I hope you do understand that this debates are way too far from this "Kingdom member limitation" idea.
Test server with:
Kingdom limit: 30 players(3 royals, 27 members at current version); Union limit: with 60 players (6 royals, 54 members at current version)
I have now read all post here and the main objections to having a player limit per kingdom seem to be:
1) People will create wings anyway to extend their member count.
2) A hard limit of players per kingdoms will "push out" players of lesser skills
I personally think that this is the conclusion one will come to if you just judge it for the first evolution to a system with a hard max limit (everything else being equal). But certainly there can be further changes coming along to compliment such a radical change to the game. I think a one needs to consider a max player limit as a philosophy to be further designed around rather than a change to be inserted into the current rule set without further changes.
My motivation for why the game needs to be designed around such a core philosophy of a max number of members per kingdom goes something like this.
a) Wings (or allied kingdoms) will exist regardless of a max limit or not. Without a max limit Wings exist to maximize boarders, member´count and treasury generation. With a max limit wings will exist for the same reason. The difference is only that wings under the current system are often working under a temporary basis with a promise of absorption into the main kingdom in order to share the win. With a max limit the option of wings to work under a temporary basis for the purpose of later moving to the main kingdom and sharing the win will get removed. And I personally do value this seemingly minor change to have a great impact on the game as such an arrangement will in general be more difficult achieve diplomatically. Trying to be more clear; It will be harder to have 120 members selflessly working for the win of another 60 members in the main kingdom without any chances of sharing the victory, as compared to having 120 members temporarily being in wings with the promise of later joining up into a 180 man kingdom to share the win. I sincerely think a max limit will lead to more kingdoms will strive to act independently and working to optimize their own game and chances when the option of absorption is removed. This will not happen over night and it will demand further rule changes to stimulate such a change in dynamic. But I think the key is that the game introduces more and more rules that pushes players towards independent team building.
b) At this stage the game is pretty much solved. And I think many of the core/leadership groups of established organisations may agree with me that the META strategy of the current state of the game hold much more to be desired. The solved META strategy evolves around maximizing member count as to reach a sufficient passive treasury generation speed and to reach that critical level of DEF in a WW where a trail of 15 incoming sieges cannot damage your WW. The problem here arises from that a achievable OFF army size is bounded, while the DEF in the WW is a function of your member count. So one can practically reach "Checkmate state" due to the OFF army size being bounded by game "laws of physics" and WW DEF size being bounded by member count. A similar case also exist with the treasury generation. Treasury generation is a linear function of your member count. However, since VP is an accumulative additive function of your treasury count, VP becomes an exponential function of your member count! THIS is why the member coutn discussion is different and FAR more important in Travian Kingdoms than in Legends. And this is why there need to be a philosophy change (accompanied with several rule changed) when it comes to member count in Travian Kingdoms. As the META strategy stands right now, and everyone in the leadership groups knows it, member count is key for the 2 aforementioned reasons. And many leadership groups are constantly battling the contradiction of wanting to have a smaller tighter team with stronger community, against the by design necessity of having a huge member count to adjust to the non-linear impact member count will have on VP generation and DEF vs. OFF strength in the WW stage of the game.
c) By a max limit winning a server and receiving the Victory Medal for a server will be something far more rare. When only 60 players out of say 2000 can stand victorious on a server it will mean a great deal more than if 300 players our of 2000 wins a server... whether or not you have been organizing "pre-made" wings or if you have simply been skillful to been able to gain necessary allies via diplomatic means.
d) Finally, regarding objection 2 above. Yes it is true that players of lesser experience and connections will not have a very good chance of stumbling into a membership of the winning kingdom on a server. And I think this is a good thing. There will be other kingdoms to join, whom due to the necessity for alliances will not automatically all be destroyed to pieces. In reality all that will change for such players are that they will end up in kingdoms with lower chances of winning until they display the skill sought for by the more ambitious teams, and then subsequently being recruited by one of them. I would strongly argue that the experience for the players of lesser seriousness level or experience will not worsen. In fact, I think it will even increase as the community in ALL kingdoms will benefit from a stronger in-kingdom community as each individual in that kingdom now counts for more.