how could you have won a space victory without artillery?
You and Hengist sound like a couple of Yale-Oxford history PHD types arguing whether Nero could really fiddle. I like history, (or I wouldn't play the game) and may have even heard of some of the references you mention, but gee wow, the bibliography is getting mighty deep in here.
Who says people don't read anymore?
to get around some problems with everybody building big armies, on the QT, later.

I'm finishing up my second "marathon" game, this one's on Noble, which is about as high as I go because it makes the AI equal, or at least untruncated in "intellect" without giving them special tech advantages. I was pleased to beat my way way ahead in tech and "power" from most of them, without being ridiculously away and was following a neo-historical timeline, getting advances about the same as real world. Somewhere in the Renaissance, Peter started to focus on tech real hard and Mao and Julius to a lesser extent and the beeline was on for modern day advances, especially military, before the Reformation was out. Riflemen appeared, (in Peter's ranks) about 1650 and flight was discovered by him and Julius by 1800. 
I don't think I'm manipulating my research capabilities efficiently to keep up with him; I am the predominant empire and have several cities that should be great research centers, as well as massive production. 
But it still feels wrong somehow and I'm getting a different type of game workout than I expected. I enjoyed fighting Genghis with 19th century tech, even though it was the 1700's mostly at the time (long, transoceanic war.) Racing Peter for stealth bombers and ICBM's in the chronological 19th century is considerably less entertaining.
Comment