Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

Till in that kind of games we play, I mean by HPS and Talonsoft and all reeditions, there will be only one factor to show both experience, morale, equipment and so on as long to determine appropriate quality factor for the individual units will be a matter of finding the right balance between all components of the factors. I let myself show how I understand factor of quality, I'd like to think the adoption of such a scheme for the future by those brave men who want to be or already are scenario's designers:
A+++/9 - 300 Spartans under Thermopylae and no one more in history
Nobody is perfect except them and those brave Dwarfs
defeated in their last fight in Moria against Goblins:cry:
P.S. I forget about Oddball (Donald Sutherland) from
"Kelly's Heroes" ;
A++ /8 - the best units in the game in common opinion (shock troops,
excellent morale);
A+ /7 - as above but a little less experience;
A /6 - core of the best units ( mostly experinced guards, tough veterans
- the best regular troops ( non guards), the best light infantry,
most of grenadiers;
B /5 - veterans, good morale;
C /4 - core of regular army, fair morale, seen battle;
D /3 - trained units, average morale, no experience;
E /2 - basic trained conscripts, low morale, militia;
F /1 - laggards, other name struggles
I think everyone has their own preferences as to the best and worst and other entities. Especially when it will come into likes and dislikes related to nationality. However, as the basis for the award of quality should be the real behavior of units in battles, especially when it can be supported by examples. Such examples with proposition for units are greatly appreciated.

The major problem with the nine levels of quality is the random die generation stayed at 6. This system came from the TalonSoft days when John had 6 levels with a random number generation of 6 (die 6 for those miniature/board gamers.) When the quality levels was expanded to 9 the random number generation should have followed suit. As it is now, even without leadership bonuses we have three quality levels that can't break until un-historically high damage is done to the unit, when you add leadership bonuses then they can't be broken 'till they are nearly anihilated.

I've always thought it would've been a minor change to the system to go from a 1-6 random number to 1-9, but it was never implemented so maybe it wasn't so easy.

This one factor and the unilateral way it was applied to the French army (mostly) has nearly ruined the system for me. Fortunately, the games are flexible enough oobs, scns, pdts etc are mod-able.

I think the primary drawback of this system is to collect everything that has a unit on the battlefield in one factor. In addition, this factor is "frozen", no matter what happens with this unit. First of all, in the first place should be separated the quality from morale. As far as quality, in the case of a single battle, it should be a constant, so much morale should be able to be changed within the battle depending on everything that relates to units directly (losses, break down in melee, etc.) and indirectly (routing of others units , loss leaders, etc.)