You don’t need any revolution at all to do what I say, as long as you master the process and method, the effect can be seen in my picture reply
You kidding, right?! “Mexico not OP”, he says.
I don’t know what is your experience in Treaty, but is well known in the Treaty Community that Mexico IS OP. Same with USA.
I actually thought of something very radical…maybe give a hard upper limit for the resource gather rate? (like in Rise of Nations)
Like in 1v1 supremacy Mexico has to choose one playstyle and cannot continuously revolt and counter revolt just to grab all bonuses. But in treaty that is totally viable.
Same with the state cards. You’re not even able to send all 25 cards in a regular supremacy but in treaty having additional card slots is also a huge bonus.
Sadly most of the game’s design is balanced around 1v1 (unless there is something outrageously OP in team/treaty).
Yeah their not OP. I barely even ever see anyone play them. If they are so good more people would play them.
USA and mexico are really strong with super sharp build orders, but even 1 error and that advantage quickly evaporates, and federal state age ups have deliberate role in being situational
The US do get some really nice perks but it’s not OP. It usually seems like any time there is a new or newer civ everyone says their OP till everyone figures out how to fight them
I don’t understand that you can actually say such a thing after seeing my picture reply, seeing that stupid ten thousand output value per minute, can be achieved without livestock, with the exchange of fifteen thousand coins, they can destroy any opponent, it may be that your game level is too low for you to contact people who know how to use Mexico and the United States, after all, defeating you use any country is the same
I don’t think the development team has even thought about the consequences of their combination of cards with so many various functions, and without revolution at all, they can reach 8,000 timber production per minute and exchange more than 150,000 gold coins, which makes other countries that can exchange resources look like a joke. What’s even more ridiculous is that Mexico is so much stronger than Sweden with just 85 villagers, and the most ridiculous thing is that the development team reduced the number of villagers in Sweden and completely ignored Mexico
Actually I am not a low level treaty player. So it’s not that I’m to low to play against good players . I’ve played with players who are ranked in the top 30 to 80 players and won
Then why can’t you answer the question head-on, is it reasonable for Mexico, with only 85 farmers, to have such an economy? If you think it’s reasonable, then the next step I will suggest that the development team increase the production capacity of all other civilizations with 99 villagers, at least to more than 9,000 output per minute, I don’t understand why you turn a blind eye to these things that are beyond the norm, and some of your views are as if you don’t have much contact with the treaty model at all. Or are you inherently Mexican and American players afraid they’re weakened
I do play the USA a decent amount Mexico not that much, so I’m not that familiar with most of the techniques of playing them. Such as the high food output you talked about. How do you even get that? From an age up card? Not sure what the food output for other civs is if you put 85 Villagers on food.
There are certain revolts like california that boost cow limit to like 80 and they can gather but you can never go imperial if you choose that, think they get a 3rd factory too.
Otherwise I’m not sure either, there is a card so the flag boosts eco gathering but again not doing anything eco theory doesn’t do for other civs and mexico lack eco theory and royal mint for example.
This is a video of mexico with only eighty farmers, and in 35 minutes the exchange starts, and you can compare it with France. After the last version of the reinforcement they are stronger, you can see their production per minute wood production and French food production per minute to compare. The ratio of wood to gold is even higher. I also published the deck in the picture
I repeat, there is no need for any revolution at all. Decks and effects you can see in my image replies
I play A LOT of treaty and I agree with @AgeOfAwesomenes that neither Mexico nor USA are that unbalanced that they ruin treaty games. Really and truly just the fact that some in the game lobbies complain that they are “OP” with all kinds of descriptions does not mean in fact that there is a balance issue to resolve. I am afraid this is one thing that the devs (bless them) are missing when they keep nerfing civs based on the transient grumble of players (Ofcourse we all feel the same way when we get whipped by a player playing any of those CIVs and feel some urge to complain).
Lets take for example your comparison of the French trade with the Mexican trade. You forgot that for Mexico to make that 150K coin during the boom time, it will require a great deal of microing your vils on the trees. Now, how many players in the game can do that? If you don’t master that micro on the wood you will suffer a great deal of idleness and your gather rate and your trade will be mediocre. Why should devs now be called in to “punish” players just because they have invested the time to hone their microing skills sharp enough to reduce that idle time and get that wood coming for a great trade? Second the French CDB gather rate is 25% (thats according to Coureur des Bois | Age of Empires Series Wiki | Fandom) more than ordinary vils which is what Mexico has. During the boom you don’t have to do much once your CDBs are on those mills. Therefore, you are guaranteed at least 90% of the gather rate indicated by the game on the nameplate. Compare that to microing 82 vills around the map and chopping wood at a rate far lower than the CDB will gather food on the Mills. Clearly the player must be rewarded for that industry or when compared to the CDB for that internal “handicap” imposed on the Mexican civ. It is for these and many other reasons that the Devs thought, rightly in my opinion, to give a higher rate of trade for Mexico compared to France or Sweden or any other CIV.
With great respect to @Giorocho but I think this whole “OP” labeling business is an abused concept that is effectively killing the game for many people. In my opinion EVERY CIV in this game is OP in the right hands. As an example if I faced Floko (aka Julian K, the number 1 treaty player in the community) or any of the first 20 players in the Treaty Leader table currently, it really doesn’t matter what civ I will play or they will play. Its like in Golf. An amateur player cannot, without the advantage of a handicap, expect to beat Tiger woods simply because Tiger is using Nike Clubs and the amateur player is using some highly efficient and high tech clubs. This is a game of strategy (although unlike chess players don’t necessarily start off with the same pieces) and a rather complex game (in my humble opinion) and it is the person who invest the time and the brain power to learn and master the skills of the game that wins not necessarily the one who chooses a particular civ with which to fight. And indeed those who feel strongly about any perceived imbalance between the civs have devised a “correction” mechanism - they simply ban the civ they consider to be “OP” either from their tournaments or from their lobbies. Question is how many people play in those tournaments and how many people join those “OP” lobbies. Many of us mere mortals are quite happy to enjoy the game and try out its different parts including the many civs it presents without joining those lobbies or entering those tournaments.
From a sales and marketing point of view this phenomenon of excluding certain civs from tournaments or lobbies is a normal outcome and should not course the devs to worry about people shunning new civs. In fact I’d argue rather the contrary that it is these incessant nerfing of so called “OP” civs that will put people off from buying new DLCs. Because after all, whats the point in buying a new CIV, you spend all the time to learn and master it only to come one day and a huge nerf has made nonsense of all that strategy you have developed using valuable time.
On a personal level, I am always quick to get DLCs whenever they are launched. I just love the game and cannot have enough of it. I am always eager to see what the new CIV will bring. But after what has happened to Mexico, Ethiopia, and USA I will not be doing that anymore. Thats just me. I am sure there are others out there who feel the same.
x1,5 is too much considering how many cards/boosts Mx has for chopping
They for sure need a tweak along with Ethiopia for treaty. Im down for the devs to release civs that are slightly better than most but they almost always seem to be super busted at release which sucks. No one plays them in lobbies because they arent allowed and then they just get forgotten about over time. For me, I havnt played USA Mexico and Ethiopia since release, I want to play them but cant because they are over tuned and not balanced, especially compared to the older civs.
DLCs are a 1 week experience for higher level players, then the civs dont ever get played.
Also a reoccuring theme with the recent new civs is that they dont have the sustain to keep up with civs that have cheaper natives. Please make cheaper natives a more common thing for new civs please, its very important for treaty! Almost all the new civs cannot be played in 1v1 scenarios because of this.
It’s nice to see that you’ve said so many valuable points to reply to my post. Your screen name makes me feel familiar, if I remember correctly you should be a Swedish player, started playing Mexico after the Release in Mexico, I played about four games with your ID or similar id, ending with all my victories, I was most impressed by two games, one was when I used France against your Sweden, it was a 3v3 game, my teammate easily beat your teammate, I was about forty thousand points ahead of you in that game, but in a week later Mexico released, The last game we played was Mexico and Ethiopia in the Andes 1v1, when your Mexico was very unskilled, only 180,000 points at the beginning of the game, but Ethiopia was my most skilled country, and that game was won with me leading by only 10,000 points. My French game level is only two-thirds of my Ethiopian level, I rarely use European civilization, which is why I hate Mexico and the United States, I don’t think you can level up to the same level as me in a week, I was a long time ago the world’s top fifty treaty players and played with floko many times. I spent quite a bit of time practicing on this game, and if anyone wanted to beat me, they had to be more talented or work harder than I did, rather than just buying a new civilization to be able to do as I did, which was why I boycotted Mexico and the United States。Treaty mode is a mode that takes a long time to prepare, and the practice cost is much larger than the normal mode, so I don’t want to have invincible countries like the United States and Mexico. I usually rarely play with ordinary treaty players, it’s too fast Ending a fight is a waste of time and no progress. My usual opponents are people who are not much different from my strength. There are many such people. We enjoy more evenly matched contests, grasping opponents’ mistakes or exploiting the advantages of our own civilization to defeat opponents, rather than relying on being born better than our opponents. Strong economic strength, higher quality of soldiers. For example, when you use the Inca, you need to take advantage of the first wave of battle to overwhelm the opponent and avoid being dragged into the fire by the opponent. There’s no point in exchanging 150,000 coins and charging mindlessly with countless spears and cavalry. The frustration of finding out that the loss to Mexico was not because of his own mistakes but because his civilization is much stronger than yours is huge. As for your question about the comparison between France and Mexico, I can say responsibly that it is very easy to have 150,000 coins. If you can’t do it, you are not skilled enough in the process. This process is very simple and will not let you What do you lose, the effect is also in my picture reply you can see. We also have our own club, and newbies who come into contact with this game can reach this level stably after only one week of practice.
hello fedsomker, nice to see your reply to my post, i know you have played a lot of Hausa, and about Ethiopia, i think his limitations are too low, and the influence output is too low that most 1v1 can’t be done Continue to produce artillery and indigenous people. Without artillery and indigenous people, it is equivalent to a death sentence. The same African countries are really inefficient in farming. As the game progresses, they will become more and more unable to support the battle. I’ve played too many African games, and I know their pros and cons very well. Their pros and cons are huge, as are their cons. Influence is a creative design, but not a good design.
Wow!! what great memory @Giorocho! I don’t really remember those games but I sure did play Sweden a lot! You are right about that! And yes I was playing Mexico when it first launched! (I spent hours trying to learn about the new civ). Sure enough my Mexico play was rubbish. By your standards it probably still is. The 180K score@40 is also probably right too cos when Mexico came first I was not using the trade card and so 180K is about what I was making without the trade. But let me not detract from the main point here. This topic is too important for me to commit that cardinal sin.
You see Giorocho your submission and the response you gave to FedSmoker goes to buttress my point! I have to thank you for bringing that example out. We couldn’t have had a better example. My point is simple, whether a player wins or lose depends almost entirely on their skill level and much much less on the type of civ they play. You said it yourself we played 4 games you won all one them I played a so called “OP” CIV I still lost. You are absolutely right! I cannot level up to your skill level in a week. It will take great training and skill to beat a player like you. (Recall my golf analogy?). This goes to the point I made earlier that any CIV in the right hands could be OP.
Admittedly, no one wants to play a civ which is practically impossible to beat in a game and I’d like to believe thats not what we are talking about here. We are talking about the subtle differences in the design concept of the CIV that makes it appear stronger than other civs. I’d argue that these subtle differences are much more visible with players at the top ranks like you and FedSmoker and very much less visible at the middle to lower ranks. Because, quite obviously, middle to lower ranked persons have not optimised their strategy and gaming well enough to notice the differences and or even take advantage of it. Lets look at some numbers here.
According to the data I picked from the leaderboards today 19th April 2022, all ranked players in all the gaming modes for AOE3 DE combined is 7,439. Now if we discount this number by say 30% (note this number could actually be more in fact but I have no way of knowing so this is just a guess for argument sake) that number reduces to 5,207. I play on steam and so I am not sure if this number included players from other platforms such as XBox. Let us assume further that 30% of this number play multiplayer but are not minded to play ranked games and therefore are not on the leaderboards. That makes 6,769. So we can probably safely assume that this community is about 7,000 players. Of this just 712 are ranked treaty players. Thats just a little over 10% of the entire community. Arguably not a considerably huge number to be described as “a lot of players” in my humble opinion.
Now, based on my own observations from playing treaty games only players in about the top 350 on the leaderboards can produce a decent boom that will make the Pros proud and impressed. Further still only those in the top 200 can put up a fight that will impress the pros at the top. Further still I’d argue that only about the top 100 or even less can REALLY put up such a good fight with such skill that the subtle differences in the civ design will make a slight difference even if that is not actually observed by the players. So we are talking about 100 players out of 712 players (approximately 14%) of the players who play treaty. If you compare that to the entire community of players thats just 1.4% of the players playing the game. Thats hardly a number that could be classified as a lot of players.
Let me be clear here. I am not saying that it is not important to listen to your community no matter how small the numbers. I am also not saying that civ adjustments are unnecessary. But this continuous attack by an arguably small segment of the community on these new civs that causes devs to make massive changes to the civ design to the point that you can barely recognize the civ from when you first bought it is not an entirely good idea in my humble opinion and may in fact be ruining the game experience for many of us.