I've recently made the move up from being a jabroni struggling on Noble to a Conquesting Monarchian. Next I will dominate Emperor. I already know my strategy, because it will be the same thing that seems to work in every game, and it will be the same strategy that pulled me up from Noble. I will attack the enemy early and often. I will rush axmen, and if I don't have those, then horses, and if I don't have those, then catapults. Either way, by construction, I'll be coming at them with rushed stacks of something. They (the enemy) will die. I will live off the pillage money while I continue this process. When I reach my UU, that will be nice, but it won't affect the strategy, because I would have been aggressing anyway with the standard unit. Nor does it matter what my leader-specific traits are. While aggression might seem a natural war mongering trait, all of the traits are war mongering traits because war is a total effort. It is a total economic effort, and anything that helps anything, helps the war. Whether or not I am successful in winning on emperor will really depend more on my ability to maximize efficiency and not so much on the general strategy. I am efficient enough to do this on Monarch, maybe a bit more practice and I can do it on Emperor. But the strategy will be the same: kill them! Now I appreciate that many like to mix it up now and then, try different things, etc. But would we all agree that this is a universally good strategy for winning on high difficulty levels? Attack, destroy, and attack? When is this ever a losing strategy?