Army growth

[Matija]

Time, in fact, I now believe workes to my advantage, since now I command, I think, a greater number of lords, and should I grow sufficient troops, my army would be larger. I do not propose to wait that long, however, only some 10 turns approximately, depending on how the game develops.

I believe this to be the situation in one of my games with Fernando. Even if I'm wrong, let's suppose that I'm correct. If I was a coward, I could, theoretically, run away from him indefinitely - until I filled all my lords with troops, that is.

I recognise, however that Fernando deserves to win this one: he was better at recruitment, and he decimated my troops, but I was more careful with my lords - actually, he sacrificed some of them, so he was able to kill more of my soldiers.

I think this situation, where I could gain by dragging the game, could be solved by army growth in citadels, either decreasing it over time, and completely stopping it around turn 60, or increasing it with time, making possession of citadels ever more important. The later would also encourage the players not to just sit in place, but to venture forth on campaigns of conquest.

And, as I suggested elsewhere, I'd like to see that a presence of a brave lord would generate more troops, perhaps even in keeps.

[Ringthane]

I second this, for three main reasons.

First, Matija is first on the ranking and his winning streak has to be curbed ;D

Second, in the context of enabling game modes that orbit a core idea of Regicide with optional conquest parameters, the Citadels, already providing a good bonus for defense, should indeed be essential for strategy. But not too much: Keeps could generate VERY thin trickles of men (because there are so many keeps), instead of augmenting the citadel rate. So we'd have regional dominion come into play.

Third, variation according to Lord valour makes sense... just that