The problem is, IUPT introduced real Tactics into Civ. It was a bad fit, because Civ is a strategic game, and so the 'tactical' ground scale and time scale were both wildly out of proportion, but it made battles much, much more interesting than the previous Stack 'Em Up 'strategy' that had prevailed. The interaction of ranged, mounted, anti-mounted, flanking, etc units made each battle a potential exercise in maneuver - tactics - firepower and far, far more interesting than battles in Civ had ever been before.
It would be Dead Wrong to give that up.
At the same time, to keep it in the game something has to be done about the huge imbalance between ground and time scale in the battles. ANY system which simply returns to the Stack will not keep the tactics, but returns to all the problems of the Monolithic Stack, no matter how you slice the definition of 'defender' and 'attacker'.
This is why, despite opposition, I keep arguing for a 'tactical layout' map or Zoom for the battles: it keeps the tactical interaction which is so much more enjoyable, but also keeps the tactical battles within a single tile and turn as is appropriate given the scale of the Game as a whole.
Making the weakest unit the defender automatically negates Any and All special attributes for units in the stack: no attacking mounted unit will ever attack a spear or pike unit if there is ANY alternative in the stack, and putting a ranged unit in the stack with its weaker combat factor is actually counterproductive - and that's counter-intuitive and counter-historical!
One possibility, if the designers and gamers do not want to Zoom to a tactical fight in detail, is to have a Tactical Decision Phase in the turn before you initiate an attack. In this phase, you could indicate how your 'stack' is deployed for battle, and this would, in turn, indicate how that battle will be fought:
To keep this simple, you would mouse over the stack, see a list of the units in the stack, and beside each unit indicate where it is "on the battle field": center front, center support, left flank front, left flank rear, right flank front, right flank rear, reserve right, left, or center. Facing, say, a force of Knights, you'd put Pikes in front, perhaps Archers or Crossbows in Rear, your own mounted in reserve. The enemy might pull a fast one, however, and put Crossbows in front, Knights in Rear, and so the 'Battle' would be your pikes being shot to pieces followed by his knights charging into your bows and being countercharged by your own mounted. The outcome might still be a victory for you, but it would be Bloody.
The actual course of the battle would be 'narrated' to you - no need, unless you are so inclined, to watch the whole thing play out. Some armies, with Great Generals in attendance or a generally higher level of Professionalism, might get extra options, and some armies' tactics would be automatic: Swiss Pikes or Swedish 'Caroleans' ALWAYS attack, the Zulu 'Horns' always envelop at high speed, etc.
Also, this would give us a way to get rid of one of the more annoying attributes of Civilization - at least to us military historians: the game makes no distinction between individual warriors/soldiers and military units.
For instance, the Roman Legion was a Unit composed at all times in its history of several differently-armed types of troops. A Zulu Impi was a Unit of troops, composed largely but not entirely of 'regiments' of well-trained, fast moving spearmen. A Longswordsman is a guy with a big sword. Anybody notice the difference?
This gets worse as the game goes on, because it makes it impossible for the game to show the real military potential of the weapons. For the most blatant example, the smooth-bore matchlock musket, represented by the "Musketman" was NEVER used by itself. For one thing, the matchlock was a cumbersome 15 - 20 lb weapon that frequently required a 'rest' or forked stick to prop up to use, and could not mount a bayonet except by sticking it down the barrel - which both made a very heavy and clumsy spear and made it worthless as a musket. The result: musket men were NOT melee troops - they charged only if the enemy was already running, and much preferred to stand back and shoot until that happened. Also, they were virtually defenseless against charging cavalry, so they were Always used together with Pikes: The Tercio-type unit is, in fact, Normal for all armies which used matchlock muskets, not just the Spanish.
BUT except in specialized units like the Tercio, the game does not represent this. By making ALL 'Units' really represent Units instead of Individuals, we can 'automatically' introduce some tactics into the game without making the Tactical Array a cumbersome addition to the turn.
Many Units, especially at first, would be One Type of Troop: The Hoplite 'Phalanx', for instance, was simply a lot of men with big overlapping shields, some body armor and long, heavy spears. A late Medieval/Renaissance 'Pike Block' was simply a mass of pikemen. BUT the Swiss pikes and Landsknechts introduced 'Double Pay Men' armed with two-handed swords within their formation, to make them much deadlier against enemy infantry - get past the pike points, and he would cut you in half - stay in front of the pike points, and they would run over you - a nasty 'tactical' problem.
From 'Modern' times on, virtually all military units are Mixed. Modern infantry units since 1920 or so from the company up have included machine-guns, mortars, later 'bazookas' and rocket launchers, and now Antiaircraft guns and rockets, light artillery and Drones.
- and while many armies persisted in fielding units entirely composed of tanks, the 'secret' of the Panzer was that it was part of a Panzer Division, which included heavily-armed infantry, artillery, combat engineers, reconnaissance troops, antitank and antiaircraft guns. In other words, a single 'unit' that included elements of 6 to 8 different Civ V 'units'!
And, of course, if you field a stack that includes Panzer Division - or its equivalent US Armored Division, or Soviet Tank or Mechanized Corps - then whatever the opponent uses to attack the stack, they will run into a Buzzsaw that can counter just about anything they throw at it - and has the Tactical Mobility to counter their attack even from a Rear or Reserve position in the Array.
Instead of trying to revive the old Stack, let's see if we can come up with a way to keep some Tactics in the battles while keeping the game Strategic in space and time: that's our real problem with the Combat System now, and solving it would go a long way towards making Civ VI a far more enjoyable game.
