I agree.
The Ch’ing dynasty also had many unique Manchu characteristics. I believe that being able to annex Mongolia and Tibet was a unique achievement of the Manchus.
In fact, some scholars say that the actual state of the Ch’ing Empire was more like a personal union that unified many countries, including Manchuria and China. And it’s just that China had a greater weight overall.
‘Fixing non Euro/colonial esp Asians’ = split the Chinese into Ming and Qing civs?
I don’t see how this helps anything.
Yeah, there a point where both the Ming and Qing exist as seperate entities, however surely that’s null and void when we’re looking at China as a whole? We’re looking Imperial China - the Dynasties who ruled it are important, but we’re focusing on the history of China, not the Ming & Qing on there own (let’s throw in the short-lived Later Jin and Shun in there too).
This could so easily be implemented with unit graphics - with a transition from Ming to Qing aesthetics (rather than the ‘later-upgrades-MUST-be-extravagant-looking’ trend, which leads to the more armoured and decidely archaic-looking graphics being a unit’s ‘final form’ - reality for most civs is almost always the opposite, but that’s a topic for another day).
Various other Ming/Qing ties could added by way of HC cards, and one simple addition could an equivelent card to the Dance Hall / Theaters which allows the Chinese to train Manchu mercs.
On to India
On the subject of Asian mercenaries, I wish the Indians had access to more Mughal-linked Mercs. Jat Lancers were always an odd choice of merc for the Indians as 1. The Jats were in rebellion and war with the Mughal Empire through two centuries and 2. They were hired by the British East India Company (later British India). Ah for good measure - 3. the Jat cavalary regiment were hired to combat the 1857 uprising. TLDR? Not a good choice for an Indian/Mughal merc! Would make a most excellent Theaters Ronin replacement for the British though…
There’s a wealth of Mercs/Natives choices that would work better than Jats or just as completely new additions, such as Hindustani Cav Archers - The Mughals employed a huge amount of Hinudstani cavalry who dressed much the same as Qizilbash. Heck, you could just give them an HC card that enables Qizilbash native access, considering many of the Hindustanis came from Kashmir anyway.
Another small change (and one that has been suggested many times before) is just to change the Sowar into a horse unit - during the 17th century, the Mughal Empire had the largest millitary on earth, with cavalry alone reaching around 342,696 horsemen. Seems weird, veering into orientalism, to make their entire cavalry line non-horse!
Possible rework for Indians should be Princely States focused having call ins fron all prominent ones by HC Cards.
Fixing India should also include putting some effort to make units speak their accurate language. Urumis, Chakrams, Gorkhas speaking Malyalam, Punjabi, Nepali and so on.
Making them all Hindi is very lazy.
I don’t think there’s a consensus on how to fix non-European civilizations, but this is my suggestion. 
Remove the wonder system and the export resource.
Give it the age up system that African civilizations have.
Replace the Japanese shrines with royal houses without any special effects.
Change the monks/heroes to a single mounted scout/hero.
All Asian settlers cost food and all units change their stats, costs, and functions to be more similar to European units. (this is for balance)
Give visually unique factories to each civilization.
Change the appearance of the ninja to be more historically correct.
Remove the Chinese recruitment system and make it more similar to the Russian one, both in units and villagers.
Remove the plaza/bonfire and change it to a proper temple/shaman house.
Remove the magic system and turn those rites into technologies with reasonable stats. (which could be researched at the temple and are equivalent to the European arsenal)
Give them the age up system that post colonial civilizations have. (Territory, allies or the war council itself, I don’t care, just give them 2 cards for each age)
Give artillery, cavalry and gunpowder weapons to the Incas, plus they should be able to have an advanced arsenal. (through a card and if the arsenal is European)
All these civilizations should have economic improvements from the industrial age that allow them to compete against civilizations with access to factories.
More variety of artillery for native units that have access to them and more variety of captured artillery for those that historically did not have access to artillery. (this is for pure balance)
All units have to be equivalent in cost, stats and function to European units. (obviously for game balance)
If a civilization can have a revolution, then it should work exactly like the European revolutions and should be on par with the Imperial revolutions. (French, Texan, Mayan, and Californian Revolutions)
No civilization should lack basic units for the game period and for the base game.
All civilizations should be able to excel at something, but through the age-up system and cards, not through arbitrary mechanics.
If a civilization lacks something historically, it can be compensated for with new or old mercenaries, there is no need to give super units.
I realize that my opinion is not shared by almost anyone on the forum, but I think this would greatly improve these civilizations and make it easier to balance them, while also making it easier for more people to use them.
Oh boy, those (and there are some solid suggestions) would require a whole new game - you’d need to start the Asian Dynasty expansion again.
I know, but I really hate the expansion of Asian civilizations. XD
Also, the developers will never fix or update any civilization, because they “respect” how they were originally, that’s why we’ll never see drastic changes to how civilizations are played.
For example, we’ll never see Spanish and Portuguese with Haciendas like the Mexican ones, because they don’t want to or can’t make those changes.
I say this with regret, because for me the game needs to evolve, integrate all the civilizations well, unify the age up system (which for me the best is the Post-colonial/African) and ensure that the civilizations are easy to understand, but difficult to master.
There is a point where I think the civilizations are too unique and this can hurt the game by making it difficult for new people to join.
Personnellement je trouve justement les civs européennes encore trop homogènes, surtout vu le boulot pour les civs russes et ottoman, si je voulais jouer à un jeu homogène je serais allé sur aoe2.
I think European civilizations just need to make their units look more unique and I would also change the age up system to the postcolonial/African system.
I also think that the movement of villagers in mills and plantations should be eliminated.
At most, I would add the Mexican hacienda or something similar to the colonial powers of the American continent.
For me, all civilizations should lose their current initial bonuses and instead get the same experience rate that Spain has. This is to give more customization to the civilization, but through the age up system cards and the metropolis.
I would also like to see redundant cards eliminated as much as possible, for example the fencing school and cavalry cards, they could be eliminated/merged, perhaps into something like military school or professional soldiers. (could work like the Spanish reconquista card, but without the speed boost)
In short, I would prefer them to be a middle ground between current European civilizations and post-colonial civilizations. (But without breaking the balance of their units)
Obviously this would require rebalancing the civilizations and their cards, but as I said, this is very unlikely to happen.
Since this topic is about non-European civilizations, I think out of respect for the creator, we should refrain from continuing this conversation.
I also don’t have much more to say about European civilizations, I think they are not very well integrated into the game and for me they need to be unique, but only in appearance, not in mechanics or super broken units.
If it is undressed Paul to dress Pierre it would be much worse than aoe2 since even the civs of this game have specifités that make what civs will be played and not another according to our feelings.
After the Asiat civs have the concern that when they lose their wonders it is downright irrattrapable for the civs who endure an assault and I am clearly for a change, but without forgetting the Amerindian civs which would deserve also a big overhaul, ah and for the tradition of up/nerfs, go nerf the Aztecss :o
In general I want a homogenization of how civilizations are played, so for me the change has to be in favor of simplifying the readability of civilizations, but this would have to come with a general change to the cards and the age up system, precisely to avoid them feeling like carbon copies. (No one wants this game to become AOE2)
That said, the reason I suggest a change in the age up system, is precisely so that the civilization evolves during the game based always on the decisions of the player, with this we would personalize the civilization and we could obtain very different results depending on which Politician/State/Allies we have chosen to age and which cards we have in our hand.
For example.
If I age up with a specific German politician, we could have the Winged Hussars as a recruitable unit. (although obviously through a card and balanced to be a standard unit)
If we age with a certain Inca leader we will be able to have access to a revolution that improves our units and allows us to train new ones. (Yes, I am talking about a new revolution, that of Manco Inca)
I hope this clarifies a little more what I want for all civilizations.
Pour moi votre argumentation est clair même si je ne suis pas chaud pour voir une telle itération du jeu venir, mais globalement nous somme tout de même d’accord sur certains points
I think you just want to play Age of Empires II.
What? Why?
I literally like metropolis shipments, I want gunpowder weapons for all civilizations and an age up system where every decision has weight in how each civilization develops. (giving unique units and cards that really have an impact on the civilization)
The opposite of AOE2 where each civilization is just a copy and paste with slight variations and a couple of unique units.
I don’t think it is an improvement to just make Asian into africans, esp. because the african system is about the worst system implemented, it is extremely over designed compared to the relatively easy to understand asian wonder system. So not only do you remove what makes the asian factions unique, and popular, you also implement a worse system.
Same thing with the natives, essentially you just make them european factions.
They are fundamentally well designed civilizations. There are only historical inconsistencies that need to be changed, but not many things related to gameplay.
I completely hate its design and most of its mechanics, I can’t agree with your opinion.
If it makes you feel better, nothing I proposed will ever happen, much to my regret.
The whole monastery thing is my biggest pet peeve - why on earth was it ever made the ‘tavern’ building??
Because there is a concept in Buddhism called “Lay down the killing knife and instantly turn into a Buddha.” Did you even notice the title of “Repentant”?
I think everyone has noticed the Repentant tag since the very beginning - it’s a super lazy way to bring Mercenaries to a religious building. Why does Buddha’s teachings need to be applied to all the Asian Dynasties as an abstract way of justifying swords for hire in a holy building?
This is one of the areas where the Asian Dynasties civs could have just as a counterpart Church and Tavern rather than a weird hybrid of the two.
Why can’t Asians hire them with money or profits but have to convince them with religion? If they truly serve the Asian empire for religious reasons, then hiring them shouldn’t cost resources. Christianity, the most missionary religion, cannot make soldiers “repent” to the Western civs?
The most irritating thing about the Asian civs is that they are centered around stereotypical and old-movie-like themes of religion and martial arts at their core, such like making martial arts monks with extraordinary combat power the heroes of the civs. Divided feudal Japan was not unified by religion but by the politics and military of samurais; the territorial expansion and rule of the Qing Empire and the Mughal Empire was never achieved by a group of Shaolin monks or Brahmin monks charging on the front lines but by large and complex organizations of military and officials.