Hi there. Are you someone who enjoys playing Humankind™? Do you want to be able to pick something other than Khmer for the medieval era, without necessarily getting steamrolled by the player who did? I know I do. However, I am not advocating for nerfs, even if some cultures really deserve them. Instead, I think we would all rather help those cultures that fall behind, and bring them up with a power level appropriate for their era.

To that end, I will be listing 1-2 cultures per era, explaining why I think they are the weakest in the game's current state, and supplementing my backseat driver's critique with some suggestions that the game's beautiful devs may consider. I don't think my candidates for cultures in desperate need of buffs will be too controversial, although my suggestions might be. I'm obviously not an infallible authority on this game so feel free to tell me when I am wrong or forgetting something.

These opinions are based on my personal experience playing the game on standard settings, against max level AI and casual MP with friends.

Ancient Era

I like the ancient era. I'd go so far as to say it's the most balanced, if you don't count the Neolithic era, or Harappans. However, this era has its losers, and the names that keep coming up are:

Hittites: They are like the Myceneans, but worse in every way. Well, they have +1 combat strength, but does that really make up for it? They get a unique outpost instead of a district, but unlike the Bantu, Huns, or Mongols, they don't get some absolutely bonkers unit to carry them despite the lack of extra yields. Giving them -25% outpost creation cost could be something, since no culture currently has outpost creation discounts. Perhaps their unit industry discount could also apply to melee and anti-cavalry units? It establishes them as culture with more extreme early-game bonuses than Myceneans but drop off harder as time goes on. If they can't rush their neighbors, they will fall behind; kind of like what happened in real life.

Assyrians: These guys are a ransacking culture, which means they get a slight bonus to ransacking speed instead of yields. If they ransack an outpost, they can't use the expansionist power to steal it, which seems counterproductive. What if the Assyrians got science for ransacking? I'd seriously want to try that out. The Dunnu also needs a garrison tag and the usual +10 stability that comes with normal garrisons, and you'd have an interesting culture to round out the ancient era.

Classical Era

This era is pretty interesting. I could make suggestions for most cultures here, but that subject deserves its own wall of text. It's also the last chance for an early war before someone picks Khmer and the game is theoretically over, the remaining turns just being a matter of execution. That being said, 2 out of the 3 early war cultures (4 if you count Persians? 3.5 then) are not very good. In fact, they are the worst cultures of this era:

Goths: I bet you didn't see that one coming. Competing against the Huns as a militarist pick is already a tough sell, but it gets worse. They are a ransack-influence-faith culture, an interesting mix that doesn't work since ransacking slightly faster doesn't compensate for not getting yields, they don't produce enough influence for it to matter, and faith doesn't help them. Goths don't need a buff, they need a rework. One trait I really liked in Endless Space was Knowledge Gatherers, which became Spoils of War Act in ES2: whenever you destroy a unit, you gain 50 science and 50 gold. Goths could fulfill the role of helping a player that's falling behind in tech catch back up. It's a perfect fit, since they were barbarians that caught up their lack of technological and cultural progress by fighting more advanced civilizations.

The tumulus should have a commons quarter tag, and it could read "when you defeat a unit, gain x amount of science and influence." That suits the tumulus itself thematically, and helps Goths catch up if they are missing some of the earlier techs without becoming oppressive as the game goes on. You should realistically have 9-12 territories by that time so 5 sci/inf on unit kill per tumulus seems about right for this era. For the legacy trait, they could get +2 combat strength for land units, to help them get their tumuli going.

Romans: The Romans provide few yields in irrelevant categories, in a game where the only thing that matters is yields, and industry is the greatest yield of all. +1 unit slot doesn't really help because reinforcements are a thing. -30% upkeep? I only ever get 3 money buildings to discover the civic that comes after +1 city, then I build science districts over them, and I've never found myself thinking "geez, this army upkeep is really cutting into my budget." I may have even forgotten army upkeep was a thing until I read the Roman legacy trait. -25% science cost on a singular piece of tech? Getting a one-time bonus for a legacy trait just feels bad.

The unique building is worse than a commons quarter. It needs the commons quarter tag and stability adjacency thing. Then it needs to read "+10 stability for each war you have won. -10 stability for each war you have lost." For the legacy trait, I had an idea for a special grievance that allows you to demand any territory within vision range, (authoritarian ideology synergy?) including unit vision, and can only be used to demand one territory at a time. We can call it something corny like "Veni, Vidi, Vici.".

Medieval Era

This should just be renamed the Khmer Era. While the culture itself is, dare I say, overpowered, their advantages are compounded by the fact that other cultures of this era are either: a) just barely average, or b) well below average, and the Khmer are the only industry culture available when industry matters the most at that stage. (at least until Mississipians get added) While this era has a lot of losers, here is, in my opinion, the biggest loser of them all:

Teutons: There are a few things to say about the Teutons, and most of them are not good. They suffer from the fact that they produce a lot of faith, when faith is an even worse "yield" than money. Unfortunately, I just don't see a way to make faith more useful without becoming completely busted due to St. Basil's cathedral. Their legacy trait benefits from having the same religion followers in other empires, but their unit benefits from not having the same religion followers in different empires. Their unique building outputs tons of faith, a bit of influence, and...counts as a makers quarter? That is actually the one good thing about kaiserdom, and it makes me want to put down a generic makers quarter instead. The adjacency bonus should provide industry instead of faith because I think it produces enough faith from the per district thing. It should then add "+1 Influence per holy site in all cities. +5 industry per holy site in all cities. +1 worker slot." I don't think there are any such holy site synergies in the game so that would make it interesting, and obtaining more holy site cap and holy site wonders a more important decision. What if Teutons could convert the holy sites of other religions if it's in a territory they got from conquest, and it increases their holy site cap? It fits their expansionist crusader schtick.

Honorable mentions go to Aztecs and Byzantines. Giving their districts the commons quarter tag would make sense and help them out a bit. The Aztec sacrifice is certainly unique and thematic, but +10 stability for 10 turns that costs 1 pop doesn't seem like a sound investment. Perhaps the sacrifice could be buffed in some way. +25 money for adjacent horse deposits is a low-ball offer since you'd want science districts there anyway, so unless money is somehow buffed, Byzantines will stay on the sidelines. It's kind of unfortunate that their building is all about horses but their unit is a foot soldier, I think Byzantine cataphracts would better fit the horse theme. I know that vassal territory counts as allied, but are vassals themselves considered in an alliance? If so, it would be pretty interesting to see Byzantines adopt mechanics that revolve around getting vassals, instead of being second-rate merchants.

Early Modern Era

The power level of cultures is a bit more evenly distributed in this era, although it is still dominated by a lone builder. The Mughal legacy trait is a lot more powerful than it seems: You should at the very least have 30 territories under your direct ownership by now, potentially more since it counts territories under your sphere of influence; +60% (usually more) industry on your capital is wild, and it keeps getting better as the game progresses. Jama Masjid reminds me that I wish other cultural districts got the same amount of love the builders' do. Then they get an elephant strapped with a cannon; but this isn't about the best culture of every era, it's about the worst. In other words, it's about:

Edo Japanese: Well, it should really be about the Venetians, but as long as money remains a bad yield there isn't much we can do about the poor man's Dutch. In the meantime, I will discuss a bad faction that has the potential to be good. The problem is of course that they are competing as an influence generator against the Ming, who are by far the best influence generator in the game, let alone the era. Their unique unit suffers from bringing a knife to a gunfight, and being an anti-cavalry unit in a world without cavalry units. Sure, there may or may not be winged hussars, but I don't think naginata samurai can even beat them. We should think of the Edo Japanese differently instead. The Edo Period was a time of peace throughout a unified Japan. It was also isolated for 264 years, which may be a world record, so lets play into that.

The aesthete faction bonus makes them a pretty good candidate for a defensive culture. What if they could do the opposite of the Romans, and grant other empires a special grievance they can use against you instead? The legacy trait reveals International Trading, and Isolationism can always be activated for free if you are not a vassal. As long as Isolationism is active, other empires gain the grievance "End Isolationism": non-allied empires can demand you become their vassal and force your civic to Globalism. If you refuse and they withdraw their demands, they pay you a sum of influence. If they declare an "End Isolationism" war and you lose, you become their vassal and are unable to deactivate Globalism as long as you are vassalized. In addition to a money payment, all reparations you demand (from grievances or surrender) must be paid in an equal amount of influence. Their legacy trait could then read: "Prevents all units you battle with from retreating. (your own, and units you are attacking or being attacked by) because retreating is dishonorable and very annoying when the enemy does it. Then maybe add a discount to absorb city cost as a metaphor for unifying Japan. Naginata samurai could get a trait that prevents retaliation. The Tera should be a commons quarter, and the influence adjacency bonus could work on districts instead of mountains. This obviously isn't going to put Edo Japan at the top of the tier list, but it will get them to interact with the war support/grievance system to provide influence in a unique way.

Industrial Era 

In this era, ironically enough, a science culture is a top pick instead of an industrial one. The French provide plenty of science as research costs keep ramping up. The Persians could have been the top dog of this era but their wannabe market district doesn't really play to their strengths. On that note, here are a couple of cultures that don't have any strengths to play into:

Russians: Yields matter even more in the Industrial era than they previously did, because every other culture is getting them in significant amounts. What yields do Russians get? Faith and unit experience. Faith still isn't good, and your infrastructure should already be giving 2 veterancy levels to units fresh out of the gate. Their unit is a slightly better dragoon. If you are somehow capturing cities with these guys, then you are so far ahead, you don't need to worry about war support. You shouldn't be worried about war support if you are successfully capturing cities anyway. The +10 health regen per unique building might have been something else in an earlier era. In the Industrial, you aren't really fighting protracted, multi-turn battles. Most units will get vaporized before they even get a chance to regen. I imagine the Russians were balanced around this hp regen bonus, expecting it to be really powerful. It isn't, and they need a rework. Maybe give them a legacy trait that provides yields based on the number of territories that follow your religion, to go along with the theme of "land and glory". Extra holy site cap for Teuton synergy? They could get a special action to force annex (in addition to the expansionist affinity) territories with their religion without needing to pay money. Faith produced in a city reduces the cost to attach outpost/absorb city/be absorbed?

Zulu: These guys are in a bad place too, and I'm not sure what to do about it. They are a military culture, but their legacy trait focuses on defense, and I already gave my idea for a cool defensive culture to Edo Japan. They don't get any extra yields. I'm not kidding. They get 0 extra yields, and at this stage of the game, you don't have the luxury to pass up yields. Their unique unit is a melee warrior when everyone else is a gunner, so they are the only ones taking retaliation damage. Unit regen still doesn't help when battles end in one round. I'm going to need some help on this one.

Contemporary Era

The last era is a big change in the meta that previous eras have established thus far. The builder culture is far from a valuable pick this time around. Instead, your top choices are split between a militarist and 3 scientists. Which reminds me, why are the soviets expansionist? Everything about them screams militarist, and the contemporary era is missing a militarist affinity anyway. The soviets are pretty fun because their district isn't just a straight buff, but a double edged sword that offers damage at the expense of stability. Of course, it's an easy price to pay since the contemporary era has a bunch of tech that increases stability. It's still a cool idea and I hope to see more contemporary factions get these sorts of extreme legacy traits. However, I need to talk about a culture whose legacy trait is extremely bad. Can you guess who it is? Yep. It's the other expansionist:

Americans: Look, I get it. America isn't actually the best country in the world, and it's fun to dunk on them, but this is going too far. The legacy trait is kind of like the Siamese's, except infinitely worse. It has the same money bonus, but instead of giving a useful stat such as industry, it gives...+10 influence on resources being sold? So it's not even something you get per turn? How many new trade routes get established this late in the game? The unique district is borderline useless, I'm surprised it doesn't also produce pollution just for good measure. The unique multirole fighter is a niche unit class with an even nicher (nichier?) ability. Wouldn't it be better to explicitly bombard the factions you don't like to trigger some grievances/demands, get some war support going, someone declares war, then capture their cities? Not that it matters anyway because the tech for multirole fighters is out of their reach. Americans can't even do the thing that is on their culture thumbnail.

So what can be done to make Americans an interesting choice in the contemporary era and, if possible, offer some variety in gameplay? I know I was talking about the space victory before but we already have 3 de facto science cultures. Besides, if any contemporary faction is going to be expansionist, it seems fitting that it would be the Americans. I've mentioned before that I like the idea of traits that offer extreme bonuses at a certain cost. In my personal experience, Americans will brag to no end about the wars they have won, but get really defensive about the wars they have lost. Using this as an inspiration, their trait could read "+1 Combat Strength on all units for each war you have won. -1 Combat Strength on all units for each war you have lost." Maybe this could be implemented as a winstreak/losestreak that triggers for each battle instead of each war. (the bonuses would be more extreme but also reset completely on a defeat/victory) It would be sick if this could be adapted in a way that is similar to the Hissho's Keii mechanic in ES2, but I'm not the one who has to worry about programming stuff like this so I don't know how feasible that is. Finally, Americans get the Patriotic status in all their cities whenever a war is declared against them. Altogether, these bonuses will motivate players to trigger diplomatic incidents and hopefully engage in war without having to declare it themselves. Just like in real life! 

Similarly, the defense agency could provide +3 industry, science, and influence on adjacent research quarters for every war you have won, -3 for every war you have lost, and counts as a makers and research quarter. It could also do something like add +1 or +2 pollution to makers quarters, because it just feels unrealistic when Americans don't have a unique building that produces pollution. I know this is reminiscent of the idea I put forward for the Roman EQ, but with actual yields in play it would feel like there is a lot more on the line when playing Americans. 

Let me know what you guys think of all my rambling. One of the complaints I tend to see about this game, that I tend to agree with, is that most cultures don't really stand out out from each other beyond "buff industry by this much, buff science by this much" so I tried to put forward as many ideas that will instead push players to "do this cool thing to get your industry, do that cool thing to get your science." 

Thank you for taking the time to read all of it. I've been at it for 6 hours straight so I'm going to go outside now.

The end...?

Hittites

For me Hittites are an essential pick for a certain one-culture startegy where you compete with militia units from iron reserves trait. The strat itself is collecting all possible +CS bonuses and having strong units with 0 upkeep cost throughout the game. If you survive till the late game then you can have Irregulars with 70 combat strength and an upkeep of 0, while commandos will have inferior stats and 60 gold/turn cost.

Even without considering specific strategies, Hittites are solid for early outpost/administrative centre raiding with their Iron reserves trait benefitting from +1 CS bonus. And for defending their cities.

Zulu

I am no expert and can speak only for myself, but when far more advanced Conquistadores came for my lands, only early evolving into Zulu saved the day. Their EU is no joke, it requires no technology to be unlocked, it is not very expensive, its unstoppable trait is almost as strong as the most broken trait in the game (Yes, I am looking at you Inner Sea Mastodonte) granting +8 CS. Regen helps to hold the ground.

Daarkarrow wrote:
Romans, yes the EQ is not ideal, but I think is compensated with the unit.

Like many other 'orphan' EQs, I think it'd be instantly (and likely even sufficiently) boosted just by tagging them as either 'Commons Quarter' or 'Garrison', depending on what fits better, so that they can get boosted through infrastructure and civics like rest of the EQs do.

I fail to see appeal of Americans, as in any purpose to choose them, unlike scenarios in which you'd be inclined to go for cultures you mentioned, other than going for flavour. I'd argue it's better to transcend and get boosted Fame from most 'star-rich' era rather than go Americans.

WeadMancer wrote:
"You can attack units in non-allied territory without being at war"

IIRC, that's roughly why Americans and Soviets are both Expansionists, so that they can wage 'proxy-wars' thanks to the passive allowing them to just walk around without care for borders

Sewata wrote:

Goths I like how they posses the earliest heavy cavalry of the game, I don't want that to change just buff yields received from ransack and they should be in a good spot.

I like the Goth unit too, and I wouldn't want to change it either. But is it good enough to warrant a bad LT and EQ? Goths are objectively the worst classical era culture, and I don't know if a commons quarter and a bit of extra gold will smooth that over.

Daarkarrow wrote:

Interesting thread indeed, but I disagree on some of them, not completely, but rather than there are others that, to me, will require a buff before the one proposed.
. Romans, yes the EQ is not ideal, but I think is compensated with the unit.
. Edo Japanese, yes indeed would be nice but as you mentioned Venetians, Dutch are in a "worst spot", imo
. Americans, i know it could be in a better spot, but to me it is better option when compare to Brazilians, Egyptians, Indians or Nigeria

I agree, looking back I think I went overboard on the Romans. Their unit is quite good, but compared to what the Huns are getting, I really don't think it warrants a bad EQ. I've been playing around with a mod that gives these sorts of districts commons/garrisons tags and it feels much better, hopefully you will consider it. 

Merchant cultures in general are in a bad spot. While money is weaker than industry, the V.O.C Warehouse only produces 2 money per traders while the Mughals quarter produces 3 industry per Workers, when one point of industry is worth roughly 3-4 money. Maybe you could play around with the inflation system? In ES2 the Lumeris were buffed by ramping up inflation and giving them a -X% to inflation.

All of those contemporary cultures could receive a buff/gameplay changes, but for me the deciding factor was that the others get their EU much sooner, and the Americans don't get their influence unless they do weird stuff like repeatedly cancelling/enabling trade routes, assuming other players/ai want to play along with your antics, which feels more like griefing your game and yourself instead of trying to win. Brazilians suffer from being a food producer in an era where pops aren't as valuable anymore. Egyptians produce lots of influence to merge cities, get civics, and nab contemporary wonders, but it does feel like they're missing something to compete with the current top 4. Synergy with cultural/natural wonders? Indians are in a bad spot and I'd place them about as low as Americans, they could be reworked as a pacifist defensive culture but it would have to be in such a way that can't be used to offensively cheese another faction. Nigerians could get industry on their EQ and more oil deposit synergy.

docktorkain wrote:

Sir,  have you heard about our lord and savior, modding? Theres a bunch of great culture rebalance mods in mod.io that you can experimentar with. I reckon some of your ideas are already there, such as making quarters count as garrisons or commons

I have, I really like them in fact, so I hope the "blank" districts get some tags in the base game.

neprostoman wrote:

but when far more advanced Conquistadores came for my lands, only early evolving into Zulu saved the day.

In that particular situation, I can see why Zulu might be interesting. The problem is that, that's the only situation where they will be interesting, and I think Persians would be able to handle that sort of situation as well, just from their production bonuses and land raiser ability pumping out 10 units for each the conquistadors kill, with the added bonus of having a LT and EQ that scales better into the late game. Germans might be good enough to hold, even if they'd be less efficient about it.

DNLH wrote: IIRC, that's roughly why Americans and Soviets are both Expansionists, so that they can wage 'proxy-wars' thanks to the passive allowing them to just walk around without care for borders 

Expansionists can walk around in non-allied borders, but can they attack within borders without declaring war? Tbh it would probably be excessive if they could just wipe out the enemy military within their own borders, and then declare war

ost wrote:

I definitely agree with some of these criticisms (Hittites, Goths, Romans - I dislike everything right down to the culture card), although I'm not sure I'd address all of them in the same way as you've suggested. For example, I think the fact that the Teutons and Russians are kind of lack luster shouldn't be addressed by drastically altering their LT or EQ, but rather providing more uses for faith. In my opinion, religion feels like an unfinished mechanic. There should be more ways to use faith, more benefits to producing a lot of it, and a way to benefit from spreading it beyond your borders. Like, why would I pick India? At the moment, the only value-added use for faith is if you roll the dice just right and manage to get Angkor Wat, Machu Pichu, and maybe St. Basil's cathedral. I do really like your suggestion of being able to use Faith to attach or absorb territories/cities.

FYI, the absence of the garrison tag from the Dunnu, Barbican, etc should be fixed when the Bolivar update goes live. Known Issues in the Bolivar Beta

Hopefully this isn't veering too far off topic, but one of the great things about the Bantu/Huns/Mongols is how differently they play from other cultures. They have strong advantages but also meaningful disadvantages. I kind of wish there was more asymmetry in the cultures, which was definitely one of the strengths of Endless Legend and Endless Space. However, I recognize that it is much harder to do with a game like Humankind. Quests and rewards associated with your affinity (ex. builders get building-related quests) would go a long way to help with that. Endless Legend had fun quests like "settle this territory in x number of turns" (would be great for expansionists), "be at war with another empire" (militarists), or "bring these particular units to this location to explore" (could work for scientists), etc.

I like the idea of faith cultures, but yeah, the general consensus is that faith doesn't have much of an impact. Sometimes I'll just convert to an AI's faith since there isn't any penalty for doing so, in fact it avoids having to compete against the AI for good tenets since they will get some pretty good ones already, and you climb the tenet tree faster. After that's taken care of, faith just kind of becomes dead weight. Assuming default settings, you can cover your continent with the same faith and be generally safe from conversion, even if some guy across the sea has St. Basils. Translating faith into yields is a delicate matter, since turning faith into food is the power level of a wonder, and rightfully so. I don't know what the devs can do about it but I wish them luck in doing so.

That's good news about the garrison-type EQs, I know they've heard this a million times by now but hopefully we can see a similar update for commons quarter-style EQs.

That's also what I like about the nomad EUs, they make for a very memorable playthrough. What I don’t like is that Hunnic horde don’t have a tech requirement, and destroying Warriors with them is fun but feels cheap. Past a certain era I think curiosities should be replaced by quests that are relevant to your affinity, or something about your chosen culture pushes you to look at some of the game's features in a different way.

I’m familiar with the mechanic, I’m just wondering how it would work under HK logic. Pirate units show up to mess with someone, so far so good. Then you target the faction with a grievance to deal with your own pirate guys? It’s crazy that this is how it actually works irl. Saboteurs that can act under a false flag would be interesting for an espionage faction that wants to harass others without triggering grievances, or observe their build queues, assess tech level/steal tech, etc. For Americans/Soviets I think you do want the bad attention though, and now that I think about it you can do that just by the act of trespassing.