Don’t get me wrong, I really liked the new concepts introduced in USA and Mexico. The adaptable deck, the variable Age Up and the bonus XP feels a nice way to expand the game’s frontiers without departing from common european elements.
However, I can see why some people have called both civs, particularly Mexico, busted.
Starting from the most evident of elements, that being, military units, we got quite a disbalance. Euro units are roughly divided between “early” and “late” batches, with even Italy adhering to this model: You have pikes and xbows in age II and gradually unlock halberds and skirmishers, which are better versions of said units, even if they have some drawback as being weaker or more expensive. Mexico in particular throws that out of the window and have a very good musk and a very good skirmisher from the get go, while USA got both very good units in the forms of the Volunteer and the Sharpshooter, which aren’t really upgrades of one another but rather complementarty. Mexico also have the problematic chinaco which is an totipotent cavalry unit that makes redudant the dragoons as well as having the same aplication as Spain’s lancero. USA zigzags that problem only to fall in it by the immigrant mechanic which gives them basically better Hussars. I know that asian civs also have only “one roster”, however Japan have been arguably overpowered since its inception and shouldn’t really be a model for future civs.
Other problematic aspect is that their XP mechanic really seem kinda a direct upgrade from all other civs. As I’m not very presesent in the multiplayer scene I can not argue with certainty, but it seems to me that, despite American civs getting more cards as they age up, they kinda have the advantage on getting more shipments earlier.
Mexico in particular have a further problem in the form of the early revolutions. If a common FF strategy ages up with 25 villagers, that mean at least 25 revolutionaries or filibusteers when you revolt, plus the revolt bonus, plus any ammount of army you have massed by this point, which, on top, are always followed by the impresive cards that revolutions got acess to. Revolts are supposedly a gamble, however, I don’t see any other FF civ which can output as much as to defend from a Filibuster or Central American push.
Then again, don’t get me wrong. I really like both civs, I really do, but I think the execution was kinda overdone and caused, voluntarely or not, a powercreep phenomenon.
2 Likes
I think it’s more of a “Feature Creep” situation than “Power Creep” per se. USA and Mexico have tons of new unique features, that while ok in isolation, can snowball into some ridiculous scenarios when combined.
On top of that, Mexico has access to the actual Spanish Lancer in Age IV with the Spanish Sympathizers card.
4 Likes
I really had not look at the problem that way. Good insight. Although there are some featuress that color me surprissed that really nobody had talk about, as the USA free crates.
4 Likes
I often forget that XP Crates are a thing for the Americans and Mexicans. This is a small feature that could easily be adapted to older civs that need a boost instead of being an Post-Colonial civ unique thing.
2 Likes