Remove units stack limit. This make the strategic element of the gameplay almost pointless.

[Vortyrion]

This design decision to have a limit on how much troops a wielder could have the strategic element of the game almost pointless and also tedious.
This is a game that combine strategic and tactical gameplay and you are hamstringing the second one. For what to have more competitive and balance tactical battles? Then make tactical game.
The major point of the strategic element is to make your army to be bigger and better. Something you can't do that with this limit mechanic. To attack with the same army size as the defender is neither smart or fun.
Also is tedious to replenish your unit stacks to their limit after each lost.

For me this mechanic is game breaking.

[LordVollmilch]

tl;dr OP again shows his massive love for male on male action with himself being one of them

[FableNights]

With how expensive everything is relative to your gold count, infinite stacks wouldn't even be feasible to begin with unless you spammed the cheapest unit possible (Some people have major issues with Rats because they stack to 100 by default).

This game is all about building an army and balancing said army with skills.
In a 1v1 game, you never use the Large Building Units (Dragons, F. Nobles, Legions, Hellmouth) because you're too busy padding out your army with your main units and let me tell you something, you're never full

Command 5 or even 6 is probably the highest you go in those types of games and you're rarely, if ever looking for units to add to a wielder. Around turn 40, I can feasibly have 2 Solid Command 5 armies, but they're not max stacks.

In larger games, you're probably not even able max out a single Command 8/9 Wielder, let alone multiple!

Not only do infinite stacks not belong in the game (it wasn't designed around it) but if they were, all they'd accomplish would be to mislead people into thinking it's even reasonable to begin with.

[Handbanana]

wizard_of_woz a écrit :

Handbanana a écrit :

Stack limits I feel are a deal breaker for me. I really don't like how much it limits your game play.

Yes more strategy limits the game...

A big part of the genre is the Meta progression of maintaining your castles and building properly. This essentially removes all meta progression and puts hard limits on the army which is kinda dumb. If I do better and have more creatures and castles then I should win by default. While I will win by attrition eventually it makes the game slower and worse.

If they want the game to just be a battle simulator they may as well delete the rest of the game.

[LordVollmilch]

Handbanana a écrit :

wizard_of_woz a écrit :

Yes more strategy limits the game...

A big part of the genre is the Meta progression of maintaining your castles and building properly. This essentially removes all meta progression and puts hard limits on the army which is kinda dumb. If I do better and have more creatures and castles then I should win by default. While I will win by attrition eventually it makes the game slower and worse.

If they want the game to just be a battle simulator they may as well delete the rest of the game.

yeah we do need more meta aka you-are-not-allowed-to-play-anything-else-except-you-want-to-lose in games in general
How about nothing of these two? winning by atrition and winning simply by numbers is lame af. How about winning by being a better fighter, subterfuge, tricks or feints?
I could argue we can delete battles althogether if you want it to be any economics simulator.

[Ddraig Lleuad]

Stack limits are great. Being able to infinitely grow your stacks encourages a ton of gameplay problems, and I'm glad to see them solved. I really don't want to go back to eternally reinforcing a single doomstack and jockeying for a single decisive battle that there's essentially no recovering from.

If not being able to do that is a dealbreaker for you... Well okay, don't let the door hit you on the way out, I guess?

[Jolly the Joker]

Well said. :)

[Zymeth]

Ah yes, just packing all types of units to 1 slot each to make always same and full army is so much more strategic than actually creating an army composition T_T

[Cress]

Handbanana a écrit :

wizard_of_woz a écrit :

Yes more strategy limits the game...

A big part of the genre is the Meta progression of maintaining your castles and building properly. This essentially removes all meta progression and puts hard limits on the army which is kinda dumb. If I do better and have more creatures and castles then I should win by default. While I will win by attrition eventually it makes the game slower and worse.

If they want the game to just be a battle simulator they may as well delete the rest of the game.

I am just genuinely curious when this has ever been a major factor in any game? You're telling me you have ALL the unit upgrades + a full army yet still haven't tried to attack the opponent? I'm just not sure what sort of meta "strategy" this would even fall into. Turtle cosplay?

[Demonicgamer666]

I'm fresh to the game (this game in particular, not HoMM-like games), and I see both sides of the argument.

While I would love for the unlimited unit stacks, seeing as the game has unit limits, I doubt the joys of tier 1 unit spam to doomstack success will happen with these devs. The closest thing I see to that is Loth's rats though.

If there was to be a middle-ground suggestion I could offer it would be that perhaps the devs should consider some sort of player agency option to pick a favorite unit (flavor it as honor guard, promotion, ranks, chevrons, etc.) per wielder at certain levels (maybe base 6 so, 6, 12, 18, etc.) which could offer unit stack limit improvements, adding an essence, or other stats? It could make a gnarly addition to any sort of balance spreadsheet, but a public playtest like early access is the place to do it.

As much as I would like to have the player agency to pick the stats in this hypothetical mechanic, it could just be like leveling up skills where you are given options to choose from where unit stack limit increase is in the pool of options (though I'd much prefer a skill tree).

[madracc00n]

Zymeth a écrit :

Ah yes, just packing all types of units to 1 slot each to make always same and full army is so much more strategic than actually creating an army composition T_T

[i-dot]

Ddraig Lleuad a écrit :

Stack limits are great. Being able to infinitely grow your stacks encourages a ton of gameplay problems, and I'm glad to see them solved. I really don't want to go back to eternally reinforcing a single doomstack and jockeying for a single decisive battle that there's essentially no recovering from.

If not being able to do that is a dealbreaker for you... Well okay, don't let the door hit you on the way out, I guess?

Agree!

[DaciValt]

Love the stack limits in HoMM it's far too easy to doomstack.

HoMM's answer to this was crazy creature growth so if a game went on long enough you would be finding neutrals (and rival armies) with hundreds of elites and thousands of units. It's still not especially difficult to deal with these most of the time it just takes forever.

It is never fun to have to deal with damage sponges like that and gets tedious quickly.

[Marcus]

I feel it does encourage you to use your second hero more and also to upgrade your troops. Upgraded troops have a big advantage now. With the limit you can still have enough for your main hero to attack enemy towns while your second hero can now actually be used to clear the map for resources.

[Purromi]

Vortyrion a écrit :

wizard_of_woz a écrit :

I and most people on this forum totally disagree. It is a welcome addition from HoMM. Definitely adds more to the strategic side.

How? I would like to explain to me how it's adding more to the strategic side, because I can't see it?
The strategic side should cover all the things that lead to army buildup. And is not matter how much better army you have when you are force to battle with the same army size as the opponent. In games like Total War series where you have such limitation you can engage in battle with more that one army.

I don't believe your statement that most people like this mechanic.
And you are stating opinions, please provide some information why do you think this is better how this mechanic makes the game better?

simple

no stack limit
-Spam just strongest unit from roster
stack limit
-decide between horde and single units <- match abilities, artifacts and entire playstyle to these two strats

[Ddraig Lleuad]

Well, not quite. With no stack limit, you don't spam the strongest unit in the roster, you just spam your entire roster, scaling them endlessly in a single army.

With stack limits - yeah, as you say, there's decisions to be made on what units to focus on, matching abilities and your playstyle. It's also much more viable to run multiple armies.