What about Energy/Projectile bonuses?

[MariOne]

That's why I LOVE MoM's tactical combat model, where in melee mode both unit *simultaneously* swing their swords at each round.
The hits you land are still calculated by your swords against their shields.
But *at the same time* you'll get hit by their swords against your shields.
Then the surviving figures in the units will face next round.
It's *quite* possible that *both* units involved in a melee fight die at the same time.

Of course it's a design choice to avoid tactical combat and simplify the model.
Still, instead of an Attacker weapon vs Defender armor (Aw-Da) model, a combined (Aw-Da)-(Dw-Aa) would have still been with reach of a reasonably handled simplification.

I'm NOT one expecting realism from a game, but the thing that less makes sense in a too simplified model is:
HOW can the attacker GET DAMAGED by the defender's armor?

The flaw tho is more in the definitions than in the model.
If instead of callingit "armor", you call it "defensive fighting value", there you can imagine encompassed in that term all the set of equipment and skills you can deploy when defending, including the firepower you are able to put together when striking back at the attacker...

[Sikander]

The problem with Civ, SMAC etc. is it's reliance on trying to model (however offhandedly) tactical units / soldiers on a strategic scale. It doesn't work. You need to depict units, not weapon systems. Weapon systems do not act independently (exception: WOMD) on this scale, not even in the caveman days. That's why I always had to laugh whenever I saw a catapult alone on a 100 square kilometer chunk of Mesopotamia while playing Civ. And they even penalized you for trying to use combined arms tactics and concentration, which has been a hallmark of good generalship since the ancient era.

SMAC is a little better because it moderates both the near prohibition against stacking a bit (collateral damage rather than one dies, all die), and it allows to a tiny extent a bit of combined arms capability by allowing you to design units with weapons, armor, movement etc. in whatever configuration you can afford.

I have to agree with Marione, Master of Magic was one of the best games to have come out in the last decade. If only someone would repackage it for new operating systems, fix a few bugs and update the graphics and sound, I would buy it (again) in a minute. The game concepts remain quite strong.

[Straybow]

In Civ2 you see a shift from ancient units that have limited defense to modern units that have strong defense. It is the paradigm of the firearm that standoff defense is very strong. By the time you get to WWII-era infantry weapons defense is potentially stronger than offense (Rifleman is 4/5).

This reflects the "best defense is a strong offense" reality (which is not the same as realism). That trend could only continue with more and more powerful weapons a la SMAC. Energy weapons with electronic targetting and other such gizmos would be highly effective against any threat: armor, aircraft, even warships.