I think this is a good and valid point. The only way I can make sense of it is by normalizing it in the following way: the game also tells you, “Notice: This game is under development.” Therefore combining these two statements, I conclude that the AI difficulty levels are simply not fully settled yet. And that is exactly what our discussion is about. I agree that new players struggle with Petra. Two of my real-life friends whom I recommended the game to told me exactly this. The first one said something like, “The game looks interesting but I’m getting absolutely destroyed!” After that he never mentioned the game again, so I assume he stopped playing. The other friend told me, “I’m playing on Medium and I haven’t managed to beat it yet.” I then had to respond with something like, “Try Easy or Very Easy, then increase the difficulty as you win.” However, I suspect that a 30year old man who has played many computer games might feel some embarrassment playing on Very Easy. So I assume he stayed on Medium. Also, what I would like to emphasize is that what makes the game hard for beginners is not the game’s core mechanics themselves. A new player can easily understand what building a stable means or the difference between archers and spearmen. They can easily build towers, chop wood, and so on. The real issue is that they don’t understand the need to race against time. They don’t seem to care that their units spend a long time walking between distant wood lines and the storehouse. Or rather, they haven’t yet developed that sense of urgency. Petra behaves almost robotically in that sense, it is programmed to be. But what I’ve also observed from my beginner friends is that, they take their time. They’re basically on a picnic. They build a barracks, maybe produce a few units and then their attention drifts elsewhere. They think one barracks is enough: “I need soldiers, I built a barracks, done.” The idea of building 2, 5, or 7 barracks doesn’t even occur to them, which is understandable. They wander around, enjoy the map and the atmosphere, until they get attacked around the 10-minute mark and lose. Therefore since the root of the problem with beginner guy vs. Petra is the eco race, I think some features could be added to easier modes to simplify eco management. For example, in Very Easy, passive resource generation could be the case. There could be reminder-like visual cues for barracks such as: “produce soldiers.” These are just rough ideas, not actual suggestions.  It also takes time for a new player to understand what they are supposed to do against the enemy’s CC and buildings. Some end up attacking it with 10–15 units, slowly die, while others (if they have discovered the capture mechanic) might try to capture it with too few troops. It seems like they could really benefit from some kind of guidance in this area.  As I mentioned above and also visible in the replays, Very Hard needs improvement as well.  For me, playing against Petra is almost a claustrophobic experience. It feels closed off and small scale, against a predictable opponent whose “soul” I can’t really feel. I don’t have this feeling in other single-player games I guess. A close example in terms of style would be "Praetorians". I’m not sure what the exact difference is, but I suspect the lack of an economy plays a major role. When there’s no economy, the game becomes much more strategic. For those unfamiliar: Praetorians is an RTS game without resources like wood or gold. Instead, it uses other mechanics, such as capturing villages that determine population limits and gaining experience points through combat, which unlock stronger units. The campaign experience on Very Hard was one of the best gaming experiences ever. The campaign itself was solid, personally, I find the game excellent. However it is probably weak in multiplayer. I’m not sure what to say about “AI cheating.” I guess at some point you have to do it. In Call of Duty, for example, enemy bullets become stronger and more accurate as difficulty increases. It’s worth examining what actually changes between difficulty levels in different games. Basically what I expect from Very Hard is improved tactical depth, better decision making, more varied options and stronger map analysis. - @Deicide4u If Petra only attacks me with cavalry, I will respond with a pikeman heavy army. Because I know Petra will always do that and that’s exactly the problem: predictability, robotic behavior, monotony. I have also won 2v1 VH matches without using slingers at all, as shown in the Macedonian examples of my replays above. You can do this with any civilization. I don’t want to fill here with replays anymore (I can share them if specifically requested). The main point is not why I win, but why the Very Hard loses so easily even in 2v1 or 3v1 scenarios. It’s about its tactical limitations, its predictability and its simplicity to defeat.  

Seriously do I have to quote myself again?

Well… Have a good day 

This is indeed a good question, and one I’m thoroughly unqualified to answer. I’d suspect Petra would be unable to deal with any of this and would need to also be modified, but this was just some brainstorming, @Asher is right on starting basic.

@guerringuerrin no, I'm basing my ideas on many premises, some are factual, some are opinions, and I think I've been quite clear which is which, but just in case (and going over everything I've said since my long post, you can check): it's a fact that the game states "the default AI level is quite challenging for new players", it's a fact production times are 3 times faster than SC2, I said I think that those wanting to explore the game wouldn't find that enjoyable, I said default options should be friendly for beginners (is this controversial?), it's a fact that the vast majority of players are only interested in SP (quoting AoE devs), I said I think the game a bit slower would be more attractive to most. I didn’t add I think when stating all would make the game more palatable for new players, but by now it should be obvious that’s my opinion, given all that came before. And then I brought up Achievements, which is obviously an idea coming from personal experience from other games, maybe others find them boring, but I would have liked hearing more opinions about that. I then said I think this would be a nice solution. Yet, you take issue with my subsequent statement (using your rephrasing, to which I agree) of “many people might get a bad impression of the game”, stating that that’s “based on personal opinions presented as if they were factual premises”. Well, here I gave you a summary of all what I’ve exactly said up to that point, so, where have I done that? So no, I’m not playing with semantics, that’s just how I’ve been stating things all along. I think I’ve been (luckily, I must say) quite clear on what is a fact, what I think, and what maybe could be, but you dismiss all that and take my last post (or its wording) as the basis of everything. Regarding my last post, first I just asked why not do this or that, based on what I’ve read, and personal experience, which I think is more aligned with SP experience, which is a fact is underrepresented online. Then, I didn’t fill it with “I think” like before not only because it was a fast response to someone, but because I was just rephrasing what I already said before with plenty of I think in front of it. And yes, I’ve read posts where some pushing for a more SP focused experience have been talked down into that they just don't understand the game, something I’ve argued already somewhere else is misleading. But, should I really scour the forum and quote all this? Quote the many times the default difficulty level issue has been brought up (particularly by newbies), quote the many opinions pushing the game towards more MP focus (like the proposal of removal of certain techs), quote the times it has been said this is a fast paced game? We both know these posts are there, and it would be a waste of time for me to do any of that. So, yes, I’d say many think like this, and I’m sure there are those that “hold a completely different view”, but those are not contradictory things, and that's not even the point, the point (or one of many) is that I’m not bringing up anything new (besides Achievements, I don’t think having read about that), I’m just packaging old ideas and combining them with the upgradeable Achievements idea.