I played against a human player, but that's not the point. On this map, there are practically no easy resources (everything comes from mines), no Gnomish Tents, Naga, Medusas, etc. To leave the starting area, you need to break through a substantial group of dragons, and their number can easily be increased. You don't need to be a genius or a mega-player to understand the impossibility of ignoring money in such a situation. Until you accumulate enough from the mines, you can't build anything.
And this is far from the most extreme example. Of course, you could argue that you wouldn't play such maps. It's your choice, and someone might disagree. But if you have to play them, you will definitely change your tactics.

This is a standard map, but I think I described it in enough detail. Maybe a mega-player could rush it (but I don't think so), but if you increase the guard by 2 times, an early breakthrough will definitely become impossible.

If the map is as you described, then yes, you are right, but it is unlikely that players will play such a map against each other, and it certainly cannot be in a tournament of fixed maps (what is the point of just sitting on the starting area and waiting for several weeks, doing nothing, until money and resources accumulate, and then an army, in order to break through the dragons?). Such a map will only be played against the computer, because skipping turns for about three weeks, only occasionally building something, requires no skill, and people will not be interested in just pressing the "E" key (your example is similar to my example of a twisted map).
I already wrote that I provided an example of a tactic for playing against people, and against good players, who, if they play on a fixed map, will only play maps where you can play skillfully every day, showing their mastery, and such twisted maps are already a tactic against the computer, which is something completely different (with the same success, you can give an example of a tactic in any of the campaigns, where troops are already available, and, besides finances, there is nothing to build, or large troops are given at the start, and the point is to have as much money as possible in the second week, since the hero will get diplomacy and will be able to recruit powerful units for money, of course, in all such examples, you need to invest in money), but, in my opinion, I wrote everything clearly and understandably, and I don't understand why you are exaggerating about my posts. If the players here are not interested in what I write, then they should just say so, and I will not write anymore... (but I did not expect that, after I got excited about the idea of Forrest and Papik helping newcomers in the online game against a human player, I would receive a post from Alex_R in response, saying that "how dare a newcomer from another resource (user Gynnar) present such a tactic as universal," because, in his "IMHO, it doesn't work, as it is intended for something else," and what killed me the most is the only explanation that Alex_R comes to such a conclusion - these are his words: "apparently," which, however, does not prevent him from, at the end of the post, based on his words ("apparently"), accusing me of "somehow characterizing the conditions under which your tactic works." And at the same time, he also mentions me as "especially smart" - in quotation marks, which, as you know, implies the opposite (that is, a fool). Well, and in the end, he is immediately encouraged for this post by two users, one of whom is Ta Kotoraya (who, as far as I know, also organizes resource meetings, but at the same time encourages such an attitude of her players towards "especially smart" (in quotation marks) "newcomers from another resource" who "dare to present their tactic").