I have been invoked by name.
Learning this game comes in stages. It usually starts with thinking that Ermor kicks ***. Then Ulm is the ultimate. etc etc. The lesson to learn is that there is no best, there is only pros and cons.
This is not a "chess balance" type of game with equal pieces just a different color. Its a rock-paper-scissors balance. And its not even at playing piece levels like most R/P/S balance games. Its at nation level. They all can beat someone and they all have trouble with someone. They all have advantages and disadvantages that CAN make them your best choice, and it can take a year to explore them all. If it looks like an automatic choice, look again. If it looks like a worthless choice, examine it harder.
EVENTUALLY (well beyond the worth of the cost of the game which is what I LOVE about it. You really get your moneys worth) you might get an understanding of what each of them can do well. Then you will have an idea of which of them will serve YOUR style of playing. There is no best, there is only pros and cons. The "best" will be whichever nation YOU can play the best. And it will not have anything to do with what nation someone else plays best so dont even bother thinking about that.
For me (just as an example).. Ulm meant tank commander. Didnt suit me. Ermor meant swarm. Didnt suit me. Jotunheim meant defensive which I did pretty well. Arcos meant "dam burst" strategy which I let my brother-in-law always play in our games because he did it better. Tien-Chi worked well for barbarian horde tactics which my son loved to play. Man was air-drop which I did well on large maps doing the chicken-pox strategy.
I fell in love with Pangaea. For one thing I have always loved to focus on whatever everyone else is writing off to figure out what good it is. And then because it fit my style. I love being the surprise.
Gandalf Parker