For this post I have taken some ideas from the forum, but some are also my own. Appologies for not giving credits, but I can't remember where the ideas came from.
Proposal
Any number of units can be organised into an army, which acts as one unit
However with diminishing returns. The strongest unit contributes all of it's strength points to the army's total, the second strongest half, the third strongest a quarter etc. Hit points are pooled, and if the army is broken up each unit receives the number of hit points the army had divided by the number of units in the army. The strength of the army is calculated for each combat, to take into account different situations (eg an archer and an axeman defending a hill city, or in the open)
The army carries a supply of food, and each unit consumes an amount of food per turn, which can be replenished by pillaging a farm or pasture, spending a turn on a tile or by a supply unit
The amount of food consumed by each unit may increase with the size of the army if required for balancing purposes. This would represent sickness, wastage and corruption.
The amount of food gain from waiting on a tile would be equal to what it would produce for a city working the tile. The amount consumed per turn and the amounts gained from pillaging and from supply units would be determined by playtesting. Running out of food would result in combat penalties and hitpoint loss, mild at first but becoming severe.
The supply unit would be consumed in resupplying the army. They would be captureable, making attacking supply lines both powerful and profitable.
Supply units would disappear after a certain number of turns to represent food perishing and to restrict hording of these units. The time taken for the food to perish would increase with tech, allowing units to operate further from home (as is historically accurate).
Incidentally, army supply units would provide a way of transporting food between cities.
Units defending on a single tile act as an army
This is quite intuitive I think, once we start including armies.
Units in cities consume food from the city's granary
Once we have soldiers eating food, I think this is intuitive too. It also means the defender doesn't get too big an advantage.
Implications
Armies would be very powerful, even overpowered if not for the difficulty of keeping them in the field. Protecting supply lines would be vital, as un unsupplied army would be a dead army. Players would have to deal with similar problems as RL generals - defeating garrisons near the line of advance, keeping the soldiers fed. Defenders would have new tactics at their disposal - Scorched earth, counter attacks to interupt supply lines, placing fortresses at strategic points which couldn't be ignored by attackers...
Although armies would be powerful, to get the best out of them, many smaller armies would be required. A single army of 30 units might be surrounded, but 6 armies of 5 units each would not. They could also pillage 6 farms in one turn, and so survive longer without supply.
Pausing to heal would be a luxury only afforded to well supplied armies or armies small enough to live off the land. Long wars would become more costly and therefore wars would be short and sharp, and rarely a fight to the death. With the size of militaries limited by food, prosecuting one war for too long would leave you vulnerable to your other neighbours.
With the increased cost and difficulty of war, peaceful strategies would also come to the fore - having a smaller army would allow more food for specialists or mine workers, helping space or culture victories.
Finally, with the addition of two relatively simple concepts, the complexity of Civ is much increased and IMO improved. Several issues are delt with and gameplay moves more towards RL reality.
Proposal
Any number of units can be organised into an army, which acts as one unit
However with diminishing returns. The strongest unit contributes all of it's strength points to the army's total, the second strongest half, the third strongest a quarter etc. Hit points are pooled, and if the army is broken up each unit receives the number of hit points the army had divided by the number of units in the army. The strength of the army is calculated for each combat, to take into account different situations (eg an archer and an axeman defending a hill city, or in the open)
The army carries a supply of food, and each unit consumes an amount of food per turn, which can be replenished by pillaging a farm or pasture, spending a turn on a tile or by a supply unit
The amount of food consumed by each unit may increase with the size of the army if required for balancing purposes. This would represent sickness, wastage and corruption.
The amount of food gain from waiting on a tile would be equal to what it would produce for a city working the tile. The amount consumed per turn and the amounts gained from pillaging and from supply units would be determined by playtesting. Running out of food would result in combat penalties and hitpoint loss, mild at first but becoming severe.
The supply unit would be consumed in resupplying the army. They would be captureable, making attacking supply lines both powerful and profitable.
Supply units would disappear after a certain number of turns to represent food perishing and to restrict hording of these units. The time taken for the food to perish would increase with tech, allowing units to operate further from home (as is historically accurate).
Incidentally, army supply units would provide a way of transporting food between cities.
Units defending on a single tile act as an army
This is quite intuitive I think, once we start including armies.
Units in cities consume food from the city's granary
Once we have soldiers eating food, I think this is intuitive too. It also means the defender doesn't get too big an advantage.
Implications
Armies would be very powerful, even overpowered if not for the difficulty of keeping them in the field. Protecting supply lines would be vital, as un unsupplied army would be a dead army. Players would have to deal with similar problems as RL generals - defeating garrisons near the line of advance, keeping the soldiers fed. Defenders would have new tactics at their disposal - Scorched earth, counter attacks to interupt supply lines, placing fortresses at strategic points which couldn't be ignored by attackers...
Although armies would be powerful, to get the best out of them, many smaller armies would be required. A single army of 30 units might be surrounded, but 6 armies of 5 units each would not. They could also pillage 6 farms in one turn, and so survive longer without supply.
Pausing to heal would be a luxury only afforded to well supplied armies or armies small enough to live off the land. Long wars would become more costly and therefore wars would be short and sharp, and rarely a fight to the death. With the size of militaries limited by food, prosecuting one war for too long would leave you vulnerable to your other neighbours.
With the increased cost and difficulty of war, peaceful strategies would also come to the fore - having a smaller army would allow more food for specialists or mine workers, helping space or culture victories.
Finally, with the addition of two relatively simple concepts, the complexity of Civ is much increased and IMO improved. Several issues are delt with and gameplay moves more towards RL reality.
