I'm pretty sure they have already fixed this in 1.1. It came up in another thread. Now units in stacks calculate dmg versus armor as if they were a single unit and then multiply it by the size of the stack instead of just multiplying attack by stack size.

Hmmm I remember this diffrently I will have to retry it.

I can't really recall any monsters that were impossible to kill in the games I've played.

For me, the problem with armour and weapons is the scaling of the numbers between each level. In most games as you progress unlocking better units or equipment the actual changes are subtle. While Elemental has been scaled back some-what the actual leap in terms of the battles is still really unbalanced.

Kael, on another note, can you please explain again how the various battle calculations are made? The old post you made some months ago has little correlation with the figures and results in the game.

Jup the guy with the stick in the last step of the mastery quest is totally out of whack to the point that I simply reloaded and left it to rot.

I have not seen any uber defense creatures for awhile (will let you know).  For the larger arguement:

1) I think the formula does need to be lowered to make armour not as good, I would try a (.75:1) for a first pass.  I think you should consider shaving weapon attack values a little as well to help with late game one-shots.  Currently the power curve ramps up hard enough to leave older units mainly useful as speed bumps about every tech advance.

2) Get the AI to use SHIELDS and helmets, as well as better armoured units in general.  The no shields thing is particularly annoying, as I know it is going to assemble armies using the biggest two hander they have, then charge me.  I am not saying full combined arms even, but maybe create a tank AND basher tactical AI?

The problem with shields is that right now, 2handed weapons > 1handed weapons + Shields, by a huge margin.  40 or 50 attack versus a 15 or 22 is a big deal.  The whole way attacks and damages are valued need to change.  Drastic change.  It's just too simple of a system to handle all the different gear and troop sizes.  I'm not going to try and come up with a formula that will fix it, that isn't my strong point at all, But instead of had and fast numbers, maybe some kind of diminishing return for armor?  Kind of like a side of the bell curve, you get closer to 0, but never approach it, so even if you are swinging a club at a guy in plate armor, you can do some damage.

If you want to fix the problem with making powerful, invulnerable champions, how about making the magic gear cost more than just gold?  Want a Elementium sword or armor?  Better find some Elementium and a guy able to forge that special crap.  Want to hire 100 Champions?  Great, but if I was a champion, I would want special housing and a stipend.  Royal family can live in the palace, but you have to build a "Champion Residence" to hire a champion.  And they need servants, so 5 pop?  Also, they need to get paid, so add a maintenance to that. 

Both Heavefall's solution and mine do that. And yes, I agree, because threshold effects are bad.

And yes, 2-handed weapons (as well as hit points) need rebalancing.

If only the shield would give a small bonus to attack like in real life.  Overly large ones such as tower shields probably would not however.

It has been my experience that monsters' (and the AI's in general) defense is always rather weak (armour is not effectively used).

It is not just an issue of focusing solely on attack/defense (armour) though, but includes the AI's ability to adapt to the dangers it encounters. Of course monsters shouldn't be able to dynamically change their armour (a gaint rat doesn't all of a sudden realize "Oh my! The humans have battle axes... I better get some plate mail!". In that case there needs to be a good balance of challenge. High attack is good, but that needs to be balanced from the point of view of 'high attack doesn't do any good if my opponent can kill me before I even take a swing'. That is not necessarily countered by armour though. For example, maybe there exists a low level (i.e. at the start of the game) creature with an attack of 15 and defense of 0, but it has a high dodge or an ability that lets it attack first (strike from shadows or something). For a low level player, you would avoid that creature until you had reasonable armour or more hit points as it could probably kill you before that.

I guess what I am trying to say is defense is much more than just armour. I think it would make the game much more interesting to see battles with creatures that have a range of attack/defense/armour/special ability/etc. combinations rather than just increasing the number beside the little shield symbol.

Hm, the only thing that comes to my mind would be Umberdroths.
Sure, they are expensive and you first have to find a lair and pay for to be able to recruit them.
But with how quickly they can be available; and given that a lair will nearly always be in range; they can really hurt in early games.

I would rather have their defense rating drastically lowered at first level, and have it get better when the Umberdroth advances in levels.

I'm not sure it would be possible, but adding resistances to armor and damage types to weaponry would possibly help validate different armor and weapon types.  Potentially lessoning the challenge of getting the highest defense and attack numbers FTW.  The game seems to play like that for me, although the weapon abilities mod has helped alot on the offensive side of things.

I've finished a couple very large games and have not noticed mobs with out of place defensive values.