Since the May event for content creators spoiled all the Contemporary Cultures, I'm creating this thread to discuss them. If you don't want to be spoiled, there is still time: close this thread and come back later. To avoid misclicks, here's a wallpaper:

Are you still here? A little disclaimer first: All non final numbers are non final. Without any further ado, lets begin.

Australians

Australians are pretty standard Builder design. Not mind-blowing or very unique, but overall strong and in line with earlier Builders. I like it and I don't think it needs any changes. Even the numbers on it seem pretty balanced. EU is strong (one of the strongest of the era, CS-wise), and is also in a great spot.

Brazilians

The Brazilians are thematically and mechanically almost at the perfect spot. I think both the LT and EU are great thematically and mechanically, bringing great bonuses that fit the agrarian playstyle. The EQ, however, suffers from being too close, mechanically, to the Nemeton. I would, at the bare minimum, swap the Farmer slot for a Researcher slot (it is a lab, not a farm), and if you want to bring more thematic flavor to it, I would remove the + food for pops (which is very strong for sure, but is also the defining Nemeton quality) and give it + food on ALL tiles in the territory the EQ is built in. One of the main reasons EMBRAPA (the institution the Brazilian EQ is modelled after) is known for is for making a big chunk of the Brazilian territory (the Cerrado) productive enough to be able to sustain large-scale farming. Giving +Food to all tiles in the territory means not only that your high food spots will wield more, but also that you can build farm districts anywhere, which would thematically fit very well. The amount of +Food per tile it should give needs testing, but it would be a interesting direction to go.

Chinese

The Chinese are also well designed, but I have some things to say about it. First, the EU is a fantastic unit that can wreck havoc from afar, which I like very much. The EQ seems fine if it is a Hamlet replacement, exploits all AND can be built multiples per territory. Make it "one per territory" as most EQ and it is lackluster, however, needing much bigger bonuses - probably a +15 money per adjacent district instead of pure +10 money if it is meant to be one per territory, so it is closer to the yields of a strip mine. Lastly, I really like the LT, with a small caveat: it is just a bigger version of the Aksumite LT, and seeing the two I think the Aksumites need a new, more distinct LT. I know this isn't the best place to discuss the Aksumites, but looking at their design a "increased religious pressure/Faith from Traderoutes" LT would synergize nicely with their EQ and keep it distinct from the Chinese, who can keep their Silk Railroad as is. 

Egyptian

Ah, the Egyptian. They are 100% my favorite culture, design wise, even if the numbers aren't quite right. The EU is thematic and feels very strong, the LT and EU are very thematic and bring a very interesting synergy, but I feel the numbers are not right. They feel quite balanced in the era of EQ spam, but since all EQs now are one-per-territory, they fall flat when compared to all per-pop and per-district EQs/LTs. Other than a small numbers change on them to increase the influence granted by both the LT and the EQ (to account the one-per-territory property of EQs), they are super.

Indians

Indians are in a bad spot IMHO. The LT is great and will skyrocket your money income, but that is the only good thing I can talk about it. First, it is an Aesthete with no Influence bonuses; EQ is almost useless at this point in the game as a pure faith producer; and the EU is unreliable at best and weak at worst. I think the Indian culture can work with a weaker EU if its LT and EQ are good enough, and that is why I would suggest to focus the changes on the EQ: give it a +influence bonus to Faith districts. This would make the EQ a capstone for religious strategies and help you spread your sphere of influence, which synergizes with the LT, and give a influence source to match its affinity. 

Swedes

The Swedes showcase my design thoughts for the Indians. They have a very strong LT (similar to the Indians one, but arguably stronger since Science can be stronger than Gold), a very strong EQ, and a weaker EU. I think they are also in a great spot and need no change (if anything, a small numbers nerf on either the LT or the EQ), and they are in a great position right now.

 Turks

The Turks are similar to the Australians in that they are not very exciting or unique, but the bonuses are strong and focused enough to make them good enough. If anything, I think the Public School feels too generic, and could use a small adjacency bonus to make it more satisfying to place down, but I'm fine with a weaker EQ as the LT is very strong (it solves any stability problem you might have in the game) and the EU is very interesting. I suggest changing the name from "Public School" to "Darülfünunu" and give it a small +faith adjacency bonus.

 Americans

The USA design has gathered a bunch of controversy, but I don't think it is that bad. I think the EU is quite strong and versatile, and it is where most of the "power budget" of the culture was spent. The LT is not exciting but feels good enough, and the weakest part of the kit is the EQ. I think its influence bonus should be bigger and work on all Garrisons, not only on adjacent, but other than that I'm fine with the design of it being a hybrid defensive/influence building (which the Assyrian Dunnu should have been too, but I digress). 

Soviets

Soviets have a laser-pointed focused design that is borderline too strong. Other than the uninspired LT, i absolutely love the design. The EQ is the shining part of the kit, being both strong, unique and exciting. The RAT EU is the swarm infantry of the era, and feels too strong with the 60 CS and Flood ability, but I may be wrong on this part. Red Tide is, imho, just outright bad - it is the third time (first Myceneans, then Aztecs, now Soviets) it shows up and its not even a great nor interesting LT to begin with. To fit the same "extra industry" vibe, I would suggest a complete rework of the LT to "gain 2% extra industry on cities for each Strategic Resource deposit on the city". While also being a industry LT, it would be more versatile than -25% unit industry cost, be tied to territorial expansion, and have a interesting dynamic with the Arms Factory, since each extra territory in the city would cost stability and you would have to balance whether you want more industry or CS with your stability.

Japanese

I can't comment on the Japanese as the LT wasn't disclosed due to a tooltip error. The Robotics Lab is good, on par with the Strip Mine, and the Reisen is hard to evaluate because we don't know how Contemporary Air units work (if any, I feel like its CS is too weak since it has a negative trait). If the LT is strong enough, however, there's no problem in having a weaker EU.  

docktorkain wrote:
I suggest changing the name from "Public School" to "Darülfünunu" and give it a small +faith adjacency bonus.

While I agree the term "Public School" is pretty generic, I think it's symbolizing/based on Atatürk's reform of Turkish education system and overall Turkish state's reform as a secular state. While I can't think of a better term, "Public School" is probably a bit too "frenchy" biased (historically speaking, public school in France is secular (Ecole publique), while private school (Ecole privée) is non-secular). 

Though, I think your suggestion of +faith adjacency bonus is not fitting this secular representation. Moreover, the name you suggest littteraly means "House of Sciences", which arguably wouldn't be associated with religion/faith.

As a side note, though I'm not fluent in turkish, I do have a bit of knowledge : "Darülfünunu" should actually by written "Darülfünun" if it ever has to be used as a noun to replace "Public School". The last "u" is the turkish preposition "of", as in Darülfünun-u Osmani (Ottoman House of Sciences) or Darülfünunu İstanbul (Istanbul House of Sciences) and the whole term comes from Arab language : dar (ev in turkish, "house") and fünun (fenler in turkish, "sciences") : https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dar%C3%BClf%C3%BCnun

docktorkain wrote:: 
I would remove the + food for pops (which is very strong for sure, but is also the defining Nemeton quality) and give it + food on ALL tiles in the territory the EQ is built in.

The LT is +2 Food / Farmers (not mentioning the rest), so that would mean at least +3 Food / Farmers, if you build only 1 Brazilian EQ per city's region. Building one per territory owned by the city would even increase it by +1 per each territory. As @Goodluck mentioned, the more population you'll have, the more it will scale. If anything, I have the feeling that the change you propose would actually nerf the EQ.

I think Arms Factory of Soviets could be potentially game-breaking. -10 stability per Weapon would be nothing in Contemporary Era, especially with the certain combinations of cultures(such as Italians in the Industrial Era)  and careful planning of districts. A stronger negative effect of Weapon must exist to prevent spamming. What about... new equation?

-10 stability per Weapon per Arms Factory on all cities. This way it would be exponential (y = -10 x^2)

1 Weapon deposit > -10 stability x 1 Weapon x1 Arms Factory = -10 stability on all cities

2 Weapon deposit > -10 stability x 2 Weapon x 2 Arms Factory = - 40 stability on all cities
3 Weapon deposit > -10 stability x 3 Weapon x 3 Arms Factory = -90 stability on all cities

4 Weapon deposit > -10 stability x 4 Weapon x 4 Arms Factory = -160 stability on all cities

Also, in order to make "cold-war" theme more interesting, I would like to suggest a small change in Emblematic Districts/Quarters. Americans would have Military-Industrial Complex, which would produce Weapon as well. However, Soviets produce Red Weapon and American produce Blue Weapon. And stability disadvantage must be the same.

As for the effect, it hard to imagine what would be the most interesting effects. Should they counter each other, so that we can revitalize old cold war? Or should Red/Blue Weapon exclusive, so that purchasing only one of them are possible? Or should me make them quite distinctive? Here are possible options:

1) Weapons counter each other (example)

Red Weapon: +1 Combat Strength per Red Weapon on Unit, +1 Combat Strength per Red Weapon on Unit when attacking Unit armed with Blue Weapon.
Blue Weapon: +1 Combat Strength per Blue Weapon on Unit, +1 Combat Strength per Red Weapon on Unit when attacking Unit armed with Red Weapon.

2) Exclusive purchase
Players cannot have both Red Weapon and Blue Weapon. Both of them provide +1 Combat Strength per Weapon on Unit. Possible demands for having Weapon of competitor could also make it diplomatically more interesting?

3) Distinctive traits (example)
Red Weapon: +1 Combat Strength per Red Weapon on Unit, when attacking

Blue Weapon: +1 Combat Strength per Blue Weapon on Unit, when defending
or

Red Weapon: +1 Combat Strength per Red Weapon on certain Unit type (like armored Unit? or ground Units)

Blue Weapon: +1 Combat Strength per Blue Weapon on certain Unit type (like fighter? or naval/airborne Units)