So, so true. As you said, the hard part will be the fact of keeping track of individual stats, such as juice. Another thing is that I do want to be slightly accurate. Meh.

"Thirdly, get one of those dry-erase hexgrid maps and water soluble markers. Maybe some kind of software program to store relevant GM data."

What are these?(I know the markers, but I have never seen dry erase hexgrid boards. Or maybe I do not understand clearly what you are talking about?

"Anyway, I'd try to keep the unit lists fairly simple and make sure that "specials" are the exception, not the rule. A unit's particular uniqueness should depend rather simply on a line of stats. Otherwise there'll be more information to handle. Magic alone will complicated enough because you'll have to handle individual "juice" totals for casting types and follow their specialized task resolution rules."

Oh yes. As there are really only 4 classes(stabber, archer, piker, and knight(unless there are others. I remember axemen, crossbowmen, and there was one more that I don't recall, but maybe those were special Marbit units?)). Magic will be hard, as not alot is known, although we can just make some stuff up.

"Things like Loyalty stats are probably best handled as "invisible." Leave these things up to individual players to roleplay warlords, casters, heirs and kings. That way you can cram a lot of players on one side."
Are you saying for a character, once popped, to maybe be "taken" over by a person?

"Special units that don't have a player "behind the wheel" must be treated like NPC's by the GM."
Yeah. Like wild units. Or tribes. I think thats what you were saying.

"Overall, K.I.S.S."
Knights in Stanely's Service?
No, I am joking. I know what it means.

"Depth should be an emergent property of play and shouldn't be mistaken for complexity in rules. "
Indeed.