As far as I know the H'wacha can generate leaders. But, regular bombers and stealth bombers (and dromons for that matter) can't. Can the F-15 generate leaders? Also, with precision bombing, if you target a land unit in a city with a flak or fighter, will the fighter shoot at the F-15 instead of the F-15 attacking the land unit?
The F-15
- Thread starter Spoonwood
- Start date
F-15s in conquests can start a golden age with a lethal bombardment.
I'm not sure about the 2nd part, the fighter can intercept just like any other mission, precision bombing is irrelevant (and useless).
I'm not sure about the 2nd part, the fighter can intercept just like any other mission, precision bombing is irrelevant (and useless).
capnvonbaron
Democratia gladii
But hey, everyone likes an early modern age GA. Am I right? 
Cattivo said:
And the other reasons are...??? If you play with America (except on Sid) with sedentary barbs on a pangea map (standard or larger size especially), then really only the Inca and the Maya have faster expansion rates. Both the Inca and the Maya have weak UUs for higher levels, so there doesn't exist all too much difference between them and America in that respect. I recently played a pangea Deity game with max opponents where I became the tech leader by the middle-to-late ancient age and I had popped a free settler from a hut with America sometime before or around 3000 BC. That's the expansionist trait. You can pop a settler in 3950 BC, and if you do that with America they have pretty sick early production and commerce, because the industrious trait helps here also. And you start with pottery. Thing is, you have to know how to use the industrious and expansionist traits and have a map and victory condition that suits those traits fairly well. Well... that's really every tribe for that matter. Interestingly enough America currently has the # 1 Huge Warlord Histographic table ahead of two games played as the Maya.
Which really doesn't make sense, considering Agricultural > Expansionist. I consider any spot where Maya is not the top is due to a lack of attempts.
I'm quite biased in favor of the Maya, but for good reason.
Elear,
I've felt a certain "bias" towards the Maya myself. But, in this case it seems a bit hard to say such, because there exist two Maya spots. Looking more into this, one of them had 15 opponents, so maybe you're right. Maybe the Maya could beat them at such a level. Still, that America scored that high on such a map (and on some other maps for that matter), shows that they do have strategic prowess in some ways.
I've felt a certain "bias" towards the Maya myself. But, in this case it seems a bit hard to say such, because there exist two Maya spots. Looking more into this, one of them had 15 opponents, so maybe you're right. Maybe the Maya could beat them at such a level. Still, that America scored that high on such a map (and on some other maps for that matter), shows that they do have strategic prowess in some ways.
It does definitely depend upon the map Spoony.
Expansionist is only useful in the early game, and that's if you can find a lot of huts and/or pop a settler. On Rhye's map I can usually find a lot of techs and/or pop New York early which definitely helps to get an early advantage. That realistic map is very advantageous for them, especially against the meso-american civs who are stuck in mountainous/riverless areas and jungle environments.
The lack of reduced costs for any buildings really delays infrastructure though, but at least fast workers compensate somewhat.
I usually try to get my GA with the pyramids with them. Otherwise it can be a looooong wait....
Expansionist is only useful in the early game, and that's if you can find a lot of huts and/or pop a settler. On Rhye's map I can usually find a lot of techs and/or pop New York early which definitely helps to get an early advantage. That realistic map is very advantageous for them, especially against the meso-american civs who are stuck in mountainous/riverless areas and jungle environments.
The lack of reduced costs for any buildings really delays infrastructure though, but at least fast workers compensate somewhat.
I usually try to get my GA with the pyramids with them. Otherwise it can be a looooong wait....
Cattivo said:
If you pop the settler, you have more production faster. So, the latter game becomes easier, because you have more production/commerce earlier. Your cities also grow earlier, so you probably have more shields earlier and maybe a tech learned a bit earlier than you would have otherwise. This all helps with infrastructure building, it's just subtle and not like half-priced buildings. Expansionist isn't *not* just useful in terms of huts and settlers. It's also useful in terms of contacts and map knowledge. Units cost the same no matter who you play, so if you don't really care about infrastructure other than barracks, markets, and courthouses America has better production on average than a slew of other tribes.
True, but it's all a matter of luck in popping those huts, and in the map generation. That's why the only time I usually play America is on Rhye's map - plus the role-playing aspect. Otherwise I play the Greeks for quick science building/culture builds combined with the great money-making capabilities as a commercial civ.
I've had games where I popped a settler early, and the early boost is a game-winner.
TheOverseer714
Overseer
Hut popping is nice, but sometimes they are hard to get to first, especially when other Exp tribes are present. I think America got shafted in this game for a UU. A better UU might be, say, a Minuteman(Replaces the Musketman, 3/4/1 or 2/4/2 with defensive freeshot). Or how about a Gatling Gun(Replaces the Cannon, has lethal bombardment of 10)? Anyway, with a trait and a half, America is difficult to play as.
joycem10
Deity
I always thought a cheap tank would be a great UU for the Americans. Maybe at 80 shields, meaning a 40 shield city can pump one out in 2 turns.
It represents the mass production of the Sherman in WWII and it puts the American golden age in the late industrial age, where it belongs.
It represents the mass production of the Sherman in WWII and it puts the American golden age in the late industrial age, where it belongs.
TheOverseer714
Overseer
I'm pretty sure the tank that everyone gets but Germany is a Sherman, or at least the picture is. I would say that to be fair, a cheaper tank should also have weaker stats, say 14/6/2, to also represent how flimsy the Sherman was. After all, the not so kind nickname was "Tommy cooker", for how often the Sherman would catch on fire and kill its crew. Some of the stuff I've heard about the tactics necessary to win was pretty appalling, involving the sacrifice of multiple Shermans to get one behind a Tiger tank to hit it in the only place the weak main gun could penetrate the much thicker german armor. Frankly, to represent Panzers adequately in the game, they should have boosted stats, say 18/10/3 and cost 120 shields. Anyway, that could be fruit for another thread, since we have already hijacked this one severely.
I'm pretty sure the tank that everyone gets but Germany is a Sherman, or at least the picture is. I would say that to be fair, a cheaper tank should also have weaker stats, say 14/6/2, to also represent how flimsy the Sherman was. After all, the not so kind nickname was "Tommy cooker", for how often the Sherman would catch on fire and kill its crew. Some of the stuff I've heard about the tactics necessary to win was pretty appalling, involving the sacrifice of multiple Shermans to get one behind a Tiger tank to hit it in the only place the weak main gun could penetrate the much thicker german armor. Frankly, to represent Panzers adequately in the game, they should have boosted stats, say 18/10/3 and cost 120 shields. Anyway, that could be fruit for another thread, since we have already hijacked this one severely.
The animation is of a Sherman, the civilopedia icon for it is called ShermanTankLarge(and Small). In WWII, it took five Sherman tanks to kill one Tiger tank, the only reason this continued was that the Americans could afford to build more tanks (a total of 40,000 Shermans alone), but the Germans could not (only 1,354 Tiger I's). Add in over 40,000 Soviet T-34 tanks, and the Germans were completely overrun.
r16
not deity
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 12,178
the later Shermans were far deadlier / somewhat harder and their crews , if they survived long enough , handled them far more effectively , enough to defeat the Germans . It was the command failures of Allies that gave the Panzertruppen their victories and when it became materially impossible for Allies to commit mistakes , well the history was written .
ı have so far played 80% of my games as a German .
ı have so far played 80% of my games as a German .
Similar threads
