1) Heroes and captains both boost the performance of player-controlled units so I don't think the comparison is accurate, and there's a lot more variability in militia performance in successive battles if they've retreated or are scattered than with player controlled units.
--Heroes and captains don't provide enough to impact the performance of units that much. So my point still stands. If heroes and captains made significant impacts, it would have been a different story but they don't. They are very minor.
2) Militias for the most part are immobile so have a more settled existence than player-controlled troops. They always have a place to live, first preference for any food and presumably local attachments.
--I am talking about their roleplay potential. They were either recruited by the lord from nearby regions which I guess in this case makes sense with your idea of them having preference to food and local attachments but in most cases people drop their own units to increase them quickly. This of course is not necessary for capitals but then again capitals are where all recruits gather so they would hardly have any attachment.
3) Most cities are not Oligarch and will not resist a sustained siege by a single realm committed to their capture. Having spent my entire BM career on the receiving end of gangup wars whilst practicing the black arts of defensive warfare I've never seen any evidence that the gangups occur because the victim has unconquerable cities.
Since you like to bring your BM career as an example here, I spent over 6 years on leading armies of various sizes. Unlike you, I spent my time both fighting off gangups and besieging cities both small and large. What changed everything was the archer bug fix. They hit harder than the days when Fontan fell with you. Or the days when I besieged Oligarch against Fane. With enough infantry to keep men off of archers, your militias are a lot more cost efficient than before. They are different from melee militia days of old because archers can damage your men long before you can even get near the walls. Either the walls need to be limited to lv3 at most for cities or militias need to be nerfed in one way or another. It is way too easy to defend fortified regions due to various changes over the years. While defenders got stronger, attackers did not. Actually there are less attackers now so even easier to defend.
4) Sieges could be handled with a new unit stance besieging which if all defenders are in normal or defensive would establish a siege and put the onus on the defender to attack (as with a TO) and lose the advantage of walls. During the siege food couldn't be moved into or out of the region. Enable the Black Market for traders and this could allow them to smuggle a proportion of food offers into the city at a sizeble profit siphoned direct from the region's tax office.
I am trying to provide an easier solution until these new features god knows when come. All the things you've mentioned need to be coded from scratch. Also some of them are planned already. Why do we need to unit status even.
[qutoe]5) There are still a few Priests and they make great Diplomats due to both having Oratory as a primary skill. I'd like to see more of them and think priests shouldn't count against a player's noble character count.[/quote]
I don't think this one belongs here. Nothing to do with militia.
