I think that most civs, and the best designed civs, are those who have a strength and then they have a second strength that cover the weakness of their first strength. (Mayans: Eagles kill the counter to Archers. Franks: Axemen kill the counter to Knights.)
Then there are some civs who have a main strength or at least an identity-creating use-case...and then just have several options for that same thing!? Namely:
Berbers: Camel Archers to counter CA...and then Genitours that do the same?
Vietnamese: Rattan Archers to counter Archers...and then Imperial Skirms that do the same?
Teutons: Teutonic Knights who boss stationary melee fights...and then, uhm, everything else what they have to do the same?
Britons: They have archers with additional range...and then a unique unit with even longer ranger???
Khmer: They have an Elephant that is a Scorpion? Cool! But they already have the best scorps in the game and they're way cheaper lol
That always bothered me bc it feels that it makes civs less interesting than they could be. Britons with some kind of Anti-Cav-UU? Teutons with Knights that get extra pierce armor instead of melee? (I realise that wouldn't be balanced in the first place, just assume it was balanced somehow.) Imp Skirm and Genitours for other Civs who actually need them? Would be so much more fun, imo.
A little bit in that direction are also Japanese (super powerful Champs...and then Samurai?), Celts (fast infantry and great siege...and then woads who are even faster infantry and also destroy buildings?), Magyars (cheap Hussar...and UU is a better Hussar, lol), Mongols (faster firing CA...even faster firing Mangudai), Turks (better and earlier HC...UU is an even better and earlier HC), Bulgarians (strong Swordmen, strong Knights...and strong BOTH). Now they added also Mayans who have now something which is close to the two best archer-counters in the game (Aztecs and Incas being similar in that aspect though). But in those cases it feels mostly like an identity thing bc it's usually not necessarily THE thing which defines the civ.
Then there are some civs who have a main strength or at least an identity-creating use-case...and then just have several options for that same thing!? Namely:
Berbers: Camel Archers to counter CA...and then Genitours that do the same?
Vietnamese: Rattan Archers to counter Archers...and then Imperial Skirms that do the same?
Teutons: Teutonic Knights who boss stationary melee fights...and then, uhm, everything else what they have to do the same?
Britons: They have archers with additional range...and then a unique unit with even longer ranger???
Khmer: They have an Elephant that is a Scorpion? Cool! But they already have the best scorps in the game and they're way cheaper lol
That always bothered me bc it feels that it makes civs less interesting than they could be. Britons with some kind of Anti-Cav-UU? Teutons with Knights that get extra pierce armor instead of melee? (I realise that wouldn't be balanced in the first place, just assume it was balanced somehow.) Imp Skirm and Genitours for other Civs who actually need them? Would be so much more fun, imo.
A little bit in that direction are also Japanese (super powerful Champs...and then Samurai?), Celts (fast infantry and great siege...and then woads who are even faster infantry and also destroy buildings?), Magyars (cheap Hussar...and UU is a better Hussar, lol), Mongols (faster firing CA...even faster firing Mangudai), Turks (better and earlier HC...UU is an even better and earlier HC), Bulgarians (strong Swordmen, strong Knights...and strong BOTH). Now they added also Mayans who have now something which is close to the two best archer-counters in the game (Aztecs and Incas being similar in that aspect though). But in those cases it feels mostly like an identity thing bc it's usually not necessarily THE thing which defines the civ.