Tomorrow Sunjester and I are playing Blucher. The allies will be a combined Austrian/Russian army 1813.
Should the Allies breakpoint be
Based on the complete army.
Or
Be separate for the two armies, so on can break while the other can carry on?
I've thought about this wrt my own SYW rules, specifically for a battle like Kunersdorf, where the Russians were the toughest troops in Europe, but not the majority. I concluded that the Austrians and Russians should test morale separately. There's no reason why anyone should share my conclusions.
I generally play multiple allies as follows
1) is there a primary 'ally'? - if so, if it reaches its break point the whole army will break, regardless of the damage or lack of it to the other allies. But I also allow each non-primary ally to break on 50%+ of losses and if two or more of these (non-primary) allies break, then the army will break. This can be varied, based on the relationship between the allies. For example, certain allies might be classified as 'flakey' or unreliable and at the start of the game, the player with these allies in his force rolls a D:6 and hides the score from his opponent. In each turn that the unreliable ally receives a unit loss, a D:6 is rolled and if the score matches that of the original D:6 result, the unreliable ally breaks :D
2). if there is no primary ally (a confederation) then each ally will reach its own break point (of 50%) separately and if 50%+ (not the +) of all allies are broken, then the whole army breaks.
I found that producing a single amalgamated break point tended to skew things and lead to gamey play.
Cheers
Mark
The people I've played with have tended to treat each separately, sometimes with a detrimental effect on the surviving army/ armies morale.