How fascinating. It's interesting how our play styles as gamers reflects some of our beliefs/idiosyncrasies/ideologies.
I share your 'getting a kick' out of building provinces/armies to the max. But as for 'bringing as many soldiers home as possible', what a wonderfully modern idea to impose on a game about the middle-ages! Less than a century ago our rulers were sending hundreds of thousands of men to their deaths for their own benefit! It's a very modern idea that at least in Western armies, there is a 'maximum loss' threshold after which you can only achieve Phyrric victories. Or the idea of a 'clean war' in which individual life in sanctified (at least in law if not in reality).
I really like a good bloodbath. That is, I favour more of a 'meatgrinder' approach which seems more adequate to my (perverted?) sense of realism. I feel it would be wrong for a faction of minimal influence to make extraordinary gains against a much more powerful faction. Although obviously history has its moments of this happening, of inspired leadership and luck etc., most of the time it's a case of raw productive/population power. More resources/production/population = the winner.
It's because of this that I could never play as a faction like Aragon or Sicily. I can't see a alternative history where these factions displace Spain/France etc.
Not to mention I also feel sympathy with these peasant revolts, since I know these peasants are the real producers on upon which my fragile pompous empire depends. Do they get a share of the 'income' that is generated through trade and production? Lol I think not.
Anyway I wouldn't play games if I wanted realism at all costs, since as Axalon has said elsewhere, games are really simplified symbolic representations of historical forces. I mention this just because some of it has a direct relationship to how I play, as it does for you, which I find fascinating.
Bookmarks