[ Discussion] Do we really need 4 tiers of unit sizes

I'd prefer to start off with 9 immedeately. But I like bigger armies

I really like it the way it is.

Should only have one size.  And that size should in reality be only cosmetic.  Whether 5 or 9 soldiers in that unit, it should be equal to a hero with average stats.  This would make balancing the hero, who would  have better stats, upgrades and magic be balanced with the units.  This would make balancing monsters, heroes, and soldiers easy.  I should be in the beta tomorrow and will look at exactly what the game has, but I imagine it's the same old problem of trying to balance single powerful units with group units that WoM failed with.

I don't think there's too much of a problem with it - the growth in unit sizes is the way you 'specialize' into armies, rather than civics or magic, so as you progress your basic armies gain increased strength and damage output.

The fact that right now units are nearly irrelevant due to figure-multiplied aoe damage spells is a different issue entirely

When not abusing those spells and avoiding other broken gameplay mechanics, I've found mid/late game troops to be pretty sturdy and useful - especially if you drag them around with your heroes and level them up. Units with the +con traits get crazy hp after a few levels gained if they are a large figure stack.

I like the current system in my play thus far.

That's why I'm saying that I'm not in favor of removing the growth in unit sizes entirely. But I do wonder if removing the first tier so that you start at 5 men units then progress to 7 and 9 man will improve the early game units so that they're as usefull in the early game as the mid to late game ones. ( when not abusing spells and broken game mechanics) I also believe ballancing 3 tiers will work better then 4 tiers.

I usually don't comment much but I'll agree with Xia here.

Different unit sizes are IMO impossible to balance. Speaking from my experience with WOM, the difference in power between, say, a 3-man unit and a 9-man unit is so huge that the small units become worthless once you have access to the large ones.

They're not supposed to be balanced. They're straight upgrades - it's a way of improving the same 'dude with a sword' as the game progresses and heroes/garrisons/monsters ramp up in power.

It's just borked right now because hero balance is all out of whack, and there aren't enough 'boost your army' traits to compensate for turn one army annihilating aoe spells.

Some nerfing of the egregious hero issues, some buffing of 'leader' hero traits, and some tinkering with unit affecting spells and actual armies should be viable.

I agree that you can't ballance a 3 man unit agains a 9 man one, that's why I want to get rid of that tier. But I do think that you can ballance a 5 man unit agains a 7 and a 9 man one.

No, that's what I'm saying - they're not supposed to be 'balanced', any more than leather armor is 'balanced' against metal armor. You pay more, in either case, but in either case, they're a straight upgrade.

The whole point is that you invest the time to max out the Warfare tree instead of civics or magic, and as a reward you get large stacks of units, large armies, and better gear for those units, not that 3/5/7/9 units are balanced against each other, any more than going up against a civ with a maxed magic tree and high level magic heroes is 'balanced' against someone without that research.

It's just that currently basic unit stacks are too weak due to hero issues.

There must be some ballance between them Mtrixis. 5 man unit equiped with far supperior gear should hold its own agains a 9 man unit of basic spearman else there's no reason to invest in the weapon gear techs before logistics.  I can see that ballance working with 5, 7 and 9 man groups, not for 3 man ones. Which leaves the question why have 3 man groups at all.

Exactly. Someone that doesn't research military are stuck with wimpy 3 man units. Someone that spends time on military research can use more powerful 5/7/9 groups. The different group sizes is just another way of saying "You've spent X amount of resources researching warfare so here are your more powerful units".

Now I suppose you could argue that it's just an added complexity for complexities sake and that instead of having different group sizes you simply have more powerful units through bonuses or something. So instead of learning to create 5 man groups your units get +X hitpoints, +Y damage, etc.

Personally I think it's fine the way it is though.

I think it's too much of an upgrade. For example, a 9-man unit costs the same as three 3-man units, but will beat them in combat so bad it's not funny (or at least it did in WOM, I'm not in the FE beta yet).

This is part of a larger problem in WOM that different tiers were too unbalanced against each other. A unit with low-level weapons would do 0 damage against a unit with higher-level armor. It's really hard to have satisfying gameplay, when being ahead by a single technology or a single tier of equipment can give one side so much advantage.

No it should not, a 9 man company is at the _end_ of the warfare tree. If you're pitting 5 man groups against 9 man companies, you're losing the military race badly. Could a 5 man group with magic equipment, buff spells, and a bunch of experience levels backed up by a hero last a few rounds? Sure - presumably if you're going 5v9, you've invested in either civics or magic deeply, so you either have a much superior production base AND cool monster friends, or you have more powerful magic, including magic items for those 5 man groups.

Weapon and armor tech gives you access to that gear for your heroes, so yes, there is a reason to do it before logistics (I've done exactly that research path). And lesser numbers can hold their own against larger numbers with better gear, particularly if they're experienced, but not that far apart, you're literally comparing a second level warfare tech to second to last warfare tech (last, really, the final one is a stacking accuracy bonus to your armies).

As for why have 3 man groups: less production, less upkeep, less damage output against weak heroes (and weak monsters). If you started with 5, their damage output, production cost, and upkeep would all have to be tinkered with, and if you're nerfing the 5s, what's the point of removing the 3s?

Early game enemy encounters scale from puny single figures to 3 man groups to 5 and so on, as well as ever-stronger single units - and in theory your heroes ramp up to face those challenges (or your units ramp up to face the heroes, depending on your perspective). The issue right now is that heroes don't just 'ramp up', they launch from a space elevator into low orbit at something like mach 10.

Units have a few other issues too - notably the completely ridiculous upgrade costs to improve their gear.

I don't mind it, but I do think unit sizes need to be upgraded- to balance normal units vs heroes.

My argument isn't so much about the differences between 3 man and 9 man units.  It's more to do with the units and the rest of the game.  The heroes and the monsters.  I think trying to balance grouped units (9 soldiers) vs a single Hero or a monster.  How gear works, attacks, hit points, levels upgrades, are different.  It's difficult to balance two systems against each other.  

Right now unit damage out does Hero or monster damage by a large margin, once you get decent weapons and 7 man units, against other units.  However, against a hero or monster with a high defense they are useless.  The other issue I see is how much damage they take, they really are glass cannons, even with plate armor.  Basically in the end game I use my units to take out enemy units, I use my hero to take out other heroes and monsters. 

However, I do have to say that 3 man units are still very useful even into the late game.  A level 20 archer unit that is fully upgraded is still useful and will take out a 9 man group of archers without any problems.

thats one the most powerful tech to research tbh

i think one problem of the game is the lack of "cool" techs to reach, so im against removing it

I would say keep the system as it is but when balancing, only balance the 9-man units against high level heroes.  Then balance the smaller squads accordingly.

I also don't like the damage spells which multiply on damage with troop count.  Why would I want to spend time researching and resources to build a big army if it's just going to make my enemy's mage instantly more powerful.  Not good.

Exactly. I think a unit size of 5 would be perfect, because it fits better to the RPG part of FE.

re: the squishy units issue - build a custom unit with the two +con upgrades and the 25% xp trait and babysit them for a few levels. I've had some units with pretty massive hp, easily allowing them to tank serious damage. Armor alone isn't enough, you need to get them the levels for the bonus hp.

Yes. I still dont get why people hate units much. I like the bigger units better, but thats purely cosmetics. I had archers with 225 HP... five units of em. They shot big and nasty things like Morian dead... quick...

If the AI were to level his troops I can guarantee you there would be much less of an issue of "Mighty Hero" armies. Yew Longbow, a few levels, and then its armor piercing mayhem. Especially from those 9-man units with Accuray and such. Untill these kinds of fights happen more often you cannot say whether we only need 9-man units, and whether they should be balanced against mid-level heros ( please no! An elite level 10 unit of Yew Longbow Archers should be able to at least take a big chunk out of any hero, they represent a serious investment!)

Units with 300hp still take 100+ damage when they get attacked.  So they don't die in one round of combat, but they can't sit in melee range for long either.  Meanwhile a hero will take 20 damage from that same monster or unit due to the way defense is handled.

Unit sizes are well balanced and thought out. It takes so long to get to the higher levels, you are sacrificing several lower techs to get there. Fireball counters these larger units very well. Heroes are finally able to be countered by something in the endgame. I don't see a problem here.