This is a tough one. Should we limit armies so people just don’t sit and build armies that are impossible to defeat? We have seen villages that had 10,000 men in them. It’s ridiculous.
I am open to the idea of limited armies. It would open up a chance for noobs to make a name for themselves as mercenaries. If we had 1000 man limit on armies, you’d need a lot more commanders… and there are a lot of people who would be happy to lead without the commitment of being in a faction… I think.
I think armies’ wages should be based on their numbers, as it was, but also by their gear: So a 1000 man lightly armed army should cost the same as 100 shiny. This might lead to small, fast well armed caravans instead of the 3000 shiny man army carrying 4000 goods.
But what about cities and castles, you ask? I think cities and castles should have minimum garrisons too. I would say 1000 for cities, 500 for castles and zero for villages. Cuz really? Where does the garrison stay in a village? 0 garrisons for villages would mean more field battles, which is good. If a commander wants to sit in a village with soldiers, then fine, but otherwise just protect your lands by being vigilant (check below for strat movement- not expecting you to stay up 24/7 watching your borders).
I like being able to switch pop to soldiers and vice versa. But I think population size should affect SD. You grab your citizens to be soldiers, you lose SD aka money. But I also would suggest separating garrisons from population. Garrisons should be used to defend the walls, much like Warband single player sieges. Just the wall, the gatehouse and close areas.
BUT… then the civil militia can fight. This would be a TDM in the streets. Attackers spawn in the gatehouse, and the civilians spawn in random houses etc. They recap the gatehouse, game over for the attackers. But the attackers push for the keep. Should the civil militia hold off the intruders, the battle continues the next day- with the chance of reinforcements.
Oh, and speaking of reinforcements, could we separate armies? Instead of giving away all your crap to your buddy, could you just sign your own mercs and fight beside them? In which you help your ally, but you have your own spawn point, and any losses your mercs take are yours and yours alone… and their losses are theirs’ and theirs’ alone. AND imagine this… if one commander loses his spawn point the other commander could choose to continue fighting or retreat… retreat meaning any ticks and gear not on the field can be saved- none of that all or nothing BS WB strat had.
Um, while I’m going on and on, it could even be more interesting if two or three armies joined to attack and they had their own spawn points due to where they entered the map… cool, but once again, i have no idea how much work that would be.
Oh, and strat movement. I hate it when I set my alarm to 3 am to move my guy into a blockaded city just to find out someone else had set their alarm too and intercepted me. Could we figure out a way that everyone inputs their moves and then it is all calculated after? Kinda like Diplomacy (which I sadly never played). There are a lot of difficulties with this of course. It would be too hard to intercept people if you put your movements 10 hours before it was time. But we could limit movement to prime time, with the ability to set your own movements before primetime. So you could send your caravan to Narra at 7 am PST after your weird work shift and go to sleep and hope it is safe. BUT most people have normal hours and cell phones. You can check your movement on your pee break… Oh, but if we only have a 4 hour window to watch your army move that means your armies will have to move 8X faster… I am ok with that lol.