Like since the civ launch it has not stopped recieving nerfs and now again?
I think the same as Lion, the civ was meh in last patch when baja was killed and now its like D tier at best
Mexico were, and still are, a really strong civ, primarily because they are extremely flexible - you have 3 different ways to play an aggressive early game (Baja, Central Americas, standard age 2), then you also have a valid FF and 3 different FI’s (Rio Grande, natives and standard). On top of this they also have good baseline units, Skirmishers that are available in age 2, heavy cav that can counter other heavy cav, a good late game with free Hacienda upgrades, and so on and so forth.
3 Likes
About the revolutions, there are only some usable, for exmple Baja was definitely killed already, and most of the others are pretty situational. There is almost no path you can follow as standard that has a strong composition.
Again, people are just talking for the sake of talking, driven by hate. Those horses lose to a regular Hussar in attack. But when enemy mass units Mexico is left with a lance horse that doesn’t do either job well; it doesn’t tank and doesn’t have a decent attack in the early game.
A game match barelly gets late game, everything is decided in early game and there Mexico is one of the weakest as of now.
Going to just say, I’ve been digging into a concept looking at Poland and kinda Denmark based on what are imo weird balance issues, I think Mexico suffers from a similar issue Poland does; Their units scale way too hard.
A skirm with 16-17 base range and one with 22 range are frankly basically totally different units imo. They interact with normal units in totally different ways at different points while the cost remains largely the same (actually goes down but whatever).
If you balance a unit to have 17 range, it will need a certain amount of speed, hp, attack, etc to be worth its cost. Most units would keep that lower range throughout the game (or perhaps go up a little like 18 → 20), and get normal stat improvements so its “unit usefulness” remains similar. Of course some power spikes will and should exist imo, and some units may be phased out or are designed in ways where they become largely obsolete and all of that is fine imo, but changes like adding 5 range on a skirm requires the question: are you pricing the unit for what it is, or for what it will be? If the former, it’ll probably end up op, if the latter it’ll probably start out pretty bad.
Chinacos and Salts scale too hard imo. Both start out kinda bad and get to be really strong. A normal “good unit” like a British Hussar gets to be roughly 2.5x better by the time it’s fully upgraded. A Salt with (low balling) +5 range, and +120ish% higher attack and hp is probably a lot better than 2.5x better. The extra hp and attack alone would put you at ~2.2x, and they have more than +120%.
Chinacos with the +1x vs infantry and extra range I’m pretty sure they end up over-performing a normal lancers vs heavy cavalry en mass while retaining ~half the bonus of a lancer (~2.5x vs light infantry and roughly 2x vs heavy infantry, but I’d need to check the multipliers). They don’t start out like that though, so which unit are you paying for?
Imo both units could probably use less scaling and better base stats.
1 Like
Yo sigo pensando que muchas unidades unicas podrian simplemente tener claras desventajas y que no escalen demasiado y que incluso fuesen equilibradas, sin perder su aspecto identitario
1 Like