I noticed that forest tiles have the CivIV default value of +50% defense, and hills grant the default value +25% defense. This seems too high for ancient warfare. The way RFRE is now, a unit on a forested hill gets +75% defense, yet a unit in a fort only gets +25% and a unit in a Lime gets +50%. For example, Caesar's forces in Alesia surrounded a large Gaulic army, and then they themselves were besieged by the Gaulic relief force. Yet the Romans prevailed against the enemy, largely because they had built a fortified ring facing both inward and outward. This implies a fort's defensive value should be stronger than a hill or forest. Another example is the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest where Varus lost three entire legions. Those legions were attacked in the forest by Germans under Arminius yet despite the "defensive value" of being in a forest, they got annihilated. Logically, a forest would penalize ranged units (archers, skirmishers, siege weapons) of both the attacker and the defender, because they would not have a clear shot at the enemy. But regarding sword and spear units, I don't see how a forest would have given much of an advantage to one side or the other (but for RFRE purposes some civ unique units like say the Dacian Falxman or Germanic units should get forest bonuses both for flavor and also to represent their knowledge of the woods). With that in mind, here is my proposal. Forest Terrain Tile +10% defense bonus (instead of +50%) Hill Terrain Tile +15% defense bonus (instead of +25%) Ranged Units -10% forest penalty (both attack and defense) Various Barbarian Units +10%? forest bonus (both attack and defense) That way, a unit on a forested hill would have +25% defense which equals the value of a prepared fort. With different units having different strengths and weaknesses, and the terrain yielding less bonus overall, then the Player would have to use better tactics when fighting battles.