What american civ is the best???(civ4)

WHAT AMERICAN CIV IS THE BEST???


  • Total voters
    118
  • Poll closed .
I voted America because I feel sort of reverent towards Washington and Lincoln, AND

I find the leaders of the other Americcan civs pretty annoying on the whole. Some games they just need killin'.
 
i agree with azzaman33 about the case and i said those in an earlier post as well. i remember, TMIT also mentioned the same issues.

quechua is overpowered, the best UU for every level. before it gets obsolete, u can kill close neighbours (even multi-AIs) anyway. and on higher levels, it is even more powerful; AI expands very fast and u kill them when they are still small.
immortal is overpowered for lower/normal levels or on large/huge maps. on high levels/std sized map, there is always a risk that you may not hook the horse. quechua doesn't have such a problem. u can start rushing right from the start and even w/o building 2nd city.

terrace is a building which u will build in every city anyway and +3culture helps you a lot. not only 2nd layer but also 3rd layer culture pop comes faster.
sacr altar is great.
@awesome, you say u usually don't use slavery, well you don't need to. as monty has SPI, you can go back to slavery and whip any time u want. slavery helps a lot in mid game together with HR and until caste system maybe but if u are SPI, you can go back any time u want.

i don't like US and russian UB's, i prefer early and mid game UB's. german UB is also late but earlier than US UB and it's very powerful in the hands of frederick.
native american UU is also good for high levels and fits well to the overall strategy of NA. since NA has pro and a good defensive UB, archers will have very good promo. dog soldier, being resource-less, helps further defense against axes and swords. chariots can't beat NA archers neither. so a combo of archer/dog soldier is strong for defense till maces or veteran horse archers.

on low/mid levels, lincoln is much stronger as CHA>PRO, however, resource-less military power is quite valuable in high levels, so NA is stronger thab Lincoln in higher levels.
It is hard to compare Roosevelt with others, definitely a strong guy in mid levels but weaker in high levels.
 
just to correct myself, i meant strategic resources, not luxury. you guys knew what i meant, though.
and i still think the incans are way overrated. i never said they were bad, they're just hardly the best.
 
hc is one of the few guys who combine absolute military power with strong finance.
quechua : 15 hammers. a 3 pop capitol (~8hammers) trains 1quechua every2 turns.
 
Inca in the hands of human.

Monty in the hands of the AI.

edit: just wanted to comment about america. I do play them frequently (though probably less than 10% of my games). It's not blind patriotism. Or maybe it is. I don't understand why the left thinks patriotism is that bad. Is it wrong to love my country? I guess I'm prone to loyalty. I am partial to my country, my state, my city, my company I work for, and my family. Not necessarily in that order. As you can see they are in increasing scales. All of them are just extensions of my family. So if you have any feelings whatosever for you family, why not your country? I know this is off topic, but it's something that's been bothering me alot. Patriotism is not bad.

that said, america in game is ok. The traits are ok for a builder civ. The uu is largely useless, but you can win this game without uu's. So that's why I don't mind playing the U.S. I don't need a uu to win. Malls come too late as well, but I usually build them anyways.

And I feel all the other american civ uu's are overrated. I play on huge maps, and find the Inca's uu almost completely worthless. The only reason I rank them so high is the financial trait which is OP. Dog soldiers and the Mayans uu are worthless as well. I don't like defensive uu's. If the unit can't help me take a city, what good is it?

Just to clear it up: I did not say "blind patriotism" to mean that patriotism is a bad thing. But IMO, saying that a civ is the best in a computer game for the primary reason of the user living there is pretty daft. Im English and England were by far the worst civ (in my opinion at least) in civ III and i repeatedly said so. It just seems silly to laud the benefits of a particular civ simply because you happen to come from there. If the poll was a little more balanced and the answer not so obvious, like in "what is the best african civ", then i think my reaction would have been somewhat different (because its not so clear cut in that case and there is room for debate). I guess it really comes down to whether you can have an objective opinion on something. Hence why i said "blind patriotism": meaning patriotism has blinded their sense of objectivity\judgement.
 
To be fair... the USA gives one a choice of 3 leaders. Assuming this influences the votes (i.e. 'civ' isn't taken as just starting techs and uniques), the number of votes they get isn't surprising, even with little 'patriotic padding'.

Roosevelt actually has my favourite traits in the game... but I'll gladly take FIN instead of ORG if I get early and consistently useful Uniques to sweeten the deal.
 
Well I'm not American so I hope I can contribute with a bit less bias. It stands to reason that Inca are the best and Aztec presumably next. But I'm not so sure about the US as last. Admittedly the navy SEAL is not very useful in most games. But the mall, while it does come late, is absolutely fantastic. And Washington probably has the traits with the best synergy ever. His cities can grow 2 bigger than anyone else's if you have a monument and no resources. In my opinion USA ranks at least above Native America. I have little experience playing Maya, so I'm not sure about those two.

Oh, and I fully agree that it's ludicrous to keep the USA out because it's supposed to be too new a country. Yes USA in pre-history always seems a bit funny, but Berlin or Amsterdam weren't around until the late middle ages either.
 
Inca are the best, but they are really, really, really gamey and make me feel dirty. My head says Inca, but my heart says Maya. They get boosts to both happiness and health, which lets you get away with chopping away to make big, rich financial cities. Their UU is only good in the weird case where both you and your opponent lack metal, but he has horses, but because I tend to quit if I'm rushed this isn't as much of a negative to me as it should be. :mischief:
 
Well I'm not American so I hope I can contribute with a bit less bias. It stands to reason that Inca are the best and Aztec presumably next. But I'm not so sure about the US as last. Admittedly the navy SEAL is not very useful in most games. But the mall, while it does come late, is absolutely fantastic. And Washington probably has the traits with the best synergy ever. His cities can grow 2 bigger than anyone else's if you have a monument and no resources. In my opinion USA ranks at least above Native America. I have little experience playing Maya, so I'm not sure about those two.

Maya's unique building, which is actually available at a decent time, gives Maya the same health and happiness as Washington at a fair cost, but you have the financial trait to make it very worthwhile.

Oh, and I fully agree that it's ludicrous to keep the USA out because it's supposed to be too new a country. Yes USA in pre-history always seems a bit funny, but Berlin or Amsterdam weren't around until the late middle ages either.

It wouldn't make sense to have the Apollo Project and space race victories without the US. Many modern wonders are American, too.
 
Top Bottom