I think it adds flavor, in the end, you don’t HAVE TO play Incas if you don’t like them. If you prefer an easy-on-gold civ, there is stuff like Byzantines or Vikings I guess.
in 1v1, this timer is virtually never depleted, even in Imp, most Meso civs stand their fair chance. It’s also somewhat unfair to say that the civs are gold-intensive, because they can put out the same number of soldiers as other civs, in terms of gold. For example, Eagle Warriors might not be as strong as Knights 1v1, but they also cost 50g (nearly Crossbow price) instead of 75g. This allows them to be very light on eco, and much like Crossbows you can do all sort of all-ins or 3 TC booms that are impossible to do while pumping Knights.
no I don’t think so, I think a game where every civ has a chance at every stage in the game in every matchup, would be a very boring game. If you don’t like the idea that meso lose when out of gold, you can play something like Spanish or Magyars, you get excellent late game but also all the drawbacks. No civ is perfect.
if you don’t think power spikes, and favorable/unfavorable civ matchups belong in the game, then probably to you only something like Byzantines vs Byzantines or Persians vs Persians is fun. I, however, call that boring.
and I want Burgundians to get access to Steppe Lancer, and Tatars to get Paladin. In the end, you gotta realize, these are just personal bias. The better question to ask is, do these civs make sense from a design perspective? And in case of Incas, the answer is yes, they have a solid eco bonus, and power spikes and options here and there. Their main caveat compared to other meso civs is that they can add Slingers in Castle age, so vs Incas, going Longswords (which is already generally ill-advised) is not an option at all.