I’m not upset that USA gets released, although I would have liked other civs, and I worried that south americans won’t never get a full civ (and the conflict with revolutions)
That said, I’m happy always with new civs, metas and gameplays.
But I also I’m afraid that USA gets a lot of uniqueness and seems OP at the videos. Sure, we will have to wait, but they seem very powerful. In what spot that puts the old civs that doesn’t have so much unique bonus/cards/mechanics or are very reliant one less strategies to win?
It is historically accurate, USA is the most OP military.
The US military only became the best in the world at the end of WW2. Before that, it was way behind the British, French or Prussian militaries.
I know, I was obviously joking
It would appear, sadly, that the devs are continuing their history of releasing unbalanced game breaking civs to encourage people to buy the DLC and boost sales. First Japan, then Swedes/Incas, now USA. The devs have already admitted they do this to increase sales and encourage people to play the new civs. The problem is that after they get their sales, they don’t balance the civs, they just leave them as OP. The problem with that is, you go online and only see the same four civs, which is what we will inevitably see: USA, Japan, Swedes, Incas, in that order. That will be 85% of your opponents. They don’t seem to understand that from a long term perspective, it is better to have a balanced game where you see a variety of civs online when you play or watch games in tournaments. Interest in the game in general drops when people just lame the same few civs over and over against each other. Please look at successful RTSes and note that a lot of effort goes into GAME BALANCE and player skill matching.
The US is so OP in the game that it scares me in real life. Like the civ is so OP, it feels like it will soon push past the boundaries of the virtual world, enter my bedroom through my PC monitor, and then send me to a reservation.
You will have Democracy, wether you like it or not!!!
Time will only tell after they’re added. Just like with Sweden and Inca, a whole bunch of people will rush to play them and try them out. Then people will find good strategies with the US, and you’ll see on the forums people complaining how OP it is (partially due to design, partially due to inexperience countering them). Then people will defend the US, saying there’s clear weaknesses and vulnerabilities, while others relent how unfathomable the devs allowed this to happen.
And there will be even differences in how the higher-leveled players see the civs, versus the average player (“Japan’s not a problem in 1v1 if you rush them” VS “OMG JAPAN’S OP, SHRINES…”)
I believe the new US civ might take a route like Sweden. Possibly the US could get a few buffs/nerfs depending on how well it does.
I do believe as well that these newer civilizations are getting so many bonuses and special things to outclass the old civs. From playing a lot of Portugal and Russia, I played Sweden and felt like I just had a myriad of options and simplified bonuses, aggregated in a few cards. I shredded other nations with cannon spam, Carolean masses, and high-HP huss.
As long as the macro of things seem somewhat level, I really don’t care that much