"Keep my fingers to myself?"

Well, it sounds like a typical reaction from people that don't like to play on an equal footing with the AI, and i've seen plenty of such around here and otherplaces; the argument is that its all simply "irrelevant", with no precise explanation why exactly that is so.

To be honest with you i don't mind people that come out and say they just can't live without the diversity and options over the AI, which frankly seems your case. But i do mind those that try to present as "irrelevant" evidence that such a thing does occur and in some cases it can be avoided.

Originally posted by Bondovic
Why nerf if you're going to compensate? Missiles? Is that really ever a huge problem for BGs? And the increase in numbers applies to all scalable units, not just bodyguards. I don't understand this argument.
There are two reasons:
1. Missile use from the player versus the AI, as stated by BB.
The player can and will target the enemy general with his missiles, because he knows that getting him down gives him a tremendous advantage. The AI knows the importance of the general but has no routine to do the same, neither has too effective routines to protect him against.

2. Jediism
The higher the stats and the smaller the size of units, the more likely it is for them to accumulate valor (and so morale) and turn into jedi units. This is all the more so for units that harbor family members that can have already significant valor due to vices and virtues. An extreme case of such a unit is the kensai unit from STW: it was a one man unit that was fighting and defeating 4 other units simultaneously due to how much morale and valor it had accululated (due to how the battle engine upgrades valor and so morale). If that's what you want to play, fine, but know that it doesn't exactly make for good gameplay.

The increase in numbers also applies to all other units, yes. I don't understand the question.

I don't really care about historical accuracy when it is detrimental to gameplay.
Excellent, because i dont either.

The difference between muslim BGs and catholic BGs add color to the game.
Ah, i'm sorry then but i'm afraid that if so you have to rephrase your previous argument:
You wanted to say that, you don't raelly care about gameplay when its detrimental to the game having color.

With this i personally have tremendous problems though, because gameplay raelly does come first for me, and not color. If i wanted color i'd be playing M2TW, which by the way it seems you'd really like - no matter what we do to MTW it'll never have as much color.

BGs that turn into jedis because of their high stats, that have better attack and defence than good heavy infantry, the best charge and armor and quite high speed (and so staminia) altogether, are there precisely for color and not for gameplay.

Perhaps that's not what everyone wants, but for me it's the birth right of every RTS game that they offer different "teams" that are balanced against eachother.
No doubt that each can play the game he loves most. For me that game (as a model of balance) is STW. Try as you might, you'll never really balance rosters that have significantly different units. The best way to achieve, is to make the differences slight.

If you are talking about classc RTSs, then tW battles are not played like that because of morale. Classic RTS games, have an altogether different balance, because they have an altogether different battle model.

If you read my post (that you quoted) you'll see that i talk about muslim BG stats as proportion models and not as absolute values.