Such ignorance. As if 1 war chariot won't "get the job done" if you rush it out on this map.
Has it occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, there's a REASON you're losing 7 WC and capturing nothing, while someone else captured SIX cities losing the same quantity?
Yeah. Here's the reason: you're probably skipping that early Stonehenge/Inanna's Stronghold/whatever, which would provide a long-term advantage, in favor of cranking chariots ASAP, which will give you a few cities a few turns sooner at the expense of losing most of your chariots and trashing your economy via maintenance.
Here's a mental image for you: 800 BC. You've conquered Mecca, Pasargade, and some random Eastern European cities, and you've lost somewhere between half and 3/4 of your chariots. I have Stonehenge, Madrid, Paris, London, and Berlin, with Athens trading hands every few turns. I have just as many praets as you have War Chariots, but about half of my praets are now at CR III, whereas your WCs are at Combat I or II at best. I was cranking out Granaries and Forges and such while you couldn't build infrastructure because you had to build 2-3 new chariots for every city that you took. Also, because I knew that my #1 threat would build WCs, you saved me the trouble of researching Archery. Spears, not archers, are my primary defensive unit. Similarly, you're building axes, but I'm deviating from my normal path to Engineering, going for Metal Casting -> Machinery (and therefore crossbows, which will pwn your axes) before Writing -> Math -> Construction. Who is going to win this fight?
correct answer: China, but I still have a better chance than you 
Oh, I see now. Picking settings that give one or more sides a material advantage is different from picking settings that give one or more sides a material advantage, because the method in which the advantage is applied is different.
EXACTLY.
Some factions will be better than others at certain game speeds, map sizes, map types, and so on. This is inevitable, but not unfair, as all players are still playing by the same rules in each game, and games
in general are approximately as likely to favor one faction as they are to favor another (unless some factions are obviously overpowered or underpowered). However, when players A, B, and C are playing by one set of rules and players X, Y, and Z are playing by a different set of rules, and these sets of rules favor one group of players over the other regardless of what factions they're playing or what strategies they're trying, that's BULLSH!T.
Giving early UUs an advantage and stripping the advantage of other strategies has a direct and predictable impact on difficulty, just as do bonuses. You're lying to yourself if you think otherwise
I'm not lying to myself, because the impact is indirect rather than direct. An advantage/disadvantage that is given at all times, regardless of what faction you're playing, what strategy you're trying, how many other players exist, etc. is quite different from an advantage/disadvantage that only applies when you're using a particular strategy with a particular faction at particular settings.
in all of the military (domination or conquest) best times recorded on a huge map in hall of fame on noble or higher, only one submission (monarch/marathon) has rome holding the top spot
Translation: "in all of the [insert arbitrary win condition here] best times recorded by unknown means by an unknown group of people on [insert arbitrary map type here] in one particular website's hall of fame on [insert range of difficulties here], only one submission played on [insert different range of difficulties here]..."
This is supposed to mean something?
Just out of curiosity, when you DO abuse rome/mara/noble on earth18 how quickly do you kill everyone in the old world?
Dude... at that point, I'm far past trying to win. At that point, I'm giving all of my techs to whichever New World civ has vassalized the others before I start World War 3, just so they stand a sliver of a chance.
---------------
----------
Anyway, I'd like to get this debate to its conclusion ASAP, which requires finding common ground. Here is what neither of us have contested: long-term strategies pay off better on bigger maps with more players. Short-sighted strategies pay off better on smaller maps with fewer players. Rushes with 1-movement units are less vulnerable to faster game speeds than rushes with 2-movement units are. Harder difficulties favor early rushes before your opponents can use their artificial advantage to any real extent, easier difficulties favor point-whoring instead of success rates, and more balanced difficulties (translation: Noble) favor strategies that work just as well against AIs as they do against humans.
I believe that we can also agree that the whole "praet vs chariot" thing is more dependent on various settings than on the relative merits of the units themselves. The fundamental questions, therefore, are these:
1) Would you prefer that conquering an enemy result in the destruction of most of your army, or the promotion of most of your army?
2) Do you agree or disagree that a Praetorian with City Raider I has >50% odds against an Archer with City Garrison I in a city with 10-99 culture?
. Giving early UUs an advantage and stripping the advantage of other strategies has a direct and predictable impact on difficulty, just as do bonuses. You're lying to yourself if you think otherwise; cooking settings to make the game easier is fine but don't think for a second that it's not really changing anything.
! Noble maintenance is that low; I'm used to having to pull out of -30 to -50 gpt at 0% situations with some attacks.
.
.
on settling the capitol w/ 0 trees and minimal production, and has much closer neighbors with better land. On a more balanced map, WC will do even better.
