I'd also love to see research impact/help/progress champions to a greater degree.
Well, the benefits with the system is pretty obvious. It's called strategical choice.
Never thought of it that way before...Thanks for the heads up! Maybe these choices/tradeoffs could be better presented to the player, to let us simpletons know exactly what it means if we invest heavily in a given branch, without having to tool-tip fifty different techs.
I don't believe there is a way to balance it so that heavily invested champions can solo "epic battles" and also trained units are still useful.
What if some monsters could only be battled by heroes? At present, when a unit walks on a quest site, you get the pop-up. Maybe there could be monsters who, when you order a non-heroed army to battle, cry out "Such as this can only be bested by a mighty one of the land." Think David and Goliath (kind of); two whole, manned armies sit around waiting for, essentially, heroes, to come along and do the hard fighting.
One of the things I don't like about trained troops. You can upgrade armor and weapons as they progress, but you cannot upgrade unit size.
Agree completely. Unit size should be upgradeable, perhaps at the cost of a level of two due to inexperienced troops being added. This would be a strong incentive to get units early and keep them alive (ala Warlock MotA).
which is a fantasy game, not a realistic military simulation
This is true as well though
[quote who="Jean=A=Luc" reply="51" id="3237111"]Instead of a 4 unit group with 10 attack per unit having a combined attack of 40, it should have 4 attacks of 10 (each unit's attack is calculated separately)[/quote]
I like it. Better than my solution (drop single-unit design, the only reason for current combat mechanics at present).