To me its only a problem if:
1) The civ has an ideological push towards a certain tree with a UI boost.
2) That UI boost makes the civ "too strong".
So for example the mayan and the kuna. Sure autocracy gives a very nice boost to science, but Mayans tend to be SV focused, and autocracy isn't really the tree for that. So I don't think that's a problem, that's just a nice synergy if Mayan do want to war, but you are you not speeding up the fastest SV times that way.
A difference example is the Huns, who are geared as a war focused civ and so I would absolutely expect to take autocracy in most games. So you have a spammable UI with a tenent that gives a big boost there. If Huns are overperforming than I could see the argument. Historically they have not, we will see how the new Huns fared. But if the civ isn't overperforming, again I don't see the problem.
1) The civ has an ideological push towards a certain tree with a UI boost.
2) That UI boost makes the civ "too strong".
So for example the mayan and the kuna. Sure autocracy gives a very nice boost to science, but Mayans tend to be SV focused, and autocracy isn't really the tree for that. So I don't think that's a problem, that's just a nice synergy if Mayan do want to war, but you are you not speeding up the fastest SV times that way.
A difference example is the Huns, who are geared as a war focused civ and so I would absolutely expect to take autocracy in most games. So you have a spammable UI with a tenent that gives a big boost there. If Huns are overperforming than I could see the argument. Historically they have not, we will see how the new Huns fared. But if the civ isn't overperforming, again I don't see the problem.
