And you got/kept the country, so get more gold and research points the next turn (and as Elwyn mentioned, you are not comparing that to losses in RTS).
So I should be happy that having an overwhelming advantage only ended up costing me, the victor of the battle, 4.67 times the gold cost of the single unit?
(Assuming a 3 gold territory) It'll take at least 5 turns to get enough gold from that territory to replace the Hunter and Armour that the 3-gold Trooper killed. The enemy can replace the Trooper in a single turn with a single 3 Gold territory and do it again.
That does not exactly seem worth dancing a jig over.
If sending out lone troopers is an effective strategy that will win the game, then there is a problem with game balance. If not, a loosing strategy being a little less expensive than a winning one isn't a big deal.
Are you going to continue sending lone troopers into entrenched territories to soften them up? Other than complaints of auto-resolve results, nobody has said that that was their main strategy or that insane AI wasn't good enough because it is easily defeated by lone troopers.
The problem isn't that the lone Trooper strategy will single-handedly win the war. (Although it probably can, eventually.)
The problem is that 7 times out of 9, sending a lone trooper versus an army is a worthwhile venture, and only 2 times out of 9 is the lone trooper destroyed harmlessly. At least half the time or more, sending a lone Trooper against a vastly more powerful army SHOULD be a waste of resources for the side sending the trooper. The side who has the overwhelming advantage should not be punished with disproportionate losses 7 times out of 9.
If I am at a 97% chance to lose, facing 176 Gold worth of units with 3 gold worth of units, I think that even a 3% chance of victory is 3% too much.
I like the RTS mode, I really do. I do not want to be punished for not wanting to play the RTS mode for literally every single battle.
Somehow a single bomber balloon or upgraded imp fighter being able to wipe out vast armies of ground troops without anti-air capabilities is much more realistic than a lone trouper managing to take out a couple hunters or armours?
Yes, yes it is. Ground units without anti-air cannot attack air units. Hunters and Armours can attack the Trooper, and Hunters are a counter to Troopers.
How much would it slow down the strategy phase if you had to take all the unit types, upgrades and counters into account there, as well? Would that make the game more fun?
I'm confused. I thought that the whole idea behind the system was that you should be taking unit types, upgrades and counters into account. You should be building a balanced force.
