The "Mono Stacking" Problem

[Codyksp]

I did not forget anything, these are the only units you can build in this game with your build to remain competitive, and Druid is def not a good unit in MP, he is shut down by ZOC too well and if you're competitive you're facing blink or jump in some capacity, you're getting punished by a good player playing meta here

Which would be correct except Phase is absolute garbage at 6 hexes with Full Action cost. I place my Shield unit at 5 hexes and the Druid behind it at 6.
How are you going to attack the Druid? The best you can do is try to attack from the side, except I'll block that position with a Polearm unit. Good luck.

There is no way you skip better upgrade enchantments over other units types and win, if you want to play good archers you are locked into a certain path, you are already luck that AMP is on a broken and universal tome, but a better player will eat you over such decisions, the ranged with Meteor Arrows and Winds will destroy you in a ranged vs ranged matchup

It won't. Meteor Arrows and Zephyr Shot are beaten by proper spacing of units and poke damage is healed with Mass Rejuvenation.
I'll also have +3 Defense and +3 (Status) Resistance auras on top of my defensive enchantments to nullify the poke damage even further.
Meanwhile I will use Cascading Command: Reposition to give my units Hastened and engage from 6 hexes away (+1 melee attack range).

Amplified Arrows, while strong, is heavily dependant on how strong your initial attack is. So it by extension becomes weaker overall.
Because the Ranged units aren't gaining 7 enchantments worth of damage, they deal less damage per shot. That's just simple math.

Let's ignore Alchemy (it has a cleanse) for a second and focus on a fully offensive Ranged unit tome path. As much damage as we can get.
Legion of Zeal + X Arrows + Seeker Arrows + Bloodfury Weapons + Amplified Arrows + Projectiles of Decay + Meteor Arrows + Force of Nature.
So that's a damage bonus of 2/1/0/2/1/2/4/4 totalling +16 damage per shot before any Strengthened buffs are applied (which rounds up btw).
14 Physical, 2 Spirit, 2 Shock, 8 Blight, 4 Fire. The 2 Physical lost is added back in. With Strengthened this is 21+3+3+12+6 for 45 damage.

Now let's say we're restricted to the strongest 3 options only. This would be Force of Nature, Meteor Arrows and Amplified Arrows.
Now you're dealing 13 Physical, 2 Shock, 4 Fire and 4 Blight. When Strengthened you deal 20+3+6+6 for a total of 35 damage per shot.
Suddenly Amplified Arrows drops from 14 damage to 11 damage and you've lost a literal 10 damage per repeating attack on Shoot Bow.

Tell me again how limiting enchantments to 3 has no effect when comparing my "old" build to my proposed "balanced" build.

Definitely not lol, you now are changing the game into using the low tier tomes for eco since most of them will literally contribute to nothing else, spells are trash, early enchantments will be used only to kick-start creeping, since t3/t4 enchantments are 2x the power of early ones and compete in slot, the units still won't work in mid-game, you run the risk of making it even more cookie cutter choices tbh, but that is unpredictable i have to admit

Inspiring Chant is busted, as are some of the SPIs. Who cares if I don't research the enchantment, or upgrade it down the road?
FYI, if I had better ways to apply Burning/Slowed/Poisoned/Decaying I would keep one of the 20% bonus blade enchantments too.

If the enchantments are selectable per class, individually, I can choose between offensive or defensive ones as I please.

That certainly sounds good, but i still fail to see how the meta is still not just stacking 1 or 2 of my best units in the army and just running you over by picking the best high tier enchantments on tome t3 and t4 with my t2 tome + cultural t3s

First of all, with enchantment limits the cultural T3 units will be beaten by T4/T5 units, even the non racial ones.

Second, as illustrated above, you lose a lot of damage and the gap between units becomes much smaller.
This means you can actually mix in another unit type for their utility (Defense Mode, Debuffs, Polearm).

 

[Mammoet]

How is that taking away from strategy?
To me it allows for turtle strategy and minimizes effect of rush strategies. If you decrease home advantage (in mobility, healing, etc) > you increase motivation and success for rush strategies.
That is a fair point, that perhaps rush strategies are great thing to have for MP, to finish live games in reasonable time. But I am not sure if it is best for game in general.

Because it makes it less important where your armies are on the map. It mainly makes defending easier, and maybe that's why they did it, or to speed up 'late game'. I wouldn't mind as much I guess if it came in much later.

 

[Narvait]

Because it makes it less important where your armies are on the map. It mainly makes defending easier, and maybe that's why they did it, or to speed up 'late game'. I wouldn't mind as much I guess if it came in much later.

Derailing topic a bit. Maybe that is even good enough to start a new topic.
I see those as two different things:
1) Homeland advantage in mobility and heal > this helps turtle strategies, basically ones that favour "I create a huge power disbalance with my opponent later due to better research", rather than "I create small but efficient momentum right away". Because the more defensive tricks, the bigger power gap is needed for successful assault. I am not sure if this matters at all when attacking AI, but when defending vs AI, it definitely helps. On MP it favours long term vs short term, and ambush tactics by more mobile homeland partisans.
2) Teleports > this I believe is helping aggressive map control gameplay. You can travel and explore farther without much punishment. This is in line with Triumph's vision for the game (why they destroyed Magic Victory to force you explore). Similarly to Siege mechanics. I don't see a problem with aggressive map control gameplay and outpost-teleports as its enablers.

 

[bagas12]

I will be honest with you, all this math you like to give with these hypothetical scenarios to defend your point, it always goes thought the other person head man, it is a awful way to make an argument, the games don't play on theory where only one side gets to actively have +3 defense +2 attack or "i dodge the damage and heal it" and other pointless details to counter the other side lol.

Be more concise if you want to talk balance man, if you want to be this hypothetical, the only thing that is worth reading is what i will highlight.

Tell me again how limiting enchantments to 3 has no effect when comparing my "old" build to my proposed "balanced" build.

You obviously won't be running the same build, lol, i'm talking about wanting to run the best archers you possibly can, which will always force you in going a pre-determined path with or without the 3 enchantment limit.

Now let's say we're restricted to the strongest 3 options only. This would be Force of Nature, Meteor Arrows and Amplified Arrows.
Now you're dealing 13 Physical, 2 Shock, 4 Fire and 4 Blight. When Strengthened you deal 20+3+6+6 for a total of 35 damage per shot.
Suddenly Amplified Arrows drops from 14 damage to 11 damage and you've lost a literal 10 damage per repeating attack on Shoot Bow.

Here you're already pushing it to tome t5, which makes no sense, the important game balance revolves on midgame, but ok, you can see that you lose 10 damage here overall, which is cool, but to pull this build you need at least 4 tomes, which leave you 3 high tier tomes to pick other things, where exactly do you find space to do all that without just losing to someone that focus on 2 things?

At t2, you HAVE to pick between the only 2 archer tomes (since you did not fix BM with your proposal), one gives you the better archer + midgame archer enchantment (which makes the player wins all ranged battles for the rest of the game), the other saves you a slot by giving both an archer and good melee, now you have to choose between a support, the other good shield melee tome + enchantment, or Pike + defenses.

At t3, you are forced to pick Amp tome every game, if you want for mixed armies you're always running archers so don't kid yourself you won't be, so now you must select either a charger (which let's be real will be 100% of the time warbreed) or Dread for another of the good melees enchantment and flexibility or cycles (because you like it for some reason?) and super growth

At t4 you should be already be fighting or finished in an MP, but let's entertain the idea that we go to t5, you want meteors right? So you have 1 left, here you pick naga, really, there is no other choice in this game state you proposed, all the others are hilarious in comparison, in a world that you have limited enchantments, not picking naga? Please....

Remember, you want to run a mixed army of archer + melee + pike + support, right?

So there you have it, you have your meta choices, anything else you're prob getting wrecked, all that ignoring affinity, eco and spells, so how exactly we're running 3+ unit types and not losing to the guy that just focus on pike + archer, charger + shield + shit archers/skald, or shield + charger and their good enchantments?

 

[Codyksp]

I will be honest with you, all this math you like to give with these hypothetical scenarios to defend your point, it always goes thought the other person head man, it is a awful way to make an argument, the games don't play on theory where only one side gets to actively have +3 defense +2 attack or "i dodge the damage and heal it" and other pointless details to counter the other side lol.

Be more concise if you want to talk balance man, if you want to be this hypothetical, the only thing that is worth reading is what i will highlight.

This is not hypothetical. This is based on hours upon hours of human vs human combat, as participant and observer.
I am not going to write out the entire combat scenario, step-by-step, for both parties. I'd be writing a literal book.

Suffice to say my entire example is realistic. You talked about a Ranged mono stack under the limit of 3 enchantments.
Attempting to invalidate my point by saying "big numbers make brain hurt" is really a bad way to avoid discussion.

You obviously won't be running the same build, lol, i'm talking about wanting to run the best archers you possibly can, which will always force you in going a pre-determined path with or without the 3 enchantment limit.

And how is this any different from the current game? There will always be "better" enchantments to pick up when you have limits.
This isn't about making the enchantment system more diverse, that's an entirely different topic and balance project for the devs.

This is purely about making it so that you cannot stack a singular unit + enchantments and win the game while drooling on your keyboard.

Here you're already pushing it to tome t5, which makes no sense, the important game balance revolves on midgame, but ok, you can see that you lose 10 damage here overall, which is cool, but to pull this build you need at least 4 tomes, which leave you 3 high tier tomes to pick other things, where exactly do you find space to do all that without just losing to someone that focus on 2 things?

I am sacrificing 2 Ranged enchantments at best with the new build path, if you go up to T2 tomes vs a min/max build.
Meanwhile I gain a T3 Shield unit and an enchantment for them, on top of a transformation and a strong hero skill.

There have never been big issues with the early game battles and unit compositions. It's the mid and late game that become mono.

At t2, you HAVE to pick between the only 2 archer tomes (since you did not fix BM with your proposal), one gives you the better archer + midgame archer enchantment (which makes the player wins all ranged battles for the rest of the game)

The fact that you think Seeker Arrows wins you the game already shows your lack of understanding regarding combat.
You think I am afraid of an 8 range Zephyr Shot dealing 34/17 Physical damage? I wonder if you've played vs another human.

At t3, you are forced to pick Amp tome every game, if you want for mixed armies you're always running archers so don't kid yourself you won't be, so now you must select either a charger (which let's be real will be 100% of the time warbreed) or Dread for another of the good melees enchantment and flexibility or cycles (because you like it for some reason?) and super growth

For Ranged units yes, for other classes you don't need that tome at all. Even Battle Mage doesn't require that tome.
I gave you ONE example build of an army with Ranged + Shield + Support + Polearm + Heroes, that's 5/6 slots.

Shock units automatically benefit Shield and Polearm as well. It's easy enough to combine them with Support and Battle Mage.
High: Horde > Alchemy > Artificing > Revelry > Devastation > Sanctuary > Demon Gate > Supremacy > Chaos Lord

This gives you Iron Golem, Skald, Warbreed, Balor and Exemplar as units. Iron Golem will be replaced later on.

• Melee: Artisan Armaments, Bloodfury Weapons, Flameburst Weapons, Keeper's Mark
• Battle Mage: Siege Magic, Focus of Devastation, Supreme Magic (these all work on the AoE)
• Support: Mysterious Tonic, Siege Magic, Focus of Devastation, Supreme Magic

Yeah, that's one extra enchantment. So what? Tome of Revelry is plenty good here without using it.
Support units wouldn't want Focus of Devastation, so you give them the Tonic ability instead.

Early game is just Dawn Defender/Dusk Hunter with your heroes. Later you can add Sun Priest and Daylight Spear.
Then you progress into Iron Golem and Awakener with Skald. Eventually Warbreed, Balor and Exemplar join in.

Could this be a bit better? Sure. I lack decent T2 units from tomes without picking up extra enchantments.

At t4 you should be already be fighting or finished in an MP, but let's entertain the idea that we go to t5, you want meteors right? So you have 1 left, here you pick naga, really, there is no other choice in this game state you proposed, all the others are hilarious in comparison, in a world that you have limited enchantments, not picking naga? Please....

This depends on the format. Premade team games generally don't reach T5 tomes, FFA games usually do end up getting them.
Again, more tomes and more units would help. I am not debating this. But we need multiple changes on multiple fronts to be made.

 

[bagas12]

I like how flip-flopping you are about saying that 1 extra enchantment won't matter, while trying to convince me that cutting 2 or so from all final builds would change the whole game around.

1 extra enchantment do matter, a lot, don't joke youself, because if you are that much of a competitive player, you know in a player x player sweat match, you are exploiting the game to win by any little margin, so, once you got your build online, you go fight, that's called tempo

With this build you're trying to parade here, and trying to convince people enchantments are so broken, in my view, once you got AMP you're online, hell even if you go winds + front line, you are already online, why are you waiting for t5?

So you can tell me you have 3 or 4 + tomes worth of extra options?

To tell me that how the games will all play now?

At the point during the t3s tome, it's where most MPs really heats up, you already at max 3 enchantments to both classes, so your change, changes honestly, very little, now if you want to push to t5 on a ffa with huge maps, because i guess, that's your preferred way to play, the game changes a lot, but them again, only as much as you're trying to discredit the guys here trying to defend that their SP games matter as well, still, even after your fix, if i'm participating in one of yours FFAs, and you are on my corner, once i'm online, i'm coming to eat your ass just i would do now, with the same units and tomes.

Think about it, with 3 mid-game tome to each side, i have good archers and a frontline, you can only have 3 things that will actually do anything, how is your support + pike + shield + archer build coming along, and how it's supposed to beat me? I am coming with the best archer, the best t3 tanks and the best t3 tome for the tempo of the game, all that with only 5 tomes, and i'm already caped at 3/3 enchantments, i only really need 2 t3 units for that.

Now let me make this clear, what i'm arguing with you is this, you think that this change will do so much for everyone, but the game will not care about it, because you did not fix the options (BM still sucks, shit tomes is still shit, low tier is unusable, i have at best 4 reliable t3) or hit the "tempo" of the game at all in a competitive scenario, where we as players are squeezing the hell of our resources for a victory, do you think you can afford to pick stuff to fill gaps? When i will be picking the same broken and unbalanced tomes that have been dominating this game since it's launch?

 

[Codyksp]

I like how flip-flopping you are about saying that 1 extra enchantment won't matter, while trying to convince me that cutting 2 or so from all final builds would change the whole game around.

We're not cutting "2 or so" we're cutting 4 in a lot of cases.

1 extra enchantment do matter, a lot, don't joke youself, because if you are that much of a competitive player, you know in a player x player sweat match, you are exploiting the game to win by any little margin, so, once you got your build online, you go fight, that's called tempo

Not in this game. Especially since you trade that enchantment for economy or in this case a transformation that provides damage anyway.
So tell me, what am I losing out on exactly? Tome of Alchemy is a must, it has a cleanse and is just plain good. you can't skip cleanse in PvP.

With this build you're trying to parade here, and trying to convince people enchantments are so broken, in my view, once you got AMP you're online, hell even if you go winds + front line, you are already online, why are you waiting for t5?

Who said anything about T5? Zeal + Bloodfury + Seeker + Amplified + Meteor is already 5 enchantments if you take Alchemy.
If you're some kind of gigachad who doesn't need a cleanse you could have 6 with Meteor or 5 with Amplified, skipping Alchemy.

Of course you're going to be "online" with 5 enchantments. That's the entire point of this discussion, to lower that peak.

if i'm participating in one of yours FFAs, and you are on my corner, once i'm online, i'm coming to eat your ass just i would do now, with the same units and tomes.

If you honestly think you can "easy clap" someone with just 3 enchantments in the current game, you've never played serious PvP.

Think about it, with 3 mid-game tome to each side, i have good archers and a frontline, you can only have 3 things that will actually do anything, how is your support + pike + shield + archer build coaming along, and how it's supposed to beat me? I am coming with the best archer, the best t3 tanks and the best t3 tome, with only 5 tomes, i'm already 3/3 enchantments, and only really need 2 units.

Maybe you should stop focusing on that one singular example of a build? Come play MP if you're such a hot shot.

Now let me make this clear, what i'm arguing with you is this, you think that this change will do so much for everyone, but the game will not care about it, because you did not fix the options (BM still sucks, shit tomes is still shit) or hit the "tempo" of the game at all in a competitive scenario, where we as players are squeezing the hell of our resources for a victory.

You need to understand that in MP we use a BALANCE MOD. The game is very different from vanilla already.
Yet, none of these balance issues are relevant to the topic. Enchantment stacking still happens all the time.

 

[bagas12]

Not in this game. Especially since you trade that enchantment for economy or in this case a transformation that provides damage anyway.
So tell me, what am I losing out on exactly? Tome of Alchemy is a must, it has a cleanse and is just plain good. you can't skip cleanse in PvP.

Sorry, true, i forgot, that in your conjectures i am only allowed to pick the enchantments out of my tomes and have no t1s, i cannot have my own tools too to use as i needed, lol

Who said anything about T5? Zeal + Bloodfury + Seeker + Amplified + Meteor is already 5 enchantments if you take Alchemy.
If you're some kind of gigachad who doesn't need a cleanse you could have 6 with Meteor or 5 with Amplified, skipping Alchemy.

5 Enchantments? Where are these extra tomes coming from? Brother are your eyes checked? I'm not taking shit ass Relvery or waiting for meteor in my example, i told you i'm fighting with AMP at most, you are not getting me here, are you? Can't you realize that your changes faster up the tempo as well?

If you honestly think you can "easy clap" someone with just 3 enchantments in the current game, you've never played serious PvP.

I don't care if I'm about to clap you or not, i'm coming to fight you here, because my build is online and i feel it's my best shot, i will be coming with the same strategy that been in the meta with or without your changes, that's the point.

From here on out we win, or we lose, it does not matter, the game ends.

Maybe you should stop focusing on that one singular example of a build? Come play MP if you're such a hot shot.

I would do the same shit with bastion, or wardens, as they all come online at the same point, because that's how the game been running every time i played with my group, and trust me, we don't need to be putting curriculums here to understand that the best bet for this game to ever have a good MP is to just make an official version of Badok's mod, aka a total war like skirmisher and play in there.

You need to understand that in MP we use a BALANCE MOD. The game is very different from vanilla already.

Well it's certainly interesting how you already are playing a different game to most here, while trying to preach them how their games are supposed to play out.

 

[Codyksp]

No point in replying to the above, your ranting isn't helpful and you refuse to provide proper counter arguments.
If you truly wish to see how good players play the game, come on over. You might have your eyes opened a bit.

 

[Jolly Joker]

Look, that's all nice and well, but the difference between MP and SP here is thatthe builds are optimized, which means in MP the VIABLE tome combinations are massively reduced and with that comes a reduction of viable units, viable tactics, viable enchantments and so on.
In theory that should lead to a process of permanent balance changes.
It's also cleaar that once you find a viable build (giving you enough autocombat power to clear gold wonders), it is clear that it's better to slap on more enchantments, especially if the unit is on top of that class's food chain. It's, let's say QUESTIONABLE whether a limitation to 3 enchantments would change anything here. AT BEST it would allow to build armies based on two totally different unit classes, simply because there are not that many units that are top of their food chain and when you want to get to them you need to pick tomes accordingly.
There is another factor that plays a role: for that to work, tomes would have to be not too far away from each other: Tome of Winds can be picked as 3rd tome. You already have the Legion of Zeal enchantment at that point and build Archers - obviously now, once your Archers have their allotment of 3 enchantments (at the latest) you should pick something that can be slapped on the 2nd unit - and you also should get your second unit fast, because why wait, once you have a force that is the optimum for a certain time?
So the number of options wouldn't drastcially increase, wouldn't it? Which would be the one single good reason to do that.

Instead, the formation idea I had would do that a lot better because you couldn't actually pick as many units of a certain kind as you wanted, so you would NECESSARILY have to go for more, no matter what, and you were ALWAYS faced with the question, do I go for an enchantment for one part of my army or do I try to get a better unit first for the other parts, and is there maybe a way to get both with one tome and so on.

If you want to limit something, adding formations (that you would unlock by researching a unit) would do the job WAY better.

 

[bagas12]

I mean, this brother just can't understand that I'm too, presenting him my own view as a competitive player in how the meta plays with the changes he wants to.

He's trying to tell me so hard, that my strategy just won't work because he can dodge this, he can bring a heal, he has his little tome of alchemy and bla bla bla, but he can't fathom that i also can bring my own heal, i can go tome of alchemy as well , i can follow his exact build, beat by beat, i'm not the bot that does nothing in your perfect scenario man, i'm the player that is trying to beat you by exploiting the game.

That's why these types of arguments are weak, i'm not trying to discuss my strategies with a 3k elo player, we are trying to find a way to FIX THE GAME, i'm giving you my honest input on what i predict would happen with your changes.

The meta has developed to this "monostacking" for a reason, once you are at mid-game you have little options to choose from, and you still have once you keep unlocking tomes, that's why is better to focus on 2 good units and attack, them if you are playing 1vsX that have longer games, you can keep stacking (or pick the better ones in your scenario) and keep the momentum going (It's like, he plays Treaty and i play standard, and he refuses to think that someone can have a different experience)

So it's very simple really, so let me try to explain one last time.

Me as a player, with your changes online, is thinking right now, that i can still go the same tome paths and builds that is crushing the meta, attack you at the same point i do right now, and still not lose anything or be affected by it, if i reach tome t3, i have 3 t3 units with 6 or 5 enchantments maxed in slots, i'm at pretty much at my best right now, this is tempo, why do i wait for you to reach your next tomes so you can get this additional pieces, so you can build a support as well, have a little archer, have some cavalry, frontline and reach your perfect build?, if i have the best units maxed out right now?

It just don't make sense from a meta perspective, and the worse is that the brother can't muster the courage to come in and say, well you can't rush me right now because of this and this (which i know i ain't true, and i think he does as well), no, he must keep his condescending snark comments like "well, you just don't understand the game hehe", "well if you just played with better player like MYSELF you would understand xD", really?

Brother, i will speak plainly with you, do you wonder why basically every argument you had here ends in you fighting someone? Is because you have a dislikable personality, there i said it, and for the record, i would even be down to see how the game would play like this (or a lesser version), but right now, i remain unconvinced of your logic that it would change the meta and fix the game for all of us, as much as you like to think

 

[Codyksp]

Holding a proper discussion with this person seems off the table. It's just a rant post again.

I'm only going to point out that you wouldn't have 5 or 6 enchantments with them limited to 3.
This means that after those 3 you will make different choices, thus altering your mid and late game.

And no, it will not let you rush with some imaginary power spike, nor is that relevant to the discussion.
The discussion is about having 0 late game unit diversity because if the infinite stacking that occurs.
It is about making T3/T4 units more diverse and no longer invalidating the power of T5 units.

I play with the best AoW 4 players you can find, I think we know a bit more than you "brother".

 

[bagas12]

I'm only going to point out that you wouldn't have 5 or 6 enchantments with them limited to 3.

Man you are denser than a rock lol, it's 5 to 6 enchantment total unlocked, maxing the slots in 2 units, not in just 1 unit class, what are you on?

I'm starting to believe you don't really care what other people are saying here, you skim through what they type and twist into another dimension, you just want to display this genius idea you had don't you? in that case, sure man, it's a pretty good idea, go for it.

I'm chilling by now, my points are posted and saved already, anyone else that bothers reading this will make their mind and notice how much you're out of your mind, especially because this elitist attitude is so stinky lol

 

[Jolly Joker]

I also think that the game wouldn't change in a significant way with the enchantment limit and I think the reasons are pretty clear as well.

 

[Codyksp]

I also think that the game wouldn't change in a significant way with the enchantment limit and I think the reasons are pretty clear as well.

That entirely depends on how you are playing the game. The vanilla game is unbalanced and poorly designed.
But the thing I am looking at, is the bigger picture, the state the game is in once balance is actually in a proper place.
A LOT of things can be fixed via modding, but this enchantment limit cannot be implemented with the tools available.

Before you say "Yeah but you're using a mod". Multiple people acknowledged that this is an issue in vanilla too.

The game currently revolves around stacking the best T1 units until you unlock T3 units, which you attempt to do ASAP.
This is caused by units and structures not being limited in your cities, they're all free to build whenever you want.
Then once you have T3 you just pump them from your cities and stack them with as many enchantments as you can.

There is no incentive to go to T4 because all of those units are currently bad except Druid of the Cycle and Stormbringer.
But since the vanilla game has no incentive for you to actually bring a Support unit, Druid of the Cycle is called bad too.
I have said before that we need more unit diversity too, but that will not single handedly solve the issues of the game.

However, once that issue is also resolved, you will notice that enchantment stacking will still be the way to go.
T5/Mythic units don't even exist because they get massively outscaled by enchantment stacked T3/T4 units.
This is yet another thing that normal balance will not resolve. Their power levels are fine, that's not the problem.
So all you will do is move T3 enchantment stacking to T4 enchantment stacking. This is not going to fix anything.

Now, once those balance issues are resolved and toxic mechanics like friendly domain movement and healing are removed...
Well, then you notice how a lot of extra strategies open up. But the one thing that remains though, is enchantment stacking.

It doesn't matter how good my Shield unit is, if it has only 1 enchantment it is not worth bringing vs a unit that has 5 of them.
I have no incentive to try and unlock T4 Shield/Support or try and bring T5 units because they are behind immediately.
Adding a bunch of units to every affinity line is not the solution either, that just makes for a bland, linear game experience.

 

[Jolly Joker]

I cannot agree with that line of thought.

The REAL reason why the game develops the way it does is that you reach the top of the physical ranged foodchain with your 3rd tome already and there are not many enchantments fitting for ranged that fit on something else, Zeal among them (Zeal would clearly be a musthave anyway). So it's a bad thing that this unit is available so early - it should be in a T3 tome and compete with T4s.

That alone would do more for alternative strategies than putting a limit onto enchantments.

The second problem is that there are no enchantments AT ALL for Mythicals which seems wrong. OBVIOUSLY it wouldn't be good if EARLY tomes contained enchantments that also work for Mythicals, but I do think that T4 tomes (and T5 as well) should contain enchantments useful for mythicals, that would ALSO do a lot to add to strategies. EACH T5 should contain an enchantment for mythicals, and 1 T4 of each affinity should contain one as well.

LASTLY - supports. As I said a couple of times, a support unit is a unit that should be useful for others. However, as a rule, since a support unit is per definition no unit that can and should fight on it's own, enchantments for supports are useless ANYWAY, since ONE Support per stack is the maximum you'd have. That is, all support units should have a PASSIVE support ability, that is an ability that would make units better AUTOMATICALLY. Also, enchantments for supports, if you wanted to have any, should EXLUSIVELY add to their SUPPORT abilities and better be worth it (because they wouldn't be usable for anyone else, mayve for Mythicals(.

And as a PS, it might be better to include Battle Mages in the same enchantment group than physical ranged - however, if not there should be an enchantment for BMs in all tomes that let you research one.