I've played a few games now and the top ancient era cultures seem to be the Harappans (the very rare game I nab the before the AI) followed by the Egyptians and Nubian's.

I haven't played much of the other cultures.

Are all the ancient cultures viable or are there any that just aren't good enough?

In my game it's always Harappan and Nubian.

I don't know if the AI can calculate the best culture (or/and based on their traits), or just an AI personality preference without calculation

If you like the Nubian's gold, you may also try Phoenicians. I think people don't realize the power of harbors. One, you can build them even on outposts, which is good since early on you don't have many territories attached. Two, they exploit the sea (and 2 tiles!), so it's like free land.

If you're more militarily inclined, I appreciate the extra movement points from Assyrians. I also was helped with Myceneans and their spawn point and unit.

The only one I really avoid is the Hittites. Not sure if anyone else has tried them?

I can't say anything about multiplayer, but if played correctly all of the Ancient era cultures are viable against Humankind difficulty AI, but some will be vastly easier to play than others.

Dayvit78 wrote:

If you like the Nubian's gold, you may also try Phoenicians. I think people don't realize the power of harbors. One, you can build them even on outposts, which is good since early on you don't have many territories attached. Two, they exploit the sea (and 2 tiles!), so it's like free land.

If you're more militarily inclined, I appreciate the extra movement points from Assyrians. I also was helped with Myceneans and their spawn point and unit.

The only one I really avoid is the Hittites. Not sure if anyone else has tried them?

IMO Hittites are the weakest pick for Ancient era, again, at least against the AI. Viable, but weak. Ancient era aggression is generally a bad idea against AI, as they will outproduce you summarily and get a free +2 Strength on every unit to boot, offsetting the +1 you get for Hittites. This is at the expense of having no economic bonus and pretty much no EQ. Their unit is alright, but it comes late into the era, requires a lot of tech, and access to horses and copper which is not guaranteed, even by trade. By the time you get them the AI may already have swordsmen. Myceneans are pretty good though, and Assyrians can be okay situationally. Both of them get an earlier power spike, which is what you need if you're even thinking about fighting the AI early on.

Everyone talks up the Harappans but I prefer Olmec since the influence bonuses will allow you to expand faster and you're still getting a decent food output with the Olmec Head . Sure in the short term they're a bit weak but  once you're getting a few territories on your cities it adds up. The Zhou aint half bad either for the science and +2 stability on districts   

The Phoenicians are very powerful for 3 reasons:

1. as someone else mentioned, you can build harbours in outposts, which means you can spam your unique building throughout most of your empire in one era; unlike others ancient era civs that requires cities to do that.
2. harbours by themselves are awesome and with the right religion tenets they can provide a ton of food in addition to other bonuses. If that's not enough, picking a culture with a unique harbour let's you build more than one harbour per city in the following eras.
3. Last but not least, The AI never picks them!. which means you can push the neolithic era to its limit and start the ancient era with 15 to 20 scouts/population and a ton of influence allowing you to immediately build two cities at the start of the ancient era.

1. this feature dependency makes it super fun to plan your outposts accordingly and look for those perfect +25 science (5 mountains) locations. obviously you're not going to find that perfect location easily, but +20, +15, and +10 locations are actually fairly common
2. starting the ancient era with 45 to 50 science per turn gives you a net advantage. They're a lot stronger for science than the Babylonians
3. Last but not least, The AI also never picks them!.

Undernier wrote:

The Phoenicians are very powerful for 3 reasons:

1. as someone else mentioned, you can build harbours in outposts, which means you can spam your unique building throughout most of your empire in one era; unlike others ancient era civs that requires cities to do that.
2. harbours by themselves are awesome and with the right religion tenets they can provide a ton of food in addition to other bonuses. If that's not enough, picking a culture with a unique harbour let's you build more than one harbour per city in the following eras.
3. Last but not least, The AI never picks them!. which means you can push the neolithic era to its limit and start the ancient era with 15 to 20 scouts/population and a ton of influence allowing you to immediately build two cities at the start of the ancient era.

The Mycenaeans' cyclopean fortress is super fun and powerful to use. The ability, very early on, to place a maker's quarter in the best location of a territory or the best defensive location is just super fun and, imo, this makes this district even more powerful than the egyptians or nubians pyramids. Add to that a bonus stability and it's one of the best district in the game.

The Zhous are also awesome. Granted their buildings require a map with lots of mountains, but:

1. this feature dependency makes it super fun to plan your outposts accordingly and look for those perfect +25 science (5 mountains) locations. obviously you're not going to find that perfect location easily, but +20, +15, and +10 locations are actually fairly common
2. starting the ancient era with 45 to 50 science per turn gives you a net advantage. They're a lot stronger for science than the Babylonians
3. Last but not least, The AI also never picks them!.

All the other cultures are pretty fun too but those 3 really stand out in terms of city planning and early gameplay.

Worth mentioning are the Assyrians ... which I think are completely useless. Like the Mycenaeans they have a unique garrison building but its bonuses are just not remotely as good as the Cyclopean fortresses.

Agreed, all three of the cultures you mentioned are severely underrated, I think Olmecs are underrated too. Honestly the cultures balance is not that bad early on. Harappans and Egyptians do stand out, but they're like an A tier to most of the others' B tier.

I actually disagree about the Assyrians, I think they're better than most people think. Certainly better than the Hittites, maybe Babylonians. I've been meaning to make a thread on them or revive someone else's, but I think their (overstated) shortcomings are more of general game issues than their own fault.

shasho wrote:
I actually disagree about the Assyrians, I think they're better than most people think. Certainly better than the Hittites, maybe Babylonians. I've been meaning to make a thread on them or revive someone else's, but I think their (overstated) shortcomings are more of general game issues than their own fault.

Maybe if you want to play a raider strategy early on, but if you compare their buildings it seems they need a boost there:

Dunnu (Assyrian):

1. Garrison
2. +2 influence
3. 10 fortification
4. +1 strength to unit around it

1. Garrison
2. +15 stability
3. 20 fortification
4. +3 strength to units around it
5. + 3 production - Act as a maker's quarter that you can place anywhere

You can place the Dunnu in outposts using influence, which you can then spend on more outposts, and more Dunnus to get more influence... etc. They don't stack up very well if you're building them with production.

I think it could use a small buff, maybe +1 or +2 influence on the district, as it is it does take quite a few turns to pay for itself. But Assyrians are actually quite good at establishing early map control and visibility.

I didn't know that you could place them in outposts! that's actually a very good bonus and that explains why it's weaker than the cyclopean fortress regarding defenses. Still, as you said it could use a boost, I'd give it a +5 stability.