Assyria and Bulgaria feel overpowered. The rest of the Civs should too.

[NoCure]

Lately I've found it hard to play anything other than Assyria in the Antiquity Age and Bulgaria in Exploration. I think Assyria is decently overpowered and Bulgaria is clearly overpowered (and in need of a rebalance), so there's that, but they are also just more FUN to play. This got me thinking about ways to improve the other Civs, and make ALL Civs feel exciting to play. As I thought more about it, I came up with the following guidelines for Civ creation, and I've though about some possible Civ tweaks. I'm interested in how the community feels about these.
Guidelines: Civ powers (their basic features plus unlocks plus traditions) should...
1) Break a rule. I'm unexcited by a "bonus to land trade routes" or "+1 gold on all resources." Here's a rule: in prior instances of Civilization, you don't get tech from conquering settlements. Assyria BREAKS that rule, now you can get techs from conquering.
2) Open up a new play pattern or create choices. Again, "+1 gold on all resources" is a nice, strong bonus. But it doesn't create new play patterns, it just gives you extra money for doing what you would do anyway. Again, Assyria answers this nicely - instead of investing in Science, you can dump Science and get all your techs from conquering.
3) Be thematic. Assyria is a scientific and militaristic civilization. They conquer their neighbors and take their knowledge back to their Royal Libraries, where scientific advances are turned into military advantages. I think a unique siege unit would have really completed this well for Assyria, but the unique cavalry is fine.
4) Come into play early. Assyria falls a little on this - none of its bonuses appear on turn one, and neither the unique commander nor the unique unit show up by turn 10. By contrast, Bulgaria's plundering can net you benefits on turn 1 of exploration, if you declare war and charge right into your neighbors.

So, here are some thoughts on Antiquity Civ changes. I think a LOT of the Antiquity Civs could use reworking, as they often feel very similar, and don't open up new play patterns. LMK your thoughts!

Aksum: Replace +1 gold on resources with the ability to get 2 copies of a resource you claim (but not import). Later in the tree, unlock a +4/gold +4 happiness for unused resources instead of +2/+2. The theme: Aksum is an economic powerhouse that uses resources better than other civilizations. You can choose to slot these in or profit off of the internal demand for them, if left unassigned.

Carthage: Give Carthage the 4th ring and 4+ settlement limit unlocks in the tree. Gaulos gives you +50% purchasing in towns, Sicilian Wars gives you +50% purchasing in TRADE outposts. Change to unique boats.

Greece: +5 influence per turn innate. They have a unique endeavor "Help the League" which they can use influence to tell City States to provide assistance. This takes the form of making that City State count as another type for bonuses that key off of multiple states (ie. they can make an economic city state act as an economic city state AND a militaristic city state). Hoplites at tier 2 take 1/2 range damage.

Maurya: In addition to 2 founding beliefs from their Pantheon, Maurya get ALL Pantheon beliefs from any settlements they conquer with an Altar OR civs that are allies. Settlements not founded by you get a flat +20% to all yields.

Maya: Restore their unique quarter to 15% production for science breakthroughs. All settlements they found in vegetated terrain are invisible to units except for units directly next to them. All settlements settled on vegetation get a +2 bonus to culture until another civilization finds them. Theme: the Maya understand the jungle and make use of their science to advance their building projects.

Persia: Their unique commanders gain a level and collect 200 gold if they are the ones to take a city (not settlement). Immortals survive with 1 hp if they would otherwise be killed by a conflict. Immortals with 1 hp die regularly in conflict. Kara gives you two infantry if you purchase 1.

Roman: Legatus get 1x found charge from the beginning but do not get any more from levelling up. All towns you found are automatically connected to Rome by road (if possible, regardless of the distance. Water/mountains can interfere). If you put a Legatus in a town, you double the gold output. If the Legatus has a commendation, you quadruple the gold output. If the Legatus has two commendations, you octuple the gold output. And so on. Theme: All roads lead to Rome, where the Senate sends out it's members to lead troops and govern provinces.

Khmer: -1 settlement limit (this is a MALUS, clearly, I think there should be more of these generally in the game, make choices more interesting). River tiles no longer provide their benefit regardless of being having urban buildings. Instead, the base production from a rural or urban building is DOUBLED for river tiles. Example: A farm on a river tile would give 2 food, 1 production, 1 gold. This changes to 4 food, 2 production, 2 gold. Warehouse bonuses are not added, but disasters are. Urban buildings work the same: if you put a Barracks in that spot, that gets 5 production due to adjacencies, you get 10 production instead. Does not stack with specialists. Varna gives +3 gold/specialist but -1 settlement limit per age. Their unique merchant is more expensive initially but cost does not scale with number produced.

Han: Every Great Wall gets a +10% production per segment of Great Wall that it would connect to. Great Walls give +3 culture and +1 gold. Cho-no-ku do not get more strength at the second tier, but get a second shot (if movement allows). They do not get increased base strength or zone of control any more. ALL great people create a codex and provide some other benefit. When you build a great person, you get to pick one from a list of three.

Egypt: Major rivers yield 8 food, 2 production to CITIES. Every Medjay inside a city's boundaries boosts building/wonder production by 10%. When you build a great person, you get to pick one from a list of three. Theme: Egyptians are masters of the Nile, and use Major rivers to feed and build, while their troops push the populace to work harder.

Mississippian: Potkops improve RESOURCES and give 5 food. Watonathi give 50 gold/resource/trade route. Atassa gives +1 movement for ranged troops.

Thoughts? Ideas? I think there would be some big balance issues with these changes but hope that the AI would make good use of their bonuses as well.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Assyria and Bulgaria are only powerful for specific playstyle. And that's the problem with such civs - they require specific playstyle to be effective.

I think the game should have a mix of more generic civs and those powerful one-trick-ponies.

BTW, I can't say other civilization bonuses are bland. Greece tradition to decrease befriend cost is massive and spans throughout all ages, Maya buildings give huge bonuses and again, keep their effect in later ages. They just don't force you to play in a single way.

 

[UWHabs]

Yeah, I think having a couple civs being "normal" is not a bad thing. You need some generalists for people who don't want to go wild. But I do agree that having more than a few civs like Carthage (1 city + UB in towns) and others is fun too.

 

[disjointaccount]

Assyria and Bulgaria are extremely strong... for conquest. And sure conquest begets a lot of other relevant yields, but that's true of most ways you strengthen your empire.

Look at someone like Abbasid. Atrocious for aggressive war but an absolutely busted sim-city/turtle build civs (honestly, I'd argue they're better at that than Assyria or Bulgaria are at war). And like others have already mentioned, there are also very solid non-specialist picks who are just consistent across the board. There are honestly very few civs in the game where I can't at least see one allocation of their power budget (ie. a particularly solid UI, UU, tradition, etc.) that doesn't feel roughly on par in some way with everyone else.

I'm not saying all the civs in the game are perfectly equal and balanced, but the conclusion that Assyria and Bulgaria are way too overtuned and everyone else needs buffed can only come from ignoring 90% of the playstyles you can approach the game with. If you're specifically trying to drive in a nail, a hammer is an overpowered tool. But sometimes you'll need to cut a plank of wood in half.

 

[Krikkit1]

Assyria and Bulgaria are extremely strong... for conquest. And sure conquest begets a lot of other relevant yields, but that's true of most ways you strengthen your empire.

Look at someone like Abbasid. Atrocious for aggressive war but an absolutely busted sim-city/turtle build civs (honestly, I'd argue they're better at that than Assyria or Bulgaria are at war). And like others have already mentioned, there are also very solid non-specialist picks who are just consistent across the board. There are honestly very few civs in the game where I can't at least see one allocation of their power budget (ie. a particularly solid UI, UU, tradition, etc.) that doesn't feel roughly on par in some way with everyone else.

I'm not saying all the civs in the game are perfectly equal and balanced, but the conclusion that Assyria and Bulgaria are way too overtuned and everyone else needs buffed can only come from ignoring 90% of the playstyles you can approach the game with. If you're specifically trying to drive in a nail, a hammer is an overpowered tool. But sometimes you'll need to cut a plank of wood in half.

And that's when you realize buffing the saw to a chainsaw was a bit much

 

[NoCure]

Assyria and Bulgaria are only powerful for specific playstyle. And that's the problem with such civs - they require specific playstyle to be effective.

I think the game should have a mix of more generic civs and those powerful one-trick-ponies.

BTW, I can't say other civilization bonuses are bland. Greece tradition to decrease befriend cost is massive and spans throughout all ages, Maya buildings give huge bonuses and again, keep their effect in later ages. They just don't force you to play in a single way.

Thanks for your response!
I agree, that for Bulgaria, you NEED an aggressive playstyle with war and pillage to take advantage of their bonuses. Turtling with them is pointless.
Assyria's unique quarter is strong enough that you can be fairly peaceful, but if you really want to make the most of Assyria, you should be in near constant war.

Greece is tough for me - definitely one of my favorite Civs pre-patch. I haven't played them since, but tend to suzerain a lot of city-states anyway, and have found the new city-state setup to be very underwhelming. I'd like to give them a unique option to have the city states help more. Right now, the main benefit to most city states (for my playstyle) is the unique improvements. I don't play huge maps so I rarely have 3+ city states in a given category that survive the AIs and so would allow bonuses to stack in a fun way.

Maya is indeed fun, I'd just like a little more flavor and emphasis on the vegetated/jungle theme.

For me, generic Civs include Rome, Aksum, Han, Khmer and Egypt. When I think of playing them currently, I think "it would be really nice if the map features allowed these generic Civs to create some new playstyles, because they are flexible." That's why I would want to boost resources for Aksum, rivers for Khmer and Egypt, and wide empires for Han and Rome.

 

[UWHabs]

Well, Aksum and Egypt are getting changes in the patch tomorrow, Egypt river tiles are like 5 food/4 production now it seems on the screenshot they were scrolling through.

Bulgaria is strong because they can get big gains from war but don't actually have to worry about the settlement limits, you can just go in and pillage a ton of districts and never struggle for production.

Assyria is very strong, but they are also locked out of one of the legacy paths if you don't conquer. Although they do get a bunch of other bonuses, they only really need to conquer 4-5 settlements to actually max out the legacy path (and obviously it's not like you have to max out the path, the fact that they get a strong science building carrying to the next era helps a lot for science if they can't get those legacy points).

 

[Leucarum]

Well, Aksum and Egypt are getting changes in the patch tomorrow, Egypt river tiles are like 5 food/4 production now it seems on the screenshot they were scrolling through.

Aksum already had me raising my eyebrow slightly... Since the last patch I've found their UI one of the best ways to generate ageless culture as it's eminently spammable in towns. I certainly wouldn't call them weak by a long shot... They are my favourite Civ, though, so I do play them a lot... They do require more finesse than most civs I think.

 

[ValleTomate]

Assyria and Bulgaria are extremely strong... for conquest. And sure conquest begets a lot of other relevant yields, but that's true of most ways you strengthen your empire.

Look at someone like Abbasid. Atrocious for aggressive war but an absolutely busted sim-city/turtle build civs (honestly, I'd argue they're better at that than Assyria or Bulgaria are at war). And like others have already mentioned, there are also very solid non-specialist picks who are just consistent across the board. There are honestly very few civs in the game where I can't at least see one allocation of their power budget (ie. a particularly solid UI, UU, tradition, etc.) that doesn't feel roughly on par in some way with everyone else.

I'm not saying all the civs in the game are perfectly equal and balanced, but the conclusion that Assyria and Bulgaria are way too overtuned and everyone else needs buffed can only come from ignoring 90% of the playstyles you can approach the game with. If you're specifically trying to drive in a nail, a hammer is an overpowered tool. But sometimes you'll need to cut a plank of wood in half.

While I don't agree with Op's point that every civ would need to break a rule, Bulgaria is just disgustingly broken, even Abbasid doesn't compare if you actually play towards Bulgarias strengths. I guess maybe in Multiplayer it's not as trivial to go crazy (but a strong cav unit and a super easy to activate +5 on all units certainly helps) but in Singleplayer I'd say the are close to Civ6 Babylon level broken.

 

[NoCure]

Assyria and Bulgaria are extremely strong... for conquest. And sure conquest begets a lot of other relevant yields, but that's true of most ways you strengthen your empire.

Look at someone like Abbasid. Atrocious for aggressive war but an absolutely busted sim-city/turtle build civs (honestly, I'd argue they're better at that than Assyria or Bulgaria are at war). And like others have already mentioned, there are also very solid non-specialist picks who are just consistent across the board. There are honestly very few civs in the game where I can't at least see one allocation of their power budget (ie. a particularly solid UI, UU, tradition, etc.) that doesn't feel roughly on par in some way with everyone else.

I'm not saying all the civs in the game are perfectly equal and balanced, but the conclusion that Assyria and Bulgaria are way too overtuned and everyone else needs buffed can only come from ignoring 90% of the playstyles you can approach the game with. If you're specifically trying to drive in a nail, a hammer is an overpowered tool. But sometimes you'll need to cut a plank of wood in half.

Thanks for the reply! I absolutely loved the Abbasids when I started playing; they have since been decently nerfed but still very good at what they do. Here's my argument, just to put it out there more cleanly and give you a change to refute/poke some holes in it.
If you want to turtle, Abbasids beat Bulgaria
If you want to go to war, Bulgaria beats Abbasids
If you want to get through the legacy paths, and build a big, productive empire (or a small, hyperfocused empire), with excellent science, culture, gold etc., Bulgaria stomps everyone else. Just have a few cities, you don't even need that many, a few troops, and start pillaging. Power your science and culture through projects. If you didn't bring a decent army into Exploration, you can insta-build one with pillaging. Same with wonders. Once your commanders pick up the pillaging bonuses, you complete the Abbasid culture tree, and you conquer the city with the Mausoleum of Theodoric, you get ridiculous, empire-wide food and production boluses with pillaging. And this happens very, very early. Like, complete the tech and culture tree before the AI has got Shipbuilding early. This is why they are overpowered. I agree that this dictates a very specific strategy, but it is such a dominant one that playing the other Exploration Age Civs feels like it is taking a deliberate handicap.

I didn't talk much about the Exploration Age Civs in my initial post, since I have less experience with them, but I do note that Firaxis is taking the "break a rule" idea well with several of them. The Incans and Hawaii get to use new tiles, and Mongolia, Inca and Songhai get new Legacy paths. However, I think that mountains and sea tiles aren't that useful to work, and while Mongolia, Inca and Songhai all get nice ways to get to a single Legacy Path, that these are countersynergistic with the other Legacy Paths.

 

[NoCure]

While I don't agree with Op's point that every civ would need to break a rule, Bulgaria is just disgustingly broken, even Abbasid doesn't compare if you actually play towards Bulgarias strengths. I guess maybe in Multiplayer it's not as trivial to go crazy (but a strong cav unit and a super easy to activate +5 on all units certainly helps) but in Singleplayer I'd say the are close to Civ6 Babylon level broken.

Thanks for the reply! I only play single player, FWIW, where I do indeed think Bulgaria is disgustingly broken. I think it would be relatively easy to keep their "break a rule" (pillaging gives bonus production and food) feature, but cap the amount of production and food you get. I think if you made it a set TOTAL instead of per city/town, that would be really interesting, as it would encourage players to think about whether they would want a small empire where each settlement got massive pillaging bonuses, or a large empire where these bonuses were more spread out.

 

[NoCure]

Aksum already had me raising my eyebrow slightly... Since the last patch I've found their UI one of the best ways to generate ageless culture as it's eminently spammable in towns. I certainly wouldn't call them weak by a long shot... They are my favourite Civ, though, so I do play them a lot... They do require more finesse than most civs I think.

Oh! Thank you, I'll have to check out the changes. I'd still prefer some choice, even if their absolute strength goes up. You could make them amazingly overpowered by giving them +10 gold to all worked resources, but that wouldn't give you new choices. That's why I suggest giving an extra copy of each resource which you then can convert into gold/happiness by leaving it unassigned - makes for more interesting gameplay in some instances. Would obviously help if the resources became more balanced too - why would you ever assign Jade (which I rarely assign now)?

 

[NoCure]

Yeah, I think having a couple civs being "normal" is not a bad thing. You need some generalists for people who don't want to go wild. But I do agree that having more than a few civs like Carthage (1 city + UB in towns) and others is fun too.

I do like the idea of some generalist civilizations. But I think that, with the map being pretty homogenous when it comes to yields, the generalist civilizations tend to struggle a bit. It's also tough because of the legacy paths - you almost are required to take a specific focus or several foci to complete them, especially Culture in Antiquity. I think it might be neat if there was a "generalist" civilization that could hyperfocus in individual things at a given time. Like a civ that could run projects that would convert not only production but ALL other yields to a single yield type.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I do like the idea of some generalist civilizations. But I think that, with the map being pretty homogenous when it comes to yields, the generalist civilizations tend to struggle a bit. It's also tough because of the legacy paths - you almost are required to take a specific focus or several foci to complete them, especially Culture in Antiquity. I think it might be neat if there was a "generalist" civilization that could hyperfocus in individual things at a given time. Like a civ that could run projects that would convert not only production but ALL other yields to a single yield type.

I see generalist civs as those who aren't tied to particular playstyle and let you adjust on the fly. For example, Maya buildings are useful for almost any later civ.

 

[disjointaccount]

If you want to get through the legacy paths, and build a big, productive empire (or a small, hyperfocused empire), with excellent science, culture, gold etc., Bulgaria stomps everyone else.

To an extent, but:
A) Bulgaria still can't match the science output of the Abbasids (at least with anywhere close to the ease Abbasids can put up those kinds of numbers)
B) The fact conquest translates into generalist strength so easily relative to other yields isn't an issue with civ balancing; it's more just about the wider game (and to an extent, is just an inherent part of the 4X genre, given what the last X stands for). Conquest-focused civs are naturally going to be strong when played effectively in a conquest game. I don't think that means they're objectively leagues ahead of everyone else, nor that everyone else should be buffed to the moon to try and counter them in some way.

 

[NoCure]

To an extent, but:
A) Bulgaria still can't match the science output of the Abbasids (at least with anywhere close to the ease Abbasids can put up those kinds of numbers)
B) The fact conquest translates into generalist strength so easily relative to other yields isn't an issue with civ balancing; it's more just about the wider game (and to an extent, is just an inherent part of the 4X genre, given what the last X stands for). Conquest-focused civs are naturally going to be strong when played effectively in a conquest game. I don't think that means they're objectively leagues ahead of everyone else, nor that everyone else should be buffed to the moon to try and counter them in some way.

Hmmm...
A) I'll agree that Abbasids generate a ton of science very easily. However, with a few armies out pillaging, the bonuses stacking, and a core of 5-10 cities producing science projects, you can out-tech everyone as Bulgaria, even the Abbasids. It's a lot of micromanagement, but the ceiling on the Bulgaria is really, really high.
B) I actually liked that, in the first few months of play, Civ 7 seemed to punish you quite heavily for going to war. There weren't a lot of rewards apart from settlements, which would then suffer unrest. Assyria and Bulgaria flip this narrative - it now becomes beneficial to your empire and a simcity-style growth playstyle to be at war all the time. I link in the Sword of Brunnus for extra war gains, and, of course, Xerxes can add to this as well.

I'd really like to see a civ that can turtle or trade so hard that Assyria and Bulgaria can't keep up, but I don't think there is one in the current game, at least on single player. I also think that, with the benefits of war and conquest buffed like this, there needs to be a counterbalance increase to trade and alliances. But, if anything, with the new patches, alliances have been profoundly weakened, as the repeating bonus percentages from alliances gave way to flat yields.

To me, it really seems like when I look at Assyria and, moreso Bulgaria, I'm blown away at what conquest can do for you. I'd like to see a civ released or old civ buffed where I felt the same way about, say, trade, or diplomacy.

 

[UWHabs]

To an extent, but:
A) Bulgaria still can't match the science output of the Abbasids (at least with anywhere close to the ease Abbasids can put up those kinds of numbers)
B) The fact conquest translates into generalist strength so easily relative to other yields isn't an issue with civ balancing; it's more just about the wider game (and to an extent, is just an inherent part of the 4X genre, given what the last X stands for). Conquest-focused civs are naturally going to be strong when played effectively in a conquest game. I don't think that means they're objectively leagues ahead of everyone else, nor that everyone else should be buffed to the moon to try and counter them in some way.

I think the influence penalty doesn't go far enough to deterring conquests. I've always felt, in every civ game, that conquered settlements just assimilate way too easily. I mean, sure, you have the like 10 turn cooldown on capture, but that's such a minor penalty. I think you need to bring back some proper penalties during wartime, like:
-conquered settlements count for 2 towards your settlement limit while you're at war with their original owner
-The 10 turn penalty on starts after peace has been signed
-Until then, you get 0 from all yields in the settlement
-You do not gain any benefit from wonders in occupied settlements until after that period as well
-None of this magically wipes away when you finish off a civ.

If you do all that, then conquering to go over the settlement limit will really restrict you with basically a level of war weariness that would probably be a real challenge to overcome, and whatever you conquer takes even longer to be productive for you. I think even with all of that, it'd still easily be worth it, since even if it's worth 0 to me, at least you can't make use of it if I control it.

But also, while Bulgaria is strong, there's some caveats to them still.
-Since cities are less common now, the production bonus is less valuable
-The production bonus doesn't work with the research/culture projects
-the food bonus doesn't transfer through towns to cities. In fact, it only applies to growing towns (so if you want to maximize, you have to literally swap all your towns to growing, do all your pillaging, and then swap them all back at the end of your turn).
The Exploration era also has a lot of great civs. The Chola are absolute murder on the water with the Ottru/Kalam combo. Abbasid's as mentioned get insane science. Majapahit can get absolutely bonkers culture going. Songhai in the right spot can be pulling in thousands of gpt. Bulgaria is great, don't get me wrong, and the fact that their unlock is by far the easiest of any civ means that if you want them, they're available all the time. If they changed the unlock to maybe like "3 settlements with 5+ Rough tiles in their radius", it might still be easy, but it's not necessarily a guarantee that they're available. That would also probably balance a little more since they wouldn't be a guarantee. Other than maybe Ming as well, they're the only exploration civ where I'd really have to make an effort to not accidentally unlock them.

 

[bengalryan9]

Aksum already had me raising my eyebrow slightly... Since the last patch I've found their UI one of the best ways to generate ageless culture as it's eminently spammable in towns. I certainly wouldn't call them weak by a long shot... They are my favourite Civ, though, so I do play them a lot... They do require more finesse than most civs I think.

Yeah, I just finished another game with them and they're one of my favorites too. They seem quite strong to me if you do even just a minimum amount of city planning around their UI (and if I can do it on Deity, anybody can). I'm kind of shocked people are talking about them getting buffed TBH.

 

[Krikkit1]

What I could see.

Conquered settlements taken while you are at war with the original owner, remain in unrest until 10 turns after you were last at war with their original Owner

Conquered Settlements that are not originally yours on capture experience 10 turns of Revolt... (where buildings/improvements are randomly razed and there is 0 output)..settlements in Revolt also count as Enemy Territory

If the Settlement is Happy at the end of those 10 turns you just have the regular Unrest for the remainder of the period
If the Settlement is not Happy at the end of those 10 turns and you have Military units stationed there, the units take damage and the settlement gets another 10 turns of Revolt.
If the Settlement is not Happy at the end of those 10 turns and you do not have military units stationed there.. it goes back to the previous owners

I do like the idea that this remains after the civ is eliminated (but otherwise you keep units in the city until the end of the age or until you get it happy)

 

[NoCure]

I think the influence penalty doesn't go far enough to deterring conquests. I've always felt, in every civ game, that conquered settlements just assimilate way too easily. I mean, sure, you have the like 10 turn cooldown on capture, but that's such a minor penalty. I think you need to bring back some proper penalties during wartime, like:
-conquered settlements count for 2 towards your settlement limit while you're at war with their original owner
-The 10 turn penalty on starts after peace has been signed
-Until then, you get 0 from all yields in the settlement
-You do not gain any benefit from wonders in occupied settlements until after that period as well
-None of this magically wipes away when you finish off a civ.

If you do all that, then conquering to go over the settlement limit will really restrict you with basically a level of war weariness that would probably be a real challenge to overcome, and whatever you conquer takes even longer to be productive for you. I think even with all of that, it'd still easily be worth it, since even if it's worth 0 to me, at least you can't make use of it if I control it.

But also, while Bulgaria is strong, there's some caveats to them still.
-Since cities are less common now, the production bonus is less valuable
-The production bonus doesn't work with the research/culture projects
-the food bonus doesn't transfer through towns to cities. In fact, it only applies to growing towns (so if you want to maximize, you have to literally swap all your towns to growing, do all your pillaging, and then swap them all back at the end of your turn).
The Exploration era also has a lot of great civs. The Chola are absolute murder on the water with the Ottru/Kalam combo. Abbasid's as mentioned get insane science. Majapahit can get absolutely bonkers culture going. Songhai in the right spot can be pulling in thousands of gpt. Bulgaria is great, don't get me wrong, and the fact that their unlock is by far the easiest of any civ means that if you want them, they're available all the time. If they changed the unlock to maybe like "3 settlements with 5+ Rough tiles in their radius", it might still be easy, but it's not necessarily a guarantee that they're available. That would also probably balance a little more since they wouldn't be a guarantee. Other than maybe Ming as well, they're the only exploration civ where I'd really have to make an effort to not accidentally unlock them.

I like the idea that settlements don't begin the 10 turn cooldown until peace is declared. It makes sense thematically as well - they are still fighting/resisting.
I didn't realize that you can wipe away influence penalties when you finish off a civ! I would think it would do the opposite!
If anything needs to be fixed regarding takeover of foreign settlements by Assyria, its the fact that ceded settlements count as conquered, and have no cooldown.

You're absolutely right that, in order to maximize, you'd have to swap each town's focus each turn. WAY too painful for me. I leave them all on growing towns. But, there are still so many exploits that you can make. If you have a town that you've used the Bulgarian pillage ability to fill all their hexes (often this is captured enemy settlement with 14+ hexes in ruins, in addition to the new hexes you've built), it will start spitting out migrants, which can then go to your cities. You can give towns full of unpillaged tiles to the AIs, pillage them, and take them back, so that the loss of a single town's output for a few turns gives massive boosts across your empire. You can give away fully developed cities, pillage them for large gold, science and culture yields (and MASSIVE food/production yields), convert them back to cities, and use the pillaging of other urban districts to repair them to functional. When I've really exploited this, I've gone way over the settlement cap and seen 30+ towns grow every turn. It's wild.