You can, just as everyone can. But as far as I know about you, you may never be satisfied.
How far do we have to go for native civilizations to be considered the same level as the Europeans? The answer may be different for different people, and for some, the question should even have been turned upside down over the past 20 years.
From 2006, almost every native unit and building has a unique skin, unique stats, unique name, while recently some units of Europeans finally get a unique skin after Age 4. People have enjoyed the maps and minor civs of the Americas for almost 20 years, and it wasn’t until last year that people got the maps and minor civs of Europe.
Same level of care as the Europeans, which means that we should first consider making Haud and Lakota share the same bowman, clubman and rifleman in War Huts at least until Age 4. Same level as the Europeans also means only adding new cards, reskinning and renaming, no changes to the mechaniscs or even the civilization as a whole rework. Also, without DLC, there is no possibility of introducing new civilizations, a large number of new maps and new minor civs.
What you may need to know is that you may think that many people are dissatisfied with your push, but in fact most of them are also people who want the native civs to be more accurate and hope that every civ can be taken care of.
With goodwill to improve the civ and more or less study on native cultures, they have shared some ideas that are easier to implement, and those ideas could more or less bring better or more accurate content to the game, but they are still criticized by you for “not enough”, “too little”, “still stereotypes”, and even “discrimination”. These are where the problems are, nothing to do with the natives. You have hurt many potential supporters, even though they are still with you in the general direction of improving accuracy.
But how dare I wish a Lakota to tolerate other people’s opinions about the in-game Lakota civilization?
To this day Germans still don’t have default Musketeers, Grenadiers and Hussars, Russians don’t have default dragoons, Ulans and Cossacks don’t use lances, British don’t give up longbows until age 4, some civs even have Pikemen buff from age 4. For the sake of gameplay and entertainment, each civ has a difference from reality. I don’t know if any Maltese have complained that Commanderies’ teleportation is magical powers.
Any way, I remember you once had a proposal for renaming units. That’s pretty much your most practical, most implementable, most supported (by including me), best advice. If renaming and reskinning can simply help make those vague units relatively more accurate and reasonable, then do it.
The Plaza is viewed by you as “magic”, as a stereotype. But the definition of Plaza is already good enough to offer a better explanation than continuous dancing around a fire pit. People descuss and debate about public affairs, and while people are focused on an issue, the response to that issue has a positive effect, until fewer people pay attention on this issue or people focus on other issues.
In terms of gameplay design, it still has merit. It is a unique way to obtain buffs in exchange for villagers’ gathering time instead of a simple one-time resource cost. Although you cannot hold multiple effects at the same time, you can simply switch to other effects to meet the current needs without investing more costs. These mean that the threshold for obtaining those buffs is very low, but as time goes by, those buffs are no longer so cost-effective, which is in line with the characteristics of natives that are strong in the early and weak in the late.
We can still hope that the Plaza can have more changes, such as changes in the gameplay, such as changing the construction cost to 0 or making the ceremonies have a basic rate even if there are no unit tasked on there, or changes in the visual, such as giving Aztec Plaza a pyramid, Lakota Plaza a white buffalo, etc. But, as someone who likes to play these civs, I’d like to see the Plaza better, not see it removed.