in terms of gameplay, what such addition would bring? is it not the whole concept of battles that each noble individually controls troops at his own will, while marshal can impose some overall coordination, not affect troop strength.
the only result what i see is that some eager marshals would appear that would chase people all day to obey.
if you look at some original wiki articles (i don't know whether they still exist or not), there is advice like "complete alignment of troops will not be the best in all situation, sometimes diverse troop settings work better", while in current days i hear many marshals yell on troop leaders that they have to be perfectly aligned.
in times when i was willing to check battle reports in details, i did find out that some misalignment and random troops settings works better in many scenarios.
this, of course, does not mean that each and every troop should have different settings, but does mean that "laboratory" perfection may actually be adverse.
sory, that is my personal feeling that such proposal is leaned towards so-much prevailing hive mentality - any slot in our hive will give one click, and we will reach some bonus for our efforts. collaborative effort in my view is that more players are involved into in-game affairs, one way or another, not more nobles who act like bees.
there is one single trouble i see with digging in currently - when very large army successfully digs in, but one tiny troop of peasant militia puts them out next turn (if large battle does not take place).
something should really be done with that 150 cs vs. 15000 cs. dissolution of small troop and sending them to custody is one step toward that, but i am not aware of thresholds, should be possibly higher.
