Wouldn't world difficulty take care of this? 

Excellent!

(sorry don't like posting one word like this, I know it can be annoying... but this is good news and warrants feedback).

Latest suggestion threads, both around heroes and units, are definetly going in the right diretion.

Double Post, sorry

I agree with the OP.  I think that the game would be improved by reducing effective weapon damage, but I think that it is easier to implement by increasing the HP of units.  There are many more weapons to adjust and monsters don't use weapons and all need adjustmensts. Simply increasing all the HP of units has the same effect with fewer things to change and we already have provision for multipliers to HP to deal with the % bonus from Towns and Apiary resource.

That has the advantage of allowing trained units, monsters  and champions to be treated differently by using different multiplers.  As a first approximation I would increase the HP of all trained units and monsters by a factor of 2.5, so a level 3 figure would have basic 15 HP and 3 x 5HP / level = 30HP which is a lot stronger than now and so if weapons, bonusses from traits and equipments do the same damage as now combat will have more rounds

Heroes could be given a bigger boost say 5 times current starting HP and 10HP per level.  Endurance would be different for heroes and give 5 HP per level.  With more HP heroes will stay around longer and be able to move away from dangerous situations and have longer to cast spells.  Combats won't be over in 1 or 2 rounds but will take 5 or 6.

Some good stuff here but some of it seems unecessarily complex requiring changes to all weapons and monsters. It will be a huge nerf to the Fortress.  What use will they be if you nerf charge and impulsive?  That will simply move the killer strategy onto other methods of getting higher damage that doesn't rely on these traits.  Remember Charge is an expensive trait costing 20 production per figure with the associated increase in maintenance

I can think of 3 major ways of still inflicting huge damage in combat without using Charge and impulsive

a) Using crystal amulets to add +3 fire and +3 cold damage, but this does cost a lot of crystals

b ) Using the fire damage from the city enchantment, with a scrying pool this can be +3 fire damage

c) Using champions with damage spells, Blizzard, Fireball and the Death spells will rule combat.

With lower weapon damage it will just make a, b and c much more important and dominant strategies. The advantage of boosting HP is that these three other ways of doing huge damage will also be affected.  Battles will last longer and will take more time to play out, but that has to happen if they are not to be over in 1 or 2 rounds as they are quite often now.  If heroes use spells to win battles they will have to use more mana as they need more casts to inflict the necessary damage.

On average more damage would be done to the winners of  the combat so healing per turn would need to be adjusted to avoid too much waiting for units and heroes to recover.

JJ

I don't think an HP increase is at all the way to go. There many more steps to the balancing process if you do so (unit HP, then hero HP, then monster HP, then healing spell tweaks, then poison spell tweaks, and so on), whereas reducing weapon damage (for weapons available to units) is a one step process. I'm far from being some experienced modder, but in a couple of hours I edited the above mentioned weapon values and things are noticably different. Tactical battles are a fun, challenge, and more balanced, though time will tell.

Regarding magic, it does have more of an influence on combat with lower weapon damage. To some degree, magic has become necessary in tactical combat. But the effect is two fold: more mana is expended. Whereas with higher damage values you could save mana for when (if) you really needed it (or for wiping armies off the strategic map with damaging spells), now I find myself using low level spells constantly, or mid level spells more frequently, and my mana reserves aren't what they were.

The interesting thing I noticed was the damage values for bows. Whereas most other unit weaponry went from 5-7 at lower levels to 16-27 at higher levels, bows remained closer in damage, ie shortbow damage 7, longbow damage 9, yew longbow damage 11. Even factional bows unlocked with Archers was low damage. Either this is the case so that bows didn't rule the roost, or it was an oversight on SD and all weaponry, at some point, was balanced for lower damage values.

I've heard that the design philosophy is leaning toward faster gameplay. That's cool, some people might like that. But, in my opinion, if I'm playing a strategy game (with very cool tactical warfare) I prefer thinking and problem solving over action and speed. Ideally both kinds of players could be catered to with a pre-campaign option alongside difficulty levels, resource frequency, etc for either higher or lower damage weapons.

@bigduncm24: I haven't done any modding, but I think that we already have a means of changing all the HP for units by means of global multipliers.  That is how game difficulty is adjusted which affects the HP of all monsters and AI units separately. Those multipliers simply need adjusting to get most of the effect I outlined, champions might need a separate multipler from units (if not already separate)

By reducing the weapon damage in your "mod" you have simply made the other damage dealing methods I outlined above as a), b ) and c) more important and games will be distorted to emphasise that.  Weapon damage by ordinary iron weapons needs to in balance with other methods and you have simply reduced one without affecting other important but exotic ways to deal damage.  Lower weapon damage also boosts the effect of swarm, which if I understand how it works, adds a fixed bonus to each figure in combat depending on how many allies are next to its target.  Swarm also needs adjustment or it will be distorting battles even more than it does now.

By uni-laterally reducing weapon damage you have also reduced the value of research in the warfare tree.  If improved weapons don't do much more damage then it is a better research strategy to concentrate on other areas of the game, like the Magic research tree, for more mana and crystals and better spells.

So I repeat, it is far better to increase the HP of all units and monsters (probably by a factor of 2 or 3) and for champions and sovereign by a higher factor about 5 perhaps.  That will make for longer lasting tactical battles that are not over in the initial charge and the AI will get time to respond.  Spells will have time to be cast and take effect.  Further, poison does not need any adjustment, if battles last longer  it will have more rounds to do damage and so it stays in proportion.

JJ

It's great that Derek and Co are taking advice and ideas from considered threads like this.  And I only initially read the first page!  I hope Derek continues to read this thread, and other good threads like it.

I think reducing the weapon damage or increasing the hit points will not solve the main problem: scaling. The damage and hit points of groups scale too much compared to heroes and single monsters. To solve this problem the scaling of groups should be reduced:

- base stats of a group: hit points 10, accuracy 70, spell resistance 0 and dodge 0

- stats per level of a group: hit points 2, accuracy 2, spell resistance 2 and dodge 2

- every member of the group increases the hit points of the group by 25 %

- every member of the group increaes the number of lost hit points with an attack (not the damage) by 25 %

- a group with 3 members would increase the hit points by 75 % and the number of lost hit points with an attack by 75 %

- a group with 6 members would increase the hit points by 150 % and the number of lost hit points with an attack by 150 %

- a group has only a single attack, but gets the second chance ability that works like backswing

- fortress upgrades do not increase the base stats of a group

- fortress upgrades unlock traits for the group design

@UncleJJ44: Without a doubt my one step modifications could use more adjustments. However, after playtesting (and not just theorizing) my suggested changes I'm convinced they're the way to go. I'm also convinced that the calculations behind combat were designed for high tiered weapons around 10-12 damage. If I had to respond to your concerns with a single sentence I'd say: This is the world of Elemental and not the world of Metallurgy.

Let's assume for a minute that someone does skip the Warfare tree and concentrates on the Magic tree in my "mod". What will damage values look like later in the game?

1. Lightning Pike (which I've changed to dmg 7 and +1 lightning attack per level)
2. Lvl 3 Unit
3. Company sized unit
4. +3 fire/cold damage
5. +3 fire attack from Heart of Fire

Damage ends up being 16x6, which against armor is effectively ~19x6. Now a regular pike unit:

1. Pike (which I've changed to dmg 8)
2. Unit level doesn't matter
3. Company sized unit
4. +3 fire attack from Heart of Fire (I've included this because it's easy to access and doesn't require Magic tree research)

Damage ends up being 11x6, which against armor is effectively 15x6.

So, yes, someone could focus on the Magic tree and ignore the Warfare tree for higher damage. But that not the whole story. The LPike unit costs 54 crystals while the Pike unit costs 18 metal (neither unit wearing armor). Now, if I spend 54 crystals on a unit, I better get more damage for my investment! And rightfully so!

One of the big things increasing HP does not address is the deficiency in the AI. Every game I've played, once I've destroyed the AIs existing units (or even a portion of them), the AI is reduced to equipping low tier weaponry, and it is at this point that combat becomes boring and tedious. Pike units roll through spear units; it's no contest. BUT... if high tier weapons are reduced to 'mild' improvements as compared with low tier weaponry, the disparity isn't as great. The AI still has bite in combat. The AI still has a chance. Increasing HP on the other hand, only exacerbates the problem: the AI will effectively cause less damage to player units.

I think you're wrong about poison (and healing spells). They become even more useless with more HP. Let's say 10 turns with poison damage doing 3 damage per turn. That's 30 hp taken from roughly 200, 300, probably even 400 hp, so... at best, 15%. That's pretty worthless, even when using Dirge of Ceresa. Furthermore, at least 30hp is what units with current weaponry do in one turn! With reduced weapon damage, most units aren't causing 30 damage in one turn, or even multiple turns, especially against heavily armored units. THAT is when poison becomes effective... to get through armor.

Regarding Swarm, reduce weapon damage does not reduce its effectiveness... it does the exact opposite. It changes Swarm from something excessive to something necessary. In order to take down heavily armored units swarming a unit becomes useful. With reduced weapon damage Swarm is just right.

I'm not sure when the next update is coming out, but I would strongly suggest you try the changes I made.

Re: HP increase vs weapon damage reductions

If the devs are clever they will use both. A unit with high armor and low HP will be resistant to weapons but vulnerable to magic. The opposite is also true. If done right this would add more variety to the combat balance.

This would be amazing, would really give "+defense while defending" the boost that it needs

?

I agree, having fortress give those traits promotes making armies that are entirely axe/spear cavalry or ranged units respectively.

Maybe "Defensive Drills": This unit gets +2 armor for every soldier in the stack. (so up to +12 armor, changes in battle as soldiers are lost and healed in the stack)

Maybe "Phalanx": For every allied troop adjacent to this unit, enemy troops swarm with 1 less unit. (So if an enemy tries to swarm with two of his adjacent units, and you have an adjacent unit, only one of his units can swarm onto his attack.)

Maybe a gladiator arena city that gives "Ex-Gladiator": +1 attack +10 dodge to units trained in this city. (And while I'm on the subject, it would be cool if lucky gave a flat +15 accuracy +8 dodge to all troops, instead of that snowballing percentage)

Maybe an assassin city that gives "Assassin": +15 crit chance, +10 dodge, +2 initiative, +1 movement, but the city can never train mounted units or units with armor heavier than leather. (Actually, I'd really like to see fortress types like this, to really give a reason to have more than one fortress making your armies)

Maybe a +1 essence fortress.

Just some ideas.

Maybe cleave should do 50% damage to secondary targets (and 100% to the primary), or 70% to all 3 targets. Impale should do 85% to both targets I think, because I often use impale to reach units that are normally out of the spear's reach, and I think it's a cool mechanic that they can do that.

Also, I think that the sword counterattack should be 100% damage, or at least 80% damage, because it occurs after the unit is hit anyway, so it ends up doing far less damage than the attack that triggered it (if the person even triggered it, instead of using cleave/impale/bash/spear/ranged/whatever to keep counterattack from triggering.

I think that warrior should get a trait that lets them counterattack before the triggering attack. Mostly because I really feel that both sword and warrior are underpowered at the moment.

Obviously something needs to happen here, since currently they do the same thing for different costs.

I would say +3 movement +1 or +2 damage (any cleave or impale nerf is going to help nerf charge armies anyway), because this entire trait is useless if the unit that gets it cannot reach the enemy on the first turn. This tactic needs to be brought down to the level of other tactics, and I think reducing the movement to +1 will just stomp it into the dust (and further promote making every single unit you make a mounted unit).

In fact, if units are made to all be defending at the start of a battle, and cleave and impale receive nerfs, I think charge won't need to be nerfed at all.

charge and initiative fortress bonuses could be replaced with discipline and acrobat traits, to keep it in line with the endurance trait of the other level 3 option (so each option adds a small  scaling bonus to the troops. discipline for spell resistance mostly (the bonus accuracy is fairly unimportant since you get a big boost from training buildings anyway), acrobat for dodge units, endurance for plain extra HP - all three mostly defensive, so this change alone would contribute to slowing down the too quickly resolved mid-late game combat.

the other change i would love to see (i already mentioned this i think) would be to replace the larger unit sizes with higher base HP for units. basically, the replacement techs for cooperation etc. would not increase the troop size beyond 3, but instead make the 3 guys tougher (maybe boost HP by 50% each, or something). this would keep the damage scaling in check and also make longer battles more viable. balancing heroes vs. trained would also be easier, since you'd balance 1 guy vs. 3 guys consistently, which is probably easier to get right than one guy who has to compete with 3 guys at first, but also somehow has to compete with 6 guys later.

mounted units could also be re-done  while we're at it - instead of 3 guys, cavs only get 2 guys per unit, but the mount gives them some extra HP and damage (maybe 25% or something); they would deal a bit less damage than infantry overall, but the two individual hits are higher than the 3 hits of the infantry unit, so better against armored targets etc.

There are many great suggestions.

3 others that can be additive:

1. Add a skill, trait or weapon ability to accomplish either of:
1. Prevent a charge - Do not allow units moving 2+ tiles into my 1 range tile in the same turn. 
1. Turn one they can move into the 2nd tile away, I can then step in and hit them.  
1. Goals: 
2. Reduced first turn charge, able to build a wall or obstacles on the battle field for first turn.  Offset to "charge".   
3. Could even give the trait the negative of only being able to act on turn 2 and on so you can block the first charge and allow your other units to take advantage, but your blockers can't directly benefit.
2. Could get fancy and require an adjacent similar skill (shield wall)
2. Cause damage to charging units -
1. either fixed amount or dynamic amount based on distance traveled.
2. Could get fancy and require an adjacent similar skill (pike wall).
2. Fix initiative, too easy to abuse
1. Prevent any given unit from ever going twice in one turn or
2. Cap Initiative and make it random on ties
3. Modify group size based on unit size - a la https://forums.elementalgame.com/443057/page/1/#3346003
1. 3X infantry are not equivalent to 3X cavalry (nor should they cost the same).  At the same level maybe 3X infantry and 2X cavalry units in a group. 
2. Groups of little critters (mites) would have more members than larger units like cavalry at the same tech level
3. Could also allow non-groupable units to now group - i.e. golems and Jugs.   A group of 2 golems = 1 jug, if upgraded tech, maybe 3 golems =  1 or 2 jugs = 9 infantry = 6 cavalry

Since we're talking about, effectively, making combat last longer so that spells have more effect (in direct opposition to a stated design choice by SD where they wanted battles to be short), let's talk about that spell timing.  IMO, most spells should have a casting time.  To me, what that means is to have a HoMM style stack "push" when you start your spell; that unit gets pushed in the stack to a later point, when they complete the spell.  How long the spell takes then determines how far back in the stack you get pushed, so it's not just 1 turn or 2 turns, but a dynamic choice of spell speed, with opportunities for disruption.  And then make that spell, if it lands, really mean something.  Damage all, heal fully, freeze, etc.

I can agree with everything in here, totally.

I'm really loving the game, but there's definitely balance issues, and most of it is in the tactical battles.   I dont want tactical battles that are over in 1-2 turns, that's not very interesting.  Particularly not when the army going first uses it's first turns to instantly splatter most of the units on the other side.

Not to mention that I'd love to have actual reason for my heroes to be using all of their different spells, particularly since there's so many interesting ones.  Particularly the multi-turn spells, currently they're indeed worthless, which is a shame.   And there seems to be a number of spells that SHOULD be quite damaging.... but instead are outdone by a group of random jerks with axes.

All of the changes in this thread sound great, and definitely cant wait to see the next patch now.