The America Thread

[BuchiTaton]

"Chalcolithic American Empire" is certainly not a very immersive scenario, but lets deal it, America being anything in the year 4000BC is the problem that we have decades accepting as part of CIV.

At least for me is a gain to have a way to achieve a continental sized American Empire even if is a couple of millennia before. We must consider that in the way CIV games work wait until "Renaissance" to expand as America would not let you any decent vacant space to be "continental" with your regular CIV neighbors (even CIV6s Outback Station is medieval and not industrial despíte it has advantage to use the unwanted desert tiles), and any new oversea continents to explore and colonize would turn you to play as England NOT America. Talk about other events of immigrant cultures replacing natives peoples not add much since we dont have an "IndoEuropean" civ, we have Greek, Gaulish or Norse civs that under those identities did not took over a so big area replacing at such great degree a disperse local population. Not even the Aryan-Indians are the same scenario of USA territorial expansion. Many ancient empires/cultures took over some of the biggest cities of their time while USA took over a massive depopulated area, something that is possible only at early game in CIV.

The visual apparence of Ancient Pioneer is neither a problem when many early ones used a lot of Native American attire that is not far from the average European neolithic equipment (moccasins and coonskin caps seem pretty feasible for that tech level). Some appearence updates in later eras work also for the regular settler anyway.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

By the Napoleonic Era standards (Which Constitution Class is being built around that era or just before). were Constitution class a 'Sixth Rate' or what according to Royal Navy standards.?

As said, they were Heavy Frigates. I've never seen any 'rate' class assigned to them. Since by that time (1790+) the Royal Navy was removing some of the lower Rate classes from Ships of the Line, like the 5th rate 50-gun ships, it is most unlikely that they would turn around and add a class for a Frigate-class ship like the 44-gun Heavy Frigates they were copying from the Americans.

As an aside, 'copying' was normal for navies in this period: both the single-gun-deck Frigate and the '74' that formed half of the Royal Navy's ships of the line by 1796 were originally French designs that the British adopted, and by the 1850s everybody was building Steam Frigates with remarkably similar weight, armament and characteristics.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

"Chalcolithic American Empire" is certainly not a very immersive scenario, but lets deal it, America being anything in the year 4000BC is the problem that we have decades accepting as part of CIV.

At least for me is a gain to have a way to achieve a continental sized American Empire even if is a couple of millennia before. We must consider that in the way CIV games work wait until "Renaissance" to expand as America would not let you any decent vacant space to be "continental" with your regular CIV neighbors (even CIV6s Outback Station is medieval and not industrial despíte it has advantage to use the unwanted desert tiles), and any new oversea continents to explore and colonize would turn you to play as England NOT America. Talk about other events of immigrant cultures replacing natives peoples not add much since we dont have an "IndoEuropean" civ, we have Greek, Gaulish or Norse civs that under those identities did not took over a so big area replacing at such great degree a disperse local population. Not even the Aryan-Indians are the same scenario of USA territorial expansion. Many ancient empires/cultures took over some of the biggest cities of their time while USA took over a massive depopulated area, something that is possible only at early game in CIV.

The visual apparence of Ancient Pioneer is neither a problem when many early ones used a lot of Native American attire that is not far from the average European neolithic equipment (moccasins and coonskin caps seem pretty feasible for that tech level). Some appearence updates in later eras work also for the regular settler anyway.

The alternative would be a Ranger (Renaissance/Industrial Era Reconnaissance unit) replacement that could also found cities.
To make them effective late game they'd have to potentially culture bomb other civilization's/city-state territory around them when they settle.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

The alternative would be a Ranger (Renaissance/Industrial Era Reconnaissance unit) replacement that could also found cities.
To make them effective late game they'd have to potentially culture bomb other civilization's/city-state territory around them when they settle.

Depending on how Civ VII handles city-flipping, loyalty, happiness, etc, instead of the hoary old "culture bomb" (because as an American historian I honestly can't think of the USA as particularly 'cultural') the American cities could simply be more difficult to flip and so the American Ranger-Homesteader-Settlers can be more aggressive in their grabbing territory. That fits much more neatly with the 'land grabbing' tendencies of American history from first setting foot in North America.

Note that the game wold also have to make a distinction between flipping to another Civ, which few American political entities have shown any tendency towards, and Separating from America ('Revolt' - forming a new City State?) which, on the other hand, has been a fairly common sentiment whenever things appear to go wrong.

 

[Patine]

The alternative would be a Ranger (Renaissance/Industrial Era Reconnaissance unit) replacement that could also found cities.
To make them effective late game they'd have to potentially culture bomb other civilization's/city-state territory around them when they settle.

Although, "Ranger," as a term and broad concept, could also be easily the name unique different (though a different one, but the NAME) of a view of England focusing on the Angevin Monarchs (Henry II, Richard I, and John) and the son (Henry III) and grandson (Edward I) of John. Though the name was the same (which is where the problem would lay), the keeper's of the King's Forests and Hunting Preserves were elite archers and trackers (the legendary Robin Hood was one, in a number of tellings of the tale, before becoming an outlaw for accidentally killing another King's Ranger in some sort of showing off) and is very iconic of that era of England, enough so to be a UU. In fact, one of the earlier attempts to kidnap Mary, Queen of Scots under Elizabeth I's orders were attributed to, "the Queen's Rangers crossing the Border."

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Although, "Ranger," as a term and broad concept, could also be easily the name unique different (though a different one, but the NAME) of a view of England focusing on the Angevin Monarchs (Henry II, Richard I, and John) and the son (Henry III) and grandson (Edward I) of John. Though the name was the same (which is where the problem would lay), the keeper's of the King's Forests and Hunting Preserves were elite archers and trackers (the legendary Robin Hood was one, in a number of tellings of the tale, before becoming an outlaw for accidentally killing another King's Ranger in some sort of showing off) and is very iconic of that era of England, enough so to be a UU. In fact, one of the earlier attempts to kidnap Mary, Queen of Scots under Elizabeth I's orders were attributed to, "the Queen's Rangers crossing the Border."

I just used the generic term for the Industrial Era Recon unit in Civ 6. Though the "Rangers" that you describe are similar to the already established Skirmisher unit, which is what the Ranger upgrades from anyways. It might very well be the case that those units don't exist in Civ 7, or have completely new names.
Though I must admit that when I think of Rangers, my brain goes to straight to the Texas Rangers however.

 

[Patine]

Though I must admit that when I think of Rangers, my brain goes to straight to the Texas Rangers however.

Whose name (other than the polity identifier) comes from frontier scouts, which itself comes from the keepers of the King's Forests and Hunting Preserves.

And they're glorifed cops, not elite soldiers.

But you are correct about the generic units.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Whose name (other than the polity identifier) comes from frontier scouts, which itself comes from the keepers of the King's Forests and Hunting Preserves.

And they're glorifed cops, not elite soldiers.

But you are correct about the generic units.

But I confess, from the standpoint of American military units, the first 'rangers' that spring to (my) mind are Roger's Rangers of the mid-18th century, whose original 'tactical rules' are still taught in the US Army's Ranger School. They undoubtedly took their title from the earlier English, but their function was purely military - in fact, by modern standards, many of their actions would be considered War Crimes.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

^ And thus Rangers (as well as Chasseurs a pied, or Cazadores) are 'Industrial' era recon unit and not 17th Century? (as the first colonial patrols. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Rangers )

In 1622, after the Berkeley Plantation Massacre ... grim-faced men went forth to search out the Indian enemy. They were militia—citizen soldiers—but they were learning to blend the methods of Indian and European warfare ... As they went in search of the enemy, the words range, ranging and Ranger were frequently used ... The American Ranger had been born.

The father of American ranging is Colonel Benjamin Church (c. 1639–1718).[6] He was the captain of the first Ranger force in America (1676).[6]: 33  Church was commissioned by the Governor of the Plymouth Colony Josiah Winslow to form the first ranger company for King Philip's War. He later employed the company to raid Acadia during King William's War and Queen Anne's War.

Personally i'd like Rangers to be LATE RENAISSANCE (or LATE EARLYMODERN) units if you consider Benjamin Church (and have Shapshooter be upgrades of 19th Century Industrial Era, since they were the first to use breechloading or even repeating rifles,). What do you think?

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

^ And thus Rangers (as well as Chasseurs a pied, or Cazadores) are 'Industrial' era recon unit and not 17th Century? (as the first colonial patrols. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Rangers )



Personally i'd like Rangers to be LATE RENAISSANCE (or LATE EARLYMODERN) units if you consider Benjamin Church (and have Shapshooter be upgrades of 19th Century Industrial Era, since they were the first to use breechloading or even repeating rifles,). What do you think?

Of course, note that the US Army traces the 'history' of its modern Ranger units strictly from the American Colonial examples, not from the earlier English 'rangers' from which the word derives, so don't take those entries as the 'whole truth' of the matter.

In fact, the 17th century colonial examples are closer in origin to the 'civilian' English foresters than the military units represented by Roger's and later 'ranger' companies. Rogers trained his men both as individuals and as a unit for military missions (although, as said, some of them would now be defined as State-Sponsored Terrorism, as most colonial warfare against the native Americans would be) and so fall more firmly into the category of military Uniques/Units. Likewise, most later American 'light' infantry, like Morgan's or Berdan's specialized rifle units, adopted some of the tactical methods of Rogers and the earlier Rangers.

For these reasons, I would still place the origins of the purely military Ranger units in the 18th century. Depending on how the game defines its Eras, either the very beginning of the Industrial Era or the very end of the Early Modern Era.

 

[Evie]

Current definition put the start of Industrial in 1725, so appropriate enough.

Now the better question is, should rifling be the tech. While frontiersmen frequently used rifles, my understanding is that "what weapon did the rangers use" is a can of worms of immense proportion, with both rifles and smoothbore proposed.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Of course, note that the US Army traces the 'history' of its modern Ranger units strictly from the American Colonial examples, not from the earlier English 'rangers' from which the word derives, so don't take those entries as the 'whole truth' of the matter.

In fact, the 17th century colonial examples are closer in origin to the 'civilian' English foresters than the military units represented by Roger's and later 'ranger' companies. Rogers trained his men both as individuals and as a unit for military missions (although, as said, some of them would now be defined as State-Sponsored Terrorism, as most colonial warfare against the native Americans would be) and so fall more firmly into the category of military Uniques/Units. Likewise, most later American 'light' infantry, like Morgan's or Berdan's specialized rifle units, adopted some of the tactical methods of Rogers and the earlier Rangers.

For these reasons, I would still place the origins of the purely military Ranger units in the 18th century. Depending on how the game defines its Eras, either the very beginning of the Industrial Era or the very end of the Early Modern Era.

Exactly when?
1. The first time Austrian Empire recruited Pandours as light infantry and made the first use. (not sure against whom? Ottomans in the final years of 17th Century or Prussians (under King Frederick II) during three Silesian Wars.
2. Do you still consider Rangers (or Chasseurs a Pied) and American Civil War Sharpshooters the same units even if the latter uses much better weaponry.
3. Appearance?
3.1 I don't understand why FXis gives this Frontiersman appearance to Rangers? and headdress (either cowboy hat or fur cap, one that Leiji Matsumoto (25th January 1938 - 13th February 2023) later made famous for being a headdress Maetel (Galaxy Express 999) wears.)

What is the name of this fur cap anyway? and which design it is?
3.2 Ranger/Chasseur uniform in the next Civ game. what should it looks like?
A. Rogers Rangers or likes (green coats).
B. 95th Rifles or Napoleonic Chasseurs / Jagers.
C. Same frontiersman as Civ6.
D. ACW Sharpshooters.
E. Other...

...

 

[Evie]

The pandour and chasseur a pied don't appear very closely related to the rangers.

The headdress appears to be a mix of the north american coonskin cap and the european trapper hat, as would commonly be worn by frontiermen and fur hunters (at least in popular perception). Neither of which have much to do with Leiji Matsumoto or Japanese entertainment in any form,

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

3.1 I don't understand why FXis gives this Frontiersman appearance to Rangers? and headdress (either cowboy hat or fur cap, one that Leiji Matsumoto (25th January 1938 - 13th February 2023) later made famous for being a headdress Maetel (Galaxy Express 999) wears.)

Look up some famous American frontiersmen such as Daniel Boone or Davy Crockett, which are usually depicted wearing coonskin caps in popular culture.

 

[Patine]

^ And thus Rangers (as well as Chasseurs a pied, or Cazadores) are 'Industrial' era recon unit and not 17th Century? (as the first colonial patrols. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Rangers )



Personally i'd like Rangers to be LATE RENAISSANCE (or LATE EARLYMODERN) units if you consider Benjamin Church (and have Shapshooter be upgrades of 19th Century Industrial Era, since they were the first to use breechloading or even repeating rifles,). What do you think?

Of course, note that the US Army traces the 'history' of its modern Ranger units strictly from the American Colonial examples, not from the earlier English 'rangers' from which the word derives, so don't take those entries as the 'whole truth' of the matter.

In fact, the 17th century colonial examples are closer in origin to the 'civilian' English foresters than the military units represented by Roger's and later 'ranger' companies. Rogers trained his men both as individuals and as a unit for military missions (although, as said, some of them would now be defined as State-Sponsored Terrorism, as most colonial warfare against the native Americans would be) and so fall more firmly into the category of military Uniques/Units. Likewise, most later American 'light' infantry, like Morgan's or Berdan's specialized rifle units, adopted some of the tactical methods of Rogers and the earlier Rangers.

For these reasons, I would still place the origins of the purely military Ranger units in the 18th century. Depending on how the game defines its Eras, either the very beginning of the Industrial Era or the very end of the Early Modern Era.

Current definition put the start of Industrial in 1725, so appropriate enough.

Now the better question is, should rifling be the tech. While frontiersmen frequently used rifles, my understanding is that "what weapon did the rangers use" is a can of worms of immense proportion, with both rifles and smoothbore proposed.

Look up some famous American frontiersmen such as Daniel Boone or Davy Crockett, which are usually depicted wearing coonskin caps in popular culture.

I am actually aware of this, it's just that I was merely pointing out that both the American ranger and English ranger, which I know are very different, could both be very valid candidates, depending on the focus and viewpoint of each taken, for a unique unit for each, but them sharing the same name would be an issue. That was my main point in my original post.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Current definition put the start of Industrial in 1725, so appropriate enough.

Now the better question is, should rifling be the tech. While frontiersmen frequently used rifles, my understanding is that "what weapon did the rangers use" is a can of worms of immense proportion, with both rifles and smoothbore proposed.

A bit offf topic.

Iya. The beginning of 'Industrial Era' is set at 1725 AD. while the first Fusilier is fomed in France in 1670s and becomes standard infantry (at this point there are neither 'Anticavalry' nor 'Anti-phalanx' melee footmen exists as separate class.. all becomes Firepower class at least in 1490s with the first Pike and Shotte infantry 'Tercio'). having Fusilier being a unit that has to researcch in 1725 doesn't feel right by me. instead by that time it should be trainable already if player starts the game at Industrial era. also the game should begin with this unit in that start also. (similiar to Civ5 game begins if late era is chosen instead of Ancient Era. if Industrial Era is chosen, player begins with 'Rifleman' (now becomes 'Linear Infantry' in Civ6... I can't remember actually that returning to Civ5 just to do research doesn't fit right with me ono.)
Personally Fusilier should be 'End of Early Modern' standard Firepower unit'.

 

[PlymouthRocker911]

i just want jfk back in civilization man.

 

[jsciv69]

i just want jfk back in civilization man.

I think Kennedy is an interesting choice. If for any reason, where America was as a World Power at the time. My 1st choice would be Ike given he had 2 full terms. The drawback for JFK might be too short of a tenure. I think anyone after Kennedy might just be too polarizing. And either Eisenhower or Kennedy would go very well with my picks for contemporary leaders for other Civs. Like Russia-Khrushchev, Cuba -Castro. Would make for some serious late game drama.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I think Kennedy is an interesting choice. If for any reason, where America was as a World Power at the time. My 1st choice would be Ike given he had 2 full terms. The drawback for JFK might be too short of a tenure. I think anyone after Kennedy might just be too polarizing. And either Eisenhower or Kennedy would go very well with my picks for contemporary leaders for other Civs. Like Russia-Khrushchev, Cuba -Castro. Would make for some serious late game drama.

No it wouldn't. No amount of tinkering with late game events and leaders will do anything for the game if Victory can still be assured by the Industrial Era at the latest. My last game ended in a Cultural Victory on Turn 170 in the Medieval Era and my average game since Civ VI was released has been 200 - 250 turns and ended by the beginning of the Modern Era with Domination, Cultural, or Religious Victories. Even had one Diplomatic Victory by Turn 280. Science Victories, in my experience, can only be won if Cultural Victory is turned off, because it's just too easy to overwhelm the AI with culture.

Given those dynamics, no Leader, Unique, or Civ that peaks in the Modern Era or later is of much use or will make much difference in the game. At least until the Cascading Victory situation that prevails now is corrected.

 

[jsciv69]

America
Leader: John F Kennedy

The New Frontier: Kennedy leads an America that aims for new heights, confronts all challenges, Strives to be better than great.
Key Traits and focus: Science, Industry, Militarism, Commerce
Highway System; Significant movement increase of commerce between cities Space Program: provides significant boost to science output Industry Giant: Industrial District and Mass Production available early.
Marketplace: Available upon completing Pottery tech.
Unique Military Units: Green Berets, M60A1 Tank, USS John F Kennedy
Unique Buildings; NASA, Caesar's Palace, CIA Headquarters.