This isn't actually true. Right now we can do things with items that are
almost as complex. Examples (with a change to TRANSFER semantics):
Equip an Army:
GIVE "Fist of Gondor" "Plate Mail" 12
Stack an army with another companion:
TRANSFER "Fist of Gondor" "General Franciso Franko"
Leave the army behind:
TRANSFER "Fist of Gondor" 0
Get them back:
TRANSFER "Fist of Gondor" "Me"
Note: Unpaid armies and armies not stacked with a unit (and thus alos unpaid)
lose loyalty. Low loyalty armies may unstack and randomly attack people in
a province. Low loyalty armies also suffer desertions (so an army left totally
on it's own will dissolve eventually).
Semantics:
TRANSFER <army> <target>
<army> must be an army loyal to the issuing faction, and must be in the
same province (whether they are stacked with you, someone else, or no-one is
immaterial). Army ends up stacked under <target> (subject to declared attitudes).
So, even without issuing orders to armies directly, they can be controlled &
armed. BTW, horses could also be treated this way, making them valid combat
targets as well.
As to why I like army quality -
1.) It adds inertia - instead of disbanding a standing army and re-raising it
when it is needed, it encourages warlords to maintain standing armies of
quality. Also, combat losses cannot be easily replaced, because you've lost
good troops and replaced them with peasants. Also, loaning an elite army to
an ally is now an important tactic.
2.) I think an ideal Olympia should be an almost equal mix of:
Adventure/Exploration/Dragonslaying
Economic
Warlord/land ownership
Most factions would concentrate only on one or two of the above that suit thier
tastes, and each should be about as "deep", with as many bells and whistles.
Unit quality is an easily implemented piece of chrome that I think adds depth.
Scott Hauck