With Civilization V complete to the point where it'll never be changed, and Civ 6 around the corner, I think it's time to discuss what Civs we'd change from how they are now to either make them stronger or less overpowered. I have three ones in mind right now, two that underperform and could be made better with some minor tweeks, and one that needs an overhaul. First up is Byzantium. Their UA is fine, but nothing about the rest of the civilization synergizes with this. I'd therefore remove the Dromon and instead give them a UB: the Basilica (replaces temple). Unlike the temple, which produces +2 faith, it should produce +4 faith. This enables them to very easily get an early religion, even if they do not get an early pantheon (unlike the Celts, Mayans or Ethiopians). Getting an early religion allows them to cherrypick the best beliefs, which ties into their UA very well. The Cataphract is okay, but I'd move it to the Medieval era (Knight replacement) and remove the penalty to attacking cities. Secondly we have the Iroquois. Their UA is a disaster, which surprises me because the Incans and their hill UA do everything so well a lot of people rate the Incans very favorably because of this. So I'll simply copy the Incans and change everything from hills to forests: Iroquois move through all forest tiles as if the forest wasn't there, roads through forest tiles cost no upkeep and all other roads half upkeep. Their UU is fine, but their UB is a downgrade from the workshop it replaces. The Workshop gives you a flat +2 production and +10% production. A longhouse +2 production and +1 for each worked forest tile. Giving the longhouse the +10% production, and then +1 for each worked forest tile (losing the flat +2 bonus instead of the +10% bonus) would make the longhouse superior to the workshop in any situation where the city in question has 3 or more forest tiles, which shouldn't be too difficult. Last up is France, a personal pet peeve of mine. I have two problems with the civ as a whole (as I explained in an earlier thread): first of all, even as a cultural civ its bonuses are narrow, don't synergize and are rarely useful on high levels or multiplayer games (the UA bonus only applies to the capital, require theming of Great Works and is entirely dependent on a handful of early-mid game wonders). Secondly, the civilization has Napoleon as a leader but doesn't reflect Napoleon's France at all! That's why I believe France needs an overhaul to become a France that reflects Napoleon's regime better: a civilization that profits from expansion. Expansion, especially in terms of annexation, is expensive for three reasons: lowered happiness (unless you build a courthouse, which costs you upkeep), increased culture cost for policies and increased science costs for techs. I think the first can be easily helped with a UA that very well reflects Napoleon's regime and policies. This UA I would call Code Civil and it would give every courthouse in France a +2 happiness bonus (which stacks with the happiness bonus from autocracy). It reflects Napoleon's desire to implement a just and liberal rule of law in his empire, and at the same time changes the courthouse from a detriment to a boon: you still pay upkeep, but you get happiness in return like with any other happiness building. Science and culture problems can be solved by reintroducing a building from Civ IV that also had a lot of influence in shaping the French Revolution (and what is Napoleon if not an embodiment of the Revolution?): the Salon. This building would replace the observatory and be buildable everywhere rather than only near mountains (just like how Austria's coffeehouse can be built everywhere unlike the windmill it replaces). Unlike the powerful +50% science bonus the observatory gives, the Salon would give you only +25% science, but also +25% culture (if this is too high, perhaps this bonus can be lowered to +10% to both). While this boost to both culture and science is always handy, it also helps offset the culture/science cost of expansion in newly annexed cities. It also helps that, as an observatory replacement, it has no prequisite in terms of existing buildings. This means that it's a great second building to build or buy in a newly annexed city (after the courthouse). Their unique unit would be the Grenadier, a though rifleman replacement with slightly increased combat strength and the Siege promotion (+50% attack power against cities) as well as +25% bonus to the generation of Great Generals (both retained as they upgrade). The historical justification behind this is that Napoleonic Grenadier (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapper#France) batallions each had a unit of sappers, tasked with various engineering activities (they would later be reintroduced in the Foreign Legion). The gameplay justification would be that it gives France a unit from roughly the Napoleonic Era* that's both iconic and boosts France's ability to expand. What we end up with is a France that turtles up in the early game, rapidly expands in the mid game and can go for any kind of victory in the late game, not just a cultural one. France would be unique in that they'd be the only civilization that profits more from annexing enemy cities than from puppeting them or building their own cities (as it gives them a +2 happiness boost they wouldn't otherwise get). They also wouldn't be too overpowered compared to some of the stronger civs like Poland or Babylon as far as I can tell. Those are the civs I would change if I had the power to. What about you? *I know that musketeers would be more appropriate in terms of timespan, but the Caroleans (which came before Napoleon) are rifleman replacements as well.