 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Q Cubed
|
 |
t3h y3ll0w p3ril
Apr 1999
time: 23:29
|
|
quote:
Americans: Power Of Freedom
for traits I have no damned idea...
UU's:
-Abrams Tank
-Marine/Ranger (better infantry)
-B2 Bomber
-F22 Fighter
-MLRS
-Los Angeles attack sub
-Nimitz carrier
-Iowa battleship
-Ticonderoga (AEGIS) cruiser
-Apache helo
-Bradley/Stryker armored cav
-SAW MG
-Super Hornet/Tomcat Fighter-Bomber
-LAW Anti-Tank
-Better Flamethrowers |
like you said, all of these units would make the player own at the end... too overpowered. half of them, though.  some of them, too, i don't much like the idea.
besides, you can start earlier with the americans--enlightenment period, you could say, have the minuteman replacing militia: double damage, faster changeover. it would upgrade to national guard by the modern age, triple damage and instant changeover or some such.
i don't mind the abrams, marine/ranger, the apache, or the bradley.
the rest: the planes are both stealth--something you can't get until the very endgame anyway. i don't see the point of bringing them in. mlrs is the regular arty. no need for any unique sea units, really. the rest, i don't see anything so uniquely american about them--heck, germans had better flamethrowers than we did early on.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
niDe
|
|
I don't see why people wany Americans in the game.
I can't think oh anything more boring and unoriginal, if you want to play Americans, play C&C.
The nation just doesn't fit into the game
|
|
| |
|
|
|
WoodenTaco
|
|
First off, yes I am American. Always lived here. Born and raised here.
Now that that's out of the way so you can't start flaming me TOO much...
Why on earth is it the power of freedom? I'd have to say that this is perhaps the most arrogant and self-centered phrase I've heard in terms of patriotic beliefs. If you really believe we have the "greatest freedom in the world" I strongly suggest you take a look at another country other than your own for once. Yes, America isn't too shabby, but that doesn't make it far superior to all other nations as we seem to think.
Further, putting America in ruins the concept of giant, ancient civilizations with vast empires. As vast as the US is, its not ancient by any means. Don't even try to tell me that "we should have native americans, and then magically transform into europeans" either. Face it, we don't have a long history. Just look at the UU list you made, do you wonder why none of them are over 50 years old?
There are some that really do deserve to be in the game, India is one. Vikings are another. They play an integral role in thousand of years of history, not three-hundred.
Ok, I'm done with my rant.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
PolkaSheep
|
|
You all need to stop the American slammin', now. I wouldn't mind seeing the Americans in, but other, more ancient civilizations should be put in first and have priority over the Americans being put in.
Q Cubed, I really do like your idea about the National Guard and the Minutemen. It's very unique and I'd like to see it integrated with a nation.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Signa
|
 |
IA, USA
Nov 2001
time: 23:29
|
|
That idea has been floated a long time in regards to Civ2, but what is the point in Ron? You lose your capital, you loose. No splitting nations or massive corruption, you just lose.
This game is NOT about Ancient Civs. Aztecs and Incans are hardly ancient (the only TRUE ancient civs would be Egypt, China, India, and Babylon) and a lot of others only became distinct a few hundred to thousand years ago (Russia, Brits, France, Turks, Korea, Spanish).
Another point: Spain has existed for a long time, yet only had a period of great influence for about a century. Then how did they get in?
And by the way, America has influenced since its birth. We fought wars and had intense diplomatic conflicts with Britian for awhile, influenced the French revolution (which led to things like Nap, no big deal [sarcasm], almost fought wars with Imperial Germany (in the 1800s), got in the colonial act with the other Great Powers, shaped int'l commerce with things like the populatization of the railroad and Panama Canal (not to mention highways [Germany's idea but we made it famous], mass produced automobiles, and heavier than air flight). We played a huge (albiet short) part in WWI, the Age of Anxiety, massive part in WWII, was the contending superpower with the USSR for 50ish years, and for 13 or so years we have been the only power, a monopoly on almost everything never seen before, and that may never be seen agian.
Our GNP beats the whole of the rest of the world. Our army is the best trained and the second largest, behind only the massive PLAN. Our Navy and Air Force rule the sea and sky without opposition, with technology nobody else has or shall for awhile.
Our culture is everywhere. The Fareast Asia has embraced our form of capitalism, Europe is the same, things like McDonalds and bluejeans are common sites all over the world.
You can make arguements about "they are too young". 227 years as of yesterday. I do believe the Aztecs didn't exist much longer than that (approx 400). Not an old nation like China, but we've made use of our time.
My idea was just an idea. I was trying to get all of you to seriously think about it and it's starting to work. The "Power Of Freedom" might be a little over the top, but I'm just brainstorming. I like the ideas of making the Milita things for America better, but they are gonna need more than that. Giving them SOME V-VIII UU's other than a NationalGuard/Minuteman will have to happen.
I do stand by my statement that the American should be suited to late game play, just how some (like the Turks) play better in the middle and other in the early part.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Q Cubed
|
|
t3h y3ll0w p3ril
Apr 1999
time: 23:29
|
|
quote:
(Russia, Brits, France, Turks, Korea, Spanish). |
tsk tsk tsk. of the six you listed, five of them have been politically distinct entites for over 700 years.
russia: principalities, such as muscovy, which became dominated by the golden horde before reasserting their independence;
britain, since 1066;
france can trace its lineage to the franks;
turks date until right after the fall of byzantium, really;
korea was its own independent state over three thousand years ago; it lost its independence for a brutal period of 35 years to the japanese before being split in two.
quote:
almost fought wars with Imperial Germany (in the 1800s), |
ehh...? germany didn't exist as a cohesive and single great or minor power until the late 19th century; even then, it didn't become a nation we even considered fighting until the first half of the 20th, when it truly became "imperial germany".
quote:
highways [Germany's idea but we made it famous] |
the way it always seemed to me was that germany's was famous enough, and we just took a good idea.
quote:
13 or so years we have been the only power, a monopoly on almost everything never seen before, and that may never be seen agian. |
a function of the era and circumstances. we're a regional hegemon, which translates into a hyperpower state when no other regional hegemons exist. it is not altogether too different than the situation rome, the mongols, and the early chinese found themselves in--the only difference is modern technology allows power projection across larger distances, thus strength can be used further away from home.
it's safe to assume that rome didn't think there was much of a world outside of its territories.
if china gets continuing economic growth, resulting in a gdp with a per capita equalling at least south korea's, we'll have a contender for regional hegemony; and if the united states falls, you'll have another situation like now, with china replacing us.
do not believe that the united states can continue this state perpetually.
quote:
Our culture is everywhere. The Fareast Asia has embraced our form of capitalism, |
not quite. capitalism in east asia is export-oriented and predominantly industrial and high-tech in nature. capitalism in america is predominantly service-oriented and internal. asian capitalism is also much more crony-capitalism, whereas the united states is a lot more laissez-faire.
quote:
You can make arguements about "they are too young". 227 years as of yesterday. I do believe the Aztecs didn't exist much longer than that (approx 400). Not an old nation like China, but we've made use of our time. |
true. we've also only been a superpower for the last fifty, and a hegemon for the last 150 or so--after the civil war is when things started to get good for us.
===
now that i think about it, i like the name "power of federalism" much better, because that's what a lot of america's strength, i think, can be derived from.
the minuteman-->national guard path is good. i'm thinking that in this case, the citizens would, rather than turning into partisans and militia, actually turn into light infantry, which is keeping somewhat more with what really happens.
i like the bradley tank; i think we should add a b52 special unit, and end the special units there.
add in a bonus to territory, maybe something like +3, have a merchant bonus and a market bonus. maybe also a technology bonus: all of these would start off tiny, but towards the end they grow with every age tech.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Scipio2k
|
|
Lots of US bashing here, but its easy for other countries to direct blame on the United States for their problems, instead of looking inward. I think the Americans should definately be in. I think most people forget that the United States was the first modern democracy(i know its a democratic republic, but let's not be too nit picky). That was no small accomplishment, considering the confidence it gave to the french to have their own revolution. And look at the world today, most of the influential and highest per-capita countries in the world are all some sort of democracies.
You know what would be an interesting way to do special powers, have the americans power be immigration, where the US gets free villagers based on the other players populations.
Or maybe something like the power of technology, some sort of science bonus.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GRRhhg
|
|
I'm about to explain what I think about the whole North American issue in Rise of Nations. It's a handful but I am intent on leaving no stone unturned and no reason unexplained. I'm just chucking it out all at once instead of inserting snippets in between posts that flame other countries.
Look at it this way:
Some countries are in fact based on geographical and not cultural unity. Take Britain, for example: Celts were Ancient, then were displaced by the Angles and Jutes, Germanic tribes, following the real classical age. Viking descended French Normans then took control in 1066. Only in 1706 (I think) was Great Britain created. Longbowmen were Welsh and eventually represented a significant portion of the English forces for a rather short period of time. Highlanders and Black Watch are largely Scottish I believe, and the elite of the British forces.
On the other hand, Germany seems to be based on cultural similarities: "Later game" Germany refers to Prussia and the Germanic people, but those were originally disjointed and migratory people who largely happened to be in a general geographical location until the mid 1800s. Though the Germans were culturally similar, there were few other unifying factors until fairly recently.
Oh, yeah, and power has changed hands so often in British and German history it would be hard for a 'civilization' expert to justify any sort of generalization without loosening up a bit about the freakin' rules or causing so much tweaking as to result in dozens of UU's and traits that imbalance it in periods of time.
Despite that, the aforementioned civilizations are very distinct and distinguished in real life and in the game. I'm not complaining, just pointing out.
In Canada and the United States at about 16-1700s (Gunpowder-Enlightenment), you have the original Native Americans and the European colonists who eventually killed off or incorporated them (No lectures). By the late 1700's, you had the balance of power in North America pretty much fixed for the next 300 years. So, it is divided into two distinct periods: Tribes of Native Americans control the continent, and then nations descended from the ideas of European government, commerce and technology arise and remain for the rest of the time. It's pretty simple compared to the background of most nations.
Besides that, the new nations made such an influence on western history and world politics that I think it is ingorant to allude to them only through wonders; Most of the late game wonders are based on American exploits and most of the Western style units are based on American units. I think the influence not only in real life but in the game itself leave a real gap for a general American civ, if not even a U.S. civ. Oh, yeah, and regularly matching, surpassing, or throwing off world powers for the last few centuries is significant, too.
I think the major strength of the U.S. has been its diversity and flexibility. The original inhabitants were hardy and diverse, but not terrifically powerful, and the later nation has remained virtually unchanged except in power, size, and diversity for nearly two and a half centuries of fierce competition. The nation would be ideal for booming, as it is historically and geographically rich with resources and industrious workers, though it didn't peak until the last century. Bonuses which accurately reflect the country's cultures and geography may include:
-Militia unit line has increased damage, hit points (from native Indian hunters to minutemen and pioneers, well you get the picture)
-Increased ship strength.
-Tougher light infantry (possibly Unique ancient-medieval and enlightenment-information units to cover everybody)
-Faster build cavalry (plenty of space for horses and later big industry for tanks)
-Faster built, more damaging aircraft.
-Carriers built faster, slightly cheaper, carry more aircraft?
-Commerce cap or gather rate increases per age or per civic, science, or commerce tech.
-Resource gather buildings cost slightly less, built slightly faster.
-Cities exert additional national borders (increase per age?)
-Trading resources in market does not depress value as quickly. (Trading has always been important)
-Light Infantry (maybe archers?) slightly cheaper, faster built (again, a civilization composed of hunting tribes using thrown weapons or bows and then a country with a large military and no gun control...)
The trick is to pick and choose a good selection of traits and units without crippling the early game, boosting the power late game by too much, or making it overly complicated. I'd suggest working out a solution which makes them fairly decent boomers and fighters that gain power over time, while having somewhat hampered technological or cultural "progress" until perhaps Enlightenment-Industrial or so (perhaps formidable but non-gunpowder UU's in IV age? "Foreign" gunpowder units that are mercenaries or bought weapons until Euro-style civ becomes most prominent?) Oh, and the unit and building styles would become more culturally, visually diverse as the ages went on: from Native American style towns, to mixing with European colonies and trading posts, eventually (by age VIII) to a socially, racially diverse nation(s, if you loosely include Canada).
Of course, the big thing that made me open my giant, long-winded trap in the end was that some jokers get on and, without even considering the viability of such a civilization concept, go and start slamming this country and the achievements of it while pretending they are enlightened and above criticism and that they can make heartless, moronic allusions when the historical records of some other countries and cultures make the United States' record look both distinguished and saintly. Ahem. Sorry, I'm digressing a little bit.
I'm going to shut up now and drop it at that before I lose my temper and get in trouble or start making lists. The Administrators keep people in line and control the forum, so I'll behave myself.
Other civs that should be in but aren't:
Hebrew/Jewish civ: Singlehandedly declaring yourself God's chosen people and surviving for a rather long time and eventually inadverdently changing western civilization in a radical new way could be a little significant, you know... They defeated the ancient Greeks and almost held out against the Romans, their religious fanaticism being their greatest strength and a weakness. Strong Defensive Civ, tough units, defensive Temple and tower bonuses. Perhaps a new wonder such as the Temple, and maybe some modern-information age UU's to reflect the modern (and similarly defensive) nation of Israel.
Persian civ: Camel archers, Immortals, Elephants, and a significant impact on history and a distinct culture make me wonder why this civ wasn't in RoN. A significant "early game" player. Vital for someone who would like to relive classical Greek and Middle East battles.
Arabian/Saracen civ: Something to bind together certain strengths of the Egyptians, Nubians, and Turks in a centralized Arabian civ. Would eventually become most of the modern Arabic-speaking Muslim countries of the Middle East, too significant to ignore.
Northern European Norse-based civilization: Not the longest lived, in terms of the Vikings, but not insignificant. Combination of agressive tactics and defensive strengths. Come on, who doesn't want Viking raiders?
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
03-07-2003 15:04
arty:
lets see, we all ready have the Greeks, who else do we need? well, nobody. 
|
|