Really tough Immortal map - or is it?

[TheMeInTeam]

You make a pretty persuasive case these units are unbalanced (insofar as the AI not coping with their usages).

Well, the instant raze + retreat can be copied by almost anything for coastal enemy capitols, but is much harder vs inland cities outside of nuke/para.

The x factor is nuke-immune...corp execs? .

But the AI is bad at all war, it's not the tacs that are imbalancing, but rather the AI idiocy in regards to them (and to collateral initiative in general).

 

[ungy]

An alternate approach:

Spoiler :

I settled 1SW as I don't like settling 1 off coast. I'm not a big fan of the chariot rush in general so I went the GLH route after I met a couple of WB. Zara basically starts at pleased here so I wasn't worried about getting DOW'ed. The jungle slowed him down--with block and backfill I had 9 cities (and I managed to sneak 2 more in the SE).
The GLH is just huge for these types of starts where you can trade with the other continent.
Anyway it's an easy win from here--11 cities, GLH, GLib, Parth, no real threats

 

[Grashopa]

Yes. The situation becomes obvious between 3000 BC and 2500 BC (bad land for us, good land for neighbor, ability to rush), so it's a read that should be pretty typical.

Also the reason scouting is so important. I think the worst mistake I see is people making decisions without seeing the whole map. And I agree with Ungy - that was the obvious alternative to the rush. Though I imagine the rush gives a better domination time.

In my game:

Spoiler :

I'd have had construction by 500 BC even if I hadn't captured the GLh due to grabbing math and bulbing alphabet allowing me to build research after the war. With construction and a bunch of cities taking out a couple more AIs at catapults would be easy. Then its just a matter of currency for wealth building to keep things going.