I called others out for being disingenuous too. At tech parity against anything resembling competent opposition, moving even a very large stack into enemy territory is suicide in civ 4 due to collateral initiative and their greater mobility. In contrast, offensive forks, terrain promotions giving atypical units 2 moves and lots of defense, pillage threat, and forced trades on smaller stacks were all a part of the civ 4 tactical picture. Talking about "using stacks" in the way implied here is like saying Civ 6 tactics is limited to attacking cities with battering rams. Against the trash can AI, that's true. You can beat deity with only melee units and battering rams, all game long. That doesn't mean it's all the game offers, just like "big stack as possible" wasn't all civ 4 offered. I've said that already though. The civ 4 AI was not unpredictable, at all. It was a failing it had. I don't remember everything like I used to, but for most AI I can still tell you whether they can possibly attack, and whether they'll do it before taking time to prepare. Stack wars are not wars of attrition. Against the AI it was a war of "who attacks first and bodies every unit defending in 1-2 turns", since the AI never did anything more advanced. You are being inconsistent with your "1 UPT adds tactics" when saying this. Unit positioning is a fundamental consideration of tactical combat. You are simultaneously saying that reduced tactical strategy (less emphasis on importance of unit position) adds tactical strategy. Again, stripping terrain movement and defense bonuses makes the assertion that it's more important now than before questionable, at best. To be fair, the total population of programmers is quite large. You need more than "average" intelligence to do it (maybe? I'm not sure actually), but how much more depends on the kind of programming. What you quoted is likely a reasonable (but unhelpful) estimation of the population of many vocations, not just programming. You're a lot more likely to run into someone average for the vocation than a genius within that vocation by definition. After that, however, the generalization was painful to read.