Dammit

[johan osterman]

The Panther said:
I think you may have missed my point. I probably was not very clear. What I was saying is that a commander with 1 troop routs very easy. A commander with zero troops does not, he has to rout on his own. And it seems to me to be far harder for him to rout when alone than with any army of any size. Maybe this is not true, but it sure seems like it is to me. This is completely backwards. Troops ought to decrease the chance of routing, not increase it.
...

Commanders used on their own are obviously not intended to be used just as support or to get the troops into battle, so they do not behave like commanders with armies does. Since the sort of commanders people use as supercombatants usually have a very high morale they are unlikely to rout on their own, but suffer from army rout as easy as the next commander. Obviously army rout is more prone to happen when the army is smaller, since the army, discounting commanders, is more prone to routing. Exactly what is it that you find unintuitive with this?

I would also like to point out that it appears that you and magnate are arguing from what amounts to opposing positions. Magnate does not want commanders to rout because army rout occurs while you appear to be arguing for morale penalties for single commanders, presumedly not wishing for commandes to stick around when abandoned by their armies.