When France uses the bourbon natives card, they cost pop, Germany with the principe electors card that gives access to natives costs pop, why Mexican Jesuits dont cost pop?
If I understand it, they are natives from the metropolis or from the native embassy.
this bro
I know, and they can also ally themselves with the Navajo.
Personally, to balance Mexico I would take away a factory.
Because that is the general idea, that they do not cost population. If they cost population, they are the exception and not the rule. I understand that it is a way to balance them, but it should not be the way.
Nerfing the civ more would make it unplayable, It has not stopped receiving nerfs since its launch with the USA. In the opinion of decent players 1500+ ELO it even needs buffs, its one of the less used in top ranked.
Team stats
1v1 Stats
It has already been shown several times that it is more a problem of player skill and lack of knowledge of the mechanics of civilization. Whoever plays Mexico will know that it has very complex mechanics, and the problems mentioned are in very long 30+ games where ALL civilizations can make stacks of various improvements [HC + Native + Team].
ITT: a man enters a treaty conversation unaware that it may be infact a treaty conversation
P.S.- people largely agree rio grande shouldn’t get heavies nor california 2x revolt, above 1500. You gotta find better materials to make men out of than straw
4 Likes
They can ship Navajo, that isn’t an issue at all for Treaty.
The issue are the 2 Age up cards that basically give you an invisible native trading post that you can’t lose. Infinitely retrainable Conquistadors, Aztec Jaguar Warriors, and Eagle Warriors. All those with a build limit and no pop cost.
3 Likes
USA received a nerf since its launch due to its performance in treaty, and remains a competitive civ in sup and treaty mode.
Its not a skill issue, it’s a game health and balance issue.
Mexico in the treaty is very powerful, to the point of having its own tier above all other civs.(in treaty)
about the mechanical complexity part… you have no idea what we face in the treaty, in sup mode you don’t play against yukatan boom, a sup player has never seen a Maya revolt, never seen a rio grande+ wood trade, training soldados instantly in the explorer… in treated mode all age ups and revolt are possible and in a way viable, Mexico players use all possible mechanics.
I recommend you go through this experience, enter any treaty lobby (it can be tr 40, 60 any type of initial resource) and play against a Mexican…Then you will understand what this post is about.
your 1500 ELO is worthless in this situation, I assure you
2 Likes
I didn’t remember that it was a single-use shipment. I thought they were also enabled.
1 Like
No native units should have a population cost (other than the villager ones). Having a mishmash of ones that do and ones that don’t is a convoluted mess.
In most cases they just need reasonable build limits and to have more equitable access for all civs. If every civ could get 20 guaranteed “bonus natives” then the extra natives of Mexico and Ethiopia would have proportionally less impact. That would also make room for the pop costing natives of Germany and France to have that restriction removed.
Balance could be achieved by adjusting build limits of each civ’s natives. So in this case, a few less conqs and Aztecs and other civs getting a comparable amount of natives could bring it into balance.
Another option could be to link the build limits of these bonus natives to the number of embassies you have. To hit the full build limit of your bonus natives you’d need to build multiple Embassies (or Palaces for Africans). That way you could actually cut down the numbers by taking out their buildings.
4 Likes
Honestly player data base is too lo to be significant in TR. Maybe some parameters should apply only in treaty mode and leave current parameters in Sup.
I would like to if the toxic TR community would allow regular players to join rooms, you always get kicked for no reason.
1 Like
Getting 1k in guard units per native alliance sounds pretty dope to me when you can have 4 alliances and spam the respective units for 25% cheaper after that while needing like 3-4 houses
It can kinda suck getting into treaty, I get that, and some treaty players are definitely rude.
Having said that, there is kinda a reason for it (not the rudeness, but there’s reason for pickiness). It can take a while to get a game going and if it’s a 40-60 minute treaty and you get 1 noob with a wacky deck with few-to-no upgrades, it isn’t a fun game. Someone will say “rehost” and then it’s back to the lobbies hoping you can get a fair game quickly. Sometimes you do and sometimes you don’t. It could be another 20 minutes sitting in a lobby.
The problem is sorting, no one wants to waste an hour as a noob learns if it’s going ## ## # #### By design of the mode, it can be harder to get into. The result is people sometimes kicking everyone that they/people they know don’t know.
My recommendation if you want to get in are as follows:
-
Play 1v1 ranked treaty. It will get you a treaty rank and that will help you into the non-noob lobbies. Basically a “I’m not a noob card”.
-
Play FFAs. They often play a lot like treaty and much of the skills are transferrable and you might run into treaty players who can vouch for you or give you advice.
-
Host treaty games. They can’t kick a host. As you play with people (fastest gain or loss in team) you prove your skill level. I think I’ve had games where when the host asked me something, someone else who knows the host already basically said “nah, he’s good.” because they remembered me as decent.
Once you’re into the scene it gets a lot easier. You could also try joining the noob only games, though you referenced 1500 elo earlier and that might scare the noobs into kicking you.
Another tip would be playing a civ you have a high HC level with. It looks less noobish, once you have a decent WR and treaty elo it makes it more likely people will risk a rehost on you.
I’d also recommend picking decent, inoffensive civs like French, Portuguese, Germany etc. OP civs like Mexico can get you kicked by some people. If you join a lobby and see OP or annoying civs (like Mexico, or Japan) then you can also switch civs.
I’m not saying it should be this way, but it basically is this way.
1 Like
There are many who simply kick you out for having one or 2 cards different from what they consider “meta”. They are also based on elo, or they also ask you how many points you have at the end of the treaty and I don’t usually remember it. They are a group of stupid elitist.
The minimum that would be required is that you have long-term cards or infinite type shipments, such as natives or heavy cannons.
Agree, the treaty community is one of the most toxic and then they have no shame in coming to these forums begging for a balance of the late game.
1 Like
I’ve seen the score questions. I made a fairly decent treaty rank without bothering to know what mine was after whatever minutes, I usually just opted not to play with them. I think they’re a fairly small group.
As to the kicking over one bad card, I’m not sure what card was missing, I not sure I’ve encountered this. But if you were playing with the group that know scores and times for 20 some civs then I guess they’d probably do that too. If it makes you feel any better, I think that group is a minority.
As for the rest of the community, the basic issue is that in Treaty, unlike Supremacy, it’s almost impossible to win a game if you have 1 noob and the other team doesn’t.
As a result, people sort rather cautiously. Thus the kicking, etc. I understand the reasoning, I’m not saying it’s good that it is this way, but it is this way, and I couldn’t change it if I wanted to.
If you want to get really into the weeds, it’d help a lot if decks could be checked in the lobby like they could on TAD. I remember getting some deck advice back there, and sorting players based on skill level into teams or lobbies was way easier. It was easier to help people out in an empty lobby.
I’ve had great games where both teams have a noob. That can work, but it isn’t fun booming for an hour if you know the results within 2 minutes of the start. Would you want to play for an hour knowing you’ll lose within ten minutes after the treaty ends? That can even pull the fun out of it if you know you’ll win.
I’m not sure if you’re trying to lump me into that. The censor made my last post in here look pretty angry… I’m not even sure what it took out or why. I had no bad language in it, but I guess it’s notorious at this point.
To the point of “No shame coming to these forums begging for a balance of the late game.” Why would a few of them being obnoxious mean we shouldn’t?
I understand completely that Supremacy balance has to come first in general, but a lot of the stuff involving Mexico isn’t going to meaningful change 1v1.
One of the main things I was suggesting was a slight buff to the Chinaco’s base stats and a serious nerf to a couple of the cards (perfectly reasonable that the card nerfs would be larger than the stat buff based on how the game runs mathematically).
The goal I had in mind was to make Chinacos get rolling faster, but end a good bit softer. Atm they start out kinda lackluster, then end as one of, if not the, best 2pop heavy cavalry unit in the game.
I play a lot of team sup, more than I play treaty at this point, and a fairly decent percentage of team games go late enough that Chinacos are an issue. Of course in team Mexico isn’t the worst offender from a balance standpoint imo, but I’ve suggested a fairly large change to OGs for Ports that would be a net nerf, I’ve suggested nerfs to Ottomans, and I’ve suggested nerfs to the US.
@hamletlopez, I understand your frustration with Mexico always getting pointed to as an issue, but it’s happening because they are very strong in team (assuming the game doesn’t end too fast, and please keep in mind that some civs basically can’t rush) and it’s the strongest in treaty, and I’m not sure it’s even close.
I think I was happy a while ago when they changed the Chinaco’s heavy cavalry multiplier to 1.2x, it was some relief to a problem that had been a rather big issue, but it wasn’t the right fix. It made Chinacos worse when they weren’t great and barely mattered when they got good. Of course that was later reverted, putting everything right back to how it was.
I think it has to be done the other way around. Some of the cards need nerfs and the unit needs a slight buff to it’s base stats.
3 Likes
Team games inherently can’t really be balanced because of certain civ combinations and asymetric design.
The question then is, why bother?
Exact. Mexico are like 2 players in 1.
1 Like
I’m sorry about that
The more “advanced” lobbies are the staff and more careful when selecting players, because if you don’t waste a lot of time, to begin with, play treaty, I recommend that you create the lobby and start slowly.
But unfortunately it is a little toxic.