You're absolutely right about the difference between 1 archer unit and many archer units. "Everything counts in large amounts." I'm not sure if a ramping cost scale is really the answer. I could see armies that rely on multiple expensive mainline units (pike armies, warband armies, etc) getting absolutely hosed by that sort of change. I'd argue instead for a rethinking of max unit numbers for certain armies and unit types.paulmcneil wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2019 9:24 pmI think the points system judges all units as individual units rather than the combined strength of similar units. e.g. one archer unit is pretty useless, but put a dozen of them together and you have something that punches way beyond the sum of the individual units, so maybe have an incremental cost for such units over a certain number. Similarly games are now won, between "equals" based on out flanking, double drops in morale, and rallies from rout, so perhaps again a surcharge for very high numbers of non-light troops, get rid of double drops in morale, and thin the tails on rallies from rout, i.e. take the extremes out of the rallies that give an incongruity between sides.
Flanking, cohesion tests, and rallies from routing are all things that get exacerbated by horde armies, because to win against them, you have to CUT. THROUGH. SO. MANY. UNITS. OMFG. Sure, chain routs can help, and that's one area where mass raw infantry can get into trouble. But otherwise, having more units means more times you're rolling for routed units to rally, and more opportunities for you to work a unit around a flank. To the extent that it seems like the key strategy for many armies is to go whole hog around one type of unit. Mass skirmisher. Mass infantry. Mass cavalry. To the exclusion of other units and types, leading to very unbalanced unit compositions.