I'm afraid I have to agree, it would help solve the issue you mentioned but there would need to be a whole extra set of systems added to add depth back into the strategic map. In any event you'd need some different unit types.
Well, the classic Risk works quite well without different unit types. And it's one of the best board games of all times so it can't be THAT wrong....
But I agree that you would have to adjust some systems for that in order to integrate the new "simplistic" version into the rest of the game. But perhaps it would be worth a try on the green field, just to explore the possiblites and possible flaws and benefits.
At least there is one simple reason when designing anything: make it as simplistic as possible and only add complexity when it's needed. A simple system that works well is superior to a complex system that has its problems.....
@ Raze
I don't think that strategy would be diminished on the campaign map. Risk has a lot of strategy as well. The important thing is to know, which countries you want to defend, which you want to invade and what cards to play.
Building different units on the strategy map just for the sake of having different units without having any real and reconstructable effect for autosolving battles is a quite dumb idea imo.
I could think of a system in which you take the number of "unified, simple units" which you sent into battle and buy RTS units at the beginning of the RTS battle. For example: you have 10 strategy-map-simple-units and your enemy has 8. For these 10 unites you can know buy RTS units before the respective battle, so e.g. a trooper squad for 1 unit, a tank squad for 3 units or a bomber squad for 5 units.
This system would really improve the transition from strategy map to RTS because it would also work the other way round!!! When the battle is over your remaining troops on the RTS battlefield are measured and translated again in "unified simple units" on the strategy map (with one limitation: you can't have more units than before battle). Or your kill-death ratio is translated into simple units on the strategy map. Either way the transition would be improved and could be reconstructed....
As it is now, strategy map battles and RTS battles follow the same "combat and unit rules" but without being based on the same "basic rules" which is kind of weird. Without that there is simply no justification by design to use the same units on the strategy map AND in RTS battles. It's like measuring with two different scales by design. And in a sitution like that abstraction and differenciation might be the better way to cope with the situation...
