Oh I agree. As I stated before, I think the problem was with the size of the stacks, not stacks themselves. Firaxis should have tried to improve the existing system without throwing it all out. I don't think it would have been too difficult to do either. They could have implemented various mechanisms to limit the size of stacks. That alone would have fixed most of the issues people had with civ4 combat. And I am sure there are other things they could have done with giving units unique abilities or adding more terrain modifiers that would have made the strategic and tactical elements of combat more interesting. They could have added a battle order where players get to look at each other's stack and then pick the secret order in which their units will attack. My 1st against your 1st, my 2nd against your 2nd, etc... Depending on the order that each player picks, you could get very different combat results. For example, if we both pick catapults as our first unit to attack, then both stacks would suffer some collateral damage. But I pick my catapult and you pick your horseman, then your stack would suffer some collateral damage but I would lose my catapult. It would add a real element of battle tactics. Both players would have to guess at what they think the player will do. Stack composition would really matter since a diverse stack would have more flexibility to pick a certain unit to go first that would be a good counter to what the other player has. All of that would have been infinitely better than 1UPT IMO. Let's face it: 1UPT happened because Shafer thought that the combat in Panzer General would be really cool in a civ game.