So today I started my last Monarch game (won 2 games on Continents, 1 on Pangaea, 2 on Archipelago and 2 on Terra so I decided to move on). It was Randon Leader/Continents/Normal, a pretty standard setting. I got Lous XIV (which is a very nice leader IMHO). I started on a continent with Zara Yaqob, Montezuma, Isabella and Sitting Bull, with Bull and Izzy being my immediate neighbours. Long story short, I smashed Izzy very early on with HAs, took out Bull's 11 cities with a single Knight/Mace/Catapult, then had Monty declare on me since Zara bribed him (#%#@, we even shared a religion). I repelled pretty easily and used Musketeers (the 2 moves helped A LOT) to vassal him later as taking all his cities would be a lot of effort. I then met the other continents - two isolated civs, 1 was Alexander (who appeared to have destroyed Egypt early on since he had Thebes, though I don't recall seeing "Egyptian Civlization has been destroyed!!"). He was very backwards compared to me and Zara (didn't have CoL in about 1500AD). The other one was Willem who too had very little technology on me. I then decided to go for a Diplomation win by UN by vassaling Willem, Alex and possibly Zara if I need to (that would Conquest, but never mind). I easily got them both to capitulate (sent about 20 Infantry to both of their islands, got easy caps) and then turned to Zara. I had Tanks and a lot of production power at that point while he just stole Assembly Line from me. I quickly made two 30 tanks SoDs (was pushing at about 6 tanks/turn) and took him over in about 15 turns (thanks to blitz). This lead to an interesting conclusion. I didn't use ANY siege on Zara and yet I came out of the war with about 40 of my original 60 while fighting Infantry. Does this mean that I can get away with using no siege if I bring overwhelming numbers? It definitely seemed like it here, but since I see siege emphasized so much here I wanted a second opinion.