Incidentally I'm concerned that you are getting hung up with the notion of war, no-one has suggested that armies or siege weapons etc should be introduced. People use 'war' broadly, to include situations where heroes go out and kill monsters. It doesn't really matter whether you define this as 'war' or 'ordinary life in Ardania'. That said, from a plot perspective there is nothing like a good war...
Ooh! Ooh! I do! I want siege weapons! Yes, please!!!
*jumps up and down holding up hand*
No, I really mean 'war' in the more specific sense of a concerted, sustained, and coordinated effort to raze or conquer a given territory by a particular species/polity (like in The Siege, or Rise of the Ratmen.)
See- Problem is, I'm really in two minds about this. Part of me says 'War happens. Even in fantasy. It's an important part of the setting and of the background literature that inspired it. You can't just leave it out!'
But another part of me says 'War is all about obedience and control and regimen and discipline. Majesty is about characters' individual motivations. It'll turn the game into another assembly-line RTS.'
Then the first part says, 'Well, some heroes are supposed to be loyal and disciplined- warriors and dwarves and paladins and adepts. That's why you get Call to Arms.'
Then the other part says 'Okay, but Call to Arms is a defensive tool. (I'm assuming you'd rework it so it didn't *literally* teleport guild members from across the battlefield?) You can't really use it offensively.'
First part says 'Look, you're the one who wants City Walls so that heroes can do their thing in peace between quests. If you've got city walls, you need siege weapons to counter them. And siege weapons don't just get up and go exploring by themselves.'
The second part says 'That's only a problem if you have some kind of deathmatch multiplayer. You *could* just have co-op MP and single-player PvE. Then nobody needs to lay siege to anyone else.'
First part says 'But how do all these semi-independant kingdoms exist without ever going to war against eachother? And how come ratmen get siege engines and I don't?!'
Second part says 'Look, it doesn't make much sense to have two 'kingdoms' co-existing on the same map in the first place. If you really want to wage war, you'd need to do it by sending heroes off the map.'
First part says 'But then you have no control over the outcome. And if kingdoms don't exist on the same map, how can you have co-op MP?'
Second part says 'Not having control isn't so bad as long as you can at least watch the battle- you know, like in Deadlock. It's not like you have
direct control over hero combats in the first place. Maybe you can view the enemy kingdom once the battle starts, and cast sovereign spells, but that's it.'
First part says 'Y'know, there are quests like Scions of Chaos and Vigil for a Fallen Hero that would have made much more sense as a band of plucky heroes being led by their king than as a traditional city-building exercise. Maybe you could extend that to laying siege or meeting enemy forces in the field?'
Second part says 'Ooh- maybe that's how it would work! The only way to command forces directly in the field is to lead them in person! That way, you're risking life and limb along with your heroes!'
First part says 'A controllable sovereign got debated extensively on the old Cyberlore boards- they were pretty much split down the middle on the subject. The idea certainly got implemented in the Stronghold series, but it didn't really make a big difference to the mechanics.'
Second part says 'Yeah, but Stronghold allowed you direct control over military units from any distance, with the predictable consequence of idiotic AI being given a free pass. This would require that the King/Queen be within a certain distance of the troops commanded- and they could still break and run if the odds are too poor.'
First part says 'Yeah. Maybe the heroes would be sub-commanders or lieutenants, supplemented by siege weapons or militia. Maybe you could use a system of Heralds to relay orders at a distance?'
Second part says 'But that removes the element of personal danger. Maybe it's 'demanded by tradition' or something that the sovereign has to be out in the fore? Or maybe that affects the morale of your troops, so that 'leading from behind' makes them very likely to break and run?'
First part says 'Like Tywin Lannister vs. Robb Stark. Yeah, I dunno. I'm still worried this would be a drastic change in direction. More like an RPG where you play the king, commission shops rather than visit them, and give quests rather than chase them.'
Second parts says 'True. But what's wrong with that?'
First part says 'Well, for starters, there's a lot of work involved, both mechanically and in terms of user interface. Also, if you're dealing with the exploits of a single character, players will want to zoom in close to the action, which raises the bar for textures and animations and frames-per-second and anisotropic filtering and all that crap.'
Second parts says 'What were we talking about again?'
First part says 'I... don't remember. Anyway. 3D graphics suck.'