I agree with you on where the Chinese techs should be located, moving Confucianism away from Mathematics would even allow to encourage Greece to more historically go for it so that they have catapults for expansion. The problem with tying it to Literature (which would make most sense in my opinion) is that it would have weird effects on people completing the Greek UHV. But maybe we can go for a full swap around and replace Literature with Mathematics in the Greek UHV? The Greeks were great in geometry after all. Of course one would have to see how the Chinese perform then.
I absolutely agree that Literature makes just tons of sense for Confucianism. At least it makes a lot more sense than Mathematics. Switching the two for the Greek UHV is pretty reasonable as well.
That could work, but Literature is pretty high up in the tech tree from a 3000 BC start. However, I think it certainly is possible, you'd just have to beeline. With no more worrying about the Roman spawn, you'd also have more time to grab Ironworking and pottery and other vital techs along the way.
I would think putting it higher in the tech tree is a good thing, since it's usually founded many hundreds of years earlier than it should be.
But I digress. I think the tech goal should stay, because the techs involved there are pretty historical (and alphabet isn't, because the Babylonians used cuneiform, while the alphabet was invented in Phoenicia). I think I'll find a solution about that.
Plenty of civs have ahistorical goals. Heck, the Maya have to live into the 1700's for theirs. Plus, cuneiform was certainly much closer to an alphabet than, say, Chinese writing. It's true that the Phoenicians historically developed the first alphabet, I'll grant you, but it's not like they often manage that feat in-game. I'd honestly be tempted to give it to them at spawn, but now we're WAY WAY off the original topic of Babylonian UHV's. In the end I don't think there's any real problem with the tech goal as long as the game ends up balanced such that it's achievable.
The cultural goal is okay in my opinion. The city size goal was always hard but is now almost impossible due to super Varanasi. I like your building suggestion, but I'd also like something that encourages them to build the Hanging Gardens (but without the direct task of doing so). What set Babylon apart from contemporary population centers was that was a true metropolis that had organized infrastructure and public buildings etc., so maybe we can represent that by having them make Babylon the most happy and healthy city in the world? This would encourage to build temples, aqueducts and the HGs. Varanasi is out at the same time due to its health penalties.
I'm not sure how I feel about this idea. I agree that it's unique, historically plausible, and speaks well to the "flavor" of the civ. I do worry about implementation, though. I mean, this could easily encourage purposely reducing population to avoid unhealth/unhappiness, and I'd bet that some random lvl 1 city in China would probably end up beating it if Babylon has grown very much. Maybe it should just be the happiest and healthiest capital city? I dunno, bears some thinking through.
For the UB, I agree it's useless. Either we turn the Ziggurat into a Pagan Temple replacement (after all, it's basically the temple of Mesopotamia's ancient religion) with some extra happiness or a priest and artist slot or we return the Edubba (which was their UB during Warlords and iirc a Library replacement). Problem is that China already has one now.
Egypt and Ethiopia both already have a Pagan Temple replacement. As things stand China isn't the only one with a Library replacement as Arabia has the Madrassah. There are also multiple civs with Forges, Markets, Theatres, Amphitheatres, and Aqueducts. Heck, Babylon isn't even alone in having a unique Courthouse. So I wouldn't lose any sleep if Babylon and China both have improved versions of the same building. That said, I still think an improved Palace would be really cool.
I don't see a problem with the Asharittu Bowman actually. They need to be weak against Immortals, but are still pretty decent against any other threat.
No, I agree, they're good against anyone but Persia, and Persia should be able to defeat Babylon, so in a way they work as a UU. My only problem with it is that, as a player, my only real concern is Persia; if a unit won't work against them, I'm not building it. I mean, what "other threat" am I using them against? Greece? Egypt? Phoenicia? None are all that likely to attack. Barbs? Warriors do the job fine and barbs rarely stack above 2 or MAYBE 3 so doing collateral damage is kinda useless against them. So I end up skipping Asharittus entirely, which is a shame because I should WANT to use my UU for something. I don't think I'm asking for a huge increase in power to have them be able to retreat. And I doubt the AI would get that much of a buff from a retreat chance if you're worried that Babylon is going to survive Persia because of this change. But meh, any changes to the Asharittu are way less important than changing the UHVs and the UB so if you don't think it's a good idea it's no big deal to me.
While we're on the subject, how do we feel about the current Babylonian UP? I think avoiding anarchy is great and all, but in the course of a Babylon game how many times does one really change civics? I count Pantheon, Serfdom, and Hereditary Rule. Maybe Aristocracy if you get Code of Laws particularly early? At most 2 more after you're done building wonders and want to become a Zoroastrian Patriarchate? Still, 6 turns of no anarchy isn't really all that compelling as a UP especially since 3 of them come after you've pretty much already wrapped up your UHV and the first 2 come so early you're not really producing much anyway. It's not that I don't like the idea, but maybe there should be something else in addition to no anarchy.