I would object strongly to anyone being de-NAed for making a suggestion that is for the betterment of the game!
We may have to form a bloc now though...
I made a similar plee a while ago to limit troops sizes, and I like these amendments. You could also go further to limit the total troops instead of the total armies. Troops need to come from somewhere. Where's the realism in having an army of 100,000 troops supported only by a homebase?
I'm not sure what the home base should be able to support though. Maybe a figure like 20 or 30,000 but once you own a city, it's city's recruitment pool vs. home base - which ever is higher so you can always support at least 20 or 30,000.
One problem though would be to get the balance right. A small city (Missoula) would add basically nothing to your recruitment pool so you'd say maybe 1/10 of city size (57,053) is an extra 5,705 troops that can be recruited. But to use the same equation on New York means you can recruit 2,176,673 troops. Maybe it could be set on a sliding scale (tangent). To have New York able to support 217,667 is probably fair (1/100). It's still a lot of troops. The bigger cities would be prime real estate then for more than just tax!
Also, if a player loses a few cities and tries to consolidate himself by pulling back to one city, he may end up decaying his own forces. This will add a lot of strategy I think to conquering a foe. And if they lose all cities, while on a counterstrike (all troops enruite to somewhere) they'd better get there soon or divert to another city because there wouldn't be much left of the army by the time it got there.
One problem with that is that it might take 12 hours for the person to even realise that he's lost all his cities.....
Enough from me - Blitzkriegmj