The problem of low hit points on humans

[Epaminondas]

Taqwus said:
Heroes, even in fantasy literature, are not exactly considered to be common. They're heroic due to persisting despite the fact that the odds ARE against them -- even the exceptional ones -- and because others WILL get stomped. Heroes try or die -- and the odds are that they die....

To make recruitable commanders have more hp to turn them into superhuman warriors is to ignore the point of heroism unless you're turning it into a vast nation of superior humans and pricing them accordingly....

Taqwus,

Let me make two points.

First, again, I think you--like other posters here--are vastly (to be ironic here) exaggerating the level of HP increase I would prefer. In fact, I would say you and others are misrepresenting my argument to discredit me. So let me put things into perspective.

A base HP of around 20 for a human nation's best melee commanders would be only 7-8 HP increase from the current commanders. For some human nations (e.g. Ulm), it would be an increase of only 4-5 hit points. Does such a modest gain really constitute tranmogrifying these commanders into "superhuman" (your adjective) Herakles and Beowulfs? Oh, my. I think the true heroes of legend would be insulted, to put it mildly. Herakles (who by the way an offspring of a mortal and a god, a la our own Pathos) single-handedly took out monsters that would be represented by units with over 100 HPs in this game!

Even from a "realistic" perspective, is it so implausible to consider that the very toughest, meanest human soldiers can be 70-80 percent more or even twice as tougher or durable than your common everyday soldier? Humans display an amazing variety, and if you have read the annals of warfare throughout the ages, some men are clearly capable of--whether through simply a hardier constitution or willpower--shrugging wounds that would incapacitate or even kill the vast majority of men.

I can understand the uproar if I actually suggested that human commanders ought to have 30-40 HPs, but really, I think you protest too much in this context.

Second, okay, you say that genuine heroes "are not exactly... common" even in fantasy literature.

Fine. Would you then consider it permissible to at least apply the HP increase I suggest to national "heroes" we get? There aren't too many of them per nation (save a few exceptions), so having 3-4 humans per nation with such "superhuman" traits would not be so "common" or unbalancing in my opinion.