What I wanted to mention is that sometimes a unit is better off with higher base strength than percentage modifying bonus against certain units. It doesn't happen all the time though. When you are literally putting a dog soldier vs an axeman on the open field without any terrain modifiers, then the correct calculation should be: Dog Soldier: STR 4, 100% Melee Units Axeman: STR 5, 50% Melee Units The game first adds up the relevant modifers first for each unit and then compares the difference. The unit with higher modifying value keeps the difference and the other unit gets zero. So in this case, 100% - 50% = 50% bonus to the Dog Soldier So the calculation becomes: Dog Soldier: STR 4 x 50% bonus = 6 Axeman: STR 5 x NO bonus = 5 So the ratio is 6 to 5, instead of 8 to 7.5. What about a Vulture and an Axeman? Vulture: STR 6, 25% bonus against melee units Axeman: STR 5, 50% bonus against melee units In the open field without terrain modifiers, 50% - 25% = 25% bonus to Axeman Vulture: 6 x NO BONUS = 6 Axeman: 5 x 25% bonus = 6.25 So in this case, an Axeman actually comes out ahead. Had we done the simple comparison of (6 x 25% bonus) against (5 x 50% bonus), it would have seemed that both had come out with the value of 7.5, but it seems that's not the way it works. Finally, a Bowman against a Quechua: Bowman: STR 3, 50% bonus against melee units Quechua: STR 2, 100% bonus against archery units 100% - 50% = 50% bonus to the Quechua Bowman: 3 x NO BONUS = 3 Quechua: 2 x 50% Bonus = 3 So it is not Bowman's 4.5 STR (3 x 50% bonus) against Quechua's 4 STR (2 x 100% bonus) which would have made bowman stronger than it seems. You may draw up whatever final analysis from my observation, but I personally am very impressed with the Quechua.