People should be able to play the civ whenever they want since they paid for it.
I think compromise is reduce elo gain loss for first 2 weeks so impact of imbalance is minimised.
I wonder for overall problem of ongoing imbalance civ,s maybe something like incorporating a civ elo which then is used as part of overall elo is viable? Haven’t really thought it through deeply, but could be an idea
Exactly, seems to be a lot of saltiness from people that choose not to get the new civ or don’t want to learn it. I’d definitely not buy the civ if they limited how much you could play it.
Me parece una civilización divertida y muy versátil de usar pero complicada de dominar. 
WOAH! how much health could a padre heal with all of those upgrades? like 120Hp per second???
Lovin’ it
If it were up to most of the people here there would never be any new civs. Even Sweden was a step too far. They don’t want to have to learn new strategies.
I mean, I also paid for a game (and most of the expansions). And part of that purchase was maintaining a healthy online experience. You can still play the civilization whenever you want, but you shouldn’t be able to force other people to play a bad ranked experience. Similar to how Amazonia and Caribbean aren’t part of the Ranked Ladder maps, but you still paid for them and can enjoy them noncompetitively. For an extreme of this, what if Dutch started with 3 banks along with their normal start. There would be no point in playing ranked ladder and you’d have to go to lobbies to have a decent experience.
I’m not saying my solutions are the best way to go, I’m just pointing out that there are a lot of solutions there. I think your original solution would be a good way to go. I just think there should be some system to limit the out of balance civilizations from ruining experiences. (And this doesn’t have to be limited to new civilizations. If the Aztec changes were deemed overpowered then put them in the same category until fixed).
Overall civ ELO (excluding your suggestion for new civilizations) doesn’t seem to be the best way to go. It starts getting pretty complex and will probably introduce new nuances/bugs. One thing off the top of my head: you’ll have to have different tiers based on the meta. Like if rush civilizations are really good low in the ladder but really bad higher in the ladder, what modifier do you give them? It also becomes another point of failure if people are manually changing these.
Neat mechanics. BROKEN AF. Not remotely balanced. Very sad. Overall this turns people off from this game.
Maybe first try not to make them so broken, then the problem is 75% solved.
Devs do you even look at your unit stats?
I’ve mentioned soldado as a more than 2x musketeer (corrected) with a grenade launcher.
Hand cavalry with one of the highest damage and an attack range and a charged AOE and bonuses against almost everything?
19 range musketeer with 6 speed? (maya revolution with all the buffs)
Okay I guess most of them would not be maxed out in 1v1 supremacy so they are probably balanced (in 1v1 supremacy), but why should they even exist in the first place?
People said US was OP in the beginning but now what? Just because you don’t know the counter doesn’t mean they are OP. Also, a civ must have something going for it. Every civ has something relatively powerful that can be exploited.
Bet in 2 weeks people start complaining that the civ is UP due to some unforseen reason.
US did not have ridiculous unit stats in the first place.
This kind of unit stats should not even exist, even if it cannot be always achieved. And Mexico does not seem to have that slow economy like US as a penalty.
Especially when the selling point of Mexico has been “flexibility”. I don’t know why you need flexibility if you can stack your basic unit like this.
And of course you can make a civ with terrible economy but ridiculous units. This may make even a bottom tier civ, but this is not a good design.
Don’t get me wrong. I like the concept of Mexico and most new civs. But I don’t think being able to stack unit stats into absurdity should even be part of a civ’s feature, even if it is balanced somewhere else. Most vanilla, TWC and TAD civs do not have this kind of stats (maybe Lakota + tepee is one exception, but this one is really hard to achieve and cannot even move). I used to think ashigaru + golden pavilion + daimyo is crazy enough, but it cannot be even compared to this.
What stats are they stacking so much?
Also I don’t think the eco is anything incredible, certainly not late game. Even if you send the age up card for 3v per hacienda is it that different too a brit manor boom with 20 free vills(which you get 1 by 1 so they can gather as soon as they spawn) or dutch banks worth about 4 of their vills each.
Economy-wise I’m not sure. Need to wait and see.
Chinaco can get another 1x bonus against infantry (like lancer), resulting in around 1.67x heavy infantry, +1 range and also a charged “charge” attack. It already has pretty decent base stats.
Solado I mentioned in the other post.
And the Maya revolution fusilier…18 range and 5 speed, decent hp and damage. Can be buffed further. Even for a revolution unit that’s pretty ridiculous.
And I’m not saying they are absolutely broken. They can be limited by making them hard to obtain or giving the civ terrible economy for example. I just don’t like the creeping unit stats.
I’m not familiar with the mayan unit but don’t you need to revolt twice to get those? I believe you can’t go imperial after either so probably useless in treaty, and very unlikely to be used in competitive at any decent level because so much res needs to be used to just start the revolt.
With the chinaco it’s basically just a weaker lancer, apart from the card that gives it the charge ability which I’ve never seen used as of now but if the ability is super op they can just make it have a longer delay or something, still it’s an age 4 card and I’d rather send factories or something worth 1600 res.
Well Maya requires two revolts which make it essentially an “Imperial revolt”. It is more like an Easter egg. But even for the revolt that unit looks quite ridiculous.
I’d say chinaco is generally a better hussar. It has smaller bonus against infantry, but really good base stats unlike lancer. The damage to other cavalry is corrected to normal with that pseudo-“bonus against cavaly” unlike lancer. So I feel it ends up being more flexible than both.
Also, I still don’t think “give you a lot of buff options but make it difficult to get all the bonus at the same time” is a good way to balance. On the other hand I do think it’s better to spread the creativity a little bit instead of stuffing them into one civ or one unit (resulting in many of them not really used) as if every dlc is the last one.
guys a question, how can I install the expansion if i bought the double pack with the united states?
Barbacoa card is fantastic. Get enough cattle onto a Hacienda and send the card so that the Hacienda will harvest the cattle for you when fully fattened.
Make the Hacienda spawn cattle and the Hacienda becomes a self sustaining food producer that requires no villagers. Seems pretty OP.
It’s automatically installed.
This card essentially solves exactly all the shortcomings of livestock (and reasons why people rarely use them):
Now if the livestock mechanic for other civs is improved in any one of those aspects, it should be more useful generally.
Same with healing. Mexico gets area heal (need card) and free field hospitals (need card) that solves all the problems of healing:
This is not the traditional “getting a better version of sth” kind of civ bonus. This is a super buffed version of sth that nobody else would ever use.
The Mexico Revolution (from Spain) flag now has the star of the Guarantees on a wreath rather than the first 1824 Republic flag (eagle & snake on cactus in a lake) which was the Mexico Revolution flag on DE launch.
Wrong, it’s more like a naginata rider than a lancer; Lancers are slower and are weaker vs other cavalry. Chinacos have the same speed as a hussar a bonus vs light infantry, and a slight bonus vs cav. the lancer buff card makes them fare better against heavy infantry than a hussar though.
Basically it’s a hussar with slightly weaker hp but a slight range advantage…just use them as you would hussars. initially a little weaker but used right and with the right cards can be quite devestating.