I'm totally agree about Assyrians. Game needs more balance.

I would call the List:

The usefull CIVs:

Egyptian and Harapeans

The useless CIVs:

The Rest

Jokes aside not picking one of those 2 just puts you behind. Science is cool but what does it unlock? Things u need to buid, so you still better of with the other 2. Money is cool, u can buy buildings out, but you can also, you know, just build them xD its more efficient.

And early war is the worst thing to do as it puts you so far behind that the factions not playing near you will just leave you in the dust

1. I agree that Assyrians need some rework still. Or the Expansionist ability needs a rework. The point is that the ability gives you to grab outosts, but only if you are not in war! And it can be interrupted by literally ANY action, even adding unit in your army. AND Assyrians Emblematic Units are made to ransack, wich is the opposite of Annexation. So, the Expansionist ability is suck.
2. Egyptian and Harrapeans have simply better bonuses than others, need a slightly nerf.

gonna have to try this out

The Mycenians are strong, but not as strong at scaling as the Egyptians and Harapeans. They are strong but balanced I would say. That's why I don't ask for any nerfs on them.

I am against the idea of denying nerfing, and buffing the other factions instead.

If a feature is buffed (e.g. one of the Egyptians' features that gives +1 industry for EVERY square exploited, during ALL eras of the game), it should simply be nerfed. You don't have to stuff a kid with candy even if it makes him happy. No hesitation to nerf an overpowered feature, even if it means recreating it to be stronger, but only in a specific context (e.g., Egyptians could have a productivity bonus for building a wonder, and claim wonders for a cheaper influence price).

They are not OP and they don't give you industry on every worked tile. They are stron, yes. Because both Egyptians and Harappans  boost your booming potential and no other ancient civ does that. Rest need some buffs to make them better and some tweaks to eraly aggresion so 3 aggro civs can do something with it.

The advantages you mention are known, but they don't work in multiplayer. The only criterion that counts is the competition.

No one takes the Assyrians, because building an economy of food and industry is the only thing that is important. Some outposts and a temporary land control will not make up that.

I like the philosophy of the faction, expansionist and aggressive. But there is no situation where I would rather play them than the Egyptians or Mycenaeans.

I haven't played all the cultures, but I agree that Mycenaeans are very well designed and balanced - it is their industry-focused fort, that makes them feel complete for me.

The Assyrians could indeed use buffs... I like that their emblem unit is cheap, fast and quick to unlock - this is well themed for expansion and ransacking (as MasterPaw points out) . Their emblem district is decent militarily, but lacking economically, so I'd buff its +influence a bit, which would help them with the expansion theme. I agree with Light_Spectrum, that Assyrians suffer due to the Expansionist ability being very difficult to use (make it work the same way Ransack does). Though they need to remain expansionist, coz the free trespassing enables ransacking. And I think it makes sense for them to have the ability to take over your outpost, if they see you are not defending against ransacking raids. Additional buffs could be made to Pillager (to 15% from 10%) or give the emblem district a little bonus to hp regeneration, so raiding units could thematically rotate in and out of battle.

I also agree that Egyptians feel overpowered, mainly due to the legacy %discount for districts, coz it scales exponentially as the game goes on due to the increasing cost of districts. Industry is really needed for everything - the development of cities and army. It is this flexibility that will give any industry-focused culture a natural edge over others, so their legacy trait shouldn't stand out. The Egyptian pyramid combined with the +1 industry are very good already. I'd propose to remove the % discount altogether or make it work only for certain districts (cultural wonders seem thematic or industry districts in capital).

I haven't played Harappans, coz the AI always took it first (please fix this), but I've seen them played and they do look overpowered as well. They produce high pop, which again are essential for both development and war, but more-so in the very early game before many districts are built. This is why their high flat legacy bonuses make them strong, coz it gives them 20-40% bonus food early game. It doesnt scale nearly as well as the Egyptian %discount, but its impact is significant and immediate. The emblem district is also strong, coz it synergizes very well with their trait. The instant upgrade scout->runner paradoxically makes this peaceful culture one of the best at early skirmishes. I'd propose to nerf their trait to just +1 on food tiles OR just +2 food on rivers to keep their river theme (as far as I know their combined traits currently give them +2 on river). I'd fix the runner by either nerfing the power to 14 from 16 (scouts have 13) or by locking it behind a tech, that once unlocked would instantly upgrade scouts. The first solution is more pacifist-themed, coz with the second players could still mass scouts and then rush the tech (making aggressive Harappans still viable just delayed).

I'm also finding that taking Science focused cultures usually makes my science output so high, that I dont have the industry to build all the unlocked infrastructure and money to upgrade units (I did even take over civ-difficulty AI). This makes me devalue science cultures quite a bit and even if I wanted to do overtake people in science, I'd still pick the hybrid culture Zhou, which gives sufficient science bonuses with their emblem district, but also has strong stability bonuses (I like them a lot and they feel balanced). Though both Babylonian trait and the later Greek emblem district are fantastic for a science victory due to exponential scaling, they are very likely to start lacking the industry to build all the new cool stuff and the money and food to fund their military. So I agree with Jojo's comment.

I just want to say I really enjoy this discussion and the amount of thought people are putting into the all aspects of the culture.

I think it also depends on your playstyle. I have found that Assyrians movement bonus is great - considering you have a base 4 movement, +1 = 25% speed increase forever. Combine that with Lighthouse, and some other things that boost speed, and you'll be zooming over the map which is quite good since sometimes you don't have enough armies to station on all sides of your empire. Remember, getting to an enemy who is ransacking you just 1 turn earlier can prevent its loss. Anyway there's benefits to speed.

I fully agree that science is worthless at the beginning. The legacy bonus is useless (+2 science/researched tech... when techs cost 1000+, you're going to be knocking like 40 science off). And since you don't want to progress eras too fast, don't worry about taking a long time to unlock techs.

Most importantly, not sure what others think, but forget about building - I think influence is the way to go. You get to claim all the territories. You get to attach more to your city ( = more food/industry) while at the same time denying it to enemies or independents, and consequently being able to build more super powerful EQs. You get to build luxuries outside your city. And civics. There is so much to do with influence that I would put this as #1 before food/industry. Who cares if nothing is built in your city when you have ALL THE LAND?

(Last thoughts - don't underestimate Phoenician+Carthage if you have alot of coast - it's like extra land that you normally couldn't work. Cothon = market+farmer+industry for all the previously unused coast tiles).

Have fun all!

It's hard to have a singular problem with Egypt because they're good - arguably the best - at everything important:

1. Aesthete/Expansionist: The most important reason to have pop in the early game is for Influence income.  Pyramids give you some, so that's mitigated!
2. Agrarian: The easiest way to get pop is with Farmers' Quarters.  Egypt has good production, so they're the best at building them at scale!
3. Militarist: The Egyptians easily have the strongest EU in the Ancient Era (it's stronger than the Hunnic raiders of the next era, and has more range).
4. Science: Doesn't matter in the early game.
5. Trader: Doesn't matter ever.

1. +1 industry on tiles producing industry -> +2 industry to maker's quarter (does maybe scale better into the lategame, but not by much, and tamps down on ancient era strength)
2. Pyramid: +1 influence, +3 industry -> +4 industry
3. Markabata: 24 combat strength -> 21 combat strength

• +1 food on tiles producing food -> +2 food to farmer's quarter (does maybe scale better into the lategame, but not by much, and tamps down on ancient era strength)

Go Mycenaeans(-20% unit industry Cost) into Aztecs(-20% unit industry Cost)  Into Germans(-20% unit industry Cost)  Into Soviets(-20% unit industry Cost)

then build barracks(-10% unit Industry cost) and Tourney fields(-15% unit industry cost) in your cities, this alone should show you true balance.

The best way for me to focus on science currently seems to be through industry as well.
The strategy is as follows; focus on industry a lot early on by stacking maker quarters, building the specific infrastructure and planning out good district placement and faith tenets (min max). Again egyptians are perfect for this. Ensure that you have at least 4 cities with great industry output. Pick a science-focused culture in early modern or industrial era and then use the science ability to convert 500-900 industry to science in your most developed and safest inner city. Not only is industry useful to build up science districts, but you can completely skip that step and go direct with this ability! This proves my point even further than industry is inherently the best FIMS resource.

If Im correct that the %science bonus of French stacks with this ability, they are the best culture to pick. Additionally due to the scientist passive, the French unlock the modern stage of techs, which makes it possible to linger around in the industrial era to finish all techs and end the game.

Light_Spectrum wrote:

This strategy has a lot of weaknesses and only 1 advantage, you will be very behind cuz these cultures don't have eco bonuses at all.

Cyclopean fortress will cover all your industry and stability for the first 2 eras and you can go a food or science culture in Classical and Early Modern to make up for losses, You can also opt out for one of the military cultures for an economy one since army conscription civic gives -30% production cost reduction. This strategy is more versatile than you may think due to emblematic quarters and civics, especially when you get to germany and can buff up all your makers quarters even more and then soviets arms factory is broken right now with its +1 strength bonus to all units. Your extra combat strength on naval/air from germany will ensure that bombing everything into rubble is the pro strat until you become soviets and all your infantry become super soldiers that can take on battle tanks.

I agree that the Expansionist "Under One Banner" ability needs to be changed. It's almost impossible to pull off in its current state.

However, for the Hittites, I will say that the passive bonus of being able to just waltz into enemy territory is very beneficial to them. The ability to ransack outposts and administrative centers without ever declaring war is pretty solid! However, the Ancient era goes by so fast for anyone NOT at war that, as others have mentioned, an aggressive military punch tends to fall a little flat. 

For that reason, I think there should be more benefit to ransacking besides just gold and punishing a neighbor. Maybe influence? Science? Food? FAME?! Alternatively, maybe these added benefits to ransacking only apply to expansionist civs, giving them a reason to use that passive ability?

A possible fix for Egyptians and Harappans is applying their bonuses to specific tiles.

Egyptians +1 production on river tiles, which makes some sense historically since the Egyptian civilization was so closely tied to the Nile, or perhaps +1 production on stone fields instead, after all they were masters of building with stone. This would make Egyptians, like naval cultures or the Zhou, more of situational choice.

Harrappans +1 food on non-river food producing tiles. It synergizes with their district, described as fertilizing the land surrounding rivers, and it gives them the advantage of having better growth in areas without rivers.

After many more hours of single and multiplayer play, I would say that my opinion of the ancient civilizations has changed little.

The Babylonians are better than I thought. They are viable. They are still not as strong as the Egyptians and the Harapens in 90% of the situations, but that is due to the overpowered bonuses of those two.

The Assyrians and Hittites are never played in multiplayer. Never.

For the Hitties, I don't know what to do to change them. It depends on the game design Amplitude wants for them. A better economic bonus. Or a better military bonus. Be careful not to bet everything on military for a civ at the beginning of the party. The Mycenaeans are the most interesting as it has been said by me and others.

Suggestion about Assyrians garrison

For the Assyrians, I thought of a small buff (which is not enough to make them viable): you should make their fortification district usable beyond the ancient era. First of all, a garrison is very rarely needed in this era. It's afterwards that it can become useful.

And secondly, one fort per region is not enough. It would have to be possible to build this emblematic district in the outposts, in the eras after.

I suggest +1 constructive emblematic district per region in city or outpost, in each era. In the Middle Ages, the Assyrians would thus have three fortification districts per region, payable in influence.

This sounds "powerful"; but military districts are of no economic use. It would only serve to defend the many regions they are supposed to have taken on the map. It's a pretty easy bonus to implement it seems to me, and will be subtly useful for the players.

I agree that Harappans and Egyptians are too strong. Harappans legacy trait is more powerful than the feudalism bonus, on rivers they bascially start with irregation canals, their start with a stronger scout and their emblematic district is probably amongst the best of the era. Given how much influence population can give, harappans may be as good as olmecs in olmecs speciality while being better than olmecs in every other area. Their science ability may be as good as babylonians given they have more pops thus able to employ more scientists.

Egyptian start with lumber yard + stone work, giving them a huge advantage that snowball and not only that but they also get -10% district cost which scale very well with egyptians gameplan. Their emblematic unit and district is also very strong.

The legacy traits of these two cultures may be good even for much later eras, like medieval, that is how strong they are while others such as babylonians pretty much just get a token bonus that is not relevant beyond ancient era.

Consider that some of the ancient era civs should be stronger. That's to balance whether you want to stick around as a Neolithic tribe for longer or not. Those neolithic "gray goo" spawning mechanics are super good otherwise. It seems that starting as not-Egyptians / not-Harappans is hard to balance when you get started later and your only bonus is a couple extra scout units. But it's not so simple as "nerf Egyptians" since that has an impact on how the Neolithic is played.