Assyria Civ Tour - First Reaction

[Skojardu]

I saw that Firaxis was adding Assyria in its upcoming expansion and watched their YouTube video with excitement. First Genghis, now Assyria! I then wondered which leader would lead them, and then crashed back down to earth.

 

[CivKirk64]

Don't hold us in suspense, what happened next?
You know leaders and civs are independent now and don't all have an associated leader...

 

[Siptah]

It's not really upcoming though, it's already been released. I had quite some fun with Assyria. I like that their in-game challenge is exactly what's special about them: getting codices without getting them from masteries. On the other hand, I was surprised that some masteries were still in their tech tree, despite not giving *anything*.

 

[Skojardu]

It's not really upcoming though, it's already been released. I had quite some fun with Assyria. I like that their in-game challenge is exactly what's special about them: getting codices without getting them from masteries. On the other hand, I was surprised that some masteries were still in their tech tree, despite not giving *anything*.

That's strange. They should be omitted

 

[Krikkit1]

That's strange. They should be omitted

Well not if you had a Memento/Leader ability that game benefits to Masteries.

 

[disjointaccount]

Well not if you had a Memento/Leader ability that game benefits to Masteries.

I think there's something in their civics tree that makes it so that science masteries grant culture, like Maya's Calendar Round. So I guess Mathematics II is good for that, if nothing else.

 

[Siptah]

I think there's something in their civics tree that makes it so that science masteries grant culture, like Maya's Calendar Round. So I guess Mathematics II is good for that, if nothing else.

Yes, this is true. And as mentioned, there are momentos/attributes that are based on masteries. Yet, it's so funny to see empty techs in the tree. (and it's obviously not worth it to do Mathematics II just because of momentos, civics, or attributes)

 

[Brutus2]

I then wondered which leader would lead them, and then crashed back down to earth.

You have lots of options! That's the great part!

 

[Skojardu]

You have lots of options! That's the great part!

My poop-post / joke backfired. You got me. I haven't gotten 7 and am on here half to see when I should jump in and half to commiserate with people who like the old ways. I will refrain from creating new threads until I buy a copy and retreat to the complaint threads from now on.

 

[CivKirk64]

Really couldn't tell this was a joke, just felt like complaining, without adding anything constructive.

 

[Brutus2]

My poop-post / joke backfired. You got me. I haven't gotten 7 and am on here half to see when I should jump in and half to commiserate with people who like the old ways. I will refrain from creating new threads until I buy a copy and retreat to the complaint threads from now on.

Well, if you are open to recommendations from long time civ players who have also actually played a good bit of Civ7 at this point, I can tell you I had many reservations when the game was first announced and from just watching you tube / reading hater posts on reddit. Civ switching, mixing leaders, age transitions all made me reluctant too. However, after playing it (for enough hours to really understand it), I have to say it all works much better than you might expect. You can see when I joined these forums. I have been playing Civ for decades and I really like Civ7. Nothing wrong with liking the "old ways." If that's the case, keep playing Civ6. It hasn't gone away. But if you are open to a new experience, give Civ7 a shot with an open mind. Best of luck!

 

[CivKirk64]

Well, if you are open to recommendations from long time civ players who have also actually played a good bit of Civ7 at this point, I can tell you I had many reservations when the game was first announced and from just watching you tube / reading hater posts on reddit. Civ switching, mixing leaders, age transitions all made me reluctant too. However, after playing it (for enough hours to really understand it), I have to say it all works much better than you might expect. You can see when I joined these forums. I have been playing Civ for decades and I really like Civ7. Nothing wrong with liking the "old ways." If that's the case, keep playing Civ6. It hasn't gone away. But if you are open to a new experience, give Civ7 a shot with an open mind. Best of luck!

Seconded, I've been playing since II Gold.
Firaxis always proves themselves, they adjust their changes until they work.
I remember when Civs didn't have any uniques, I'm just playing as whoever and the cities are Blue instead of Red now.
There is fun to be had here if you give it a shot.

 

[Menocchio]

J'adore Assyria. I sense in it (and Carthage) the same kind of experimental design spirit that was in a lot of the New Frontiers civs for Civ VI.I also really like how its design calls back to how they worked in V; I'm hoping once the developers are done ironing out issues with the overall mechanics that more civs get a kind of asymmetrical approach in a balance pass.

 

[Leucarum]

Agreed. The novelty of how they approach science is really refreshing in a game that was getting stale. I think we do need more civs like Assyria (and Carthage) for sure!

But at the same time, the era transition away from Assyria felt the worst it ever has for me in Civ7. I had a shiny new toy that I was just starting to enjoy and... Nope. Guess I start again? I tried a little bit of exploration after them and was just constantly thinking "Yes! I can just take this city and... Oh wait... Nope... I had to leave that behind."

I don't have much interest in Dai Viet and close to 0 interest in Genghis so... Assyria is carrying this DLC for me!

 

[Nic@Melbourne]

Double the fun with Fredrick Baroque

 

[disjointaccount]

Agreed. The novelty of how they approach science is really refreshing in a game that was getting stale. I think we do need more civs like Assyria (and Carthage) for sure!

But at the same time, the era transition away from Assyria felt the worst it ever has for me in Civ7. I had a shiny new toy that I was just starting to enjoy and... Nope. Guess I start again? I tried a little bit of exploration after them and was just constantly thinking "Yes! I can just take this city and... Oh wait... Nope... I had to leave that behind."

I don't have much interest in Dai Viet and close to 0 interest in Genghis so... Assyria is carrying this DLC for me!

I think something that could help with this would be civs whose uniqueness flows into each other. Like, if there were an explo civ that had you achieve the culture path through conquest or something, so it felt like a natural next step from Assyria. Or maybe a military civ who had a special unique tech tree to unlock strong units for high science costs so you could take all of Assyria's science and production and channel it for further conquest.

It actually seems like Khmer and Dai Viet have a little bit of a synergy going on in this regard, which I'm excited to try out, but the more unique civs and synergies (and the more unique the civs are) the better.

 

[Leucarum]

I think something that could help with this would be civs whose uniqueness flows into each other. Like, if there were an explo civ that had you achieve the culture path through conquest or something, so it felt like a natural next step from Assyria. Or maybe a military civ who had a special unique tech tree to unlock strong units for high science costs so you could take all of Assyria's science and production and channel it for further conquest.

Being slightly facetious but... How about if Assyria could follow on from Assyria. Wild thought but maybe let players carry on using the abilities they're enjoying?

 

[disjointaccount]

Being slightly facetious but... How about if Assyria could follow on from Assyria. Wild thought but maybe let players carry on using the abilities they're enjoying?

I mean, sure. I was more just thinking along the lines of like, realistically I think switching is here to stay so within that context how could the issue of jarring transitions be mitigated in this regard?
(Fwiw I'm generally pro switching but I do think the perfect solution would just be a setting to toggle it on or off since that's the only way they'd ever please everyone (and even then I'm sure people would still find reasons to complain about how the toggle shows they haven't committed to a vision), I'm just not sure that'd be realistic to expect, at least anytime soon. But we have like 4 civ switching threads already so I'll leave this here.)

 

[Siptah]

Being slightly facetious but... How about if Assyria could follow on from Assyria. Wild thought but maybe let players carry on using the abilities they're enjoying?

But how that work in Exploration? It does't make sense to just transfer the ability to the age-appropriate great works.

I generally like to combine civs that make use of similar features, even if they don't match geographically/historically. Egypt -> Songhai based on having multiple cities on navigable rivers is fun, and so is Inka -> Nepal if you have a lot of mountains. Therefore, what could be interesting is to include a civ that doesn't integrate settlements conquered in the previous age as normal settlements, but keeps them special in a way with bonus/malus. That would be a good follow up for any civs that end the Ancient era with many conquered cities. Thematically, the Ottomans come to mind for that (but I hope they end up in modern), e.g., Janissaries require to be built in conquered cities, and conquered cities give more gold, but less culture and science, and can't be converted.

 

[Leucarum]

But how that work in Exploration? It does't make sense to just transfer the ability to the age-appropriate great works.

It works for Freidrich, no? You could also tack on no relics from religion/archaeology, but get relics from conquest/overbuilding/civics. I don't think it's a dramatically tough ask to set up?

I generally like to combine civs that make use of similar features, even if they don't match geographically/historically. Egypt -> Songhai based on having multiple cities on navigable rivers is fun, and so is Inka -> Nepal if you have a lot of mountains. Therefore, what could be interesting is to include a civ that doesn't integrate settlements conquered in the previous age as normal settlements, but keeps them special in a way with bonus/malus. That would be a good follow up for any civs that end the Ancient era with many conquered cities. Thematically, the Ottomans come to mind for that (but I hope they end up in modern), e.g., Janissaries require to be built in conquered cities, and conquered cities give more gold, but less culture and science, and can't be converted.

I get that. I think I always feel like I am picking a theme whrn I pick my civ. I like to carry that over. There are themed civs I could pick, but not many exploration or modern civs spark joy for me. I gave civ switching a shot at first, and tried to be balanced even though my first impressions were negative, but my feelings have only soured over time.