I have to agree that I dislike how the encumbrance system changed- for champions.  There are many, many issues that the idea just doesn't seem well thought out at all.

For normal troops, I like the system.

We're not getting a patch this week (no changelog out yet , so assuming no patch)   I'm hoping this means Derek is really thinking hard about whether many of his changes are good ideas, because right now about half of the changes in LH are bad, and half are good.

To put it bluntly- the only new mechanic to me that has had a large positive impact on the game over FE is the fame mechanic.  The overnerfing of champions with all these new mechanics (and it's been a multiplicative effect among many changes- everything from spell trees to XP changes to flanking to this encumberance system) is making the game dull to me.   When I feel like the main use of champs is unrest reduction, that's a sign your intended design in a game called Legendary Heroes isn't working.   

I'm not saying I dislike everything about the game- I actually like the new monsters/content.  I think dual wielding axes is awesome for Yithril, and want to see dual daggers (maybe something that allows any 2 daggers to be wielded at the same time for assassins, though I suspect that would be too hard at this point).  The new graphics are awesome.  The new ideas for skills are awesome (even if the XP system only allows you to use 1 good champ per game).  I have ideas on how to fix all of these things, but I'm unsure if they are good ideas.

That said, I am a firm believer in not complaining without offering a solution, and I'm complaining hard right now, so here's a solution:

My suggested fix for the encumberance problem right now for champions (I think the new system works for troops)

keep encumberance, but give it a gradual penalty

Introduce a class system for armor:

 warriors/defenders can wear anything, and get to carry more.  Defenders can choose a double bonus as a trait.

commanders/assassins chain

mages leather

 armor gets dodge penalties

Also, weapons can also be class restricted.   Heavy spears/axes/maces should be restricted to the warrior types.  2-handed swords to commanders and above.   Assassins can use light weapons, but can use dual weapons (and we should get some dual daggers, sword and dagger combos).  Defenders shouldn't get dual wield, warriors yes.   Mages limited to light weapons/staves/daggers (and mages should get a skill that eliminates the init penalty for using staves)

Wouldn't mind armor spell/shield spell enchantments that add defense as an enchantment for champions in the spell tree.

I strongly agree, some changes just don't seem to be well thought out.  And part of the designer's job is accepting that sometimes changes that are tried don't work, and they need to be reconsidered.

What are other changes you don't like Alstein?  I would guess that swarming is one, but I don't think that will go.  Are there any other changes you think haven't worked out?

I know I am not Alstein, but the other change that I dislike is reducing maximum trained troops from 7 to 6. It reduces the epic feeling. I know that Elemental/FE/LH are not games about huge numbers of troops, and I like that, but reducir the maximum soldiers per unit from 7 to 6 is maybe too much. I would even increase it to 8 or 9.

That would make balancing the heroes and troops even more difficult, because a group with 9 members inflicts up to NINE TIMES the damage of a single unit and has NINE TIMES the hit points of a single unit.

I'm been trying hard to edit this to avoid being too negative- I do want this game to succeed, I do like the Stardock folks,  so I've been trying to be diplomatic/positive.   I don't think this game is a failure, I do think it's going in a different direction than it should- one that hurts its potential, so I'm trying to put out the red flag now before it's too late.

The swarm mechanic- I'm ok with the mechanic.  My issue is how heroes are hurt heavily by this, even tanking heroes.   If I was to make a suggestion here, I'd give defenders and assassins protection against swarming (maybe not warriors, definitely not commanders or mages)  

The xp system right now is another of my big concerns, I think it's causing a "degenerative" impact- making the unfun thing that optimal option, which is to have all your XP on your sovereign or one champion, and sticking your other champs in one city to get Adventurer's Guild benefits.  I think there are a number of solutions here:   The issue here is how to incentivize building multiple champs up, without causing the hero stack of doom.

My suggestion: change the XP reduction rules for champions to take level into account.  I don't know the exact level the full penalty should take hold, but I'm thinking penalty should be 10%*lvl.

Example: 2 heroes in a stack one lvl 1, one lvl 8.

Lvl 8 hero gets 40% reduction  (50%*80%)  Lvl 1 hero gets 5% reduction (50%*10%)

Another suggested change (minor) All champs get -1% unrest per level as stationary unrest reduction.   Commanders double this, and administrator I/II trait adds +1/+2 to the multiplier.  Administrator III is the champion's level as an unrest reduction.  (this might be too much of a nerf to the unrest reduction, if it is, I'd suggest another unrest reduction building high up in the tech tree that isn't 1 per faction like the Palace, or increasing the commander/admin I/admin II bonuses)  Admin III champs would benefit from going out in the world instead of being parked, but you don't get admin 3 without at least lvl 6 so it still takes work.

One minor change: Loremaster/Merchant shouldn't require Admin I.

A third suggested change: the adventurer's guild benefits should be split.   The +1 Fame per turn should be 1 per faction building still, but the 1XP per turn should be buildable in every city.

I think that would encourage building multiple heroes up.  Hero stack of doom becomes ineffective once you reach a certain level, and hero stack of doom with the nerfed heroes isn't what it would be in early FE anyways.

The third issue I have is the champion trees in general, but my suggested fix would be too complicated/engineering and design-hour intensive, so it should be reserved for the next expansion.   A good enough/reasonable fix is being worked on at the moment, so I've largely saved my complaining here.

One small change I'd suggest: the champs with bonus skills, those skills should be upgradable in a separate branch from the general/class tree, or be unique skills not part of the class trees.  If a champ has a research bonus, instead of being part of the adminstrator tree, it should be something like +lvl/3 research.  Skilled swordman should be the old +1 init/+20% damage with swords, not the skilled swordsman in the warrior tree.

Obviously this shouldn't apply to general traits that are granted, just the unique ones- they should be unique, not part of a class tree.

This also applies to leader traits like Carrodus's tactician.

Stardock and Derek, Alstein makes some good points here.  I too see some changes I don't like as well as the ones I do.  Please have a think about Alstein's suggestions and implement if possible.

If we follow that logic, the perfect solution is to reduce trained units groups to one and then there is nothing to balance. IMHO the objective is to find the sweet spot, and definitely 6 is below that sweet spot because it starts to be a number too low.

everything MUST have some use. 

In my experience with LH, the reason heroes level so slowly has very little to do with XP sharing.  It's mostly about the XP calculations being based on relative stack power (and occasionally the base values being just plain wrong).

To illustrate what I mean (with some made up numbers -- and I can't recall the exact names for the levels at the moment)

You attack a Weak monster army that provides a base-level of 40xp.

If you have a Weak army, your champions will split 40xp.

If you have a Strong army, your champions will split 40xp / 2(?) = 20xp

If you have a Dangerous(?) army, your champions will split 40xp / 4(?) = 10xp

If you have an Epic army, your champions will split 40xp / 8(?) = 5xp

If this is the case (and I strongly think it is) the issue isn't champions splitting XP, it's questing with overly powerful armies.  To maximize XP gain you want to ensure that your stack's power rating is not greater than the stack you're attacking.  Preferably, it would be less than your power rating, because then you get an XP multiplier greater than 1.  Do not worry about keeping only one hero in your stack, the xp sharing penalty is insignificant compared to the XP penalty for attacking with overwhelming force.

There's really nothing inherently wrong with this system.  In theory it rewards hard-fought victories and discourages stack-of-doom.  The only problem I have is that the XP calculation is completely opaque to the user and therefore confusing.

It's D&D 4.0! Wizards with same BAB as Fighters!

My favorite is how Yithril units can dual weld Guillotine axes without penalty...

[If we follow that logic, the perfect solution is to reduce trained units groups to one and then there is nothing to balance. IMHO the objective is to find the sweet spot, and definitely 6 is below that sweet spot because it starts to be a number too low.]

Disagree. I like it now more, before the change you were forced to never fall behind AI in research. Now, even if AI is ahead of you and all their troops have 6 soldiers, I can still fight if i have 5-soldiers troops. One more soldier gives you advantage, but not unfair one. Before that, I could have better weapons and still fall to pure numbers of AI troops. 

In other words, i could have siege troops, cavalry or whatever, it does not matter - AI with their 9-soldiers troops were dominating. The boost to hp was simply too much. 

OK, throwing out an idea here...

In my latest game, I took a good gander at the 0.80 Warrior tree, and saw Plate buried towards the back of a tree of around 4-5 picks as I remember.  Meanwhile my heroes are packing around all of this plate/chain stuff they can't use until much later in the game, assuming they earn enough levels.  This seems silly on some level, especially for items that aren't boosting my defense at all/very little (rusted chain as an example)

Anyways, on to my idea...

In the 'olden days', I used to be a huge fan of Rolemaster, a RPG system not so affectionally known to some as 'Chartmaster'.  In that game, all armor had encumberance penalites, and skills that could be taken to offset those penalties.  There was still a 'minimum penalty' as well as the base/maximum penalty, but as characters allocated skill levels to armor, they became more maneuverable.

Armor skills were 'similar' to each other, so if you bought skill in one armor, you earned lesser ranks in the other armors...

Also, armor interfered with spellcasting.  'Cleric/Channeling' had huge penalties for metal armors.  'Mage/Essence' magic took penalties for ANY armors tougher than cloth/robes.

SOOOO, rather than saying in Elemental 'yeah, here's this Rusted Chain, yeah we know you could just pull it over your head and wear it, but your hero is too stupid to know this', you assign a larger base penalties to armors, and instead of having 'Chain/Plate Skill', you have a skill that significantly lowers the penalty for armor.

I don't think you need to break this between armor types so much (too clunky), but simply gain a greater bonus to offset armor penalties as you choose more levels on that tree.  Sooo, say chain starts with a -5 penalty, but each level will reduce this by -2, to a minimum penalty of -1.  Plate might start at -8 or worse, with a minimum penalty of -3 or somesuch.  Essentially, to recap, each skill level would reduce the penalty by -2, to a minimum amount that is at least -1 or more (depending on armor type).

Also, to 'discourage' spellcasters from wearing heavy armors, the mana cost for spells could be increased, based on the heaviness of the armor.  So casting in Plate might TRIPLE the cost of a spell, Chain would Double mana costs, and Leathers might increase mana costs by 25% or somesuch.  In tactical combat, of course.  Casters can always take their armor off for a few seconds to cast that strategic spell.

This also makes crystal armors and such more interesting, as they would have a lesser mana penalty for casting than say regular plate.

This incidentally gives Mages Robes more importance, with more interesting options such as a Mage robe that grants 'chain-like' protection, adding to the flavor of the items.

If encumberance rules are brought back, I think that's the better way to go.  With tweaks as appropriate of course!

Those are my thoughts on another approach to encumberance and armor penalties, and another way to balance spellcasting versus weapons and armor.

If they want skill picks to for chain and plate, they shouldn't be that hard to get or buried behind so many other picks. 

It seems like there's a lot of filler in the hero trees, and filler is not a good thing. My short version is that each pick should give something cool, not be a matter of holding cool things at bay for a few or several levels.

I don't want to go into more depth in this thread, as it's off topic. I'll try to compose something more profound later on.

I liked the encumbrance system! What I would do is put it back and divide it into ten equal segments. Then, make the first two segments have no penalty, the last segment have double penalty, and all of the segments in between have x1 penalty.