I don't like it. We already have a completely artificial "army size" limit, and it completely breaks immersion.

That will prevent the champions from levelling too quickly but I still think eventually you will still just end up with the stacks of doom. We would still want XP split up evenly between the champion and the standard units in his/her army though.

You are right though that change should be in the next patch so we will see how it balances things out from there first.

I think the army size limit is actually explainable in terms of command logistics on the battle field (IC) and research for larger armies adds something to the game so I like that. A one champion per army limit could be explained in terms  of ego call them commanders or leaders rather than champions if you like, but I like the idea.

What is the point of the army size limit anyway?  

Think about the logisitics of commanding a huge army. There's a reason they are split up into platoons, companies, etc . . . Think of each stack as a platoon and all of your platoons as your entire army. So in a sense there really is no limit to your army but you are only able to manage a portion of it at a time.

See that's the thing because currently all you need is an army of 3 or so champions to win the game thats why you never had a need of more than 6. Think of how different it would be if you were limited to only 1 champion or you could only fit so many champions in your army? You would have to think and strategize a lot more about the compisition of your army instead of just sticking all your strongest champions in it and mopping floor.

I commend you Xia for actually taking the time to train and use the standard units. It seems forced whenever I did it. (As in forced by me just for the sake of it, not by a need in the game.) I actually never even bothered most of the time as anyone in this game can beat it on the hardest dfficulty by just using your sovereigns and the chapions you pick up along the way.

I did train a few standard units for defence but even those weren't needed as I was never once attacked. Had an outpost or two raided but that was easily dealt with with my stack of doom. Actually garrisonning those with an affective army seems like such a waste of resources. Maybe I'm just getting lucky that the AI isn't up to snuff yet though.

I actually found that taking the time to research the warfare techs actually slowed down my progress because, once again, standard units were not at all needed. Not to mention the money I save on army maintenance and the fact that I had no need for metal or crystal.

I will force myself to use a mixed army in the next update though and see how well that plays.

Agreed, Plus, I'd like to be able to have my King and his most loyal Knights riding out together on quests to save the world. One hero per army balances stuff but ruins gameplay.

1H/A should be only one option among many. The key is to give significant incentives to Warfare minded players to specialize in Leadership. Path of the Leader would give unit stat bonuses to regular soldiers per level, offer special abilities that buff all regular troops, increase movement, give bonuses to whole army when on certain tiles, give bonuses to whole army when attacking a city. 

That would give the player some serious incentive to go the leader route. I still want the other routes to be viable. 

[An Inn on Elemental]

Bard: I will sing you the tale of the villainous Brunthus the Tenebrous!  

Villager1: Boring! Sir Roderick took his 200 men and massacred the poor sod.  

Bard: Oh, errr, the story of Hatian's staff?  

Villager2: Stolen by a Fire Elemental? "Bravely" returned by Ailsa the Ironeer, with her archer divisions help?  

Bard: that would be the one. Humm. How about the recovery of Moriah's Lost Spell Book?  

Villager1: I've not heard that one! Does it involve a band of hero's on epic quest to find lost knowledge and restore the land to its former glory? (He said hopefully)  

Bard: Not as such, there is a Hero! 

Villager3: And? 

Bard: The entire Krax mounted legion, with 2 engineer corps, 16 catapults and a troop of ogre allies. 

Villager2: No. anything else? 

Bard: Well no. The gods cursed our heroes with magical restraining orders preventing them from being within 50 feet of each other. 

Villager3: Why would they do that? 

Villager1: Yea that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard! 

Innkeeper: Don't get me started, My Daughter has been kidnapped by Slavers! I can't afford to hire the entire local garrison to get her back.  

Villager1: We could do it!

Bard: No! 

Villager3: Yea, I was in the reserves!

Bard: Wait! Stop!

Villager2: Lets do it!

Bard: NO!

[A terrible sound of cracking bone as the 3 villagers are flung in opposite directions to crash into the inns walls. All three land in contorted piles obviously dead.]

Innkeeper: What happened! 

Bard: The curse of Legaceez! They became Heroes and so could not exist near each other.

Innkeeper: What a messed up world we live in. Oh and cleaning that lot up is coming out of your tab.

[Fade to black]

IN all seriousness how do ANY of the current quests make sense for anything other than a small group of Heroes, maybe with some troops to back them up for the larger fights? 

And early game I NEED my 1 new hero to help the sovie take out the 1st few wimpy monsters.

Really fun.

Maybe a quest like that "you have to lift a heroes curse".

lol I conceded BeardyDan that was quite the amusing read. I see that the want to send off your group of heroes on an epic quest is strong indeed. I guess I was thinking more in terms of a game like HOMM which all had one hero per army. Expcept for part 4 which ironically enough had many complaints about the overpowered hero stacks.

I guess what you guys really want from this game is more of a D&D/Never Winter Nights/Dragon Age game with some Civ on the side. More controlling individual heros than large armines. Which I do enjoy as well but for some reason I pictured this game as more of a Civ with some D&D on the side. It is a fine balance I suppose which is leaning towards the more epic quests side as the Civ building part of the game is pretty lackluster as is.

Maybe I am abastracting it too much but I still always pictured seperate stacks as part of the same army or quest acting about the same time. Sure they don't all act at the same time because of the turn based game constraints but I imagine everything happeneing in a season as almost taking place simultaneously. While this hero stack and that hero stack adjacent to it aren't in the same battles I picture them as being on the same battle field. Makes sense at all? . . . I still believe at least limiting the heroes per stack is a good idea. Think about it in all those fantasy games/novels/books how often do a band of six god like characters team up on a quest? It's usually just one or two such characters. Heck even in Game of Thrones it's one or two "champions" and an entire army.