It feels like its bonus should be attached to a later era agrarian culture, when numbers are supposed to ramp up more. And yeah Conquistadors were separate from Arquebusiers even in the Lucy Opendev, it honestly feels like an oversight and that their Emblematic Unit should really be a replacement. They can't even upgrade to musketeers like you said.

I like the idea of making the Phoenician EU a transport, would really spice up the ancient era giving one of the cultures a transport very early on and would be much more useful too. Can't comment too much on the new trait, I think Carthage's buyout needs more looking at because of how overpowered it is, not the Phoenician's.

Ta-Seti archers are not too weak, archers are not weak in general, if anything Javelin Throwers could use a -1 to their combat strength, maybe the Markabata too. If Ta-Seti archers needed any sort of buff I'd increase their range to 4, as to further the likelyhood they'll benefit from their ability. Like I said though I don't think you can call them "weak"

Rome could use some love yeah, I'd buff their EQ too since victories can't be guaranteed and are rare either way, The benefit isn't good enough as is and pretty rare. LT could use improvement like you said, I think it'd be cool if it was an increased army cap and one of the additional effects you mentioned, probably movement on roads.

Aztecs don't really need much of an overhaul balance wise. Lowered buyout cost doesn't sound very aztec and increasing your war desire doesn't actually help you win wars,from a combat standpoint. Gaining population on ransack is cool but already a civic. I'd have a LT based around faith personally, something like +0.5 industry towards military units for every religious follower. Or increase the bonus to 30% reduction so it looks a little different than the Mycenaean's

I agree about the Joseon and Edo, I actually had to double check when I first saw their bonuses.

100% on the same boat about the Ottomans, maybe even make it 30%

I don't think I can emphasize enough how big of a disadvantage it is to select an expansionist or militarist empire in the Ancient era. Because Victor prevents you from eliminating opponents, and your opponents only have 1 city, it is impossible to use the advantages you have (military) in order to gain any sort of advantage in the game. Meanwhile, all the other cultures are getting advantages in the various resources that are immediately useful and continue to get better as the game goes on. Early militarists/expansionists are behind the whole game (both player and the AI in particular) because they get no benefits to any of their yields, and can't realistically steal others' due to restrictions on taking an enemy's last city.

If this restriction stays, you must be able to take attached territories without taking the associated city in the peace deal, otherwise these cultures have no advantage whatsoever.

@coloneluber
You have to remember that winning an early war allows you to vassalise the other nation, giving militarists and expansionists a big boost to their economy by exploiting their vassal. Also I think you already can take attached territories without requiring the main city, it's just a bit confusing because the diplomacy screen doesn't allow you to see the region.

Militarists and Expansionists do need some love though still.

I love the idea of the Phoenicians being able to cross coastal waters earlier in order to settle via water routes.  I hope the dev team picks up on that idea.

The idea of Ta-Seti being weak does not align with my experience, either using them or fighting against them.

The current reinforcement process is nerfing army size, but assuming that gets fixed, that extra army slot is what makes Rome.  Is that the best way to represent the Roman empire?  Maybe not, but from an effectiveness perspective, its supposed to make Rome (and its successor cultures) much better at warfare than other empires.

TravlingCanuck wrote:

The idea of Ta-Seti being weak does not align with my experience, either using them or fighting against them.

The current reinforcement process is nerfing army size, but assuming that gets fixed, that extra army slot is what makes Rome.  Is that the best way to represent the Roman empire?  Maybe not, but from an effectiveness perspective, its supposed to make Rome (and its successor cultures) much better at warfare than other empires

My reasoning is the comparison with the Markabata and the Javelin Throwers, the other 2 ranged EUs in the era. Ta-seti archers surely are the lowest ind cost of the bunch (70-ish for the Ta-Seti vs 85-ish for the Javelineers and about 170 for the Markabata), but at 18 combat strenght, they are massively underpowered compared to the Markabata's 24 strenght (while the Markabata is also both more mobile and can hit and run) and the Javelin Throwers' 20 strenght (buffed to 24 with ambushers). If the Ta-Seti is at the correct powerlevel, then the other are too strong (especially the Javelineers, which is in the same ballpark industry cost. If we maintain the current Ta-Seti powrlevel as the baseline, I believe Javelineers should have about 17 CS (so they would be weaker without ambush and stronger with it) and the Markabata 22 or 23 CS.

 About Rome, I can only base my assumptions on whats happened in Victor and the older Opendevs. I'm not opposed to it having the +1 army slot LT, but it worked very well in Stadia, was absolutely useless in Lucy (with no upkeep costs or army limits) and is very weak in Victor. In Victor, the upkeep costs of units are almost negligible, and having them together on armies only shaves a few gold per turn. For classical, placing a 5th unit on an army only shaves off ONE GOLD per turn in comparison to having it on another army alltogether. The Roman LT effectively reads "gain AT MOST 1 gold per turn per full army on classical, AT MOST 2 gold per turn per full army on medieval, AT MOST 3 gpt per full army on Early Modern, so on and so forth".

Having Rome keep its +1 unit cap on armies LT and still be strong enough to make any kind of impact in the game requires one (or a combination of) the following changes to the game:
a) reintroduce an army cap, be it a hard cap or a soft cap ( I think a "generals mechanic" could work very well with armies without generals having a strong "No Commander" CS penalty);
b) rework how reinforcements work, with a limitation on how many armies can join a battle at a time (maybe the Ancient Organized Warfare tech allows for only one army to reinforce, then the Medieval War Summons increase it to 2, the Early Modern Supply Lines increase it to 3, and some late Industrial or early Contemporary tech increases it again to 4 or 5.)   
c) increase the upkeep costs by A LOT. My actual suggestion on this (on the combat thread) included not only increasing the upkeep costs of all units but also getting rid of the army discount and changing it to an army upkeep cost that increased exponentially with era or tech. This way, the more armies you have the more gold you'll need to pay, and the Roman LT becomes a economic boost comparable to the other FIMSI-related LTs.  

docktorkain wrote:

My reasoning is the comparison with the Markabata and the Javelin Throwers, the other 2 ranged EUs in the era. Ta-seti archers surely are the lowest ind cost of the bunch (70-ish for the Ta-Seti vs 85-ish for the Javelineers and about 170 for the Markabata), but at 18 combat strenght, they are massively underpowered compared to the Markabata's 24 strenght (while the Markabata is also both more mobile and can hit and run) and the Javelin Throwers' 20 strenght (buffed to 24 with ambushers). If the Ta-Seti is at the correct powerlevel, then the other are too strong (especially the Javelineers, which is in the same ballpark industry cost. If we maintain the current Ta-Seti powrlevel as the baseline, I believe Javelineers should have about 17 CS (so they would be weaker without ambush and stronger with it) and the Markabata 22 or 23 CS.

This isn't Civ, though.  Units don't fight 1-on-1.  You need to account for how they actually perform on the battlefield.

The Javelineers have a shorter range than regular Archers and Ta-Seti.  Their extra combat strength is great, but on the actual battlefield they're often in a bad situation - picked apart by other ranged units or out-slugged by enemy melee units.  The best way to use them seems to be to gang up with their own melee units to wipe out the enemy melee units before the enemy ranged units pick them apart, but it forces you to go on the offensive and lets the enemy take the better defensive terrain.  I need to fight more battles with the Javeliners to be sure, but I'd gladly take Ta-Seti on most maps feel very comfortable with my chances.

The Markabata also have big challenges.  By the time you can field those, everyone has Spearmen, which stalemate them.   With two Spear and two Ta-Seti and you can beat a whole army of Markabata.  All of the chariots are in a really bad place on an Ancient era battlefield, as the battlefields are too small to allow their mobility to come into play.  Chariot armies can move faster on the strategic map, and that seems to be their main benefit.  On the actual battlefield, don't get fooled by their raw stats.  They'll never hit a well-positioned Archer, and their charge bonus is offset by Spears' anti-cavalry bonus. 

The most dangerous army in the Ancient era, in my opinion, is the Harrapans early with their Runner armies that can rush you when all you have are Scouts.  Shortly after that its the Nubians and their Ta-Seti, which the AI uses quite well.  The Promachoi are dangerous, too, but can be handled if you have Spear, otherwise you're in trouble.

After the third gameplay, I have kind of gotten a bit of a feel for many of the cultures to offer general feedback. On the positives, I did enjoy varying my culture picks and felts that they were all generally in the same ballpark. I was also originally skeptical of the idea of only being able to build your unique district once per territory, but now having played it, I think that was also a solid change.

In general though, Aesthete cultures did feel like the more powerful cultures, but I felt the gap between them and the Scientists, Agrarian, Builders, and Expansionists was not that bad. Influence just felt like a difficult yield to get in the early game and since it is such an important yield to expand, grab wonders, and influence other territories (for grievances and demands of other civs), the early aesthete cultures just seemed a bit stronger. 

I also feel militarists were the weakest cultures. Having stronger armies is not a bad thing, but it felt difficult using it if you could not get good demands on the A.I. I think instead of being able to raise militia armies, it would help if militarist cultures had a specific demand they could make every 10-20 turns. To be historically accurate perhaps a general demand of tribute?

Laliloluhla wrote:

You haven't even touched the Javelin Throwers what do you mean playing the same build? In Victor they have 2 range as seen here.

.

Thanks for the correction. I couldn't open the game at the time and was misled by my memory and the wiki (it says it was updated today and still lists the Javelin Throwers as having 3 range). Then yes, I agree with you that the need to touch the Javelin Throwers and/or the Ta-Seti is much lower. I retract my talking points about them. Won't edit the previous posts so whoever reads this can fully understand the discussion.

I also agree with the general sentiment that most expansionists are a bit meh and the same goes for the militarists that aren't OP (so not the mongols). Both agriculturalists and builders are generally quite strong on their respective fields and especially the agriculturalists abilities are very very strong (gives a bunch of pops every turn, if you really focus on food). Aesthete cultures are good in the first/second era, where influence is much needed, but later on influence is very much useless. Merchants are generally also strong, although I see that their bonus might be problematic in multiplayer.

While there are quite a few very nice cultures, not all cultures are created equal and I find that also over the categories, there are quite some imbalances. To be honest, some cultures are OP, others are utter garbage.

Here are my thoughts on the individual cultures:

Ancient

• Harrapans: Good trait, decent building in the early game, unit is weak but a scout replacement which makes up for it. I'm fine with them.
• Assyrians: Trait seems weak. Mosts units already have enough movement points so an extra +1 doesn't do much.  How about you make a trait that is called "siege masters" about sieges? District: Why would I want to build it? To waste 10 stab? Also, it seems strictly weaker than the myceneans fortress. Similarly to the cyclopean fortress/garrison, it should rather give stab, let's say +10. I'd also let it exploit adjacent industry tiles or add a small flat industry yield to give some economic bonus. Right now its useless if you don't find yourself under attack. Unit is also on the weaker side: requires horses, horses are bad for sieges and the pillager trait is not that great currently as you'll not pillage that many outposts. Not super strong either. At least its rather cheap.
• Babylon: Trait is powerful. District as well. Unit seems well suited for defending your science. Easily one of the best cultures.
• Egypt: Also a powerful one with a good trait, district and unit.
• Hittites: +1 CS is something in the beginning, but in constrast to other traits, it quickly becomes irrelevant. Maybe give the assyrian movement point to them as an extra bonus. District: I'm sure there's some way to rush someone with it in some way, but I don't see it as useful. Unit requires copper and horses, so if you're unlucky, you might not even enjoy it.
• Myceneans: Trait is certainly useful for a military civ. District: The only good thing about it is that it's not as bad as the assyrian one because it actually gives stab (and more CS). Still, make the stab +10, then its at least enough for another district. (Quick note: I'm assuming that stab actually matters in the release version - right now a stab bonus is totally useless). Again, I'd like to see at least a small economic modifier on this district, see assyrians. Unit seems fine.
• Nubians: Yet another powerful trait with a powerful district.
• Olmecs: Trait gives a lot of influence - that's very powerful in the beginning. District can easily give another +5 influence which is powerful in the beginning. As a strong starts translates into a better late game, it's acceptable that this trait is useless later on. I also found the units quite strong due to their unique trait.
• Phoenicians: Powerful trait. District is very situational, but can be very good. Unit currently useless, please rework the naval aspects and give ships the ability to settle lands, then I could see it being useful.
• Zhou: The trait is super weak and would even be very weak if stability was more scarce. It saves you 2< stab/district, meaning that you can build 6 districts with the stab impact others have for ~5. Yeah! The district isn't that terrible, at least (although not great either) and doesn't really support the aesthete playstyle (and as the trait also doesn't, why are they even aesthetes? Give them a science trait and make them scientists or rework them in some other way...). The mere +5 stab doesn't really matter, the base +1 science is useless and while there are some spots where the +5 per adjacent mountain is insanely great, you probably won't have a lot of these spots within a few tiles of your settlements and that's my main problem with it: It's very situational and if not placed on a great spot, becomes obsolete later in the game. Other cultures (babylon) get +3 per adjacent farmers quarter which is much better since you can place them there yourself and aren't restricted to terrain. Still, it allows you to immediately exploit science from the map, which is something other can't till they get the research quarter.  By the way, I think currently the district is bugged and only ever gives +5 from adjacent mountains, regardless of how many there are. And natural wonders don't seem to count as mountains. Unit comes late, requires copper and horses and is cav, so cannot siege, but with up to 26 CS, it can keep up with classical era units.

• Aksumites: Trait +10% money from trade. Due to a lack of a trade interface which states how much money you make from trade in total, this trait is hard to judge. Nonetheless, it's certainly weaker than the phoenician/carthagenian buyout discount, as making all money worth twice as much is more useful than 10% more of some money. The building can give you quite some gold when your religion is strong. It says something about +2 stab on district, but it didn't seem to work for me. Haven't tested the unit, its ability sounds interesting though.
• Greeks: Powerful ability with a powerful district and good units.
• Carthage: Trait is insane, the equivalent for builders would be -50% production cost for everything. District is good, although naval gameplay needs a buff. Unit is great too.
• Goths: Trait: Well, ransacking isn't that great in Victor, but +5 is definitely a lot. Also it encourages a certain playstyle, so its interesting -> good. District: Not so great. +3 influence and faith is just worthless. Not to mention that it's outclassed by a stupa (maurya) with at least two adjacent districts (1+2*2=+5 influence, +2 faith, research slot). And the yields (influence/faith) are not that great for a militarist anyways... It doesn't even exploit tile yields, so I cannot imagine it ever being worth the production cost. The unit requires 2 iron, which makes it quite likely that you won't ever see it, as ressources and iron in particular seem scarce in victor. All in all, it's a civ that's soon to be fallen and forgotten. ;-)
• Huns: Gods of warfare.
• Romans: +1 unit slot is underwhelming. Up to researching organized warfare, unit size is super important and +1 to it can make you super strong. But organized warfare comes in the ancient era... With reinforcements available, you don't need large stacks. The district is terrible, I only build one for the looks.  Effectively, it gives you at most +3 stability and +8 influence, if you're constantly victorious. Otherwise +3 influence for -7 stab. The -10 stab needs to be removed and instead it should constantly give at least +10 stab, or maybe something like +5 per adjacent garrison. 3 influence is worse than the ancient olmecs and in the classical era, its not really worth it. Praetorians good, especially the ability, but too late in the tech tree: They have 30CS, yet the pikement just a tech later gives 31CS for everyone. Unlock them at conquest or better standing army. This culture needs a serious rework, it also lacks something it is good at. Come on, the romans were such great builders and strategists, etc. I'm sure there's something interesting that you can give them.
• Celts: Powerful trait. Insane district. The +1 per pop scales even into the late game, making this district one of the best districts, giving high yields in every era. Unit is fine too.
• Mauryans: Trait: Worthless. Independent peoples will just be assimilated by someone and then you don't get anything anymore. Requires rework of IP to be interesting. District: At least better than the goths. Still requires rebalancing of influence. Powerful unit.
• Maya: Powerful ability, powerful district and unit.
• Persians: Trait - as city cap is a limiting factor in the beginning, not that terrible, but there are other sources and only having 2 cities is also valid, especially since influence is a limiting factor as well. District gives a lot of money, which has some uses.. Immortals are good.

• Aztecs: Good military trait. District: Why would I want to sacrifice pops just to get the celebrating buff? Aside from that only gives a little influence, and influence isn't that much of a problem in this era.
• Byzantines: Don't like per alliance % modifiers like this. Can be good, can be worthless. Do vassals count as allies? Hippodrome is quite strong with horses. Strong unit, but again, two iron is hard, at least more doable in the medieval era than in classic.
• Franks: Useful agrarian trait, although not agrarian. District is a bit too unfocused, I think. Unit again two iron. Maybe there just needs to be a bit more iron on the map.
• Ghana: They paid me to tell you that they are very much underpowered, barely make any money at all and need to be buffed even more, although that seems like a hard taks as they already own all the money in the world.
• Teutons: Trait scales with religion, making it strong. Yet in victor, it is certainly outclassed by the per follower per holy side boni. I don't like these boni btw, too hard to balance. Kaiserdom gives some faith, which synergizes with the trait at first glance, yet I never felt in need of faith, so useless (also not a lot of faith).
• Khmer: Strong trait, very strong district. Per pop yields are insane, per district yields as well, especially for builders. In one game, I completely filled a few territories with districts in my cities. Just compare this to  the previous districts (except ghana) listed here - it's clearly beyond OP.
• English: Strong trait. Totally useless district, unless defending. Needs some other bonus, at the very least stability.
• Mongols: They are as OP as they were in real life.
• Umayyads: Trait is okaish, but doesn't really scale and quickly becomes irrelevant compared to others as territories are limited. District is much better than the trait, having thrice the effect and can be placed in each territory. Unit requires 3 (!) horses, you might have bad luck with that.
• Norse: Requires navies to be more important.

• Dutch: Certainly at least as underpowered as ghana. Seriously, something is wrong with money... The dutch unit is bad though, due to unimportant navies.
• Haudenosaunee: Trait is good. District gives even more food. Clearly focussed culture. Haven't found a good use for stealth units yet though.
• Joseon: Trait is beyond everything else. District gives even more science, picking Joseon just makes you science leader no matter what. Who cares about the ship.
• Ming: Terrible. I don't find the trait useful at all, and if you already have a high civic point generation it's just worthless. Please replace it with something more interesting. and useful. District also quite bad, the you need 3 territories per city all with this district to get as good as an influence generation as the japanese trait, but most importantly, why even bother about influence... Unit: Requires 3 (!) gunpowder and is not even good compared to others (i.e. ottoman unique unit) and the suppression trait makes it terrible. This culture needs a serious rework. Also, aesthete cultures are so much worse by now, as there are no uses for influence anymore. Please consider adding more influence sinks or remove the ability to replace influence costs with money. This leads to influence only being used for wonders and there are only a handful per era and wonders are bad but that's another issue.
• Mughals: Trait: Realistically, up to +10% production. District is powerful. Powerful unit as well.
• Ottomans: Trait - I rarely attach outpost by this point and if I do (new world, but there I can use settlers), I have enough influence lying around anyways.District: I find it useless, no influence sinks anymore.
• Poles: Trait could come in handy if you're surrounded by two aggressive neighbours. If not, worthless. As a militarist, you'd should be the aggressor anyways, so its bound to be not so great. District: Even more defensive stuff without any economic boost. Honestly, if you really need some defensive strength, go for a builder/agriculturalist/merchant and use their economic power to just win the war that way. Unit (trait) is powerful though.
• Spanish: Trait is at least useful for aggression, so okay. District: Why would you need faith by now? Worthless.
• Japanese: Trait is by far the best influence trait, if influence were more important at this stage, it would be OP, now its not great. District is totally useless. No yields at all and who cares about faster civics. And someone didn't get the memo that faith is about to be outdated in early modern.
• Venetians: Trait: Influence for trade routes. As it's on empire level, it won't give you a lot of influence and as already said, there's no use for it. District is useless as well. Most influence districts from the earlier eras are straight up better. Unit is a ship... Yet another garbage culture.

I only played 1 full run to turn 150 where I thorougly explored the power of each culture so I will keep my comments to those cultures:

- Phoenicians

I concur with what everyone else has said. They're the only culture that need 30 turns before they can actually start doing what they're good at: making money, since there is no money exploitation from main plaza anymore. The Bireme came so late in the tree that with the slow start I never made one. Make the Haven available from the start, that would fix practually everything. I also agree with reworking the Bireme either as a mid-strength transport ship or move it forward. Or give it the ability to settle coasts. LT is fine.
In addition: the Haven is displayed in the Tech tree as a Naust.

- Carthage

Their LT is bonkers, but that's clear already I guess. It's the combination with Phoenicians that made my run totally broken. Just change the LT. The EQ and EU are fine.

- Franks

Cool and flavorful culture. Their LT is way too strong. 50% bonus food while Mexicans in Industrial get 20%? EQ and EU are flavorful and useful.

- Venetians

These are great. VERY flavorful and nice combination of money and influence. EU is cool, LT is good. The EQ, Botteghe di artisti was a weird one; it could be built multiple times per territory and was generally very weak. I believe this is just because not all EQs could be reworked in time and hope it will be fixed. At this point it wasn't really worth the industry.

All in all I had a lot of fun with this money/influence run.