Assyria: worthwhile or complete trash?

PhilBowles said:

This is the fundamental issue: As with any Civ game, Civ V lacks meaningful sanctions other than warfare - the worst that will happen as a result of diplomatic penalties is war. If someone can't or won't go to war because they need trade income, or aren't strong enough to beat you (which is quite likely if you've conquered enough cities to cause them to hate you in the first place), they can rant and rave all they like but they have no meaningful way of causing you problems, so just ignore them until they cool off.

Click to expand...

Until they pass a trade Embargo against you and you're stuck setting up trade routes for less gold with CSs. And then they pass a trade Embargo with CSs and you're up the monetary creek without a paddle.

I won one of my fastest domination victories against 5 warmongering opponents with Assyria. It was a kick@ss, tight, very bloody, extremely fun victory! I love the civ even as one dimensional as it is.

PhilBowles said:

No, I mean establish trade routes - you know, the game's major source of foreign income? If I can get 20 gpt from a cargo ship with someone who hates me, why do I care if he might offer 4 gpt less for a lux trade than he would if he liked me?

This is the fundamental issue: As with any Civ game, Civ V lacks meaningful sanctions other than warfare - the worst that will happen as a result of diplomatic penalties is war. If someone can't or won't go to war because they need trade income, or aren't strong enough to beat you (which is quite likely if you've conquered enough cities to cause them to hate you in the first place), they can rant and rave all they like but they have no meaningful way of causing you problems, so just ignore them until they cool off.

Click to expand...

Um... That's completely false. They do in fact have many ways of causing you meaningful problems.

Maybe you don't warmonger as hard as I do, but if I don't game the system I quickly end up with the entire map refusing to trade with me, and on Deity early city capture results in Chain DoW's if you don't have the #1 military. (Which takes a very long time to achieve...)

I mean, half of any domination guide is BS diplomacy tricks these days, like paying your victim to attack multiple civs then immediately dowing them to break the deal and get your happiness and gold back. That's so stupid and artificial.

Back on subject: Even if they don't chain-DoW, there is a palpable effect on happiness and gold when you can't trade. Trade routes are only part of the total effect. And the AI will start voting in the WC to screw you over even if they don't all chain DoW you. You can work *around* the warmonger penalties, but it really feels like gaming the system and doesn't feel like how diplomacy *should* work. It clearly affects some civs more than others, and Assyria is one of the most dramatic examples. Their UU is only effective early, and only good at city capture, and you're punished for using it on high difficulty levels, whereas, Mongolia's UU, for example, comes late enough that you can game the system, IE wait until t90+ to start taking cities, so that you can play AI off each other by buying DoWs, and the cities you take are better, have happiness buildings or wonders, etc... It just further widens the gap. Camel Archers and Keshiks were already the best UUs, they were already more flexible (don't have to be used against cities) and now, by punishing pre-Medieval city capture, they're even better. It's horrible game balance.

Not to go on a rant but (lol) .... this is the first version of civ that I can remember playing where capturing a city is only beneficial when it's a giant wonder pinata. In all other expansions and versions that I've played, if you start taking over the world, you get stronger, not weaker. So that's one thing that I take issue with. It just feels wrong. Wrong that conquest is only profitable in very specific, game-y circumstances. Wrong that ALL the AI then hold a grudge for thousands of years if you don't do stupid diplomacy tricks first. Wrong that using early UUs designed for city capture is inadvisable. It's wrong, wrong, wrong. It's not civ, it's not fun, and it's not good game balance, because you can still get long-term benefits from aggression... and not have your tech and growth suffer... and have the AI not hate you... as long as you only *raze or sell their cities in a peace deal*... Sigh. Sorry, /rant off

Admittedly, a lot of this is only an issue on Deity, but well, the other difficulty levels are a cakewalk so it matters a lot to me.

At least Assyria can still be fun on Continents or on lower difficulty levels where you don't care if the AI hates you.