Assyria discussion

[codepoet]

Question: Is Assur the same as Ashur, the city from the Babylonian list?

Yes.
It's the name of the pantheon god for which the Assyrians named themselves.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Question: Is Assur the same as Ashur, the city from the Babylonian list?

Yes. It'll ideally be removed. I've managed to make an Assyrian, Babylonian, and Sumerian city lists that didn't have overlap, so it is indeed possible.

 

[ShahJahanII]

Yes. It'll ideally be removed. I've managed to make an Assyrian, Babylonian, and Sumerian city lists that didn't have overlap, so it is indeed possible.

Have you started a thread about this list? I think it would be a fascinating topic of discussion (though maybe not in the BNW subforum).

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I hope that Ashurbanipal throws his tablet when you defeat him.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Have you started a thread about this list? I think it would be a fascinating topic of discussion (though maybe not in the BNW subforum).

I started a thread about seven years ago. I doubt it's still here

 

[AriochIV]

It's also realistic to be able to loot Great Works, though it's probably a hassle to balance gameplay wise, no? We'll see. I just ask whether we will be able to teleport the Great Works out of the city or if it takes time/open road to do that. Then again, you should never lose a city anyways if you want to win the game, especially one so developed that it has Great Works in it...

Balance-wise I don't think it's any different from losing a Wonder, just with the added fun of a) being able to move the captured booty to your own preferred cities and buildings, and b) being able to evacuate treasures from cities at risk from the enemy... provided you have appropriate open slots elsewhere.

Though I think you're probably right that if you're losing major cities in a single-player game, that game may be a lost cause anyway.

 

[bite]

Balance-wise I don't think it's any different from losing a Wonder, just with the added fun of a) being able to move the captured booty to your own preferred cities and buildings, and b) being able to evacuate treasures from cities at risk from the enemy... provided you have appropriate open slots elsewhere.

Though I think you're probably right that if you're losing major cities in a single-player game, that game may be a lost cause anyway.

That may be a natural barrier for the number of Great works you have, I have a Great Artist but the only place is right on the board of another civ, do you give your city a culture/tourism boast but then potentially put it in harms way if war breaks out.

 

[xcross211]

So is Assyria UA comfired?
I just want Firaxis think more about it.Giving a free tech from every captured cities is too overpowered,like a bug! In G&K the balance are very suitable,but now they want to break it?

 

[WChrisMullen]

I remember back in the days of Civ II when you could swipe all manner of techs from conquest. If I recall correctly, the crusades scenario from Conflicts in Civilization had a couple of "holy relics" which were techs that allowed for unique units but couldn't be researched, only plundered.

 

[Pouakai]

So is Assyria UA comfired?
I just want Firaxis think more about it.Giving a free tech from every captured cities is too overpowered,like a bug! In G&K the balance are very suitable,but now they want to break it?

I doubt it'll be any free tech - they wouldn't let you get Atomic Theory or something while you should be in the Renaissance after conquering a wide civ.

 

[AriochIV]

As with Espionage tech stealing, you can only get a tech if the conquered civilization had something you didn't have. In theory you can get 10 techs by conquering 10 cities... but if a civ 10 techs ahead of you can't prevent you from taking 10 of their cities... no sympathy there.

 

[Martinus]

So is Assyria UA comfired?
I just want Firaxis think more about it.Giving a free tech from every captured cities is too overpowered,like a bug! In G&K the balance are very suitable,but now they want to break it?

It's not a FREE tech, you STEAL a tech from the civilization you are conquering a city from.

As others have pointed out, it is very situational and requires a lot of planning - unless you are dealing with a very weak/beelining civ that just ignores military techs, it is not going to see much use.

 

[Arachnofiend]

As others have pointed out, it is very situational and requires a lot of planning - unless you are dealing with a very weak/beelining civ that just ignores military techs, it is not going to see much use.

That's hardly true. Think Austria but in reverse. Austria is considered a good culture civ because they can beeline hard for culture and basically ignore military techs because they can get current units from puppeting city-states. Assyria can beeline hard for military techs and basically ignore the other side of the tree because they'll be stealing those techs from civs that do have to research them.

 

[xcross211]

So stealing tech means getting techs only in Puppet-cities and needing turns and having possibilities to fail?If it is that,I recover my speech.Or the BNW will become Brave New Assyria

 

[The QC]

Assyria may become the new Austria, I guess. I don't know if that's a bad thing. I look forward to playing them more than I look forward to playing Brazil, to be honest.

 

[LastSword]

This is broken.
Replace it with Science boost dependent on conquered City's science output.

 

[Avatan]

This is broken.
Replace it with Science boost dependent on conquered City's science output.

This would actually be more OP than the tech stealing thing, because it can be used to widen a tech gap. If you are tech leader it shouldn't be to difficult to destroy all the civs around you, getting mad science bonuses and worsening the snowball effect.

This UA only help you if you are attacking civs that are technologically superior or at Lear on par with you. And once you runaway and get the lead, it become a non-UA.

I think it is fine and should play very differently than other civs, which is what makes a good UA.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

People aren't thinking the UA through.

IT's not that overpowered, it just sounds, why? Because fo this :

It cleary states that you "steal", meaning that you can't gain techs that YOU don't have.

You can only gain new techs from civs that are more advanced than you.

This means that Civs which are technologically davanced will still own you with their superior technology.

So in order to use the UA you need to be lucky and smart enough to take a city without being overrun by the AI first.

 

[LastSword]

This would actually be more OP than the tech stealing thing, because it can be used to widen a tech gap. If you are tech leader it shouldn't be to difficult to destroy all the civs around you, getting mad science bonuses and worsening the snowball effect.

And once you runaway and get the lead, it become a non-UA.

I think it is fine and should play very differently than other civs, which is what makes a good UA.

Oh... I didn't even state multiplier, but you describe it as mad science bonuses. Math is good thing. Not only you have to conquer tall city, but also you can make it only once. It's not like you raze the crap city (take tech) and wait for new settler aiming there.

Your logic is brilliant though. Personally, I don't find nothing wrong in widing a tech gap (especially that you need to be tech leader first). What is more, if you became a runaway (with no science focus), it doesn't matter, because game is over.

Your lack of imagination is disturbing me. Current UA is so abusable against AI that I will be ashamed to use it. It becomes more and more powerful with time (math: how much the multiplier must be to outrun stealing ...Biology (for example)?). I am sorry, but your sense of OP is misplaced.

However, current UA should be fine in Multiplier and AI will not have much use of it. It makes it completely fine even if it hurts eyes.

 

[sukritact]

I hope that Ashurbanipal throws his tablet when you defeat him.

YES! THIS! I would murder Ashurbanipal just to see this!