Trained units for most races will have a hard time wearing heavy armor and weapons unless some traits are spent on increasing strength further increasing the cost and training time even more than the armor alone did.  Archers are welcome to spend their traits on strength so that they can wear heavy armor, but those are traits that aren't making them better archers.  Its a valid choice, heavy armor on your strong archers is fine if that is what you want.  But there are strategic costs to it (it will reduce their init, making them attack less frequently, use your metal supplies, increase their training time and use some of their traits).

 

I haven't been able to get myself in a situation to test this. If I have 1 Metal Mine and 2 cities, can only 1 city build a unit that requires metal? If so, can only the city with the mine build said metal using unit? This might be a very effective way to balance the expensive heavy hitters, especially if this is applied to Crystal as well.

I think that the tools to balance the unit design process are in place now.  They just need some tweaking.  Following are my assumptions on what equipment and traits cost, and then an algabraic representation of what I think wuold create balance and options.  I will be largely focusing on encumberance as a general measure, as I believe there is a fine line balance between making people have choices (ie not ooo new tech therefore reate new unit with maximum everything) and causing there to be only specialty designed units.

Assumptions:

Harder hitting weapons ALWAYS are heavier.  Higher defense armours ALWAYS are heavier.

Equipment with special effects/abilities ALWAYS cost special resources.

You cannot equip more than maximum encumberance.

The tech tree can be sorted into sets of items, ie leather and the first two sets of weapons, chain and the next weapons. etc.

There are techs at about the same level as the change in sets that increase for all troops base encumberance.

There are traits that can increase encumberence.  There are traits that give special abilities.

Traits that reduce maximum encumberance should better abilities attached to them than traits that do not effect encumberance.

Traits that increase maximum encumberance should not have positive abilities attached (I don't think negatives should be attached either)

There is a limit on the number of traits that can be picked.

Algebraic implementation:

Base Max Encumberance(set level tech) = middle damage current set weapon + half current set armour(50% of defense of pieces if equipped).

Maximum Encumberance Increase (all traits increase encum) + Base Max Encumberance = Maximum set armour + maximum damage weapon

Maximum Encumberance Reduction + Base Encumberance = 25% set armour + smallest damage set weapon

Explanation:

Using this methodolgythe player should have (at least) the following choices when designing a unit (assuming that the picked up to maximum endurance and that all traits have been picked):  An average equipped unit with average abilities.  A fully equipped unit with no special abilities.  A lightly equipped unit that has great abilities.  These are obviously the extremes of the limits I set out, and at the .77 build with the three trait limit there is plenty of range between the limits for hybrids.  This methodology also allows the strategic level resources and training time to be used to balance special attributes of trained units rather than their base attack/defense stats.  Example : Sword 10 attck. no special. no extra resources. no extra time.  Sharp sword. 10 attck. ability cleave (hit two units adjacent to each other). costs metal. costs extra training time.

My opinions are two part in regards to changes.

Dex penalties should be proportional, not linear, and maybe more categories of encumbrance.  Over half of max encumbrance should reduce basic move to 1.  This would be a separate penalty.  That said, chainmail/platemail on the battlefield should require heavy weapons or magic to do any sort of real damage.

Horses and Wargs move bonus should be impacted by encumbrance as well, over half encumbrance should reduce basic move to 2.

As for Champions: I think these changes would be nice.

Path of the Assassin (that I would rename Path of the Rogue).  It's considered an underpowered school.  What I would do is buff its abilities, but have the abilities reduce encumbrance.  Master Scout might be a -20% to encumbrance, Graceful might be a -10%.  That said, it would gain some nice promotions.

Encumbrance levels decrease spell mastery and increase tactical mana costs.

Backpacks should be a proportional reduction to encumbrance, like 25 or 50%.  That's it.

Path of the Defender would get a skill to increase encumbrance limits.

New high level Earth spell: would allow halving the weight of an item for 250 mana.

Path of the Warrior would be unaffected.

Path of the Governor would be unaffected by this (needs other buffs)

One last semi-related idea:  Starting at level 5, you would have a 1% shot of getting each of the path promotions to pop up.

Also, I'd like to see class promotions pop up, where if you met certain prerequisites (like owning a shard, or having certain stats), you can promote your "path" to a "class", which would open up new promotions (and lock you out of other class ones).  They'd be more powerful then the current path, but you'd miss out on the promotions from the path that you don't have.

So you recommend the 'rogue' be decked out in platemail to fix that it sucks? So they are just like a warrior and defender? >.>

More differention please, not less.

On re-reading it looks like they're suggesting that the abilities reduce the amount of encumbrance the rogue can endure. So if a normal amount of encumbrance someone can take is 100, the rogue can take 80.

Edit: Additional: Thinking about it, this could work. The rogue could get a traits such as one that lowers their encumbrance limit, but gives them a dodge bonus proportional to their level (like Discipline). Eventually it would add up so only a few traits could have this encumbrance penalty, but it would be amusing to see a Rogue pretty much just wearing clothing and armed with a longsword, standing a solid chance against heavily armoured champions.

Ah I see.. my bad. Perhaps I misunderstood.