This is my first post, so please bear with me. I have question for all about the way combat is done in civ4 BTS in particular, and yes I did read the guide to the combat matrix. I still wonder why some things were not done to change some pretty serious flaws in combat. I noticed it had changed from vanillia civ4 and the change was not good. I am especially talking about "Axeman defeats a tank" syndrome. Clearly for air units attacking land units without the ability to reach an aircraft, something was done written into code to prevent the ridiculous concept of a phalanx or even basic rifleman from responding to an attack they could not possibly hope to defend. However, apparently axemen can reduce a tank regiment unit by 1/3. This is sort of extreme un-realism significantly reduces the enjoyment of the game for me. I like the civilizations franchise historical context. I don't think of it as a world where axemen shoot tank melting magical fireballs from their axes. So when I see that happen, I feel compelled to reload the game and attack again until the more realistic thing happens and the axeman is crushed like bug. Vanilla civ4 had this problem also but to a much lesser extent. It seems the designers thought it had to be tit for tat combat no matter what? How could swordmen possibly defend on an open field against riflemen? Also why would spearmen get a combat bonus against horse units on the attack? They would never be able to catch the horse archers etc, its preposterous. In civ 2 pikemen only got the bonus against horse when they were defending and that is accurate. I don't have any problem suspending my disbelief on many fronts for the sake of gameplay but this really is too much. Any thoughts or actual knowledge of what the designers were actually thinking? I like the game it would be perfect if there was a fix or patch for this stuff or something. TIA!