Hmmm. I must say I don't like the thought of enforcing permanent limitations of the kind you are suggesting. Perhaps it would add more flavor to the game but it would also be extremely frustrating. In a game spanning 300 years of history, every nation should be able to dramatically change its administration and organization. If you start the game in 1492 and invest all your gold in army research, you should not suffer from historical limitations in 1790. People don't play games to watch history repeat itself; they want to write new ones.
Besides, most of the rules you are suggesting are obviously board game abstractions not necessary in a computer game. Why should no more than two armies be able to occupy the same territory? Rules like that belong in games like Chess or Risk... It would be much more accurate to have the attrition rate increase exponentially with the size of the army, perhaps weighing in the population level and food supply of the territory, and the stability/loyalty level of your nation.
What I am getting at is that the game mechanics should be made so that the player will want to have historically accurate armies, as opposed to making anything else impossible. Smaller armies should have lower attrition, last longer and become veteran, etc.
If the different nations are to have any kind of 'perks' (which could be interesting) they should be attainable for all nations given time and research, IMHO.
Furthermore it is my opinion that Sweden should be added to the Grand Campaign.
Besides, most of the rules you are suggesting are obviously board game abstractions not necessary in a computer game. Why should no more than two armies be able to occupy the same territory? Rules like that belong in games like Chess or Risk... It would be much more accurate to have the attrition rate increase exponentially with the size of the army, perhaps weighing in the population level and food supply of the territory, and the stability/loyalty level of your nation.
What I am getting at is that the game mechanics should be made so that the player will want to have historically accurate armies, as opposed to making anything else impossible. Smaller armies should have lower attrition, last longer and become veteran, etc.
If the different nations are to have any kind of 'perks' (which could be interesting) they should be attainable for all nations given time and research, IMHO.
Furthermore it is my opinion that Sweden should be added to the Grand Campaign.