Based on the opportunity to plant stakes around your troops and earthworks around your artillery when defending (if you've been in that spot at least one turn), the greater importance of ranged combat and the greater ability to use cover and terrain, the defense has a much more imbalanced advantage in E:TW than in past TW titles. But as history marches inexorably to trench warfare, perhaps this is justifiable.

Nonetheless, it can give you a further advantage when besieging AI cities because it seems the cities can't hold out for very long, and the AI doesn't seem inclined to bring reinforcements in to help break the siege (although I haven't played too much so far, only RTI, and I'm not sure the AI has had the available troops nearby in these cases). That means so far I've rarely had to assault a fort; just wait a few turns and they have to sally, and you can sit back and play defense on a nice hill.

Also, while I like the zone of control feature and the opportunity to intercept invading forces, it seems odd that you're on defense when intercepting. Isn't it like an ambush, where you're attacking the enemy and they should be defending (albeit in some disarray)? Not that I mind playing defense more, but it seems that feature adds even further to the defensive advantage in the game.

CA should make the AI smarter about calling in reinforcements to break sieges and allow cities to hold out for more than a few turns. You should be forced to have to go on the attack more often. Of course, so far I've only played RTI, and the Brits weren't too smart about deploying reinforcements quickly to break the most important siege of the Revolutionary War, so maybe this is intentional in RTI!

Thoughts?