Ever seen the movie 'Braveheart'? The movie shows several creative ways to beat an army that has you outnumbered. Read up on some more history and you will find many examples of the underdog winning.
You refer to the scene in which Wallace is ******** the bride of the English heir, I guess?
No, to be honest, I would be very, very, very careful when proofing my thesis with Hollywood's historical lessons...
Anyway, of course there have been examples in history when outnumbered forces actually did beat a superior enemy force. This is a fact and noone would deny that.
But there have been reasons for that. Never the reason was that the successful army has had less soldiers!
Some examples from history:
Waterloo and Ligny.
At Ligny, the superior Prussian troops (80,000 Prussians vs. 64,000 French) entrenched in that little village. Since they were waiting for Wellington to show up with the British, they allowed Napoleon to deploy and to bring his artillery into action. The battle, starting at 3 p.m. (rather late for that time to start a battle) was finished in the evening, with the Prussians running away while leaving appr. 20,000 dead and wounded soldiers behind.
This in fact is an example for the minor army to win a fight.
But, 2 days later, on the 18th of June 1815, Napoleon encountered Wellington near the Belgium village of Waterloo. Both armies were of appr. the same size, with the French having more artillery (not surprising, since Napoleon had been artillery general in the revolutionary France)
At the late afternoon, Wellington was almost to retreat, since his lines had been thinned and weakened by the battle experienced French.
But then, unexpected to the French, Bluecher with his Prussians showed up again!
Now, the both armies (British and Prussian) worked like the blades of a scissor, with the French beginning to feel like the paper in between.
About the outcome of that battle we all know about. (Casualties: French - 35,000; Allied 18,000) So, the French had almost 2/3 of the casualties while the Allied had 2/3 of the troops (65,000 British, 60,000 Prussians vs. 64,000 French)
In CIV, the Prussians would have waited for Napoleon to finish the British and then to recover in the night and then to attack them at the next day.
In CIV, Europe now would be speaking French and the super power of the Earth would be France.
Next example:
On September, 1st, 1939 the German Reich invaded Poland. Since France and Great Britain had already guaranteed the Polish Borders to stay unchanged, the war was not unexpected to anybody in the world. In early 1939, the French general staff had made an analysis of the military potential of both sides. They had come to the conclusion, that a German-Polish war might easily last for two years with some good chances for the Polish to show up in the outskirts of Berlin.
But the war (as far as Poland was concerned) was over just 10 weeks later, with the Polish army completely destructed and the Germans having suffered some 10,000 casualties. This was the "Blitzkrieg".
Since the Polish and the attacking German forces were of appr. the same size, the quick German success was absolutely unexpected by the rest of the world.
Why?
Because the Germans had learned their lessons from WWI. They used air force and tanks in joint operations, by-passed Polish troops and seized strategical important targets.
Neither the German weapons nor the German 'Wehrmacht' itself were superior, but the German strategy how to use the different troops and means.
Especially the socalled 'superiority' of the German tanks was just a modern tale. In fact, until the introduction of the German 'Tiger' and 'Panther' tanks, German tanks were just comparable to the tanks of their opponents. This was especially true and got proofed later in the western war theatre.
Ok, enough with heroic tales from history...
What I wanted to state with this is the fact, that almost ever in history the tactics made the difference between enemy armies.
Superior tactics, often in close combination with weather conditions, useage of terrain and clever use of new weapons have been decisive for the outcome of a certain battle.
On the other hand, if both sides had to face the same conditions (that is, they use the same tactics, they have the same weapons, they are equally supplied and so on), then the number determined the outcome. Or, to quote Napoleon: 'The Lord will be with the stronger battalions'.
Read up on some more history and you will find many examples of the underdog winning.
Please feel free to do some reading of your own
Nevertheless, I once again would like to explain that my idea is NOT about having 'fixed' armies in a new CIV.
I am just thinking about giving both sides the opportunity to make better use of their units.
For that, I recommend that seperate units will join on occasion, that is, if resting on the same tile AND being attacked. Or, if units on the same tile are to engage units on adjacent squares (the mentioned equivalence to the 'j'-command). Before and after, those units would be individual units again.
To avoid them becoming too strong, Yoshi's and my idea was to have an upper limit per tile.
By adopting this principle, most of the counter arguments would become obsolete, as far as I see it. For defensive purposes, any army could easily built just by stacking some units on the same tile. If the opponent then tries to attack, very well then. He should have some attackers as well.
To repeat even that, the problem of distributing damage points will occur. But this could easily been done, I guess.
I recommend to give the suffered damage points to the less experienced units in the very army. By that, the 'army' still will win the fight, but the individual units in it will face some damage. I guess, that is, what all of us would expect, isn't it?
And, last, this would speed up combat a little bit.
(Additionally, I really would like the idea of units being defeated to have the chance for retreating from the battle field). As the example Ligny from above shows, a defeat doesn't necessarily means the complete destruction of all units engaged in that fight)
Of course, this would make the armies as they are in CIV obsolete.
But, the presence of a GL could give his 'army' aka the collected units on his square advantages like a 'first shot-capability' or whatever.
) Their flag waving proudly in the winds... 
)
