our chars are not athletes. they command troops rather than being ordinary "expendable" soldiers in the army.
They lead from the front though, otherwise they would have little risk of injury. Try participating in a battle in armour, or even repetatly drawing back on a bow for several hours and then revisit the idea they are not "athletes" in some way
if we say character peak years are 23-25, that is also ok. but than, game mechanics should allow that we are able to reach max skills at that age, which is far from being the case. moreover, hours reduction should begin, for instance, dropping to 7 hours per turn after age of 20, dropping to 6 hours after age of 35. than reference to realistic background should be established.
even more, most of heroes should die at 25-30.
if all that would be done, we would be consequent and say - whoever runs his char with over 40 has to accept that such char is extremely unhealthy man.
I never said the character peaks at 23-25, I said that their HEALTH peaks at that time. Besides the fact that even past this age my characters (my oldest hero is currently 44) have little trouble participating in battle frequently and still kick arse, there are many ways our characters can develop that hours and wounding will have very little bearing on.
You also seem caught up on "max" skills. Besides the fact that the game was never designed for max skills to be all that essential, there is absolutely no reason why max skills need to coincide with the peak of physical fitness. I remember when Tom tried to remove the temptation to chase maximum skills with that whole alignment skill colour thingie.
You also need to consider that perhaps the fact that it is difficult (though not impossible) to max your skills at a younger age are meant to in some way offset the effects of aging. When I studied fencing at uni my instructor was 50 something. Though he was past his prime in terms of reflexes one still had to respect his skill at sword fighting. He often claimed his technique in his old age was vastly superior to the days when he used to compete, and that in many respects it compensated for his reduced speed. In the context of the game a old warrior will generally have higher leadership and sword skill, allowing him to bring more men to the battle and potentially make a bigger contribution.
curently, one of my chars reached bright peaks of leadership skills at his 40. due to some ic circumstance, he lead archer troop most of his life, was commanding army much, and his skil is exceptional. however, he is seriously wounded in say 4 of 5 battles, always staying out of thing for 2 or 3 days, most of time being only wounded in the army, always him. apparently the same experience which allowed him to reach very high skill, "gifted" him very bad health, so tha way he is actually discouraged to be ambitious at all - being unskilled is still much less boring than laying wounded all the time.
do we want players to be discouraged to have any ambition as they will learn - the more ambitious they are, the more they will suffer, so it is better that they are passive and silent.
Again there is more to ambition then being good in the battles, but mostly this seems to be bad luck. Again my Hero at age 44 was been fighting on FEI for a LONG time and certainly does not tend to get wounded any more then he did when he was younger, and that is leading from the front with infantry. When he is wounded the wounds tend to take longer to heal. I am aware of no conclusive evidence that suggest older characters are wounded more often.
even more, if we want to announce that 25 is character's peak, should the whole game be designed so that people have opportunity to reach their actual peak in reputation, recognition among other nobles, titles and positions by that age? i feel that would need incredibly comprehensive rebalancing.
Again we aren't saying it is there peak, just the peak for fitness, this game has far more opportunities and complexitites available then to claim that fitness = the ultimate peak of the character.
i believe that i was able to express some points - that health should simply be balanced with other opportunities characters have during their career. having health peak unrelated with other character peaks creates some awkward situation rather than balance - people in power and position are constantly laying wounded around.
it is likely the most visible on ec, warring continent - i frequently see that, after big battle, rulers, generals and marshals of both sided are the ones who most frequently stay wounded.
Then with the exception of the marshals, one would question what they are DOING on the battlefield. Council members in general need to balance the risk of injury and absence from their role against the benefits of joining battle, older council members are no exception.
at the end, what is purpose of skill than? if someone has high sword skill, commanding infantry troop, should that skill help him to avoid wounds? Wounding on battlefield should logically be more related to skill than to age.
poisioning, getting sickness would be another story, but we do not have such concepts. if we would put plague out of middle age statistics, average age would be dramatically changed, and that is not related to warring.
Again you age has as far as I can tell very little to do with your chance of being wounded. In a true free for all melee, fighting is so frantic that sword skill honestly matters little. There is a reason why formations like the phalanx and the Roman legions worked so well, even though they limited the freedom of movement generally necessary for true feats of swordsmanship. All the skill in the world won't let you pluck arrows out of the air, or block 3-4 incoming blows at once, a strong line with each member protecting their battle brother beside them offers fair greater survivability, and requires little more then the ability to hold a shield, stab with the blade and the discipline to stand your ground.
