Playing as the Americans

[Jethro83]

I decided to try something different from playing as Egypt, Japan, China and Germany, and start up a game as the Americans.

I've tried rapid expansion (and getting granaries right away helps get you much territory before its all swallowed up, with Industrious providing faster irrigation that again leads to more settlers).

Unfortunately, I get to the point where my military resources are hopelessly stretched (since I have to make up for much granary building and expansion at the expense of culture and infrastructure, my production in the middle ages ends up tied up building temples, courthouses and marketplaces at the very LEAST, thus reducing the room to build up a decent military). And when you've got the Aztecs (heck, even the Iroquois) as your neighbours, that stacks on quite a bit of extra pressure.

Furthermore, with their UU being towards the end of the game, wonders are perhaps the best way to an American golden age, but I'm always losing the wonder races (I'm lucky if I ever get just one).

I've tried both early warmongering and peaceful expansion/building, but neither have actually worked thus far. I was wondering if anyone here has any pointers, or basic strategies playing as the Americans.

[spy14]

I usually play as Americans, but dont do anything differant from any other game really. One thing I dont do is build granarys, I find them to be a waste of time and can get on fine without them, dont know if maybe that'll help

[Flight]

i started a game as them the other day and found the same as you, you can expand very quickly but then drop off.

I got a couple of the first wonders so had an early golden age, but i was on a crappy penninsula so i got bored and started a new game

Only time i've played them, just limit yourself in expansion to blocking off other civs you find and filling in the gaps later when you've got a decent size military to cover yourself. At least that's what i'd do

[alva]

Originally posted by spy14
I usually play as Americans, but dont do anything differant from any other game really. One thing I dont do is build granarys, I find them to be a waste of time and can get on fine without them, dont know if maybe that'll help

I tend to agree here, building one is more then enough (in a city with some tile bonusses, just for building settlers).

@ LA : you can't do everything at the same time , make choices , but never neglect you military ( I must admit, I do so to).
You have too look at this way, if the AI settles in your territory, you can allways 'reclaim' it

[LionQ]

Re: Playing as the Americans

Originally posted by LordAzreal
much granary building

I never build granaries, it's wasting your time, because you can build The Pyramids. I always build The Pyramids, because I think the Granary is a very important building, but I don't want to pay Maintenance.

[Jethro83]

On Regent and above, I've only ever been able to beat the AI to the Pyramids twice. Once as the Egyptians (one of my favourite civs) and the other time more recently as the Chinese (yet another favourite civ). Both of those civs have UUs, and one has the Militaristic trait, which means that expansion isn't so much of a priority as you can take land off someone else very much easier than with someone like the Americans, Russians and English. Since the Americans are not militaristic and don't have a fast and deadly early game UU, the situation is different.

As I said above, my infrastructure turned out to be really poor when playing as America, since they're made for the early expansion. Poor infrastructure = less mines. Less mines = less shields, and less shields means less chance of winning wonder races.

I guess I need to make a bigger investment in workers. If I were playing correctly as the Americans, then I shouldn't be having such infrastructure problems since they are industrious. But the ability to churn out workers again goes back to how quickly you can fill up a settlement's food stores, and the possibility of halving the amount of time it takes with granaries.

[Allemand]

I build the Pyramids with my first or second city on Monarch level, whichever one is not a good settler city. I immediately build a temple, then start the Pyramids. The city can get units/workers from other cities. Granaries take too long to build, but if you can't get the Pyramids then a few granaries in key cities will be helpful in the long run. You don't need temples right away unless you're at one of the top two levels. I usually build scout/unit/worker/unit/settler/temple, but this sequence has to be tailored for some cities. The second unit goes with the settler in most cases. I build a few horsemen when they become available, but generally will only build one military unit per city.

After building a half-dozen cities or so, I start specializing a little, building barracks in some cities to produce veteran units, identifying cities that will be building Middle Ages wonders (they should put priority on infrastructure), and of course some cities will be producing nothing but Settlers for awhile.

On larger maps I send out six or eight scouts, so I'll be in Republic by about 1500 BC or sooner. I avoid war if possible, but if it comes I get some allies to help out. The Americans usually have plenty of money to do this. After I get Chivalry I go to war, like it or not. It makes the AI furious.


Edit: One worker per city is usually enough, but for the Pyramid city I usually send over a couple of extra workers to help get it ready.

[LionQ]

Originally posted by Allemand
Edit: One worker per city is usually enough, but for the Pyramid city I usually send over a couple of extra workers to help get it ready.

Agreed.

[punkbass2000]

In terms of military strength, I think that a bunch of warriors are your very good friends.

Though that might be a Dirty Trick.

[LionQ]

In terms of military strength, Í think that a bunch of Horsemen are your very good friends.

[FrustratedPoet]

That's true CivCity, but Warriors are cheaper and if you have a lot of military units (even if they're weak) the AI will be scared of you. It seems to have trouble telling the difference between 'lots of soldiers' and 'strong soldiers'.

Like punkbass said, it's a Dirty Trick(tm)!

[punkbass2000]

Yes, you will likely have twice as many warriors as you would horsemen.

[jshelr]

This thread lets me tell a story that demonstrates why America shouldn't build any culture buildings or wonders in the early game.

I just started a series of all random games to find out how many I could win in a row on Monarch taking whatever start the map generator gives me and making the best of it. America was the first civ I drew.

We started right in the middle of a pangea map, surrounded by other civs as it turned out. America can do well by sending out several scouts to pop some tech huts and later by selling maps. However, they don't have any other early advantages I could see.

So, I built 8 cities closely packed and worked in barracks as soon as I could, racing to quickly build an attacking force. Then America took a moderate-sized bite out of four neighboring civs in turn, often bribing for an alliance, and stopping when one of our horsies spotted a pikeman.

We were a Monarchy -- and stayed that way the whole game. I hardly researched anything myself except scientific method, prefering to agree to accept other civs tech as payment for ending wars. After the pikeman was spotted, then America stopped building horsemen and started building some infrastructure. I waited until I could buy Military tradition and upgraded a herd of knights, which then led the way toward a domination win.

The method described is very simple to execute. But, it seems to work a high % of the time. So, why make it more complicated with a lot of early culture and wonders?

Riding the crest of one win in a row, I wonder if I've got the guts to try AU107 as game number two??

[LionQ]

Originally posted by FrustratedPoet
That's true CivCity, but Warriors are cheaper

Yes, that's true: Horsemen are three times more expensive then Warriors.

Originally posted by FrustratedPoet and if you have a lot of military units (even if they're weak) the AI will be scared of you. It seems to have trouble telling the difference between 'lots of soldiers' and 'strong soldiers'.

Indeed. Take this example: I'm having 30 ModernArmors, for instance. And one of the opponent Civs has 90 Spearmen. What will my MilitaryAdvisor say? Well, this: "Compared to these guys, our military is weak!". That's truly nonsense, because the AI does have three times more Units then I do, but the mine are much stronger.

[Jethro83]

Originally posted by punkbass2000
In terms of military strength, I think that a bunch of warriors are your very good friends.

Originally posted by CivilopediaCity
In terms of military strength, Í think that a bunch of Horsemen are your very good friends.

I usually pick chariots for such purpose. Sure they are more expensive than warriors, but they're cheaper than horsemen and can later be upgraded to horsemen (or knights). I've recently found it easier playing as America by beelining towards the Wheel, and building up chariots whenever I'm not building settlers or workers. I then delay the research/tribute of Horseback Riding until I'm certain I have enough chariots. Once this happens, I own the enemy easily.

In fact, I've found this approach to work with any civ (the Zulu make a good civ for this since they have a spearman unit that can keep up with horsemen).

I sometimes use warriors instead, so as to upgrade them to swordsmen in the same fashion, but such an upgrade is more expensive (40 gold to upgrade warriors to swordsmen vs. 20 gold to upgrade chariots to horsemen), and I also find horsemen to be more useful unless against the Greeks, or against a civ with pikemen.