I think there are too many acts in this forum that shout, “This is too strong to be nerf,” without understanding the differences between civilizations.
For example, they say English LB & RAM rush is too strong.
But in fact, RAM has been nerffed now, and TC has been changed to select an attack target.
Nevertheless, they say they should be more nerfed, saying they are damaged by England’s LB & RAM rush.
England is currently very difficult to end the game with an LB & RAM rush, and if it’s over with some damage, it won’t benefit much. (The price of RAM is not cheap at all.)
And from age 3, England becomes very weak. This is the characteristic of this civilization and the difference from other civilizations. Without understanding this, you should not exaggerate what you felt was strong due to your skills. (Whether you neglected your reconnaissance or your defense wasn’t good)
I think China is the same.
Firelancer has a strong performance compared to the price and can surprise the opponent’s landmarks.
However, Firelancer can only be conscripted when it becomes the WON dynasty. It’s a very difficult option to achieve. What did you do until the other person became the WON dynasty?
Firelancer’s landmark surprise can also be defended through stone walls.
Why do you criticize the other person’s effective tactics while performing only what you want to do?
Of course, it is true that the unit balance needs to be adjusted, but you should not exaggerate your opponent as OP after doing only what you want to do without strategic thinking.
P.S.
Mongolia is OP.