I am outvoted, but I'm never disgraced...
I will not take part in a ''Hill'' game that will have armies. Armies are formed from players, not puppets. Armies are things of major importance. They can gain loot or suffer terrifying loses... The ''armies'' you propose won't cause any harm to any player so the game will go on and on forever, and the players won't feel the taste of loosing their belongings...
My version is far more realistic, for there's nothing better than having people as they are, social by nature. If you have armies, the benefits of social organization won't matter to no-one; worse, social forms will be useless, for none will fear for his life neither somebody will believe he can't gain advantages himself. Society is build upon public good, not personal need for leadership. I think the armies feature can destroy this ''Society Building RPG'' , thus I will not participate in PG's version of the game.
I will do my version, possibly, but I need players and a moderator. Rules will be fixed from the beggining, this time we know some disantantages of the HILL game, and they will be changed. But the nature of the game [based on Units called players and not army leaders] will remain the same.