Treaty games need some balancing love from the devs

I'm loving my experience with AOE3 DE after avidly playing aoe3 3-4 years ago non stop back in the days where treaty games were just in writing and you had trust everyone in the lobby not to rush or build past HM. The biggest problem with this is that players had 40-60 minutes to absolutely spam walls across the map so once the treaty ended it would be another 2, sometimes 3 hours of slowly pushing through miles of fortifications. This has been completely removed by limiting the range a player can build during treaty, a welcome change however now it feels like fortifications mean absolutely nothing and 40minute treaty games can be over in the first 5-10 minutes after it ends. I think there needs to be a middle ground, there's not enough room to build a proper defense during treaty alongside the fact everyone has late game units; fortifications like walls, forts and towers get absolutely melted. Makes no sense that 30 horsemen can just rampage through 3-4 sets of walls before you can react(talking about oprichniks).

Without putting the balance of rush games out of wack I have a couple of options that can make treaty games a war of attrition:

• Imperial age buffs to forts,walls and towers. Could be trained through market, church or maybe artillery foundry.
• Fortifications passively get stronger through each age up (this might stall out rush games so maybe the buffs start small/non existant and become large during the last two ages.
• A general game bonus to all fortifications in treaty mode, could just be an option for casual games where the host can pick how much hp is buffed(like a slider from 0 to 100% bonus)
• Increasing the build distance from TC in treaty. I feel like this needs to be done regardless or at least scaled to the map, so on large maps you can build further away. There's a debate to be made whether players should be in range of the closest trading post, personally I'm all for it.
• Generally forts feel rubbish late game in terms of the threat they pose especially considering you need to sacrifice politicans or cards to build them. Buffing the two options upgrades would be an option while also increasing the costs so rush players who pick this option sacrifice a large amount of economy. The exceptions to this are civs like russia and british who can spam forts and rebuild them so this needs consideration, towers and forts are quite powerful on navy maps and defending coast lines so this will have to be kept in mind
• Add resistances to fortifications that limit siege damage done by INFANTRY + CAV units, artillery should be the only thing that can successfully push through heavy fortifications. This buff can come with bastion (so early walls are still weak to rushes) or through a seperate imperial upgrade/card. INF and CAV can still destroy other buildings at the same speed(rightfully). Natives who don't train artillery can be recieve a buff to compensate

These all come with limitations and could understandably become a balancing nightmare but small incremental changes could be done. Games shouldn't become who can turtle the best but I think currently treaty game modes don't feel as intense as they ought to be due to limits on fortifications. Curious to what everyone thinks.