they are way more powerful than they should be.

There are so many forests that the attacking units can comfortably lay siege. It takes AT LEAST two units to uplift one on a forest, and at that point even a warrior is a big investment because you want to be building workers.
They can simultaneously threaten the city and any workers nearby. There is no way to "meet" the attacking unit and stop the advance, since there are 3 ways it can move.

So, basically being on the offensive gives a huge, unrealistic edge. The game mechanics are so much different on that level, and I feel its not really in the spirit of how the game is supposed to be played.

How do other people feel about it? I am alone in this?


ah, and this applies to multiplayer, not single player

I agree, in general.

Very aggressive players can totally screw with a "start slow and get stronger" strategy, which works very well in SP.

Have you tried doing OCC duels? They're lots of fun. Everyone ends up being extremely paranoid, because you have only one city available to you. A single warrior -- with 0.1% odds -- can bring down an entire empire.

It neccessarily changes the dynamics and your strategies. Maybe an OCC game would force you to think more about your offense/defense and less about infrastructure?

I don't see this as a problem if its a multiplayer game. As Sun Tzu said, know thy enemy and know thyself and thou shalt win every battle. ;) If you know the other player like an early rush tactic then match him with the same tactic. If you build warrior and he build warrior, both will still progress at the same pace, no? :D

"If you build warrior and he build warrior, both will still progress at the same pace, no?"

nope, because you have to build more units than they send. So he builds 2 warriors, you have to build 3 or even 4.

And in the meantime they can monitor all your actions, while you can't monitor what actions they are taking. they can build the right units to counter your units, see if you are whipping for units(and in that case they can just build up since you've fell behind).


So the person who lodges their units in the other persons tree has a big advantage.

I believe I know how to beat the strategy, but I hate doing it. It's largely about grabbing the initiative. YOU want to be the one planting yourself in their trees. Like you said. But this early warfare is so drab, I don't enjoy carrying it out....

It's also about getting the right resources hooked up (horses or copper), or being very quick about getting a bunch YOUR archers defending in your trees, pr making sure you have a strong superiority in numbers before they head towards your city. And of course, chopping away all nearby forests. But that takes time.


I suppose I will look into other strategies for very early fighting... although what I try to do instead is just play larger maps... where they can't place their second city adjacent to your capital.

Sorry if I didn't make myself clearer. :p

When I say he build warrior, you build warrior, I don't mean on the defensive side. I mean take the offensive to him! :D So why should you be on the defensive if you know he will bring on the rush? Bring it to him for once for a change, you might like it for all you know. ;)