/M60 Patton tanks in combat situations by a significant degree, each.

T-62's, T-72's, Centurion III's, and AMX-30's are easily the match of M60/M48 Pattons.
Technically, the T-62, early T-72, Centurion's, Leopard Is, M-48/M-60 series, and AMX-30 were all late model 'medium' tanks.

The M60A1 and T-64 were the first of the Main Battle Tanks, both having early forms of 'composite' non-steel armor and superior fire control systems (although still pretty primitive compared to developments since)

It's long overdue that Civ retire the old 'Modern Armor' unit in favor of the Main Battle Tank for the late Atomic Era, which was the start of major upgrades to armored units' mobility and firepower and protection/survivability.

And just a note on Supercarriers. In an Alternate Universe (like, say, one represented by virtually every Civ game) the first supercarrier would have been Japanese. The third super battleship of the Yamato class, the IJN Shinano, was converted while under construction into an aircraft carrier, and she would have weighed in at an estimated 72,000 tons fully loaded, making her by far the largest aircraft carrier built until the USS Forrestal of 1954.
In fact, in November 1944 while transferring from Yokosuka to Kure 10 days after launching, with civilian workers still on board, she was torpedoed and sunk by the USS Archerfish submarine. She remains the largest ship ever sunk by a submarine, a dubious distinction is ever there was one.

And yes, technically she was supposed to be completed as a 'support carrier', carrying extra ammunition, fuel and replacement aircraft (up to 120) for 'fleet' carriers, but she was being finished with a full size flight deck (armored) and hangar deck and so could have functioned as a massive fleet carrier if, by the time she would have been completed in 1945, any Japanese surface ship could stay afloat long enough to do anything.
 
Now you're talking my own field of interest XD.

I'd really consider Shinano a beast unto itself, not easily fitted into any of the more common categories of carriers. While it could maybe have been made into a supercarrier (the Japanese we're unable to complete it as a fleet carrier due to how much of the battleship was already build, so it may have been pretty hard), it wasn't conceived for a supercarrier role, it never played such a role (or any role at all, what with how quickly the US got it), and from my personal stance I have to admit I would see angled decks, possibly catapults and operating jets as pretty important part of the supercarrier, not just "large carriers"
 
Now you're talking my own field of interest XD.

I'd really consider Shinano a beast unto itself, not easily fitted into any of the more common categories of carriers. While it could maybe have been made into a supercarrier (the Japanese we're unable to complete it as a fleet carrier due to how much of the battleship was already build, so it may have been pretty hard), it wasn't conceived for a supercarrier role, it never played such a role (or any role at all, what with how quickly the US got it), and from my personal stance I have to admit I would see angled decks, possibly catapults and operating jets as pretty important part of the supercarrier, not just "large carriers"
I agree, the IJN Shinano only qualifies by weight class, not by any other 'Supercarrier' characteristics.
In game terms, since there's barely room for 2 carrier-types (and then only if they keep the multi-Era late game, which I think is a bit of a stretch), all the Upgrades pretty much have to be gathered into the Supercarrier: angled decks, Jet Aircraft capability consisting of reinforced flight decks and catapults, possibly enhanced antiaircraft defenses (missiles, point defenses, composite armor arrays, etc).
If people demand more variety, the option could also be included of Upgrading older 'Fleet' carriers to Jet Aircraft capability (and graphically with angled decks) but they would carry 1 less aircraft (I envisage the 'standard' carrier capacity as 3 piston aircraft for a fleet or 3 jets for a supercarrier or 2 jets for an Upgraded fleet carrier)
 
About CVs still serving today. There were Supercarriers (What US Navy has.. ALOT OF), and 'normal' CVs and 'smaller CVs' (with very limited aircarft capacity).

Abit about future of littoral navy. have you guys ever heard of 'Drone Carriers'. A googling I've found this proposals that it is a kind of 'combat carrier'. CVs with guns and missile systems for offensive purpose of its own.
A future of 'naval ranged' unit I think.
 
About CVs still serving today. There were Supercarriers (What US Navy has.. ALOT OF), and 'normal' CVs and 'smaller CVs' (with very limited aircarft capacity).

Abit about future of littoral navy. have you guys ever heard of 'Drone Carriers'. A googling I've found this proposals that it is a kind of 'combat carrier'. CVs with guns and missile systems for offensive purpose of its own.
A future of 'naval ranged' unit I think.
This ties in with the current reality that Chinese surface to surface missiles outrange the aircraft on US carriers, so the carriers have, basically, zero capability against Chnese targets equipped with them - it's too dangerous for the carrier to approach.

Likewise, Martin van Crefeld, a military historian/analyst out of Israel, wrote a book over 10 years ago, The Age of Airpower, the premise of which was that the age of (manned) airpower is OVER. That drones, other UAVs and AI-controlled platforms (which, when he wrote, were well in the future but now, not so much) would replace manned aircraft, since the air forces simply cannot afford to lose highly-expensively trained pilots and highly expensive aircraft when cheaper alternatives can attack the same targets.

The course of the current Ukraine War, frankly, has reinforced his conclusions: the density and sophistication of air defenses on both sides has made it very difficult for manned aircraft from jets to helicopters to operate over the battlefield at all, so that unmanned drones, UAVs and cruise and ballistic missiles with conventional warheads have become the preferred air attack systems - all unmanned.
 
Last edited:
This ties in with the current reality that Chinese surface to surface missiles outrange the aircraft on US carriers, so the carriers have, basically, zero capability against Chnese targets equipped with them - it's too dangerous for the carrier to approach.

Likewise, Martin van Crefeld, a military historian/analyst out of Israel, wrote a book over 10 years ago, The Age of Airpower, the premise of which was that the gae of (manned) airpower is OVER. That drones, other UAVs and AI-controlled platforms (which, when he wrote, were well in the future but now, not so much) would replace manned aircraft, since the air forces simply cannot afford to lose highly-expensively trained pilots and highly expensive aircraft when cheaper alternatives can attack the same targets.

The course of the current Ukraine War, frankly, has reinforced his conclusions: the density and sophistication of air defenses on both sides has made it very difficult for manned aircraft from jets to helicopters to operate over the battlefield at all, so that unmanned drones, UAVs and cruise and ballistic missiles with conventional warheads have become the preferred air attack systems - all unmanned.
And 'Near Future' era Air units should all have prefix 'Drones' or 'Unmanned' or suffix 'Bots'?

This sounds very much like Funnels in Mobile Suit Gundam settings
And about 'Naval Ranged' units then do you agree with UAV Carriers? (being successor to 'Missile Battleship'. think of Last Four Iowas, as well as Kirov Class which is dubbed 'Battlecruisers').
 
And 'Near Future' era Air units should all have prefix 'Drones' or 'Unmanned' or suffix 'Bots'?

This sounds very much like Funnels in Mobile Suit Gundam settings
And about 'Naval Ranged' units then do you agree with UAV Carriers? (being successor to 'Missile Battleship'. think of Last Four Iowas, as well as Kirov Class which is dubbed 'Battlecruisers').
By proper modern terminology, "bots," are interactable (or spoofing) programs. The previous two descriptors are applicable, though.
 
The current term used is UAV = Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, which covers everything from reconnaissance drones to 'suicide' one-shot drones to missile platforms without crews to the one-man 'slingshot' personal drones. Based on what information is filtering out of Ukraine, UAVs seem to be absolutely dominating the battlefield. Real 'air superiority' is who can keep more UAVs in the air over the enemy, not who's pilots are dodging air defense weapons.

And the naval progression, I strongly suspect, will wind up following the lead of the last three classes of Swedish Corvettes. They are almost completely stealth vessels, having a smaller IR and radar signature than vessels 1/3 their size and armed entirely with missiles: surface to air, surface to surface, surface to submerged (anti-submarine), UAVs and cruise-type missiles. They are all under 1000 tons, because Sweden doesn't need long cruising range for coastal defense, but scaled up to oceanic capability and similarly built (almost no metal in their superstructures, for instance) and armed similarly with all UAV/missiles (naval artillery, at least in the US Navy, is virtually obsolete, because they keep wanting to add rocket-assisted longer range and terminal guidance and ant-interception technologies and as a result a single round of ammunition for the USS Zumwalt's single gun cost as much or more than a UAV!) - and I think they are the prototypes for most future naval combat surface vessels.
 
Some ideas for "Future Era" units:
- Augmeneted Infantry, with powered exoskeleton, improved situational awareness, MR fluid armor, etc.
- Ground X Vehicle, smaller armored militar land vehicle with radically enhanced mobility.
- Vertical Lift Assault Aircraft, long range capacity and AI assisted maneuvering.
- Hypersonic Glide Vehicle, unpredictable trajectory warheads launched from a mobile artillery.
- Drone Fighter, an unmanned combat aircraft.
- Orbital Bomber, taking advantage of the improve in aiming and orbital positioning for the use of kinectic bombardment.
- Anti-Air Laser, tactical high energy laser anti-aircraft defense system.
- Railgun Ship, a warship armed with powerfull electromagnetic railgun batteries.
- Littoral Combat Ship, stealth fast attack trimaran.
- Supercavitating Submarine, high speed submarines with their own autonomous underwater vehicles.
 
Last edited:
The current term used is UAV = Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, which covers everything from reconnaissance drones to 'suicide' one-shot drones to missile platforms without crews to the one-man 'slingshot' personal drones. Based on what information is filtering out of Ukraine, UAVs seem to be absolutely dominating the battlefield. Real 'air superiority' is who can keep more UAVs in the air over the enemy, not who's pilots are dodging air defense weapons.

And the naval progression, I strongly suspect, will wind up following the lead of the last three classes of Swedish Corvettes. They are almost completely stealth vessels, having a smaller IR and radar signature than vessels 1/3 their size and armed entirely with missiles: surface to air, surface to surface, surface to submerged (anti-submarine), UAVs and cruise-type missiles. They are all under 1000 tons, because Sweden doesn't need long cruising range for coastal defense, but scaled up to oceanic capability and similarly built (almost no metal in their superstructures, for instance) and armed similarly with all UAV/missiles (naval artillery, at least in the US Navy, is virtually obsolete, because they keep wanting to add rocket-assisted longer range and terminal guidance and ant-interception technologies and as a result a single round of ammunition for the USS Zumwalt's single gun cost as much or more than a UAV!) - and I think they are the prototypes for most future naval combat surface vessels.
1. and this 'Slingshot' means what drones controlled by game geeks rather than AI systems?
2. Naval artillery will become extinct? every ships will be EITHER ALL MISSILE ships with bigger ships are drone-based for BOTH 'melee' (Destroyers) and 'ranged' (DREAD size)?
so far no EMF Gaussian weaponry mentioned yet (Railguns actually).
 
Railguns as best as I know remain highly experimental weapons that are not currently plausible for practical use and may never be due to power use - they're simply far more costly than missiles for a limited increase in ability to destroy.

It's very possible railguns, like a lot of cool sci-fi technology, won't reach practical use before the next better thing come along, or even if they do, will be quickly outclassed (like swing-wing planes were).

A lot of seemingly promising technology just end up being development dead end.
 
Railguns as best as I know remain highly experimental weapons that are not currently plausible for practical use and may never be due to power use - they're simply far more costly than missiles for a limited increase in ability to destroy
As I understand it, the power draw isn’t the problem. Tbe US navy already has ships with power plants large enough to fire a railgun, and indeed has been doing tests with them since the 90s. The problem with railguns is that they wear out the barrels too fast and so they can’t be used for sustained fire in a longer engagement. The current railguns need to have their whole barrel, which contains the conductors needed to accelerate the bolt, replaced every 8-10 shots. That’s very expensive and impractical for a combat setting
 
Top Bottom