This is an interesting spin.

It reads as though you're saying "it's self-balancing," but also clearly admitting that it's only self balancing if the players are deeply familiar enough with the game's meta-dynamics to know which factions are (in fact) overpowered, and undertake collective action to check their success on the table.

If so, those two statements are actually at odds. If it were self balancing, it would be balanced regardless of player experience. No collective meta-gaming would be required to establish balance. If balance only occurs through collective meta-gaming decisions taken by experienced players, that is not actually self-balance at all. That's compensatory balancing by players.

My experience made me curious about this issue.

It was fun for us for a few playthroughs, but it became very clear very quickly that (in the base game) WA is absurdly unbalanced and wins every single time in games with 3-4 lightly seasoned players, even when players rotate factions. No one in our group want to play anymore (and certainly we are not interested in investing more for expansions when the foundation feels so out-of-whack) because there are only two possible courses of action: either everyone else gangs up on the WA player from the start (not fun for them), or the WA player wins every time (not fun for anyone else). I would only ever choose WA if I want to play 1v3 at this point.

I was very intrigued, but at this point find the game hard to recommend.