I also question woofles' assertion that you can just effectively turtle in your main starting base. The skirmish games I've been playing have basically favored all rush assaults at the beginning, and that's because of the units purchased in RISK map mode. In a normal skirmish mode and not Risk Map Game, players won't have the luxuries of starting off with huge forces won't they? So how is one going to just seat on their arses without the benefit of starting off with say... 15 Hunters + 5 Fighters and pump out all the units needed to push into opposition lands? You certainly won't be making as much cash and controlling as much recruit/support points, and if you have powerful units like the aforementioned Juggernaut, you won't be able to pump out enough nukes to overwhelm the mobs of enemies.
I don't imply to turtle the entire game, that is a sure fire way to lose. What I mean is that as soon as the Population Pool runs out, you can completely ignore all land you conquered and let the enemy take it all, because none of it matters anymore. You just need 1 base past this point.
Neither the campaign map nor the RTS map builds any naval units but Transports, so yes, it is no good at defending itself from any Naval attacks.
I've seen the AI produce both Ironclads and Juggernauts. Not very often or in any reasonable force but I've absolutely seen them used. But I'll agree that they don't seem to have any proper coding. I've never seen them do anything other than sit around near the naval yard they were constructed from and fire at things that come near them.
I don't see how this amazingly unlikely scenario of exactly equal stuff and money needs to be addressed by the game more than it already is.
Before I address this, apologizes if I'm getting on peoples nerves, I seem to be ticking people off with my arguments and it's not really my intent. I guess I'm just passionate that I feel this is a real issue, but that of course is just my opinion.
I don't agree that it's amazingly unlikely, while yes the examples I gave were strictly even. I do believe the same problem will exist in other close games as well. I feel the defenders advantage will be significant enough that even in games where there is an obvious leader, that they will not be able to break through a final defensive turtle and be forced into stalemate.
But I admit this is all just theory at the moment.
It's a STALEMATE. Imstead of a red "VICTORY" or blue "DEFEEAT", it's a blue "STALEMATE". No one wins.
Sorry, I feel like an idiot when you put it that way. I suppose I was expecting more of a tiebreaker than strictly a stalemate.
