[DrPraetorious]

This is a 4X game in a sense, so those who are strong expanders will tend to have stronger armies, more gems and more money means more magic in the late game, etc.

The sea nations are a special case, as their strength depends entirely on how much water people think is "fair". With that much variability between maps, I don't think you can give a general answer for the water nations.

I do not, myself, think that the strong nations are enough stronger than the regular nations that it is a problem - but I have an accepting attitude towards the fact that players are often eliminated by a strong bless rush.

The *weak* nations are something of a problem, however. I'd say that Marverni and the Ulms tend to be serious underperformers, although how much of this is reinforced by our expectations, I couldn't say.

EA - Niefelheim is nearly as fierce as Lanka out of the gate and in the midgame, and has much better magic diversity for late game craziness. Neither position has good researchers; I was terrified of Lanka when it first came out but, for the reasons that K specified, am less impressed by it now. Niefelheim is also my pick for overall strongest nation - if you started with equal-sized empires at turn 30 this would not be the case, but that's not how the game works.

MA - Ermor, as much as it pains me to agree with QM and KtB, MA Ermor is a great expander with a very strong (and diverse) military and great combat magic. What else could you ask for?

LA - This is harder, but I'd say LA Mictlan.
Most late age nations have weaker magic than other eras; LA Mictlan is basically an EA nation transplanted into the late era.
I don't want to rehash this old argument, but I am very much of the "LA Ermor is just okay" school of thought.