Part of my problem (not just with this post, but with most of the discussions around stacks vs 1UPT) is making sense of the confusion between strategy and tactics (and the complete omission of operational level in between them, or grand strategy above them). Hiding a unit in the woods isn't strategy; it's tactics. Deciding how to position and move your troops while fighting a battle isn't strategy; it's tactics. Deciding on the composition of your army and which part of it should be sent to attack that particular city is strategy.
These aren't military collage definition but ones that commonly used to distinguish games. For example, deciding how to position and employ your force on the field of battle is tactics, as seen in Total War series where you take to the field of battle; Meanwhile choosing your field of battle --maneuvering your forces, using fortifications, etc-- is one level up, whether you prefer to call it the art of the general, operational-level strategy or whatever, this has been the level of planing in Civ from the beginning, with a degree of grand strategy on top.
Regardless of your preferred classification, it should be obvious that these aspects aren't necessarily mutually exclusive and all have been enhanced from the beginning with each iteration of Civ
The Civ series has always let/allowed/encouraged the player to control the grand strategy and, at least to some extent, the strategic decisions. That was the main aspect of warfare modeled by the stacks in Civ4. The big change with 1UPT was to impose tactical-level maneuvering on a map that was still scaled for strategic-level warfare.
The real problem is with people who are not willing to accept what is, wishing to promote particular play-style claiming what Civ is really about, cherry picking examples and massaging its abstractions to their needs.
With that in mind, 1UPT is yet another change in a long line of "tactical-level" changes, that connected many previous mechanics, making related decision more meaningful, and without taking away existing strategic decision.
But that's not the only option.[..] All of the victory point objectives revolved around control of (fortified) cities. Most of the decisive actions would eventually result from assembling (limited) stacks and successfully besieging an enemy city. But --- and this is the crucial point --- you had to carry out this operation very carefully. You had to maintain lines of supply. You had to maintain morale. For supply lines, you had to construct supply depots so your army could ultimately trace supply back to your own cities. And you had to defend those depots, because otherwise a small, fast cavalry force (or even a few determined infantry and artillery) would over run them, and your army would be forced to retreat.
It is another option, but one that has been abstracted in CIv from the start, have no mechanics that lend well to it and the focus of another competing franchise. On the up side, the newly added districts present opportunities to hammer at their war machine on strategical level, no? any ideas on how that can be utilized for a similar effect?
Anyway, regardless of where you stand on this, keep in mind RL realities, they might do away with 1UPT (expanding limited stacks) but they are not going to change the focus completely, from experience any hope of the later is an exercise in futility --like much of this thread.
I agree here. Designing anything, including computer games, is not a science, its an art. And thinking or trying to debase it to a science is wrong. I think strategy games suffer here slightly compared to other genres.
You'd have hard time defining what art is, now days it seem to encompass anything that allow you express.. which including plain color canvases selling for millions, programming, and I bet some found a way to make spreadsheets sexy.. Anyway, I prefer the term talent i.e. the ability to see something that others don't, even though its subjective as well.
In either case, in the real-world before people get to design anything on a project like this they first go through years of rigorous study in their respective fields, have to submit rather scientific business plans, prototypes and bounded by standard limitations of their franchise, tech, target-audience etc. And while obviously there are teams that are more talented\creative than others, most often fandom cries about arts, uninspired, corporate lackeys etc are nothing but the clueless and bitter cries of the disenfranchised about taking away heir favorite childhood toy --been there done that.
to 
.
