I think there are enough civs. There are already 35 civs and some of them arent picked frequently. Adding more to the game and even the pros dont know every bonus of every civ anymore. So i dont really hope for more civs. I have around 80 multiplayers games and i havent played each civ once.
Having frequently balance changes is much better than trying to change the game by adding more civs. It would be nice if the current top picks are picked less and if the current worst picks are picked more.
This would happen even if you only had 8 civs. Meta is hard, and better civs will always be played a lot more, we can see this in AoE3, which has much less civs.
Not every civ being played in Ranked, is a bad argument against adding more civs, as a lot of people play SP rather than MP, and Team Games have a lot more civ variety.
As long as an added element does not become disruptive in MP, ther is no reason not to add it.
What I see is that some players just want to destroy the fun in the game with all these BALANCE suggestions⊠So after that, all civs will be equaly boring. When was released Aoe 2 DE, there were 35 civs and every civ was powerful at some conditions( some maps ).
Only few games has 35 civsâŠ
Also, it is true that most of the balance suggestions are proposed by total New, Noob players. They seems as some beggars near to a rich man who just want to take something from him. And may be they want to receive these game changes, together with receiving money from Microsoft ??!! 
Also, with all these changes to the civs, the players can NOT see their Multiplayer Recorded games and to seek and find if some player use CHEATS, HACKS for more resources or better units. I saw a game of a player- MBL, where his opponent- Daniel did 350 damage to the MBLâs towncenter with 1 shot of mangonel. 
Them Mangos be crazy!!!
i want to see a Lithuanians campaign. Literally the only civ who isnât played in a campaign or historic battle.
i wouldnât mind new civs, but only after they get the current ones in a better situation.
It was the same when The Conquerors released back in the day.
Itâs a way to get people to try the new civs and have lots of fun.
Oh, you are complete right about there will be always better civs. I would love if that better civ isnt always the same, so we see more different civs in all matches over time. The game is getting boring if you always face Persians or Khmer. MegaRandom turns out into Mongol mirror every time. Some civs i have never seens. Magyars, Turks, Teutons, Burmese, Berbers, âŠ
Lets have a look at my last 8 team games (there will be more diversity you mentioned): In just one match no one picked Persians or Khmer. In other games Persians and/or Khmer was picked.
About single players: There are already so much combinations of civs to make. Even in SP where you can pick all civs you cant even try all:
1v1: 1225 different combinations
1v2: 42875 different combinations
1v3: 1500625 different combinations
âŠ
The number of different combinations will explote. Even adding 5 civs, will make the number 1600, 64000 and 2560000. So you see how this number explote. Letâs have a look for all 1v2 games. To do all match ups, you need around 1,5 year of full time playing the game (even no sleep at all). Every map will be a multiplier to this number. Every game mode too. There are already many, many combinations to try on different maps on different game modes. I dont see why we would need new civs for SP. The number of different match up is already endless.
Also if we perform a gap analyses for all civs, we dont really have gaps which need to be filled with other civs. This means most civs play out like an already existing civs. This just dont add anything new to the game. This yields for SP and MP.
I just see no reason for adding more civs to the game. Not for SP, not for MP.
Balance doesnt mean equal. Every civs needs to have its own play style. Therefore every civs has his own unique tech tree. Balance just means there is no overpowered of underpowered civ. Just having all civs are powerful at some condition is the main part of a balanced game.
As a Middle Ages enthusiast, and a Christian Crusader, I see no issues with this quest!
-We have no civ that upgrades a type of unit solely by bonuses and UTs, rather than the unitâs actual upgrades (a civ that only gets Man-at-Arms, but the units gets another 3 attack in Castle Age, and yet another 3 in Imperial Age, and has a UT that grants it +40 HP +2/+2 Armour, for example).
-We have no civ that has only only 1 or 2 Siege Workshop units (like a civ that only has Rams, or only has Rams and BBCs, or only has Rams and Siege Towers).
-We have no civ that has a Siege Tower focus.
-We have no civ that uses Flamethrower UUs or Towers.
-We have no civ that uses Poleaxemen.
-We have no civ has free Stone Mining upgrades.
-We have no civ that has a boarding ship.
-We have no civ that has a bonus that adds solely Armour to its buildings (no HP).
-We have no civ that has instant Archery Ranger or Stables production.
-We have no civ with Shielded Spearmen.
-We have no civ with Cranequiers.
-We have no civ with Trash Knight line.
-We have no civ with Nafta incendiary explosives.
-We have no civ with Macemen Infantry.
-We have no civ with a Cavalry unit that wields a two-handed weapon.
-We have no civ with Camelry Gunners.
-We have no civ with Bombard Elephants.
-We have no civ with Free Archer Attack or Armour upgrades (at the Blacksmith).
Just off the top of my head. Probably could come up with much more.
I am no big fan of more expansions that are paid, if they are important for the game. Like i dont want to have players with 5 civs more to choose from around, because they paid more.
In case of single player expierience like new campaigns, icons, graphics, etc. i would totally love this.
But for all the players who switched from HD to DE, another âPay $20 for full experienceâ would be a bit too much right now.
The expansions/DLCs for HD were sold for 10$ roughly though.
Please try it for the following settings:
See you in 2030 with no sleep at all. Than we talk about new civs.
I will help you:
If we dont have a civ with something, does this mean we miss something? Will it create unique game play? For example: I like the design of the Cumans. It creates new strategies who are not working for other civs. Things like a feudal boom of a capped ram push in castle age.
Most of your list dont really create new strategies / game play. It makes the civs not really unique to play. Just to respons on some of your ideas:
How will free stone mining upgrades effect the game play of a civ? You will have quicker the stone for castles. It wont effect gameplay otherwise.
How will free archers upgrades in blacksmith creates unique game play? It will just push you toward an archer rush or tower rush. There are already lots of civs who can execute those strategies.
How would the game play of armor for buildings change the game play different than extra HP do for byzantines? Game play wise there isnt really much difference between extra HP or extra Armor for buildings. In both cases you can destroy the buildings less easily. So this civ will be a good defensive civ. We already have good defensive civs.
Isnt the Magyar Huszar not something like a trash knight line? How would a trash knight line plays out different than the Magyar Huszar? I dont think there would be a big different between both civs.
So you , you can come up with a whole list of things not in AoE II. This doesnt mean we dont have such kinda civ already into the game. I feel like more civs dont really add something to the game. It wont generate new game play. In the end most new civs just play like some other already existing civ.
I dont say, they should give us new content for free, its just that this kind of expansion (one that changes multiplayer at least) is not really necessary right nowâŠ
Iâd still like to see some in the future. Maybe in 1 or 2 years.
This would happen even if you only had 8 civs. Meta is hard, and better civs will always be played a lot more, we can see this in AoE3, which has much less civs.
Not every civ being played in Ranked, is a bad argument against adding more civs, as a lot of people play SP rather than MP, and Team Games have a lot more civ variety.
As long as an added element does not become disruptive in MP, ther is no reason not to add it.
Adding more civs kills the random civ feature, it already takes longer than a month on average to get your favorite civ when you play 1 game/day.
New campaign for China and new campaign or scenarios for newly added faction.
New faction: Sinhalese, Manchu, Tibbet
Ethnic unit skins for all culture groups just where itâs really necessary.
New eastern architecture style for Mongols, Manchu, Tibbet.
Definitely, yes! But I think that it should be balanced between casual players and pro gamers or people who watch Aoe 2 pro scene. What do I mean? I, personally, like both sides of our favorite game- I like to watch streams, sometime play ranked and like casual team games with friends. So, pro community is against of adding any new civs, but casual gamers want to add freeaking amount of new civs. I think that both positions are wrong, Itâs obvious that we donât need 10 new civs in fourthcoming dlcâs. But there are some really Forgotten civilizations that needed to be add - 2 or 4 maximum - it can be devided in two new dlc. And it would be a good compromise. What about adding new graphics - there are a lot of people that want regional skins for units - thatâs another thing that need to be balanced for all players - the idea is not bad. and it could be dlc like Enhanced Graphics Pack - that could be turn off in settings.
There is no complain about new campaings- nobody is against it 
every thing but the civs. i think if new civs are added have them for everyone but everything else taht doesnt force anybody to buy them im ok with. i dont whant a split player base and the other stuff doesnt effect other players
Thatâs a good argument. But If we are talking about Historical accuracy we need Georgians at least- Itâs not fair that such a civilization with rather big medieval kingdom is not in the game- also it could be a very good campaign with this civ.
If it would work the same way like it did in the HD edition, no playerbase would be split. Youâd simply had people which would have access to 40 instead of 35 civs.
I still donât get the argument of being forced to buy new content. If youâd like to play with the new civs in such a DLC, you would have to pay for it but nobody forces you to buy stuff.