You asking DD to attack before NA buys weaponry just seems like exploiting a loophole in the game's rules. If 5 players are in the same region if the turns were not dynamic, I would imagine that it would be simple enough to say that all those who are interested in cultivating would gain a single coin. On the other hand a single player cultivating a region would get two coins to simulate the fact that they have access to all the resources of a square. Problem more or less solved.
OOC: Dimos, I have nothing against you, I still count you a good mate man, but in the game no holds are barred.
I request that the poll be put up once more to allow the other players to have their say in regards to the rules. I feel that it would be more fair all round.
EDIT* In answer to your own edit: As far as that goes, wouldn't eliminating the player be enough without needing to also get their belongings. The reward of defeating a rival in the race for dominion of these lands should be reward enough and the sending of money to an ally would simulate the the last acts of a kingdom who knows their time is up and as a last spiteful gesture to their foes, sends their resources to their ally so that the legacy of their kingdom lives on.
The will type thing could still be in effect, it would just be the player's decision whether or not to stick acknowledge it.
I stand by that the dynamic turns still favour the more aggressive/quicker-posting players and does not allow the time involved for others to organise their defences. There is no downside to rushing across the map and beating people over the head so hard they don't get back up again.
I also think we should look at abolishing the slavery rules. If we go by realism, kings were rarely held captive, mainly because the kings themselves were not the ones fighting. Which is another reason why I pushed for armies before. Bu that's a whole other debate.