List of Mexico Nerfs

que la carta de reservistas debería dar un ataque a distancia mas débil? coño su jodido ataque es de 19 con un rango de 10 crees que eso es poderoso? y eso es daño de industrial e imperial ya que los insurgentes solo llegan hasta veteranos, y creo que es lo único que tengo que decirte lo demás tiene sentido aunque lo maya solo lo veo viable en tratado ya que la rev vale 3000 mil de cada recursos y eso se ve jodido.

1 Like

So we’re using broken mechanics to justify basic mechanics?

We could easily fix this by letting the Padre build TCs in addition to Cathedrals (which are quite overpriced right now).

The amount of power creep that a Hacienda has over any other civ’s economic farm building is unreal. They’d need to be at least 800 Wood to be considered reasonable.

Please tell me why an Estate needs the same scouting capability of a TC, why it can act as defensive buildings, forward bases, AND generate resources while being twice as cost effective as normal. It is obscene.

If they were just better rice paddies with a built-in livestock pen, they’d be good enough on their own.

2 Likes

Because the game is asymmetric, and also because otherwise nobody uses the livestock pen. Try to think outside the box for a moment.

You’re not answering my question. Why does an Estate need the same scouting capabilities of a TC (34 LOS), why does it have 5000 HP, why can it garrison villagers, why does it generate 1.0 F/s (that scales with farming upgrades), and why can it act as a forward base with Military/Eco HC shipments?

None of this has anything to do with livestock pens or livestock. Mexico gets Haciendas left and right as is, so why should they be anything more than an economic building?

5 Likes

Because:

  1. They have a cap of 80 villagers (they also have some of the worst late game economy).
  2. They cannot have a second or third TC without cards.
  3. Their 2nd factory costs resources, wood among these.
  4. Their soldato or whatever name the hybrid musk/grenadier has is basically the worst musketeer in the game until the grenade card is sent (which makes them semi viable but i’d take non RG musketeers over them any time), to the point they can’t even counter 12 range light cav.

The only reason mexico is even viable right now is because the central america revolution allows some a huge boost of villagers with their initial 7 villager and 3 per hacienda (even that is barely better than a british manor boom or port FF boom), and also empowers the FI build.

My advise is to simply swap the central america revolution and move it to age 3 or 4 or something. This alone will nerf Mexico to the point they will need buffs.

Moving it up an age is the same as removing it. The entire point is that it gives age 3 options like falconets and veteran upgrades in age 2 but for the price of stalling your economy. If you actually put it in the fortress age there would be no point in stopping all villager production for 1 falc when you can just send the 2 falc card.

The problem is, it is essentially a very cheap age 3, which is why everybody uses it to cheese their way to age 4.
As I said, moving it to age 3 will be a huge nerf to mexico, so I fully expect they will need buffs, like making some of the cards better.

Their cards are already far too good. What are you smoking?:laughing: :laughing:

It’s really troublesome balancing civilizations just through cards and not through themselves. Cards were meant to tune the civilizations or specialize the strategy AFTER they civs are done.

And this is one of the mains issues with Definitive Edition civilizations: They rely far too much on cards.
This ends up creating staples, gimmicks and over reliance on XP, so when anything is nerfed the civ as a whole crumbles. Look what we are getting now because of that: “fast arrival card”. It goes against the whole principle of shipments.

2 Likes

I could ask you the same thing, seeing how you quote out of context.

  1. They have a cap of 80 villagers since Haciendas trickle resources. If we remove this, then we can revert the vill cap to normal. This also only plays into lategame (like Dutch), so it doesn’t matter much for supremacy

  2. Villagers can still build TCs, right? A simple fix/addition would be enabling the Padre to build TCs in addition to Cathedrals. Again, we’re working around gimmicky design since Generals can’t build TCs like every other civ.

  3. And they get free upgrades and repairs and +100% resources. It’s an insane shipment.

  4. And Mexico has the best skirms and lancer cav in the game once carded early on, so they dump on light cav.

Mexico is extremely broken right now from many angles, and I think to say that just their FI is broken is overlooking severe design problems.

3 Likes

The solution is to first improve the livestock pen. Not create a super-duper livestock pen combined with several other buildings for one civ specifically, which can be buffed even further, and leave the problem as it is.

Simply send fewer villagers and/or make reverting much more costly and slower.
This entire revolution is designed as an age 2 one. There is no point moving it to another age.

1 Like

The revolution will always be better, since it is cheaper to get it than go to age3, you can bank shipments and get loads of workers back to back. But i guess the devs will likely do it your way.

Also revolutionaries are better than 90% of Mexico units.

It’s cheap and fast at the cost of stalled economy (theoretically). The problem is that it does not stall economy right now, and the solution is to make it do so, and the simplest one is to send fewer villagers.
And also make either/or revolting and reverting more costly.
You can even give different costs for reverting. E.g.
more cost for the economic revolts.

The purpose of age 2 revolutions is to make you play an age 2.5 during other civs’ age 2-3 period. You cannot make it a risky all-in like age 4 ones. In that case it ends the game too early for your opponent (if it is very strong) or yourself (if it is not so strong).
So the overall build order should be at least no faster than the regular age2-3 age up, if revolting is already cheaper and faster.

But there is s little point to going age3 right now. The age2 revolution is simply better. And I am not sure what kind of nerf can you apply that will keep it viable as an age3 alternative.

If you moved it to age3, then it could benefit from haciendas spawning villagers, which leaves some room to buff/nerf other cards accordingly.

The other age2 revolution is simply not viable in supremacy.

I think that the Haciendas construction limit should work similar to the Dutch banks.
+1 Hacienda in Exploration Age.
+1 Hacienda in Commercial Age.
+1 Hacienda in Fortress Age.
+1 Hacienda in Industrial Age.
+1 Hacienda in Imperial Age.

In fortress age you could add the possibility of obtaining an extra Hacienda by card or by technology, as for example with the “Third Guarantee”.
With 4 haciendas it is enough to have 40 vills working in gold and another 40 working in food. The other 2 Haciendas can be used to better distribute the villagers and improve the late-game economy.
At the same time, the Mayas timmings and the villager boom are nerfed.

1 Like

…I can’t get your point.
If the problem is that the revolution is simply “better” then the solution is to make it not “better”, ie make it cost more or sacrifice other aspects more.

1 Like