What the title says basically, right now there are 2/3 civs that are competitive on water (Vikings, Italians and maybe Portuguese) now, this doesn’t mean you can’t win on water with other civs, but you are at a severe disadvantage.
I don’t know why it is like that, in my humble opinion, half, or at least a quarter of all civs, especially those with historically competent navies like Koreans, Japanese, Chinese, Malay, Khmer, Turks (Ottomans) Byzantines, Sicilians and Spanish should be balanced to able to go toe to toe with Vikings and Italians in water maps, and again, I’m not saying that those are super OP and are not beatable on water, but there’s a reason pros always pick them for water maps, they are clearly the best…
There’s a reason why water maps are way less popular than land maps, I think it’s because of the lack of variety, some of that is due to having way less units to work with, but a lot is also because there are clear best civs for those types of maps, unlike on land maps in which all are roughly balanced.
On the topic of landings, yes, technically you can land early and not fight on water, but while this is feasible in some situations I don’t think it’s an excuse for like ~92% (I did the math) of the civs to not be that balanced in a lot of different maps.
Also “Making those civs good on water and land would be unbalanced” is not an argument, since Vikings are an amazing civ for both water and land maps.
I don’t know what buffs or changes I would implement, I just want to bring up this topic which I consider an issue, I don’t think I’m qualified to suggest what to rebalance in so many civs, so I’ll leave that to more experienced folks.
I’m not a pro, I don’t claim to know everything and I’m open for counter-arguments, but I really want to see if someone else feels this way and thinks water matches are really boring because of the unbalance.