[Unofficial Questions] Would you support test options of no XP splitting or higher base XP for heroes?

1-Yes, I would. That would be the way to check who is right, the supporters of removing the split or the supporters of keeping it.

2-Don't remember who said it (maybe it was even you?) but you can change this value in ElementalDef.xml. In FE was 0.075 and in LH is 0.05. I made the change and IMHO FE's values are working better.

3-IMHO Heroes fall behind units as game progresses. Part of the problem (but not only) is the fact that trained units use the same weapons but their damage is multiplied by the number of members in the unit. Some posters have suggested giving the overpowered trait to heroes so their attack is multiplied by the number of members in the unit, but that seems a bit cheesy to me. What I would do is provide them with ways to increase their attack, either with traits or with a small boost in attack per level, higher for warriors and smaller for wizards.

1. Yes

2. Yes

3. Not even close.  Heroes start maybe slightly stronger, and become trivial.  You need to powergame a bit to make a hero relevant later game.  On the other hand it is from your heroes and sovereign that you gain the ability to cast the massively useful city enchants and the ability to wither or pillar of flame an army on the strategic map can make a hard fight trivial.  That is worth something.  So what if you hero gets killed in one shot by virtually everything. 

I agree that generals or wizards should not be comparable in melee combat to trained unit, but generals should make a difference in an army by boosting their stats (superior tactics and moral enhancing) and wizards should be able to cast powerful spells. On the other hand, high level warriors should be able to fight trained units on their own terms.

As an aside, the new Defender tree, including special Defender summons, sound interesting.

1. Yes. However, I would prefer a 50% of what it is now. A split is fair, it is just crippling. When I play D&D, i moved from dividing party exp among members to assigning exp to each member equally. Rather than "1 more player at the table" leeching exp from everyone else, he began contributing EXP to everyone else. A split it fair, however it shouldn't be "unfun". Normal could have 50% split penalty and Adventurer could remove that 50%.

2.  I certainly support higher base exp, and more exp for tougher monsters. I also think minimum exp should scale by unit level because I hate having my best unit get 1-2 exp as a punishment for being in the group.

3.  Absolutely not. Normal Units can't upgrade into a mount, so they have one limitation, and unless Altar, they can't be given EXP bonus. Henchmen are great however I don't play Altar every game like I used to, so I don't see as much of them as I once did. Their redeeming qualities is resurrection and buying equipment singularly, so I can upgrade "just a horse and cloak" or "just my torso piece". Likewise, I can equip them with weapons from lairs and the field. Lastly, Champions. Where to begin. Well, at least they can learn EXP perks and equip weapons from the field, maybe give more spell access. In fact, that is the contribution Champions make to my army; more strategic spell option, i usually just sacrifice them to steal their ability unless I have a good reason to keep them Champions you get early become worthless (making it not worth the investment to gear/level them) and Champions you get later will NEVER be as "good" as a unit you can design, other than you don't need 200 crystal to arm it.

I can mod the game so you can test it with the non-split XP, it's really not that hard to change. What is a little more difficult for me to change is making the split less harsh, but I think I can manage something here.

But how will the experience of playing using these other settings get to Stardock?  Don't the modded games generally get less priority?

You can report your findings and if you find that under these circumstances an improved gameplay experience is there, you may see that Stardock will change it. But the testing will have to be extensive and a you would probably have to show a few videos demonstrating the fact. Yes you will get lower priority, but I've seen them take changes from somebody modding the game before.

Ask yourself why you think heroes need more experience?  Is it so that you can have one hero achieve all skills of a particular occupation?  Well that's not the point.  The point is that you're supposed to make tough choices.  Do you want your Assassin to specialize in critical strike or dodge?  Not both.  If you try both, he's going to be mediocre at both.  Do you want your commander to be good at research, gildar, or army's experience?  You don't get all of them.  Make the choice. 

Can this particular thing be moded? I did not know!

Yes... it will be tedious, and the mod will be hard to make compatible with other mods, but it can be done.

True, I think that is solved by the nerfing of tough fights.  The problem is now you are limited to 1 good hero.  That's the real issue to me.

I'd rather see my other heroes out in the field, or leading stacks later on.

One suggested compromise: tie hero xp penalty to level- the penalty for champ stacking starts as nil, but increases with each level, until by lvl say 6 you get the FE system.

Also buff XP gained from fighting troops, but keep the tough monster XP nerf in place.

You are a genious Sir

Someone posted a while back that if there are only 2 heroes in a stack it would be nice to have no exp split. if more than 2 heroes then split the exp between the all of them.  That sounded like a pretty good option to me. That would keep heroes leveling a bit faster but not make them overpowered.

As it is on a huge map with the monster dens set to max quantity and world difficulty set on expert it is tough to get more than a couple heroes leveled to their teens. And if you take the all the potential traits and knowledge that is 3 or 4 traits out of a dozen that are not really making your hero specialized or more fun to play.

So, I've made the mod, but I don't think it is advisable for me to post such a mod until after the beta.

I want Stardock to get good feedback on things they are doing and how things will be. If Stardock doesn't mind I'll post it, right now I'm not sure it's a good idea.

Sad thing about that is that the choice will be identical for pretty much every single hero of each type because you can only go down one path if you want your hero to be worthwhile.  Even worse is when you are forced to pick garbage traits in order to get to something nice

That was me, and I still stand my suggestion. XP split is needed, the super stack of heroes is bad for gameplay. But 2 heroes in the same stack feels about right and interesting. You can create synergies or help your weakling administrator level up.

Trained units vs Heroes: some feels right, some really do not compete. Middle-late game a hero won't ever compete with a stack of good troups, so damage oriented classes fall behind. What heroes bring to the table is versability, with either spells or skills. Defender is a good example, I keep them behind my frontline spamming Guardian. A life mage with 1-turn wellspring is probably the best addition you can have to your troups.

I'd suggest to increase the versability of heroes instead of damage. Last changes to the defender are a good step. Warrior changes were good, even if they still suffer compared to a normal stack of troups.

Heroes should be like generals in Medieval Total War origional game. They could slay whole armies with just themselves and 20 men. heh They should give morale and combat bonuses based on their gerneralship abilities from 1 to 9. They should be capturable and ransomable and beheadedable. They should have random traits or traits based on how they are used that makes their generalship go up and down during the game. Like Dreaded, Drunkard, Courageous, Coward, Homo, Lustful, Womanizer, Peoplizer, Govenor, Valorous, runawayous and stuff like that like was in Medieval Total War origional. :{P