No.
I respect your points and agree that the game is not perfectly balanced, however, there are some good reasons to accept it the way it is and be happy:
(1) I do not believe that BHG is going to release another patch. Any further patch/balance changes would almost definitely be unofficial and would splinter the community.
(2) There are fundamental problems in balancing sides... and this is not specific to RoN. Some people will tell you certain sides are too powerful, other people will give different answers. You can balance a game for inexperienced players, in which booming sides or sides with simple advantages will thrive, or you can balance a game for experienced players, assuming that everyone will get the most out of every advantage*.
If we could numerically assest every side out of 100, of course we would tweak with them until the balance is perfect, but until then, we're basically going to have to accept a bit of imbalance and ask ourselves... "Is this good enough"?
The problem with 'rebalancing' when the game is already playable is that you can make things worse. I think BHG made the right choice in principle with their most recent patch. There were some sides which were clearly weak, and some clearly strong, and they only gave small boosts to the weak sides (Lakota, Greek, Maya) and small nerfs to the strong sides (French, Iroquois, Rome, Dutch). Only the Americans got hit a little hard, but I do think they were the only unreasonably strong side, especially at beginner and intermediate levels.
I don't think it's 100% balanced, and I don't agree with their exact choices**.
They have tried 'kneejerk' reactions, like introducing Thrones & Patriots where they hit Maya and Spain really hard.
Here's how I try to gauge if it's "good enough":
- Is competitive play dominated by particular strong sides (online random games or tournaments)?
- Is competitive play devoid of particular weak sides?
If I beat someone (uncommon) I would be happy to give a rematch with any side of their choice, because no side is simply terrible or completely uncompetitive. If I won convincingly the first time, I'm confident I would win again.
Everyone has their own opinions on which nations are stronger or weaker, but there's not the clear consensus there was before this latest patch (America = Overpowered, Maya = Shite).
To respond to your specific suggestions:
- It doesn't bother me that bonuses do not clearly correspond to the concept of the nation's "Power".
- I don't think America is overpowered anymore and do not think they need further nerfing.
- I think the Chinese changes make them slightly worse and either way I think they're un-needed.
- The Mayan boost you suggested wouldn't make much of a differece but I would support it because I think they're weak.
- The Greek boost you suggest would probably make them too good, I think they just need a small boost so that their "Power" doesn't hurt them for the first 5 minutes of the game.
- The Lakota changes I don't really like, would rather see them start with the same number of citizens as everyone else (bar Korea) personally.
- Don't like the Rome or British changes
- Don't agree that Inca needs that boost
- I think Egypt is the perfect example of a balanced nation, no-one would call them overpowered, but they don't suck, and they feel unique, you can do some special things with them that no-one else can (survive with less cities, Hanging Gardens in Classical, Statue of Liberty in Enlightenment, Supercollider in Modern, etc...)Personally, if I am really serious about winning I am dissappointed when I get the following sides:
* Maya
* Spain (except in team games)
* Lakota (except in team games)
* Greece
* Mongol (I don't think they're bad, I'm bad with them)
* Korea (I don't think they're bad, I'm bad with them)
* Aztec (They're definitely a great side, but having to be so agressive to win is hard for me)
In summary:
- I don't expect another official patch, if there is I would like to see some minor boosts and basically no 'nerfs' (keeps the sides unique instead of homogenizing them). If this is what you want to pursue I suggest you start small with changes as there is no way BHG will overhaul the game this late in development.
- If someone made an unofficial balance patch, I probably wouldn't play it, or support it, and would cast a critical eye over the changes before considering it.
- If more played an unofficial balance patch than played the official game, I would probably play with it too.
Footnotes:
* Iroquois scouting is a good example of this. Iroquois are considered one of the best nations, and they get increased scout LOS, mobility, upgrades, and free ones, but a newbie (like me) will often put them on auto-explore, not getting the most of this bonus like you could with proper scouting management and 'ruin manipulation'.
** Lakota Horse Archers generate double food. This made me think "WTF?"... I thought the problem with Lakota is that they start really slow! So they gave them a bonus which doesn't kick in until much later. I think Lakota actually start with less than any other side (they lose the farm citizens along with the farms), that's just crazy-harsh.