cute.
what id like to see is a system where to's succeed and fail based on the actual outcome of battles, and where the outcome of battles is based on comparable levels of coordination between the opposing armies. not a system where someone can just throw gold at a region to make up for not being able to win with their actual army.
That would give a realm with more nobles too much power. Building militia is a good way for small realms to defend against hordes and war raids...
Here's how I picture it:
Taking over a region basically means that your troops are now inside the town village or w/e, you're with the peasants. The main fortresses are usually blocked off from the peasants, so I can understand how a fortress wouldn't but under your control. While you're with the peasants, your enemy can't exactly be there because they'll die.
Meanwhile, most battles happen outside the residential area in some sort of field. When the defenders lose, they just run back to the town, starting a takeover is like walking into the town, however, the battle isn't over, jist because you've RETREATED doesn't mean you're defeated. So skirmishes commence etc., Outside the area.
You can't exactly collect taxes when you're enemy halts them from entering... Can't place militia because... Common sense. Etc... However if the takeover doesn't start, you're still in your village, you can do whatever you want.
If you're complaining that gold plays too big a role... I'm sorry, that's how economy works. More gold means you can buy and build more.
