Apparently, yes. It’s not even really an argument, just people saying things like “this is ugly”, “this is boring”, “this is realistic”, with essentially no justification.
I suppose there’s not much more to say about the actual topic, but “the Middle Eastern architecture is ugly/boring” is clearly subjective and doesn’t work as an argument in favour of giving Persians central Asian architecture.
I’m not sure this isn’t a joke, especially since the Town Centre pictured looks nothing like the restaurant. It’s plausible that the roof on the left served as inspiration for those of the Imperial Age market and university, but the same roof shape exists in actual medieval Chinese and Japanese buildings.
Yeah, I think either that or Mediterranean would be marginally “more accurate”, I would argue Mediterranean is better (their wonder would fit better for starters, even if it’s ruins) but there are a lot of civs using that one… (Tho there are a lot of civs using Eastern Europe too, Bohemians and/or maybe Poles should be changed to Central Europe, but that’s another topic)
This way, almost every set will have 3 to 4 civs evenly. For me personally, there should be no more than 5 in a set.
If it’s possible, we could further split some of the above sets to make most of them have 2 to 3 civs evenly, which would solve some problems, such as being compatible with more potential civs, separating the Catholic faith of Poles and Lithuanians and the Orthodox faith of Slavs and Vlachs, etc.