Note that if you "max out on poor skirmishers", it doesn't make much difference if they are only counted as 1/2 a BG equivalent. The opponent would still need to break half of them to cause an army break. Unless other changes to the rules are made.
I'm not a great subscriber to the idea that rubbish filler BGs give a player much, if any, of an advantage. Even the 8 points spent on a BG of 4 (assuming the list allows this) poor LF javelinmen could perhaps be more usefully spent elsewhere, especially if it really is intended as pure filler and therefore hidden away where it cannot get into trouble but also cannot contribute anything to the battle. In the case of Rom Doms, those points could be the difference between a 4 strong BG of protected average auxilia and either making it armoured or superior. The fact that you have one filler BG increasing your army break point is not much consolation when one of your "serious" BGs is broken as a direct result of not quite having the tools it needed to get the job done!
I think any way that overall army break points are handled by simple rules is going to cause some odd situations. In DBMM they've tweaked the "morale equivalent" values of elements into something much more complex than DBM and people are still arguing about it. IMO, the whole idea of a neat army break point is a horrible over-simplification, but I can't offer any better suggestions without going back to extremely complicated and time-consuming morale tests as in early WRG rules, which even then didn't always achieve results that seemed realistic.
One way of avoiding army break point "issues" is to play with larger armies, so that it is less likely that either army will break in the time available to play the game. Then the players agree between themselves when time runs out who they think has won and by how much. I realise this is not to the taste of all players
