99% of the investment in troops is the research costs of the technologies they need, and the cost of making a city have high production, the cost of constructing a fortress with all buildings, and the cost of building and acquiring mines.

If your troops die you don't lose any of that, you can just churn out more troops from your city of equal power to that first one.

You do raise a good point about the immortality of champions though. Their immortality is a rough fix for the fact you cannot properly recruit new ones nor upgrade them in cities. If you lose a level 15 champion you cannot replace him and lost the game. If champions were able to be trained in cities (as level 1) and then you could invest from cities to re-upgrade them, then like troops they could be replaceable via infrastructure (at the cost of a lot of time and effort) and then like troops they should be perma killable.

Some easy things you could do to make champions more reliant on cities are. 

-Add a line of shop improvements that are required to purchase items, are upgradeable to get higher tech items, and increase selling prices. 

-Reduce champion regeneration. Have a hospital improvement that boosts garrisoned units regeneration. 

-Increase experience curve and make the adventure's guild into a line of improvements, that would grant a experience boosting trait to champions, increase champion strategic movement, decrease rough terrain penalties, and as now grant experience to garrisoned units. 

As you noted the cost / benefit ratio of troops is extremely bad in the early game due not so much to the resources invested, but the time (in both production and research queues); whereas champions are relative powerhouses right out the door.  I believe this is intended, to help generate the feeling of personally growing an empire, and capture the essence of both rpg and strategy game.  However this underlying separation in mechanics never truly converges.  Although the construction of more efficient cities does indeed help balance out the value of troops in the mid and end strategy games, the rgp snowballs unimpeded from day one: by the time troops become viable they are entirely unnecessary.  The rpg is broken.  Although superhuman, the whole reason to raise an army is because a champion's motives are out of reach for just one MORTAL.  Currently, there is practically no potential loss to putting all of one's investments into champions, and foregoing this strategy game entirely.  Immortals need nothing - the only reason to settle a city at all is for a re-spawn point.  Giving champions all the attributes of a regular troop would just destroy the rpg even more.

"I suggest that Sovereigns become the only champions which cannot be lost - all other champions leaving their faction after the second and third injuries to explore the world under AI control, from a random location near where they were defeated, until hired again (free, to both kingdoms and empires).  Four wounds equals death, creating a goodie-hut on the tile where the champion fell full of their equipment (and potentially fertile ground proportionate to their power?).  Healing an injury should naturally extend a champion's life; lives which would become much more commonly protected and accompanied by support squads.  Imagine how much less daring (yet no less powerful) that second champion would be after their first injury; and how much of an impact it would have on the story if one actually fell, only to then have a city flourish around their grave."

More...

Four wounds = Death sounds great, but there's no reason to recycle all of the champion's equipment. Currently there's more than enough good equipment in a given game and equipment has far more of an impact on champion power than levels do. Maybe give any given piece a small chance to be recycled into the goodie hut, or create a new lair/dungeon based on the level of the slain champion that has appropriate rewards.

The notion of losing a prized champion doesn't compel you to protect it with support troops, which can only be produced by a city?

I must assume that you don't play with the Spell of Making as well?

We agree that there needs to be more of an incentive to play the strategy game, it is actually quite fun.  The problem is that there is nothing deterring the player from focusing solely on the rpg, no feeling of impending doom urging the creation of civilizations.  Every champion is an immortal god, the benefits of impermanent societies will simply never be able to compare.  The game would actually be both more fun and challenging if champions were mortal.

A new victory condition could be introduced which requires that a faction grow to a certain size population.  Is this not the point of the game; it would certainly entice the development of cities (and the raising of opponents').

Read these bullets for a few more ideas if you haven't already.

I guess I find it hard to believe that your strategy wouldn't change if champions weren't permanent.  It would definitely make them more a part of the strategy game, and less the focus of the entire game.

That being said, moving the first champion a player meets farther away from their starting location may actually alleviate this issue quite a bit!

Nerfing champions into oblivion would NOT achieve brads vision where the player chooses to invest in one or the other and where playing "sauron" is a viable path.

It would merely mean that champions are useless and only cities matter.

perhaps a simpler solution to the lack of need for troops could be that each attack by a hero/single unit can only kill ONE member of a multi-unit eg those packs of mites often have three/five members in each of the two/three units(3 health) in the mite armies, so a single hero would take between six and fifteen attacks to kill one mite army assuming curgen's hammer(50 attack) as the weapon in the hero's hand( and at present it is two or three attacks as it each group that gets crushed by the attack), while the mites are doing between six and fifteen  attacks of 1-2 on the hero, but with a army of a hero+ two 5 explorers with their 5 damage sticks(each) against the three five unit mites(with their 2 damage sticks) unless all the mites focus on the hero and the explorers are too far away(highly unlikely)(15*2 against a 6 defense 15 health hero and 0 defense 5 attack explorer) would leave each of the units in the hero army battered, but alive.

and I have a vague recollection of a similar suggestion from BEFORE the beta ie each member of each unit has to be killed seperately and can not be mass killed except from AOE attacks like fireball,firedart(perhaps), blizzard, avalanche, flash flood, lightening mega-strike or tornado.

I realise that it is unlikely to get into the game since the feature lockdown, but should have been tried during the beta 1 & 2.

harpo

Perhaps you didn't read my post. I am quite clear on how exactly the solution adresses the problem. Nerf heroes, boost monsters, make heroes dependent on cities (research, gildar, troops). What's missing?

The balance between heros and troops?

Nerf experience either doesnt work: as you said it has already been tried, my heros progress slower, I still dont need troops tho. I also have more boring drops, less cool stuff. Still no more troops.

OR

It works to make heros useless. As I understand what you said:

1. Basically heros cant defeat any mid or high monsters on there own they have been made harder, nor can they farm low lvls for XP. They get stuck at lvl 3 or 4 or something. 

2. They then need troops to take monsters. And need research to access kit in cities, and money to buy it from cities.

Correct?

THe following flows from that - Troops must therefore be good enough to actively help kill mid or high level monsters.

Then why do troops need heros? Heros kitted out with research tree equipment will have the same stuff ie same weapon, same armor, as your troops do, only theres only one hero per unit and multiple troops in a unit and multiple troop units in a stack.

Hero with less HPs and the same kit as troops equals Hero is stuck with a mage/support only role. Not a warrior role. Couple this with the low lvl and random lvl up perks and you find that you have a hero that doesnt have any magic or support stuff.

THis means hero really isnt needed at all.

How do heros 'Sauron'?

You have to take them with you in cotton wool at back, win battles with troops to lvl up. Again have to choose support or mage, and have to have lucky perks come up. Dont forget you have no troop ordering in battle, unlucky hero get put in the front and take an opening barrage from monster and dies?

I have some suggestion to be considered for improving balance in heroes/troops/monsters. I'm sorry if added some other questions too.

- Heroes leveling up. As the problem is that they grow too powerfull, even if XP gain is nerfed, I suggest this: making the stats growing as a selectable trait. You want a mage? Then, chose magic but no health/attack/etc. improves. You want more healt/attack? Then chose it, instead of other traits. No interesting traits? Then, lets got for health/attack. This can make heroes customization more interesting, variated, and will not become so much powerfull. Mages will rely on magic, with a lot of less stats. Warriors/assassins will have to decide if improve basic stats or select a proper trait. Governors...that is the same: want more stats? then no governing traits. And vice-versa. Governing heroes should give interesting city bonus traits (like +attack/defence trained troops, or resources, or unrest), that makes a excuse good enough to retire them from battle. The Path selection at level 5 is good, and in this case, it could add the stats improvement also, like a "reward". By the way, I miss a Path of the archer too....

I think that on this way, heroes grow up according to player desire (and traits presented), but not so OP. And heroes must now rely more on research to buy better gear, and in troops for keeping them alive.

Does everybody agree in making heroes inmortal, even with the negative traits when they "die" (let's say fall, instead)? As said in other posts, I prefer they may have a chance of real death, instead of always a negative trait.  Keeping negative traits is good idea, but as a chance, like saying: "omg, gangrene...but at least, my hero didn't die". Heroes should die, and so should allow a way to recruiting new ones, like a spell of Hero Calling. This spell might go in the Hero research tree, so as better hero recruiting tech, a better Hero Calling. Lots of mana needed for this spell, of course...and maybe a Cooldown to re-use. Or even better: a one use-only, like a scroll instead of a spell, but still requiring mana. That means only 3 hero calling (on level 5, 7 and 9 if I can remember). A good way to replace fallen heroes, or to get new ones if can't find more...With nerfed heroes, probably more will fall, and die. The dodge could be a way to determine real death. And a random in % of negative traits could be introduced. A base + % random, for example: -10% + random% at a skill, instead always a 25%. The random could be determined by the dodge or other skill.

- Troops. I still think the problem for troops is in the Warfare tech tree. It is too closed and straight, not allowing customization. And it takes a lot of research to get the improvements, and to research techs not interested to arrive to the interested. I talk about it in https://forums.stardock.com/432978  With a more open Warfare tech tree, allowing to choose between different attack/defense/mounts/training branches since the begining, it can help in developing customized troops, depending on personal wishes and in the available resources. And AI can focus on some of those branches (like Tarth-archers). Lowering production costs for basic items will help to start basic trooping earlier. After all, if heroes are nerfed in some way, troops at early game will be more important now. Everybody say that at early game, while researching and developing, we can use heroes to make quests and farming. If heroes are nerfed (and they MUST be nerfed), what will we do on the first 50 turns, but pressing Turn-turn-turn...?

 - Monsters. If heroes are nerfed like I said, maybe is not necessary too much tune on this. Anyway, I find interesting this idea: Monsters should grow XP, and increase levels as turns goes by. For example, +1 level every 20/30 turns. This allow to get more challenge in later game... The random generated monsters should have leveling upon time too... Combining this with the previous hero nerfing, that might make troops a must have...

- Magic. I find this issue: how is it possible to cast in strategic map as many spells as mana allows? There should be some kind of limit to this... But turning to the magic balance... I think in magic as interdependant or complementary. Many opinions read about magic: from total magic fans, to magic haters. I think that to balance magic, first should balance the previous issues, and then, focus in magic will be easier. Of course, the power of spells must be controlled somehow... I think that Magic Tech tree should be tuned, in the style of the proposed in the Warfare: attack branch, defence branch, mana branch, hero branch, building branch. That can allow a real complement to the Warfare Tree, to the Civics Tree for resources, and to the hero researching.

- Cities. I read a post about how to control excessive number of cities, and big bonus that they can give. I think an easy way to do that is via UNREST penalities. Unrest in far cities should give many penalities to production, and even a bigger chance to rebel. So if you want that far shard, or crystal, or whatever resource, think in having many troops to get less unrest, and/or build a lot of buildings that reduce unrest,...or just build a fragile outpost. That will make troops a must have in expansion games. Many of us want to expand, as it is the only way to avoid enemy expansion after all... but it would give a way to control that expansion, with less productive and more problematic cities.

Speaking of cities, why not thinking in putting independent cities in the world? With their defences, and their growing upon time... It is a source of quests too. it's just another idea.

I don't think you understand.

I don't even recruit the first champion.

I kill every monster, wildland and opposing faction in the game with just my sovereign, never founding a city or recruiting a champion.

Literally every facet of the game aside from the sovereign is optional and quite often less efficient.

I don't believe the solution lies in striking a perfect balance where heroes gain "enough" xp that they can just precisely defeat some of the content while needing some troops from the cities to help them defeat the rest. There are vastly too many variables in the game to even attempt this, and it is flatly not worth while to even waste time on it. Which perks you take during sov creation, how many shards you get, how fast your research is, the monster density you play on (this is a big one), faction traits, if you are offered/take potential I/II/III, can you cast tutelage, how much xp you can "farm" from opposing factions... XP is not where the game can or should be balanced.

Game mechanics are the easiest and best way to force the player's hand on viable strategy and necessary tactics. Currently there are units with the trait 'overpower' where they do tons of damage to masses of troops. Flip the table and make units that have a 'swarm' trait that allows them to combine attacks against single models. Instead of a group of models doing 5x6 atk (easy to shrug off with armor) let them do 1x30, or hell even 5x30 against a single model like a champ/sov.

Stardock, put things in the game that your sov has reason to fear and throw fodder at. Make traits for troops that allow them to force adjacent enemy units to attack them. Have lairs send out raiding parties to cities so that we must garrison them. Make lairs have a shitload of units in them that are easy enough to kill solo but will wear down a sov/champ over time. Stop having every piece of equipment and gear a sov needs drop from goodie huts & lairs. Make some of the best items in the game things that you can research and produce at cities. Let us build buildings that allow us to add unique weapons to a city's production queue. Make us research spells! MAKE CITIES PROVIDE TANGIBLES THAT ARE NESSECARY TO WINNING THE GAME, THAT ARE REQUIRED TO EVEN SURVIVING IN THE WORLD. Right now my Sov is a self sufficient golden god of war because the goodie huts and lairs of the world hold everything he needs and the monsters of the world can be defeated strictly by the things he can do.

Fix. That. Problem.