Why does it cost supplies to have arrows rain down on you, without you doing anything but sitting in your tank?
And someone is going to
answer my questions this time.
Seriously, it feels like when I make a point it's just getting ignored rather than addressed.
Why does it take 10% of a GDR's resources to move 1 tile and attack a warrior, but 0% to move across the
world without attacking?
Why do my tanks take 10% damage when arrows hit them, even when they do nothing to retaliate and therefore shouldn't be using
any supplies?
Why do my aircraft take 10% damage attacking spearmen and longswordsmen, who shouldn't be able to hit them. Or cannons for that matter, who should be technically
capable of hitting them if they were flying low but have a rediculously low chance of hitting them.
Don't remember who said that, but I agree whole-heartedly.
Why do low tech, high number units need to be protected from high tech armies? This is why research is important! It's perfectly valid for a classical era civ to get steamrolled by an industrial/modern era civ, even if the advanced civ is smaller. It's just a different play style and there's no reason to disable it.
Also:
Why does my infantry take 1 damage attacking pikemen? The pikemen shouldn't be able to get close enough to hit them (unless they're really, really stupid). If it's food, what if they're in my territory sitting on a farm? Were the farmers cruel enough to starve two soldiers to death? If it's ammo,

. There were only 12 pikemen charging directly at them. Even if all the soldiers are horrible shots, they couldn't have used more than say 36 bullets; once again
they are in my territory.
If the damage represents ammo, why doesn't artillary or rocket artillary or cannons take 1 damage when they fire? Why don't archers?
If it's fuel, are my soldiers actually incapable of getting food from the environment? If so, that's something we should be teaching them in training, especially if it's in
MY TERRITORY or worse,
an improved tile?
"Because it's a game" is
not a valid response to
any of these questions. Having rules for the sake of rules is
stupid.