Beg to differ. The asymmetry in AoE3 launch civs was very similar to what AoE4 has now. Plus AoE3 had cards. There were many unique cards for civs that made many viable gameplay options.
In AoE3, these are the economic bonuses for each civ at launch (not even going into cards):
Spanish: faster XP, faster shipments
British: a free villager with each house made
French: stronger vils
Dutch: vils cost coin, can build banks but vil count capped at 50, early skirmishers
Portuguese: free TC with age up. Spyglass ability for explorer.
Germans: more expensive shipments but free cavalry with each shipment
Russians: batch training. Combined barracks and outpost
Ottomans: Free settlers that spawn slowly.
Compare this with AoE4 and it’s similar (and mind you there’s no card system granting further asymmetry, but landmarks which so far need better design):
English: network of castles. Keeps produce units.
French: cheaper vils and eco.
HRE: prelates
Mongols: ovoo, mobile civ, early horseman
Delhi: free techs, infantry construct defenses
Abbasids: golden age… an extra “age up”
Chinese: faster construction, more landmarks
Rus: bounty system, hunting cabins
But this isn’t even the point. The point is whether the present game compares in diversity to the pre-existing diversity and design in the franchise at the time, and the answer is that it doesn’t. Why compare the launch of AoE4 to the launch of its predecessor. We should compare the launch of AoE4 to the latest of its predecessor.