Washington strategies

[TheMeInTeam]

The problem with marines is if I get to industrialism, I wont be using marines, I'll be using tanks.

Marines > tanks for pure naval warfare, which is almost never.

The problem with your comment Absolute, is there is always some rookie defender who has to come back with something like "What if you don't get any oil!".

The correct answers is to use "uranium" instead, although that involves more paras than marines...

 

[Loz]

@AbsoluteZero

I find I can get some use out of marines in naval assaults - combined with fighters taking cities without landing first is quite nice. I've noticed from your videos you play mostly pangea maps though. Perhaps that causes you to undervalue them a little?

As for the seal, its an improvement over the original unit. Its not a game changer - but only a few UUs are. I don't really understand the fanatical rage that some posters seem to be exhibiting against it... but then this is the civFANATICS forums.

P.S. great vids from both you and TMIT, thanks guys.

 

[AbsoluteZero]

@AbsoluteZero
I find I can get some use out of marines in naval assaults - combined with fighters taking cities without landing first is quite nice. I've noticed from your videos you play mostly pangea maps though. Perhaps that causes you to undervalue them a little

The tanks ability to get the City Raider promo would make it close to or better then navy seals even without landing. I would still go with tanks for the 2 mov.

The problem with your comment Absolute, is there is always some rookie defender who has to come back with something like "What if you don't get any oil!".

You know this should actually be a problem, but for some reason I have yet to play a map where I can't find oil somewhere in my territory ( or my vassals territory ). Same thing with uranium.

 

[Mylene]

Problem with Marines is they have close to useless bonuses, 50% vs machine gun just means that the MG isn't superior while defending them, but instead the marines will get defended by Infantry
Artillery will never defend and when it does the stack is lost anyway
Defending vs. Artillery..well most units can do and destroy it, but the marines won't stop them from doing the colleteral. Not to mention that you don't want to allow artillery to move that close and fire away anyway.

Marines should have a 50% vs. all gunpowder units instead, then it would be good.
It is not reasonable that a simple Infantry available much earlier can defend so well vs. highly specialized marines.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Problem with Marines is they have close to useless bonuses, 50% vs machine gun just means that the MG isn't superior while defending them, but instead the marines will get defended by Infantry
Artillery will never defend and when it does the stack is lost anyway
Defending vs. Artillery..well most units can do and destroy it, but the marines won't stop them from doing the colleteral. Not to mention that you don't want to allow artillery to move that close and fire away anyway.

Marines should have a 50% vs. all gunpowder units instead, then it would be good.
It is not reasonable that a simple Infantry available much earlier can defend so well vs. highly specialized marines.

Base str + amphibious instantly isn't insignificant. What hits amphibiously better? CR III tanks ONLY and......amphibious mechinf? Much later. Infantry is HORRID in that role and worse by a significant margin as a standard defender.

That doesn't mean you should spam a niche unit though, or that there should be a UU version.

 

[ChanceDanger]

Base str + amphibious instantly isn't insignificant. What hits amphibiously better? CR III tanks ONLY and......amphibious mechinf? Much later. Infantry is HORRID in that role and worse by a significant margin as a standard defender.

That doesn't mean you should spam a niche unit though, or that there should be a UU version.

Choose one side, I can't tell if I'm a n00b because I do think the Seal has some advantages but that I wouldn't choose it over a Praet (Although I do think this topic should be about Lincoln, Philo kicks the ass of expansive several times over)

 

[travlake]

Choose one side, I can't tell if I'm a n00b because I do think the Seal has some advantages but that I wouldn't choose it over a Praet (Although I do think this topic should be about Lincoln, Philo kicks the ass of expansive several times over)

The thread was originally supposed to be about Washington-specific strategies (turns out there aren't really any), rather than the general merits of America or the best American leader. So there is no sense in which it "should be" about Lincoln.

But now that you mention it, who is the best American leader?

I also prefer Philo over Expansive, though not nearly as strongly as you do. Granaries and workers are important, but GP and university's probably just nose them out for me.. barely.

So Lincoln > Washington > Roosevelt?

Though Roosevelt does have decent synergy due to fast forges and factories, good for building a lot of hammer improvements (workshops etc).

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Choose one side, I can't tell if I'm a n00b because I do think the Seal has some advantages but that I wouldn't choose it over a Praet (Although I do think this topic should be about Lincoln, Philo kicks the ass of expansive several times over)

The SEAL is a significant improvement in value over base, but it remains a niche unit and it comes so late that I've never, ever seen them make the difference in a game (keeping in mind I've seen the bermuda triangle event make a difference in a game!).

No matter how much it helps the marine, its too late to matter, making it an awful UU to have. If you're picking a civ strictly for UU, choose almost anything else unless you're deliberately trying for a bad UU or a game where you functionally don't have one, in which case USA and Germany are the best candidates because both of theirs are late and only moderate advantages.

However, if you're playing a watery map and opt for navy + fighters to launch amphibious assaults and rapidly take cities/capitulations, use marines/SEALS. The only thing you could possibly do from the water that is stronger is transport + paratrooper + subs + tac nukes, which is the strongest attack in the game of course since it can wipe out an AI regardless of stack size in an instant .

Edit: All 3 USA leaders have strong traits. It's hard to pick one. Roosevelt cranks forge/courthouses like nothing (lighthouses too) and can put down wonders, making him solid. Lincoln and washington both have boosts and decent war capabilities, as well as good offset traits (Washington is fast at expanding/growing and has a permanent health boost, Lincoln gets the PHI gambits).

Washington really doesn't have a specific strategy around him. Maybe when you're using a leader like cyrus/hatty the top option is clear (UU rush if you have it), similar to JC. Most leaders, however, have a lot of options open (or at least none strong before seeing the map) and have to adjust to what is available.

CHA favors mounted/naval/air warfare however, being the only trait to directly boost them.

 

[vicawoo]

Quick speed with a lot of coastal cities?