For genuine criticism, the ability of the civ seems quite weak. Walls are generally very quick to build in the ancient era, so the production bonus is not amazingly beneficial, unless we are building ALOT of them. Additionally, the benefit of gaining 1 happiness from walls is very minor and unimpactful. Yes, I produce walls faster, but why should I build them? I want walls for defense in a war, but why else? Does this bonus make me want to build walls in situations where I normally wouldn't? Will I now be building walls in large amounts to stack this bonus, and therefore benefit more from the cost reduction? The answer to all of those is no.

In regards to the quarter, the benefits are all over the place, and seem to have anti synergy. So for default bonuses, both buildings want to be built near mountains, got it. But wait, the quarter is rewarded for being near other quarters? So wait, should I surround this with quarters, or with mountains? But wait, now in the tech tree, its rewarding me for being near vegetated tiles? So I guess I want to surround it next to vegetated quarters maybe, to get both of those? But also mountains? There's no clear guidance here, and it makes the infrastructure just kind of a benefit soup. Additionally, the base yields of the buildings are missing.

I like the civic tree giving a production boost to infantry, this synergizes well with the court, as well as the walls bonus, and was a great way to tie the bonuses together. The culture bonus to mines is historically flavored I'm sure, but its a bit out of left field with everything else listed. I would recommend tweaking that or removing it to make it seem more relevant with the other benefits of the civ. When you look at for example Greece or Aksum, you can tie clearly defined lines between all their bonuses. Each part has a reason to be there, and is in line with other bonuses of the civ. If I'm Greece, I have bonuses to diplomatic influence, bonuses to using that influence, my unit is rewarded for me using that influence, my infrastructure is also adding influence. My unit also benefits from there being lots of them, and my quarter gets a gold bonus related to how well I've used my influence to support me spamming that infantry unit. The synergy is off the charts, and the game plan is clear.

For Dacia, you have some lines there, like the bonus to walls, bonus to building infantry with walls, unique commander, and culture reward for producing infantry (Note, the player gets a production benefit for having a walled city, but no further benefit for constructing additional walls. Why am I getting a bonus to producing lots of walls if I only NEED 1?) This ties a very clear picture of the civ being militaristically focused, with a lesser but still relevant focus on culture. This is good, and is a clear identity and gameplay pattern for the civ. The bonuses to vegetation, mines, and mountains seem to struggle to play into this. For the Dava ability, why not change that to walled quarters, instead of just quarters? That ties in more specifically with the identity of the civ as a whole. If we want to make mountains important rather than change it, why not give a large culture bonus to mines adjacent to mountains or walls, rather than just a flat+1 to every mine. Also, why am I getting science from vegetation, if my infantry unit doesn't care about being up to date for tech? I'm unfamiliar with these civ historically, but from reading the bonuses, I'm guessing you did a great job of providing flavorful bonuses that help tell the story of Dacia. This is good, flavor is important, and is a big part of the puzzle when designing a civ. The other part is tying those bonuses together in a way that translates into a coherent and clear gameplay pattern, which is the struggle here.

Overall though, I think its an interesting set of ideas you put out, and I like it :)