So by coming to these forums, it’s clear many people care about civ design, and there is a pattern among forum veterans of being displeased when the devs give them “just another Arbalest civ”. People find that a civ with FU Arbalest + a bonus on top, like Ethiopians, is boring, as we have already enough of those. Analogous considerations for “just another cav civ”, such as Burgundians.
Then, when people (admittedly it’s often different people) see a civ like Bohemians, which is neither an Arbalest nor a cav civ, but an “unconventional civ with extreme design”, people complain that they are too prone to cheesy strats.
To which I then ask: can people be pleased at all? We don’t want Arbalest/Paladin/Cav Archer civs, as there are already enough of those. But when the devs come up with something unique, such as cavalry “absorbing” arrow fire, or a chariot that is both ranged and melee, people are also unhappy that the civ is “gimmicky”, relies on 1 specific timing to autowin at minute X in the game, etc.
In the end, there are only so many facets the devs can add to the game. Either you get a “traditional civ design”, or an extreme one.
Food for thought for the people who are always unhappy no matter what the devs give you. This DLC is not “another Arbalest civ” kind of DLC but people are already unhappy about the new UUs etc.