Interesting. I was not considering a scout to be a commander, since they have zero leadership. The points I included above were just things I consider important in recruiting leaders that will be leading my troops.
I know protection and shields are accounted for by resource cost, but shields are so critical that I would never recruit a commander with low protection and no shield at any resource cost unless it had special abilities (like magic paths) or was dirt cheap. Commanders without shields and armor die like flies when exposed to arrows... seeking arrows... blade winds... flying shards... well, anything, really.
Undead leadership can probably be valued similarly to or a bit more than normal leadership, since normal undeads are much weaker than humans, and devils are much stronger than humans.
Magical leadership, OTOH, I think is far more valuable per unit than normal leadership, not just double.
However, it is very rare to have a gold cost for commanders with undead or magical leadership that is not already paid for with their magic paths, so these points may be moot.
HPs on commanders (the kind that sit at the back of the army in battles, and just lead troops) are much more important than other stats (except protection and maybe MR). HP protects them from seeking arrows, strategic province-blasting spells, projectiles, and damage from auras of friendly units... which are the leading causes of commander death, in my experience. The other stats are usually useless except versus assassination attempts, weak fliers set to "attack rear", and very powerful commanders that you actually use in combat.
When evaluating commanders, it may be useful to have a scale for "pure commanders" in which stats (except hp,mr, and prot) are generally irrelevant, and a scale for "combat commanders" that are intended to actually fight, where all stats are valuable. After all... would anyone pay more for an indy commander that had +2 str, -1 enc, and +2 ap? I wouldn't... but if I had a choice between an indy commander with +5 HP or +5 str, I would certainly choose +5 HP. Precision is always worthless unless it is above 10 or on a leader that comes with a ranged weapon (or magic). Also...
Code:
0 - 0 points
10 - 10 points
25 - 20 points
50 - 30 points
75 - 40 points
I seem to be more in favor of big armies than other people, but I find 50-leadership to be way better than 25-leadership, and 10-leadership to be virtually worthless. I'd probably scale it more like...
0 - 0 points
10 - 8 points
25 - 20 points
50 - 35 points
75 - 45 points
...but it depends on the way you like to design armies and what kind of units you use. Mictlan leadership isn't really as valuable as Jotun or Abysian leadership.
As far as strat moves go, all commanders have a minimum of 2 strat moves as far as I know. More strat moves are almost never useful UNLESS they are combined with flight, terrain survival, AND access to units with flight, terrain survival, and high strat moves. Strat moves are useless underwater. In fact, strat moves may be worthless for normal commanders, and only important for Caelian and combat commanders.
Immunities: They're all very valuable, and more so as the game goes on. Poison is probably the least valuable. The value of immunities increases drastically with the power of the unit, so that inherent fire immunity on a supercombattant is way more valuable than inherent fire immunity on an Abysian commander. Maybe you should make immunities multiplicative rather than additive. For example, Frost immunity could be worth 1.5x, making a Neifel Jarl worth (300 points)*1.5 and a Caelian scout worth (20 points)*1.5 or something like that.
Well, anyway, these are just some random thoughts I tapped in as I was considering commanders, but feel free to ignore them and value units however you want
