The Gauls and Byzantium are probably the civs I wanted the least besides Babylon lol. The Maya so far are the most asymmetric design in the game, but what disappoints me is that a) it's not really that asymmetric, and b) the design is just flavorfully really bland and does a poor job of communicating why the asymmetry exists. * The Maya have no need to settle near rivers, yet there is nothing mechanically communicating why they can do that. We know it is because they had a cistern and aqueduct system, but nothing about their assets or mechanics communicates that. * If the Maya do have such a water system, the question is begged why can't they settle much farther than their capital? Why is their capital the limiting variable, where the Maya were a confederation and one city-state was about as politically relevant as another. They could theoretically get rainwater from anywhere, (maybe as long as they settle in rainforests?). And while we could get some sort of explanation of the capital being the source of an aqueduct system, or a saacbe improvement facilitating intercity trade, or the cities being susceptible to drought and famine, but again there is no explanation. * The luxury resource bonus is lazy at this point. The Cree got a Mekewap bonus for being adjacent to luxuries. Montezuma's LA provides amenities for improved luxury resources. This is the third native American civ that has luxury bonuses, it's become trite and occidentalist. Don't get me wrong, the Maya seem to show some potential (as does Byzantium) mechanically, but on the whole I do not find their designs as deep or resonant as the ones we got in GS or even in R&F. NFP is really demonstrating how much even dumb, shallow mechanics like Golden Ages or Casus Belli can make civs feel a lot more unique.