I tested it again in custom battles and this time it worked... I don't know what happened, there might not be any issue with the mod. If so, sorry for the false alarm.

I will take a look

I don't know if this mod still works but I noticed during a battle that flagellants were not routing after the army losses hit.

@SantaMuerte read the description

please update

Have you considered an alternate implementation where army losses instead hits unbreakable units with a massive armor and melee defense penalty that'll reduce both to zero? That would retain the conceit of these units fighting to the last man but also getting shredded by anything they're fighting so it doesn't take too long to happen.

I really like the idea behind this. In situations where unbreakable units can make the difference towards the end of a battle, the balance of power is almost never so extremely against the losing side as to cause army losses to kick in. The only units where this doesn't make sense I suppose are slayers, since they're literally oathbound to not flee.

To clarify on Army Losses;

It's a specific modifier that kicks in once 22% or less of the original force exists and the enemy has a 2.6x advantage on your forces. It immediately applies a -120 morale malus to every unit, which then immediately breaks and runs.

Army losses is a -120 morale hit; the only units not broken by it nearly immediately are Unbreakable units, which this mod handles. Works with modded units provided they're using the unbreakable attribute.

@lamgoofball Thank you for this. Question though. Modded units with this trait works too?

Also ... as the effect of "army losses" begins to occur on a certain side you mean the begin to move towards the eventual end result of routing and not "army "losses" begin to kick in and they immediately break right?

Cause "army losses" occur but units are still fighting it is just one of the negative values applied to overall moral which increases in value as more and more losses occur correct?

Please forgive me if I am incorrect in this. Thank you for future clarification.