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.