Experience and why sometimes is better don't lvup problem.

It's clear that the ability to choose to don't lvup a unit is part of the AP management system of this game, but i feel that lvup sometimes is very unfavorable for most unit.

I'll try to explaine my opinion and find a solution.

- Problem : for some unit skill are not worth their additional cost, and it's better don't lvup that unit because of that. There's just 1 exeption to that, Mage and Monk gain a "free" improvement in their mana pool and regeneration of mana ability. That's completely free and in addition to the cost for the normal new skill. I think that a game where a lv1 unit is more usefull than a lv5 unit, probably need some rework.

I propose 3 solution :

1) Stat growing with LV. Here the point is to give some bonus stats to unit that lvup, like ACC, DOD, WIL etc... some minor improvement. That would be a free gain. Of course that could be done reworking the starting|ending final stats of every unit and maybe their AP initial cost.

2) Focus on better skill tree and more usefull skill for every unit, maybe reworking the AP cost of them.

3) Gain of +5hp at lv3 and 5 for non magic|monk unit.

What do you think about that?

Edit : typo.

Example Ram army destroys the Lion only because of the low AP cost and the preposterous spam of Morbit Puppets and Achie spam, no so much AP calculations. You can't make skeleton soldier with 40 hp and Lion knigh with 40 where skeleton cost mak 60 and the lion 150. PLZ

Example Ram army destroys the Lion only because of the low AP cost and the preposterous spam of Morbit Puppets and Achie spam, no so much AP calculations. You can't make skeleton soldier with 40 hp and Lion knigh with 40 where skeleton cost mak 60 and the lion 150. PLZ

the knight can tear apart 4 warrior skeletons one by one...probably not all at the same time. It is a zerg army and it should stay like this. If a skeleton warrior will cost like a wolven one it will become rubbish and nobody will play it. I also add that undead archers aren't really that good compared to the lion ones or the wolven ones...

about necromancers...they are super weak to any damage plus they have a ridicolous dodge so usually lion archers will tear them apart and wolven can oneshot them. Usually if a necro is engaged is more or less dead next turn and/or will take some damage to disengage.

just to compare a necro vs a lion mage which have more or less the same AP:

- if you engage a necro, even before its activation, the only thing he can do is either attack you in melee (usually bad idea), disengage with defensive stance (usually getting hit), summon some puppets hoping that they will kill you faster than you will kill him (unlikely situation ) , don't do nothing or using the super over powered drain life dealing you 5 damage.
- what a lion mage can do when engaged: spam first attack and oneshot the unit that engaged him.

i hope you get my points

@skydancer: i would go for solution 2 as now some talents are either over or underpriced. I dont think adding stats or hp is good plus i dont think 1 more DAM (for example) will be as crucial as the extended faith zone / mana pool.

Dude 2 necros and 3 archers overwhelm the whole lion army because of the low/mid mobility (except the war lion), I completely got your point, but necros are necros and given the distance they will just provide the much needed defence line for the archies to tear the so feared Knight of the Lion and Valkyries.

It's clear that the ability to choose to don't lvup a unit is part of the AP management system of this game, but i feel that lvup sometimes is very unfavorable for most unit.

Its great threat that i wanted to create as second about perovious about Parry<<<Thoughnes

But lets come back to leveling and costs.

Currently im not shure if the game feature is to create a leveled warbands that are competitive at max level or create a game where each levels are competetive and balanced and leveling is one of many chooses that player can make.

Im obviously for the second option but current beta is something in the middle as i see

Max levels:

- mail notification about unupgradet units
- mage leveling with useles 1st and great 5th level

Mixed Levels

- Weak upgrades of many fighter units
- High cost skills based on luck or situational use

Any level (best option IMO)

- unfortunatly not many units are equaly good on each level (skeletons are obviously best on 2nd and 3rd fore example and the Wolfen Crossbowman with Harassment for only 5 points ? who would prefere leve 2 realy )

IMO point and usefulnes difference between levels should be bigger - something like between regulars and their heroes in Confrontation Battle, with for example base swordsman for 30 and lev 3 for 60 points - where each level would be obviously better Making visible differences for 1-5ap cost is quite hard - but propably can be done.

I can make full (or partial) list of units and my subjective opinions of each their skill and its cos (+ base cost) but im not shure if devs are interested about it ;P