Thoughts on the following swap. 

Ming and Zhou LT.

If you're getting civics boost earlier it could be scaled down just a bit to give you an edge but never feel like a moot point.

Ming having the stability bonus as an LT gives the designers rooms to make the EQ a little more interesting. Also makes the ming appealing as a pivot option to boost stability.

Expansionist buff : During war they can use the economic buy out option. In Peace they can use influence as a buy out option. Granted that if someone is expansionist a good counter is to close your borders. But hopefully they can get the espionage stuff working a little better. Making them a faction you might take for being sneaky.

Maybe territory expansion stars could use toning down a little but expansionists should gain an advantage for this. Counting vassal's territory as their own seems appropriate. 

Although yes, changes to vassalage. 

Unless you take a player's capital they don't offer vassalage - except, that vassalage is always an option in diplomatic interactions with military cultures. This brings the military expansion play style into focus. As a military culture you can acquire vassals easier which you can then score for bonuses as an expansionist culture in the later era.

@PotatoesAreBland I do really like the idea that vassals should count toward expansionism in some way! It seems especially important of a change when considering how the British EQ interacts with vassals, which is currently working at odds with the in-game goals of their orientation (not that having those kind of dilemmas is always a bad thing, but right now expansionists could use some help).

There's been a definite consensus on the Discord that it'd be a welcome change.

If such a thing were to happen the expansionist points gained should be rather middling. Remember that pretty much any culture can Vassilize another, expansionists aren't particularly good at it, hell I'd say militarists are better.

Maybe instead of changing expansionist stars to include vassals we just have the British EQ gain the additional effect of counting territories it's placed in towards expansionist stars.

Same for the American defence agency since I imagine that's also placed in foreign territory.

Most people have already commented about some weak cultures in Ancient Era and few others, and I will say them again in my own words to reinforce or echo that. Please note that cultures I do not list here are the ones that are fine. To start off, I wish to mention about a few things.

1. I already said about this in other feedbacks thread of Economy and Game Pace. Some cultures in this build have bugs that their LT that are supposed to buff districts yield also happen to apply to terrain/land exploitation too.

- Ancient Egyptians

- Classical Celts

- Classical Mayans

- Early Modern Joseon

2. Emblematic Quarters (EQ) of some cultures in Industrial Era can be built more than once per territory. Is this intentional or bugs?

- Mughals

- Ottomans

- Spanish

- Edo Japanese

- Venetians

Ancient Era

Assyrians - Overall, they are one of weakest cultures in early Era and need major buffs. Their Legacy Trait (LT) "Siege Master" could use more than just +1 Movement. Maybe make it +1 movement and something like additional combat strength to units ONLY in siege? Their Emblematic Quarters (EQ) "Dunnu" could use major buffs too. They are considerably worst than any normal garrisons. Maybe make Dunnu to be the same as standard Garrisons but can be built at begining without need technology and also give +2 influence as a flat value too for being citadels that do indeed assert dominance over the lands they have in control.

Phoenicians - As many pointed out, they suffer a lot in Victor build especially their EQ come late in this Era and harder to be built in early game. Maybe make them available at start without needing technology and make the industry cost to be 1.5 or 150% of any normal districts? (Since Harbors are double or 200% cost compared to standard districts)

Their Bireme also could use some reworks and/or buffs too. Lastly, their LT is slightly weak for 20% buyout discount. If anything Carthaginians LT (50% Buyout Discount) is considerably stronger version of this culture LT. Please consider make it 25% discount or possibly even 30% discount for Phoenicians while also make Carthaginians weaker.

Zhou - This culture is weird that they have no means of producing any influence despite being an Aesthetes culture. They also could suffer from not being able get their full fame stars in early game if not for relying on Civic choice, Religion, and various other sources. Please consider giving their EQ "Confusian School" influence bonus. Make it either +2 Influence as a flat value or something like +1 Influence per each adjacent district.

Olmecs - They are arguebly too strong in current form with their influence generation capability. Would strongly suggest only removing the +2 Influence from their Olmec Head but otherwise leave everything as they are.

Hittites - Similar to Assyrians, their LT is a little weak. The +1 Combat Strength may look good for early warfare, but this combat bonus may fall short in the long run when economic bonus tend to shine more.

Classical Era

Carthaginians - Their LT is great but maybe a little too great or strong. Please consider debuff this buyout discount from 50% down to 40%.

Goths - Please consider making their EQ "Tumulus" to have "free placement" allowing players to place them anywhere they want which would fit for their theme EQ to be burial graves. Otherwise, everything looks good.

Huns - Their Emblematic Units (EU) are a little too strong. Please consider debuff them by reworking their "double shoot" mechanic.

Medieval Era

Mongols - Same issue as the Huns. EU too strong and need some reworks.

Industrial Era

Ottomans - Please consider making their LT of -15% for attach cost to be stronger and/or add some sort of other bonus. This is a little too weak for a LT bonus in mid game.

Joseon - Ignoring their LT bug, their overall science bonus seem a little too strong. Please debuff their LT from +4 Science in water down to about +3. Their EQ "Seowon" also is considerably too powerful too.

Edo Japanese - In my opinion, their LT of +3 Influence per each district is too strong. Please tone this down to about +2 Influence. You may consider giving their EQ +1 or +2 Influence instead. (+1 Influence if their EQ can be spammed in a territory)

=========================================

Other Issues

Agrarians - They are almost balanced if not for their ability of stealing pops from other territories that can be spammed or used very often. Please put a cooldown or something to this ability alone so that this power cannot be abused.

Expansionists - As many people have stated or mentioned, they still suffer a lot and are weaker compared to all other cultures in this build. Total rework is needed not only how their abilities work and also how their Fame Stars are hardest to earn. Please do consider lowering the number of territories needed to obtain even 1st Fame Star down a lot. This or invent other methods of scoring Expansion stars.

German text, the English is below:

Hallo,

ich bin neu hier.

Ich habe zwei Dev Versionen mitgespielt.

Humankind OpenDev und Humankind Victor OpenDev.

Ich muss sagen, das Spiel läuft auf meinem PC recht gut, auch wenn dieser schon etwas älter ist (Intel Core i5 2500k, 20 GB RAM, SSD und Nvidia Geforce 1050ti).

Nun was mir noch fehlt, ist eine Kultur, im Antiken Zeitalter, aus dem Europäischen Bereich.

Im Spiel sind derzeitig die Assyrer, Babylonier, Ägypter, Harappaner, Hethiter, Mykener, Zhou, Phönizier, Olmeken, Nubier.

Es fehlt da noch eine Kultur oder vielleicht sogar mehrere Kulturen im Europäischen Bereich, die in das Klassisches Zeitalter übergehen. Also die dann z.B. hin zu den Kelten, Goten, Griechen usw. führen.

Nun als Beispiel nehme ich die Phönizier.
Quelle: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ph%C3%B6nizien#Geschichte

Herodot behauptet, es habe um 2750 v. Chr. erste Siedlungen in Phönizien gegeben. Eine erste Erwähnung der Fnḫw (Fenchu) in Ägypten stammt wahrscheinlich aus der Zeit des Niuserre (5. Dynastie des Alten Reiches) im 25. Jahrhundert v. Chr.[6] Aus der Geschichte des Sinuhe geht hervor, dass Fenchu (Phönizien) bereits im Mittleren Reich (21.–18. Jahrhundert v. Chr.) zu den Ländern der Levante gehörte.

Somit müsste man eine Kultur aus dem Europäischen Bereich nehmen, die im Antiken Zeitalter vorhanden war.

Nun es ist nicht genau zu sagen, wann das Antike Zeitalter war.


Hier nehmen ich diese Quelle: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antike#Urspr%C3%BCnge_der_antiken_Kultur

Die Ursprünge der europäischen Antike liegen im Dunkeln. Ihre Vorgeschichte ist etwa in der Zeit von ca. 2000 bis ca. 1600 v. Chr. im Mittelhelladikum anzusiedeln. Zu Beginn dieses Zeitabschnitts – teils auch schon im letzten Abschnitt des Frühhelladikums FH III ca. 2200–2000 v. Chr. – wanderten wahrscheinlich indogermanische Stämme, von Norden kommend, in Griechenland ein.


Da es mittlerweile neue Funde gegeben hat, kann dort doch bestimmt eine Kultur verwendet werden, um als Bindeglied zu dienen.


Hier kann ich Folgende Quellen geben:

Link 1: https://www.tagesspiegel.de/wissen/nur-affen-im-allgaeu-stammt-der-mensch-in-wahrheit-aus-deutschland/25209564.html

Link 2: https://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/mensch/spektakulaerer-fund-erste-aufrecht-gehende-menschenaffe-kam-aus-bayern-a-1295117.html

Link 3: https://www.welt.de/kultur/article3729760/Forscher-finden-aelteste-Menschenfigur-der-Welt.html

Link 4: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_vom_Hohlefels

Link 5: https://www.daserste.de/information/wissen-kultur/w-wie-wissen/evolution-100.html

Link 6: https://www.focus.de/wissen/mensch/neuer-vorfahre-des-menschen-entdeckt-forscher-fund-im-allgaeu-stellt-sicht-auf-evolution-infrage_id_11319676.html

Link 7: https://www.businessinsider.de/wissenschaft/erstaunliche-entdeckung-der-ursprung-der-menschheit-koennte-ein-ganz-anderer-sein-als-bisher-angenommen-2018-8/

Link 8: https://www.focus.de/wissen/mensch/archaeologie/archaeologie-aeltestes-musikinstrument-der-welt-entdeckt_aid_411097.html


Jetzt ist die Frage, welche könnten da als Bindeglied genommen werden.

Ich habe mich etwas weiter auf der Suche begeben und fand dies:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichterbecherkultur

Diese ist aber zu Alt für das Antike.

(Zeitalter: Jungsteinzeit Absolut: etwa 4200 v. Chr. bis 2800 v. Chr.)


Ich hab weiter gesucht und habe diese hier gefunden, die schon besser dazu passt.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schnurkeramische_Kultur

(Zeitalter: Endneolithikum bzw. Chalkolithikum Absolut: 2800 bis 2200 v. Chr.)


Desweiteren habe ich diese gefunden:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baalberger_Kultur

(Baalberger Kultur Zeitalter: Jungneolithikum Absolut: 4200 v. Chr. bis 3100 v. Chr. )

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salzm%C3%BCnder_Kultur

(Zeitalter: Spätneolithikum Absolut: 3400 v. Chr. bis 3100 v. Chr.)

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walternienburg-Bernburger_Kultur

(Zeitalter: Spätneolithikum Absolut: 3100 v. Chr. bis 2700 v. Chr. )


Nun vielleicht könnte auch diese Quelle Hilfreich sein, da dort viele aufgelistet sind:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_germanischer_St%C3%A4mme

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ancient_Germanic_peoples


Unter diesen vielen, müsste sich doch einer finden lassen, der da in Frage kommen könnte.

So hätte man noch mehr Auswahl und würde das Spiel nochmal erweitern und den Spielspaß erhöhen.

Schreibt doch bitte, was Ihr dazu meint?

Hab eine schöne Zeit und ich bin auf eure Kommentare gespannt.

English text:

Hello,

I am new here.

I have played two dev versions.

Humankind OpenDev and Humankind Victor OpenDev.

I must say, the game runs quite well on my PC, even if it is a bit older (Intel Core i5 2500k, 20 GB RAM, SSD and Nvidia Geforce 1050ti).

Now what I am still missing is a culture, in the Ancient Age, from the European area.

In the game are currently the Assyrians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Harappans, Hittites, Mycenaeans, Zhou, Phoenicians, Olmecs, Nubians.

There is still missing a culture or maybe even several cultures in the European area, which go over into the classical age. So that then e.g. to the Celts, Goths, Greeks etc. lead.

Now as an example I take the Phoenicians.
Source: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ph%C3%B6nizien#Geschichte

Herodotus claims that there were first settlements in Phoenicia around 2750 BC. A first mention of the Fnḫw (Fenchu) in Egypt probably dates from the time of Niuserre (5th dynasty of the Old Kingdom) in the 25th century B.C.[6] From the History of Sinuhe it appears that Fenchu (Phoenicia) was already part of the lands of the Levant in the Middle Kingdom (21st-18th century B.C.).

Thus, one would have to take a culture from the European area that was present in the Ancient Era.

Well it is not possible to say exactly when the Ancient Age was.


Here I take this source: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antike#Urspr%C3%BCnge_der_antiken_Kultur

The origins of European antiquity are in the dark. Their prehistory is to be settled approximately in the time from approx. 2000 to approx. 1600 B.C. in the Middle Helladic. At the beginning of this period - partly also already in the last period of the Early Helladic FH III ca. 2200-2000 B.C. - probably Indo-Germanic tribes, coming from the north, migrated into Greece.


Since there have been new finds in the meantime, surely a culture can be used there to serve as a link.


Here I can give the following sources:

Link 1: https://www.tagesspiegel.de/wissen/nur-affen-im-allgaeu-stammt-der-mensch-in-wahrheit-aus-deutschland/25209564.html

Link 2: https://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/mensch/spektakulaerer-fund-erste-aufrecht-gehende-menschenaffe-kam-aus-bayern-a-1295117.html

Link 3: https://www.welt.de/kultur/article3729760/Forscher-finden-aelteste-Menschenfigur-der-Welt.html

Link 4: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_vom_Hohlefels

Link 5: https://www.daserste.de/information/wissen-kultur/w-wie-wissen/evolution-100.html

Link 6: https://www.focus.de/wissen/mensch/neuer-vorfahre-des-menschen-entdeckt-forscher-fund-im-allgaeu-stellt-sicht-auf-evolution-infrage_id_11319676.html

Link 7: https://www.businessinsider.de/wissenschaft/erstaunliche-entdeckung-der-ursprung-der-menschheit-koennte-ein-ganz-anderer-sein-als-bisher-angenommen-2018-8/

Link 8: https://www.focus.de/wissen/mensch/archaeologie/archaeologie-aeltestes-musikinstrument-der-welt-entdeckt_aid_411097.html


Now the question is, which ones could be taken as links?

I searched a little further and found this:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichterbecherkultur

But this one is too old for the antiquity.

(Age: Neolithic Absolute: about 4200 BC to 2800 BC).


I searched further and found this one, which already fits better.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schnurkeramische_Kultur

(Age: Final Neolithic or Chalcolithic Absolute: 2800 to 2200 B.C.)


Furthermore I found this one:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baalberger_Kultur

(Baalberg Culture Age: Late Neolithic Absolute: 4200 BC to 3100 BC. )

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salzm%C3%BCnder_Kultur

(Age: Late Neolithic Absolute: 3400 B.C. to 3100 B.C.)

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walternienburg-Bernburger_Kultur

(Ages: Late Neolithic Absolute: 3100 B.C. to 2700 B.C. )


Well maybe this source could be helpful too, as there are many listed there:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_germanischer_St%C3%A4mme

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ancient_Germanic_peoples


Among these many, one should be able to be found, which could come into question.

So you would have even more choice and would expand the game again and increase the fun.

Please write what you think about it?

Have a great time and I'm looking forward to your comments.


Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)