I've got a good one somewhere, but it was only because my opponent was very predictable. A lot of different p2 rushes are devastating if your opponent is doing the same strat over and over.

This replay isn't that great, but it might be better than nothing. Imo it shows rather that fanatics are expensive and hard to get than that they are op. Which they aren't.   commands.txt

I think it's too hasty to say that Fanatics are OP and should be nerfed. I believe the adjustment made to them actually enriched the game and introduced a new strategy that forces all of us out of our comfort zones and encourages more creativity. As @chrstgtr mentioned earlier, I think what we’re seeing here is the typical panic from a player when a strategy they’ve perfected and repeated countless times is suddenly put at risk. I don’t feel the same way about champ cav, particularly Gauls and Seleucids, and I still believe it would be good to slightly adjust their stats or improve a unit that can serve as a counter to champ cavs. This doesn’t mean a nerf so strong that it renders a costly late-game unit useless — one for which a player clearly deserves to be rewarded — but in its current state it feels more like the endgame goal that everyone rushes to in order to decide the outcome of a match, and personally, I find that dynamic boring. A parallel reflection that comes to mind from this debate is that, in many multiplayer RTS games, a certain strategy often becomes the meta and seems unbeatable — and this leads other players to develop new strategies to counter it, which enriches the evolution of the game. There are many examples of this in 0 A.D., but I won’t go into detail to avoid making this too long. I believe the current dynamic in many multiplayer matches is to ‘play it safe’ — which basically means booming — and this stifles creativity and discourages players from trying new things out of fear of completely failing and being seen as weak players.     What if u go play some multiplayer and see how it goes by yourself?  No trolling intended here, but I find very difficult to achieve that players start sharing replays to make the point. Replays aren't even named, so it's a tedious job to identify them. And it's not very motivating to go through all that work just to show it to a singleplayer-focused player, since — at least with the current state of the game's AI — multiplayer and singleplayer feel like completely different games.

Buenos días: -Estamos casi terminando las facciones americanas, en breve comenzaremos con las africanas: Adena (EE.UU/Ohio)     Anishinaabe (Canada)     Swift Creek (EE.UU,Georgia)   Pámpidos: (argentina)     Guaraní (Paraguay)       Disculpen las moelstias*    

That one seems too short. What a random answer! Look at my spoiler-hint.

Only one comes to mind for me. Is it  ?

That can totally be the case. But in this specific game, he could most likely have achieved the same (or more) by going cav. Just because they worked in one game, doesnt mean they are broken. He just chose a good strategy for this one game.