We've had this discussion before mirthadir, and you're already aware I've been very emphatic that I don't quechua rush in over 90% of my games and that I like the Ind/Fin trait combo. But once again, anyone who uses the same Civilization and whoever has the > skill will always score better, etc. Some people think Cyrus is a crutch with immortals. The list can go on forever. At the end of the day the person with the > skill with whomever you choose to use will have better results. Play a GOTM game and everyone has the same tools at their disposal.
I fail to see how everyone having the same tools with the same civ means that it isn't a crutch while everyone having a shot at the mids (which are not always worth it) isn't. The truth is early rushes on warlords are a crutch in the sense that they teach you bad habits which are not applicable outside of that version with those units. A non-arbitrary definition of crutch would be something required for a player to play "at their level"; something they always have to use and cannot play around. This can be wonders, early UU rushes, barb settings, map types, etc. whatever is done so that you play the strat and not the map.
Just think about how it would be if every civ was massing units for an early rush and going to come knocking on your door with a high powered UU in the mid BCs. How often do you think you'd get the better end of that trade?
And we've had this discussion before, the person with more skill more reliably wins (due to hedging and other effects I delineated before and you ignored); they do not have better results (early win date, higher scores, etc.) garunteed.
I don't know if you quecha rush, only that whenever you make a claim your proof seems to rest on the Inca with and impractical amount of early land.
Anytime you wanna play a game with any race Mirthadir and post the results just let me know. I don't base my Civ skills around the quechua or any single unit as you seem to think. Your stuck on that for whatever reason. I guess it's what you try to rationalize to yourself anytime I post a comment. Hell, I'm talking about SE bulbing and you still find a way (piss poor at that ^^) attempting to dismiss anything I say by bringing up the Quechua! LOL.
Because you are wrong; bulbing a SE conquest economy works ludicriously well in warlords: the AI gets high pop for you doesn't go for a cultural win, and underdefends, the culture slider is accessible early, and yout tech leads are easier to leverage (i.e. cav come way too early relative to their power), and of course the warlords AI is noticeably worse about playing the lib race (the BTS one still sucks at it, but is an order of magnitude better at beating you to lib).
The fact is outside of your "crutch" style of play, bulbing is not always the best option. If you have to fight an early war that garuntees a lib loss, if you have no trading partners, and if you are generating non-GSc GPs then the dynamics change.
Really mate, why on earth would you expect one strategy based off handful of civs, to be universally the best overall?
Yes that's true ^^. I put much more skill involved in winning by domination or conquest than the other conditions. The other conditions allow someone to be vastly behind in score, land, power scale, etc, and still win. Try winning on a Huge map by domination compared to winning on the same map via Culture. Domination would require 40+ cities while a Cultural Victory would only require 6 (if). Honestly, which is more difficult? Managing and planning a 40+ city empire or a 6 city empire? Culture/SpaceRace/Diplomacy normally come to this; hitting enter until you achieve victory.
I've done both (though I don't play terribly much on huge due to the amount of time it takes to crunch AI turns). Conquest has been markedly easier (if more time consuming). Because AI-AI conflict increases with the square of the number of civs; there are better odds of backwards civs kicking around to kill, get more land, exploit, and then whack the tech leaders. Likewise due to AI deficiencies it is trivial for you to nerf a distant AI, they however suck at returning the favor. In addition the odds of finding a nice tech trading partner like MM go up substantially. Resource distribution and management are also easier on a big map (human performance relative to the AI) All told I find huge maps to be easier because it is easier to get the relations I want with the AIs, get the land I need to leverage to eventually outtech the AI and leverage a terminal tech/production lead.
For example; I ran Elizabeth with peaceful expansion in the BCs, bribed Shaka and Monty to start WWI in the early ADs with a philo trade (off bulbs). At lib I ran redcoats/trebs and killed off one of the Frenchies while teching to Communism. Took the Kremlin, teched out to rocketry/fission, spammed a few GM missions, and promptly nuked away the worlds U. After that it was mop up. In contrast culture is just a bit harder, religion spread on large maps is crap and getting all your cathedrals is MUCH harder. Getting multiple wonders in one city is far harder (as the odds of there being more IND AIs with resources increases and the odds that some AI picks your wonder over another goes up as well), and turning up the culture slider essentially dooms your economy (unless you run SE with Sistine; normal SE of course gives the AI many more turns to make it to space). Even tried and true tricks like getting a DP to protect you are less viable.
In general the AI is easier to deal with and leverage the larger you are with the more military you have. As far as hitting enter until you win, only with braindead Warlords AIs. As you start to fall down in power the AI smells blood and you either have to manage diplomacy to keep them from declaring, or actually fight wars at major production (because at least one of your best city slots is only making culture) and tech disadvantage. Then of course there is the problem that in BTS the AIs ACTUALLY TRY to win via culture; so you will have competition for wonders that the Warlords AI shunned. Many of my culture victories required me to detour into a: raze a major city, make peace, and then go back to gaining culture.
Certainly on warlords with its moronic AIs culture is a gimme win, but for those playing BTS it is actually harder on the highest difficulties than domination.
The real cheese win is not culture or space (both of which the AI is actually better at than domination prevention); but diplomatic wins. As shoddy as the Warlords tactical AI was, its diplomatic one was worse. Saddly this has only changed in degree, not kind in BTS.
. So out of touch that you actually have me arguing with you when we both believe the Mids are not worth it, regardless of why.
by your numbers that should net you 20 
per turn. Thus over 100 turns you've gotten a return of 22.2 
