Again you are cherry picking now with selective quoting. We have to talk about catapults because we are talking about the general progression of the game. You are doing some projection here as you redefined the context from the beginning by crafting essentially a scenario type of situation trying to recreate the exact battle. But the thing is you are going backwards. My analogy is in terms of many kinds of Thermopylaes. Meaning we are playing the game normally from the beginning and perhaps we end up with a small empire and have to fight a larger empire. We are creating a Thermopylae situation dynamically to leverage our smaller force against a larger one. Perhaps I should have been more general to avoid nitpicking. Live and learn. There's a dev who posts on the Somethingawful forums who wrote in a Megathread on Civ IV that they basically threw their hands up and accepted SoD's as an inevitability by BTS. That's why the protective trait came into being mostly to help the turtling computer and that was a failure as it screwed over quite a few leaders. Poor Toku.... The XP system is something that lends individuality to units. The SoD takes away that individuality . There's no synergy there. While some stacking was obviously meant to happen like a Spearmen protecting a unit from cavalry the mass consolidation of armed forces into a single tile was something they hadn't considered. Collateral was an attempt to fight the stacks but it just made it worse as your stack had to get even fatter to protect itself. Like some horrifying demonic cyst everytime they poked at the stack problem is just expanded the stacks even more. Civ IV AI couldn't handle stacks. In fact the playability of the game ironically relies on the fact that the AI couldn't handle stacks. As I said unless you massively overpowered them equivalent forces would forever be deadlocked in weird little dance waiting for someone to take the plunge and move first. The AI isn't where the challenge is. The challenge is within the player themselves. Did you do this correctly? Did you optimize here? Did you prioritize the right tech etc.? It's a game that encourages rules mastery and metagaming. Civ V is a response to that. It tries to make everything develop naturally and dynamically and that's reflected everywhere in its design from the way it limits expansion to how units fight by plugging away at each other for multiple rounds to the social policy system. If they didn't consider Civ IV a failed experiment why change so much in response in Civ V? It was not unusual for infantry forces to make use of horses to go someplace but not necessarily fight mounted. I'd visualize a mounted unit in Civ is a unit of force that stresses mobility and shock. Longbowmen in the hundred years war who rode mounted to terrorize French villagers were not true cavalry but did so to move and leave quickly.