More realistic archers

I can't stand the way Civ uses archers. In combat they should be like a short range bombard unit that only can bombard OTHER UNITS. This would apply to any unit that uses projectile weapons beyond the range of defending troops immediate response.
So it could work like this; the bombarding unit can inflict minor damage to an adjacent combat unit without getting any damage in return. If it is stacked with a better defensive unit, it is protected.
If two such opposed units are adjacent, the attacker and defender 'exchange' bombardments much like combat, but NOT to the death, again only minor damage per turn for both sides. Later units like infantry could choose to exchange like this or engage in a full assault (regular combat). This gives more combat option and more realism. Ther could be choices for bombard units: damages structures(fortifications and city walls, barracks, etc.) or damages troops, or both.
In ancient battles, you would use your archers to 'bombard' and soften up the enemy units, use your catapults to damage their fortifications, and attack with your swordsmen or whatever.

I like the main idea.
In fact, archers should be bombard units, nothing more as this is more realistic than the current use of them.
Additionally, I would like to change the catapults and trebuchets. They are just unrealistic as they are used right now. They never have been an early form of artillery, while the army was on the march. They were just built during seize. For sure, they never rolled along for hundreds of miles.

I think the only reason they included archers the way they did is that there's a need for an ancient unit that is strong on attack that can be built right toward the beginning of the game. Otherwise, you'd end up trying to take your opponent's cities using only warriors until the advent of horsemen.

Sounds like a great idea.
Kinda overshadows catapults tho.