Brits and Dutchs are both very defensive/boomy civs and as a result, dutch simply can't mass enough in age 2 to really pressure Brits.
Claiming after playing one of the most defensive in the game that the EP and its maps make agressive play unviable is of course wrong. It's actually very hard for a Brit player to hold sepoy rushes and Russian rushes, and that's when it becomes interesting because every time you train units you cut some economy, and Brit vs India or Brit vs Russia are MUs where both players have to balance eco and army, which is where relies the strategical part of the game.
If you want more agressive games I think that you should simply play another civ. I'm sure that if you play Otto/India/Russia/Aztecs you won't have issues with that.
And actually, eventhough Brit vs Dutch is a defensive MU, it doesn't mean that nr10 is the best way to play. And in fact, training some huss to raid wasn't a bad idea, because it can punish a greedy Brit and forces a reaction ie training 5-10 pikes to defend. Training skirms however wasn't a great idea because a few lb will stop the pressure and it's simply goona slow you, but again, that's not a consequence of the maps, but rather the design of Brits.
Furthermore, I've been arguing for ages that defensive play is simply more interesting. In this scenario, you actually have to make strat calls such as how greedy you'll go, should you go for the most boomy build (ie 700w/bank/600w/1000w/1000g) in order to fight for the map control in middle game, or should you make huss to raid and have the map control in early game? And no, the first option isn't necessarily better.
Also it's hard to deny that the more units you have, and the more your unit composition is complicated, ie the harder it is to play. In that kind of game you have to make choices when it comes to unit composition (canon play is viable, inf/cav play also is), and you have to control that army. In agressive games however, you just have to train skirms and pikes and micro a 2 type of units army.
That is just a MU but I think that it kinda explains why high resource maps make the game more interesting.
Maybe it's just me, but I find it incredibly stupid when I play sc2 and I lose to a one base protoss all in while I scouted it. Starcraft is a very agressive game and sadly it allows a lot of dumb no skill strats which wouldn't work in aoe3.
Anyway, you're complaining atm but if the maps had less resources you would cry too because you would struggle vs the Brit colonial builds. That would be even more boring, both guys would go for the exact same colonial build every game, thus no strat choices.
I think that the most blatant example of this is the French mirror. Before the def meta both players would go for the musk/huss build and mass muskets lol. Now French mirror is a lot more interesting, you have to balance tech and army. If you don't make units and rush the 3rd age you're goona lose your TP(s) and get raided, but if you commit too much into musks you'll be behind in early age 3, because your opponent will make them useless with his skirm/goon army.
Then in age 3, you have to make new strat choices, do you want to send 1000w/1000g for a better timing in which case you'll lose the map control if the other guy goes for more unit shipments early.
"The resulting meta is stale in the sense that many civilizations actually literally exhaust all their economic options (France and Germany for example go for almost a maximal boom build order, and theres Dutch vs British games where Dutch makes 5 banks and gets market upgrades while brits VC booms)."
What about sending more resource shipments such as 1k wood/1k gold and taking TPs?
I'm pretty sure that Dutch with 3 stagecoach TPs, 5 banks and a market outbooms a Brit VC boom. Sure you'll tell me that he can just make some pikes to kill the TPs, then you make skirms and huss in age 2 and here is your action packed age 2 game. TPs are the reason why you can't just sit at home and boom.
"Interactive gameplay is interesting to begin with, nobody likes playing against the AI trying to maximize their army at 15 minutes, which is a standard EP game except that one big gamedeciding fight is missing."
Well, tbh that's because people don't play the game the right way as I said.
Some time ago, people told me that Aztec mirrors were dumb because you would go for the same build every game and spam coyotes, well today it has changed because people have figured out the MU.
The coyote spam loses to a TP build (because coyotes don't have enough siege to kill the TP before the other guy can take advantage of that TP), that's why you want to make some pikes to siege, but as people start making pikes, maces become viable and then it's a game with a 3 unit composition and where map control really matters.
Also, people figured out that fortress is really strong in aztec mirrors, and it creates new options, you can timing in age 2 and try to punish the semi ff. You can also go for a more or less fast ff (3wp build and 700w builds both have pros and cons).
That's the same in every MU actually, you can always adapt and counter the "stale play"
"I would propose a couple of things for a patch team: First of the mappool needs to be treated with extreme care."
I can't agree more.
"Not only in the individual maps but also in the distribution of different types of maps."
Well, the issue with specific maps is that it forces one specific type of play while making others unviable, while on high resource maps everything is possible.
You also have to keep in mind that the EP balances civs off high resource maps, and that some on specific maps, some civs are totally broken.
Germany is almost unplayable on no TP maps for example while Russia becomes op as fuck.
Honestly, you don't want to play Dutch or Brit vs Russia on low hunt maps lol.
" Right now I do not believe the patch team and the map team truly work together in creating a specific style of maps. "
No I would even say that sometimes they work against each other. As I said, the game is balanced around TP maps, and still we see new no TP maps every year, which is of course an issue.
I made a long post some time ago about what defines a good map, and a good map is a map where you have to make choices: balance army and eco, which is actually the point of a RTS. I took the example of NE which allows at the same time for defensive play (easy walls, nice hunts/mines) and more agressive play (take the TP line and raid), while having some really nice land/water interactions with the 2 lakes in the middle of map which are huge when it comes to map control.
It's the same thing with Great Lakes when you have decent hunts and mines for the same reasons.
So no, "specific maps" aren't good, they just ruin the game's balance and force on specific play style.
Also keep in mind that the TC discount punishes very defensive play because now with map control you can build one in the middle of the map and actually benefit from that defensor advantage you mentionned, but in the middle of the map
"The latest patch is way too extreme. Sepoys nerfed, Jans nerfed, Bow riders nerfed, a reluctance to buff russia; one can say the changes don't actually promote the style of RE at all."
Why? To me it's obvious that when a player makes only one type of unit all game long we can't say that the game is interesting and balanced.
Seriously, the only thing we've seen from india for months is the 300export all in where the Indian player makes sepoys 5 by 5 during 10min while sending military shipments.
I'd be really happy if now we see more karni mata defensive builds and who wouldn't?
And tbh, it's just the same with the jan nerf, jan mass was simply way too strong lol.
Last note about this RE style. These last years, I've seen a lot of people complaining about the Indian 10/10 or the jan rush being too strong (such as Couprider
) because there was simply nothing they could do against it as the maps were low hunt and the civs too strong. I seriously don't understand why people are sad lame rushes don't exist anymore.
My AoE3 
My AoE3 
