You have a point that combat is expensive but i think it might
detract from the overall game if military conquest became too easy.
I like there to be a good balance between military, economic and
poltical/diplomatic strategies in games and whilst this game
doesn't do the job thoroughly to my satisfaction it does make an
interesting balance.

What might be a better method of dealing with the combat is to add
a minor element of randomness rather than having player A has x units
and can therefore either definitely win or definitely not win a
battle or series of battles. How you would do this is open for
debate and it may alter the overall game balance anyway.

I think after repeated plays we may see different strats anyway and
i don't think excessive combat will be wise, unfortunately i guess
there comes a point in this type of game where combat is essential
because the board and resources are so limited.



--- In lbgc@..., "macleodandrew" <maclandr@a...> wrote:
>
> Do you think this game would be a bit better if fighting was not so
> expensive to do? May be I'm slightly biased because I lean towards
> the war games, but it did seem quite difficult to do without
> suffering alot damage. Josep got away with it because his first
> attack was the final move of the game.
>
> Andrew
>