The "Mono Stacking" Problem

[Codyksp]

I don't agree with that. I've not even seen a good argument as to why your solution would solve the issue.

How so? When a unit has 7 enchantments it feels absolutely horrible to bring any other unit to combat.
The difference in their power is so gigantic that even 2 unenchanted units will just be worse to bring.

But when limited to, for example, 3 the amount of power they gain over an unenchanted unit is lower.
In other words bringing that unenchanted unit for its abilities might actually be worth it now.
If not, it is easy to give said unit 1 enchantment and close that gap a little bit to make them worthwhile.

I also don't think it's as easy as you think, because it requires a significant change to how the game works and requires having a look at all enchantments to see if they're all properly balanced to be used as one of three (or whatever the limit is). Currently they're balanced by their cost (probably not effective) and you don't have to think too much about whether or not you should take them when they are available. The cost is usually insignificant compared to the benefit.
If you limit the number of enchantments either you end up researching three of them and sticking with it or you probably end up rushing towards the higher tier ones and skipping the lower tiers if possible.

You do not have to change every enchantment. Tiers exist for a reason, they scale upwards and fall off.

I think exponentially increasing the enchantment upkeep cost per unit type is an easier solution with a similar butt less restricting outcome. Though I still think the main problem here is unit balance itself and lack of counters rather than the enchantments.

I already explained why this won't work well and won't end up restricting units for good players.
You'll still stack enchantments and you'll still stack one unit. You'll just focus more on Mana.

Runesmiths combined with a Wizard King and Artifact Hoarders or Primal Crow for example.
Heck, Runesmiths alone will be enough to offset whatever scaling you introduce anyway.
Did you not see my example screenshot where I had 600 mana income after enchant stacking?

How is it balanced if 1-2 combinations can stack enchantments but nobody else can?
Because that will be the result of such a change in the current state of the game.

 

[Jolly Joker]

How so? When a unit has 7 enchantments it feels absolutely horrible to bring any other unit to combat.
The different in their power is so gigantic that even 2 unenchanted units will just be worse to bring.

That has nothing to do with the problem of MONO-stacking (since there are different unit types (and within that units) that profit from those 7 enchantments, it's because one unit is definitely stronger than the rest.
Also, if ENCHANTMENT-stacking is the problem, then the actual problem is, that it pays to get a second and third (and fourth ...) enchantment for the same type of unit, instead of getting a first one for a second type and build a combined army.

I already explained why this won't work well and won't end up restricting units for good players.
You'll still stack enchantments and you'll still stack one unit. You'll just focus more on Mana.

Runesmiths combined with a Wizard King and Artifact Hoarders or Primal Crow for example.
Heck, Runesmiths alone will be enough to offset whatever scaling you introduce anyway.
Did you not see my example screenshot where I had 600 mana income after enchant stacking?

How is it balanced if 1-2 combinations can stack enchantments but nobody else can?
Because that will be the result of such a change in the current state of the game.

The only thing you explained is that a couple of things would have to change when you'd limit enchantments via upkeep increase, the only real offender being Runesmith in that regard.

Apart from that, see above, why limiting enchantments to three wouldn't even scratch the actual problem: If you already have reached your limit of enchantments for the still mono-stacked units of your armies, if you have mana and army slots left, producing ANY unit that profits from those 3 enchantments is better that starting anew with a completely different unit type that needs new enchantments.

It's actually pretty simple: if you research a new unit (or get it via building the culture building), it's either immediately better than everything you currently have and then you can build/summon it - or it's not (not even with the enchantments it will immediately get). If it's NOT - why build it NOW?
Enchantment or not, a new unit must bring something to the table you don't have at this point, otherwise - why even research the unit? It can't be the reason why you picked it.

So your reasoning is faulty and won't solve anything except people questioning what they are supposed to do with all the mana and gold and why they cannot enchant the two units they use beside the heroes enchant more.

 

[Stupid_Dragon]

Runesmiths combined with a Wizard King and Artifact Hoarders or Primal Crow for example.
Heck, Runesmiths alone will be enough to offset whatever scaling you introduce anyway.
Did you not see my example screenshot where I had 600 mana income after enchant stacking?

How is it balanced if 1-2 combinations can stack enchantments but nobody else can?
Because that will be the result of such a change in the current state of the game.

Strictly speaking nerfing these 1-2 combinations to oblivion would take 5 minutes in the editor.

But then players will also have to choose between supercharging themselves with enchantments and other mana activities like world spells and magic origin sustain costs. Magic origin units would probably straight up need a huge baseline enchantment upkeep discount to stay relevant.

On the other hand making mana a dominating factor for enchantment stacking makes Mage Guilds a combat performance investment, which is a step away from current Scholar Guild spam and is therefore a good thing potentially.

 

[Codyksp]

That has nothing to do with the problem of MONO-stacking (since there are different unit types (and within that units) that profit from those 7 enchantments, it's because one unit is definitely stronger than the rest.
Also, if ENCHANTMENT-stacking is the problem, then the actual problem is, that it pays to get a second and third (and fourth ...) enchantment for the same type of unit, instead of getting a first one for a second type and build a combined army.

Fine, I'll be incredibly specific. "When my Battle Mages and Supports have 7 enchantments it feels horrible to bring any other class".
Are you happy now? Did you really have to respond like that when you clearly grasp the point of it? Supports are not even relevant here.

The only thing you explained is that a couple of things would have to change when you'd limit enchantments via upkeep increase, the only real offender being Runesmith in that regard.

No. Wizard King (+10% Mana) and Primal Crow would become exponentially more powerful and meta picks.
How don't you see that this is reducing the amount of available strategies rather than expanding them?

Apart from that, see above, why limiting enchantments to three wouldn't even scratch the actual problem: If you already have reached your limit of enchantments for the still mono-stacked units of your armies, if you have mana and army slots left, producing ANY unit that profits from those 3 enchantments is better that starting anew with a completely different unit type that needs new enchantments.

Again. No. Because a lot of tomes have 2 enchantments within them. This means you're at the very least at 3 and 1.
With a little bit of effort you can pick up 2 tomes that benefit 2 unit classes, now you're at 3 and 2 enchantments.

Because you can't stack above the limit of 3 you are no longer incentivized to pick tomes for only one class and ignore the rest.

It's actually pretty simple: if you research a new unit (or get it via building the culture building), it's either immediately better than everything you currently have and then you can build/summon it - or it's not (not even with the enchantments it will immediately get). If it's NOT - why build it NOW?
Enchantment or not, a new unit must bring something to the table you don't have at this point, otherwise - why even research the unit? It can't be the reason why you picked it.

New units of a higher tier will always replace the same unit of a lower tier. But with 5 tiers the stat jump is small.
That aside, I already explain to you why I am not picking up a random Shock unit for my Battle Mage based army.

So your reasoning is faulty and won't solve anything except people questioning what they are supposed to do with all the mana and gold and why they cannot enchant the two units they use beside the heroes enchant more.

Your reasoning is faulty and has been since the thread began. It's just a case of "Don't take away my cool stacked enchantments".
You will still spend your Gold and Mana, by enchanting another unit class, imagine that, enchanting more than a single type.

The goal is to move away from picking tomes that benefit only 1 singular class and bringing 2 different units AT BEST in your army.

 

[Jolly Joker]

Fine, I'll be incredibly specific. "When my Battle Mages and Supports have 7 enchantments it feels horrible to bring any other class".
Are you happy now? Did you really have to respond like that when you clearly grasp the point of it? Supports are not even relevant here.

How does this invalidate what I was actually saying? As a reminder:

That has nothing to do with the problem of MONO-stacking (since there are different unit types (and within that units) that profit from those 7 enchantments, it's because one unit is definitely stronger than the rest.
Also, if ENCHANTMENT-stacking is the problem, then the actual problem is, that it pays to get a second and third (and fourth ...) enchantment for the same type of unit, instead of getting a first one for a second type and build a combined army.

Now, reading what you write, you'd think that an enchantment only works for ONE type of unit, but that's not the case. A crapton of enchantments will work for shock, fighter, shield, polearm and Skirmisher (melee attack), which means, when it comes to enchantments it is absolutely NO problem to have five different classes, which is far, far, far away from mono-stacking.
Then there are the enchantments for the RANGED class (and Skirmishers, the ranged part) and THAT looks entirely different, since there not many (non-culture-based) enchantments that mix those categories up.
Battle Mages and Supports are yet another thing, because battle mages are a different kind of ranged, while supports are a different kind of unit altogether.

That's why I said:

Enchantments that increase ranged ability range and shock unit range are TOO STRONG because they change the ground rules of the game.
Likewise, Supports and Battle Mages don't have enough enchantments that really make them WORTHWHILE TO ADD (they are not good enough) and
Skirmishers are generally a tier too good in damage. Since they can use most enchantments it makes sense that their melee and ranged attack would be a tier weaker than that of a SPECIALIST, that is a T2 Skirmisher should have a T1 melee attack and a T1 one-shot attack.

Which is why an enchantment limit won't work: since ALL units will be limited to 3 enchantments you will STILL field those whith the best bang, and Zephyr Archers will still be great.

 

[Mammoet]

A crapton of enchantments will work for shock, fighter, shield, polearm and Skirmisher (melee attack)

This is another reason why limiting enchantments to 3 is not an easy thing. Enchantments all have different set of units they affect. So if I pick two melee enchantments and one ranged, my skirmishers would already be at the limit. So then what when I want to add a third one for my shield units?

How so? When a unit has 7 enchantments it feels absolutely horrible to bring any other unit to combat.

Sure. But that's like saying you shouldn't be able to upgrade any unit, because then they'll be better than other units. The reason you don't want to pick the worse unit is because the investment is not worth it, which means the counter system is too soft for it to make much of a difference with heavily upgraded units.

Even if you limit the enchantments, as @Jolly Joker said, why would bring non-enchanted ones that are still worse? Why would you spend resources on enchanting (or even researching enchantments for) other units when you can go for higher tier enchantments for your main unit?

 

[KDubya]

I think a solution would be to:

• Reduce skirmisher damage to the previous tier. A tier IV skirmisher would have a tier III melee and a tier III single target ranged attack. This makes them still be the most flexible but at the cost of some combat output. This would promote unit diversity in that your skirmishers could not do everything better than everything else.
• Increase the cost of enchantments based on the number of enchantments and scale to the game difficulty level. Casual players will be largely unaffected and players on the harder difficulties will have it harder.
• Add some enchantments to battle mages and support to close the gap with ranged.
• Add additional defensive enchantments.

These all seem relatively easy to implement.

 

[Jolly Joker]

That's exactly what I say.
So thumbs up.

Generally speaking, I find ranged units EXTREMELY different to balance in these games. If they are too strong you don't need anything else. If they are too weak you can just as well go for proper melee units. If there is a simple counter - say a support that gives great ranged defense for a group of units - everyone gets it and again ranged is too ... vulnerable.

In my opinion ranged units shouldn't do that much damage, but harrass the opposition: give them negative modifiers, bleeding, weakened, posisoned, distracted, slow, blind and so on, so that an assault is broken or a defending army is weakened.
I also think that it's a good idea to make a difference between damage dealt from afar and damage dealt more or less point blank. Two ranges, one half, one full damage would work somewhat better.

 

[Codyksp]

How does this invalidate what I was actually saying? As a reminder:


Now, reading what you write, you'd think that an enchantment only works for ONE type of unit, but that's not the case. A crapton of enchantments will work for shock, fighter, shield, polearm and Skirmisher (melee attack), which means, when it comes to enchantments it is absolutely NO problem to have five different classes, which is far, far, far away from mono-stacking.

And are you going to bring a Shield + Shock + Fighter army? Melee and Ranged should be mixed in a healthy manner.
How well do you think a full army of foot soldiers is going to do against an army of foot soldiers and riflemen? Yeah.

Enchantments that increase ranged ability range and shock unit range are TOO STRONG because they change the ground rules of the game.

There are no enchantments that increase Shock unit range. These do not exist in any way, shape, or form in-game currently.
As for Seeker Arrows, it's the only one in the entire game. Should it be removed? Sure. But it's not a core issue right now.

Likewise, Supports and Battle Mages don't have enough enchantments that really make them WORTHWHILE TO ADD (they are not good enough)

Supports are perfectly fine, they already have 3 different "Staves" enchantments alongside Mysterious Tonic and Tuning Kits.
They don't have any need whatsoever to be receiving the Battle Mage enchantments actually. But it's not an issue either.

and
Skirmishers are generally a tier too good in damage. Since they can use most enchantments it makes sense that their melee and ranged attack would be a tier weaker than that of a SPECIALIST, that is a T2 Skirmisher should have a T1 melee attack and a T1 one-shot attack.

Skirmishers are not broken outside of Stormbringer. Inquisitor is fixed by giving him 90% base accuracy on Bolt of Judgment.
Their melee attacks are also nothing to write home about, they're almost entirely Physical damage and they lack survival stats.

Which is why an enchantment limit won't work: since ALL units will be limited to 3 enchantments you will STILL field those whith the best bang, and Zephyr Archers will still be great.

It will work when combined with individual unit tuning (which is done in the phase after). Upkeep will not.

• Limit enchantments to 3 per unit class. Yes, per unit class, not as a group.
• Balance individual units that outperform their peers.
• If needed, rework individual enchantments to be more unique.

 

[Codyksp]

This is another reason why limiting enchantments to 3 is not an easy thing. Enchantments all have different set of units they affect. So if I pick two melee enchantments and one ranged, my skirmishers would already be at the limit. So then what when I want to add a third one for my shield units?

I outlined this before. You would research an enchantment that applies to Shield/Shock/Fighter/Shock/Skirmisher.
This puts the enchantment in your pool of available enchantments for those unit types, which would be a new feature.

Then in a different UI you would pick the 3 enchantments you wish to apply to each individual unit type.
Imagine it as a freeform "mix & match" based on what you've researched. Swappable at any time (with a CD).

Sure. But that's like saying you shouldn't be able to upgrade any unit, because then they'll be better than other units. The reason you don't want to pick the worse unit is because the investment is not worth it, which means the counter system is too soft for it to make much of a difference with heavily upgraded units.

Even if you limit the enchantments, as @Jolly Joker said, why would bring non-enchanted ones that are still worse? Why would you spend resources on enchanting (or even researching enchantments for) other units when you can go for higher tier enchantments for your main unit?

As stated before... There are tomes that offer double enchantments or units and enchantments that don't match up.
There was an attempt to make melee and ranged units synergise through enchantments. It just failed spectacularly.

Off the top of my head these tomes offer two different enchantments:

• Tome of Cryomancy
• Tome of Pyromancy, Tome of Devastation
• Tome of Roots
• Tome of Evocation, Tome of Amplification
• Tome of Enchantment (triple), Tome of Artificing
• Tome of the Deadnought

These tomes offer at least one unit and one enchantment that aren't compatible:

• Tome of Evocation, Tome of Warding, Tome of Teleportation, Tome of the Astral Mirror
• Tome of Cryomancy, Tome of the Doomherald
• Tome of the Beacon, Tome of Supremacy
• Tome of Pyromancy, Tome of Revelry, Tome of Devastation
• Tome of Enchantment, Tome of Winds, Tome of Artificing, Tome of Transmutation
• Tome of Alchemy, Tome of Fey Mists, Tome of Dragons, Tome of the Dreadnought, Tome of Severing

And don't give me the "We don't pick them because the enchantment/units are bad" speech.
You don't pick them because you get more benefit from stacking a single unit instead.

 

[Codyksp]

I think a solution would be to:

• Reduce skirmisher damage to the previous tier. A tier IV skirmisher would have a tier III melee and a tier III single target ranged attack. This makes them still be the most flexible but at the cost of some combat output. This would promote unit diversity in that your skirmishers could not do everything better than everything else.

Skirmishers really aren't a problem, it's just Stormbringer that's overloaded right now.

• Increase the cost of enchantments based on the number of enchantments and scale to the game difficulty level. Casual players will be largely unaffected and players on the harder difficulties will have it harder.

That won't change anything when not playing vs AI. Nobody plays High World Threat in MP.

• Add some enchantments to battle mages and support to close the gap with ranged.

Fully enchanted Battle Mage units are practically on par with Ranged.

The issue is that one unit has 4 range and the other has 5-6 range.
That's if we ignore the difference in defensive stats between them.

• Add additional defensive enchantments.

These all seem relatively easy to implement.

For which classes? I don't see how that will change the current landscape.

 

[Jolly Joker]

And are you going to bring a Shield + Shock + Fighter army? Melee and Ranged should be mixed in a healthy manner.
How well do you think a full army of foot soldiers is going to do against an army of foot soldiers and riflemen? Yeah.

Of course you do - provided you have decent ones to build/summon. Shock units have their uses, fighters as well (flying units, but jumping spiders are pretty useful as well, for example), while Shields never hurt - and don't forget polearms. And skirmishers. Ranged units are quite limited, Tome-wise. You basically pick Wind and that's it. I feel that I'm better off with Skirmishers, as it is, since you can go for a couple of them.

There are no enchantments that increase Shock unit range. These do not exist in any way, shape, or form in-game currntly.
As for Seeker Arrows, it's the only one in the entire game. Should it be removed? Sure. But it's not a core issue right now.

I know there are no shock unit range extenders. But if there WAS (Phase +1, e.g.), it would change the whole battle balance. Same thing with Range +1. This isn't important for 3-shooters with range 3 or 4, but it is massive for 6-range ONE-Shooter (Zephyr Archers have one of those as "secondary" attack.)
And sorry, "core issue"? Whoc are you to decide whether there is a core issue or not and WHAT issue is core or not. Get down fom your high horse, please.

Supports are perfectly fine, they already have 3 different "Staves" enchantments alongside Mysterious Tonic and Tuning Kits.
They don't have any need whatsoever to be receiving the Battle Mage enchantments actually. But it's not an issue either.

They are not "fine", compared with others. There are not enough to pick from and only a very few are are worth it, like "Projctiles of Decay". What is missing is actual enhancements of the SUPPORT capability like range or healing increases or radius increases, and what is missing is defense bolstering against physical ranged. For example. The problem with Support units is that their enchantments will mostly work only on them and Battle Mages - as opposed to melee unit enchantments. So that is DEFINITELY an issue.

Skirmishers are not broken outside of Stormbringer. Inquisitor is fixed by giving him 90% base accuracy on Bolt of Judgment.
Their melee attacks are also nothing to write home about, they're almost entirely Physical damage and they lack survival stats.

Skirmishers are TOO GOOD for what the units are actually supposed to be. A Skirmisher is supposed to LOSE against everything when it gets their full attention. Instead, what we have is Skirmishers that are massively strong - Lightbringer, Inquisitor, Mistling, Slither, all great to nuts. The GREMLIN WAS a pretty good example for a good Skirmisher unit, but everyone complained about them being underwhelming ...
They are SKIRMISHERS, for heaven's sake, not a combination of a fighter and a cannon.

It will work when combined with individual unit tuning (which is done in the phase after). Upkeep will not.

• Limit enchantments to 3 per unit class. Yes, per unit class, not as a group.
• Balance individual units that outperform their peers.
• If needed, rework individual enchantments to be more unique.

"Limit enchantments to three per class" is just a random demand. You could just as well demand "limit tome research to 10". "Balance individual units that outperform their peers" is a general goal to pursue, no matter what, so go figure.

 

[Codyksp]

Of course you do - provided you have decent ones to build/summon. Shock units have their uses, fighters as well (flying units, but jumping spiders are pretty useful as well, for example), while Shields never hurt - and don't forget polearms. And skirmishers. Ranged units are quite limited, Tome-wise. You basically pick Wind and that's it. I feel that I'm better off with Skirmishers, as it is, since you can go for a couple of them.

This is why I don't want to continue this discussion with you (and won't anymore). You play vs an easy to stomp AI.
These issues won't be apparent for role players nor will they be for people who play exclusively random stuff vs AI.

Only players who play in multiplayer or like to min/max in single player will see and understand the issue properly.
That's not an elitist or high horse take, that's the cold hard truth. You just aren't the audience for this discussion.

And sorry, "core issue"? Whoc are you to decide whether there is a core issue or not and WHAT issue is core or not. Get down fom your high horse, please.

I'd like to think that I, and the people I play with, have more authority than you do on this subject.
You do understand that accuracy decreases with range right? It does quite heavily so in fact.

Zephyr Shot range is a problem, but it deals almost no damage and therefore not a core issue right now.

They are not "fine", compared with others. There are not enough to pick from and only a very few are are worth it, like "Projctiles of Decay". What is missing is actual enhancements of the SUPPORT capability like range or healing increases or radius increases, and what is missing is defense bolstering against physical ranged. For example. The problem with Support units is that their enchantments will mostly work only on them and Battle Mages - as opposed to melee unit enchantments. So that is DEFINITELY an issue.

Staves of Warding, Staves of Mist, Staves of Mending, Mysterious Tonic, Tuning Kits. They even get True Death Magic.
Lack of Support units is a problem, yes. The enchantments are completely in line with the current game design.

Stop asking to rework them into crazy ideas... That means reworking all enchantments in the game as well.
This is too much to ask from the developers at this point in time. The scope of work required is far too large.

Skirmishers are TOO GOOD for what the units are actually supposed to be. A Skirmisher is supposed to LOSE against everything when it gets their full attention. Instead, what we have is Skirmishers that are massively strong - Lightbringer, Inquisitor, Mistling, Slither, all great to nuts. The GREMLIN WAS a pretty good example for a good Skirmisher unit, but everyone complained about them being underwhelming ...
They are SKIRMISHERS, for heaven's sake, not a combination of a fighter and a cannon.

Gremlins are the most horrible unit to exist, a spot they share with Lightbringer and Wind Rager.

Who are you to decide they should lose every fight by default? This is an incredibly bad take imo.
Skirmishers (T3) already lose to Shield and pretty much tie with the current Polearm and Shock units.
You can build for defense against physical attacks, which is the major bulk of their damage output.

Stormbringer is a problem, because of the damage type + 100% accuracy + 2-hex line + Wet in the same tome.

"Limit enchantments to three per class" is just a random demand. You could just as well demand "limit tome research to 10". "Balance individual units that outperform their peers" is a general goal to pursue, no matter what, so go figure.

3 is a specifically chosen number, for reasons outlined many times before.

 

[Nerdfish]

That's not an elitist or high horse take, that's the cold hard truth. You just aren't the audience for this discussion.

This is by definition of being elitist. the suspiciously specific denial doesn't help neither.

These issues won't be apparent for role players nor will they be for people who play exclusively random stuff vs AI.

If more people does this than playing MP it's more important than MP.

I'd like to think that I, and the people I play with, have more authority than you do on this subject.

My point exactly, 90% of the players who never touch MP has to pay for dev time spent on it.

3 is a specifically chosen number, for reasons outlined many times before.

Some people may find this restrictive.
There should still be some progression late in the game, rather than capping player power to three planned enchantments,
after which research may as well be converted to mana.
The game is all about freedom and that's why enchantment system exist.
If they wanted to limit player choice in some way devs would have implemented a system like that since they already have the code from PF.
It also make lower tier enchantment less relevant, and the lower tier enchantments are the ones with the class synergies.
If there is a limit to enchantments, there is even less point making a synergy build with Roots and Cryomancy for example.

The problem looks more like DLC units being OP gamechangers.
But I'd rather prefer them introduced that way so people have fun with them at least for one patch before they are nerfed to oblivion.

 

[Mammoet]

That means reworking all enchantments in the game as well.
This is too much to ask from the developers at this point in time. The scope of work required is far too large.

Luckily your idea requires hardly any change and will just work perfectly. I know this because you are the one true player, everyone else isn't really playing the game.

 

[Jolly Joker]

This is why I don't want to continue this discussion with you (and won't anymore). You play vs an easy to stomp AI.
These issues won't be apparent for role players nor will they be for people who play exclusively random stuff vs AI.

Only players who play in multiplayer or like to min/max in single player will see and understand the issue properly.
That's not an elitist or high horse take, that's the cold hard truth. You just aren't the audience for this discussion.

The cold hard truth is that you have no idea about the game as a whole, because you play it on just one setting. Plus, you play it against a more easily to stomp AI as me and other SP players, because with you the marauder stacks are easy or normal which means a lot more easy to defeat; you start with more stuff, and the only threat you have are the OTHER players.
In other words, you play without any outside necessities.

Staves of Warding, Staves of Mist, Staves of Mending, Mysterious Tonic, Tuning Kits. They even get True Death Magic.
Lack of Support units is a problem, yes. The enchantments are completely in line with the current game design.

Stop asking to rework them into crazy ideas... That means reworking all enchantments in the game as well.
This is too much to ask from the developers at this point in time. The scope of work required is far too large.

That's utter nonsense - it's notz "crazy ideas" it's common sense: The name SUPPORT unit implies that it's a unit to SUPPORT - it needs OTHER units to truly shine; otherwise it could be a BATTLE MAGE, which is basically a magical ranged troop. So the purpose of a support troop isn't to have a good magical attack (that's battle mage); the purpose of a support unit is, to give something TO THE REST OF THE STACK, PERMANENTLY; that cannot be too difficult to see.
That's not the case currently, and it doesn't need a rework. It just needs a weakening of the actual attack and a strenthening of the actions OTHERS profit from. The actually available stuff isn't good enough.
From what you are talking I don't think you are qualified to actually judge this correctly, though. You seem to be missing perspective here. Which is supported by:

Gremlins are the most horrible unit to exist, a spot they share with Lightbringer and Wind Rager.

Who are you to decide they should lose every fight by default? This is an incredibly bad take imo.
Skirmishers (T3) already lose to Shield and pretty much tie with the current Polearm and Shock units.
You can build for defense against physical attacks, which is the major bulk of their damage output.

Stormbringer is a problem, because of the damage type + 100% accuracy + 2-hex line + Wet in the same tome.

This shows that you are just talking from an extremely narrow point of view - how the AI handles autocombat (and as with AoW3 and Scoundrels the AI, for some reason, tries to purge Gremlins, can't handle Lightbringers and Wind Ragers, the latter because their special attack will put them in harm's way, when used carelessly like the AI is prone to do).
That doesn't mean, though, that the Gremlin hasn't been what a Skirmisher SHOULD be. See it this way: for every unit the AI picks in autocombat to purge the OTHERS look better, because the AI focusses on them; that doesn't make them bad units and saying so is just careless.

As with supports you seem to be clueless why these units should even exist. A skirmisher does two things: they disturb and harrass ordered enemy lines, they goad and provoke (and the Gremlin does that pretty well), and they flank and backstab. As with supports they are a unit that shouldn't be able to operate ALONE.

They ARE, though, and perfectly well AND, in the case of Slithers, extremely cheap and with a second and even third life.

That wouldn't be a problem if they were FIGHTER class units - but they are skirmishers. A LIGHT troop type.

3 is a specifically chosen number, for reasons outlined many times before.

It's just a number. Even IF enchantments WERE limited, which would be silly, it was still just a number. It might as well be 6 or 4 or 2 - or even a different number for each class.

 

[Codyksp]

There should still be some progression late in the game, rather than capping player power to three planned enchantments,
after which research may as well be converted to mana.

That doesn't make any sense. Research unlocks units. spells, siege projects and structures as well.
On top of the hero skills each tome contains and the SPIs that are available in most tomes.

The game is all about freedom and that's why enchantment system exist.
If they wanted to limit player choice in some way devs would have implemented a system like that since they already have the code from PF.

You might remember the "freedom vs constraints" part of the roadmap dev diary:

Dev Diary #20: Roadmap 2023

Hi there! After the release of the Dragon Dawn Content Pack and the associated Wyvern Update, it's time to look ahead. I'm Lennart Sas, game director of the Age of Wonders series. Today, we're sharing our Roadmap for 2023, highlighting the free...

forum.paradoxplaza.com

It would not be the first time a system was adjusted later on due to monotone strategies:

• Summons were limited to 3 turns in Wyvern
• Empire Tree affinity and imperium went up in Wyvern
• Research was slowed down massively in Watcher
• T3 tome affinity requirements were added in Watcher
• A spell slot system was added in Watcher
• Summons were restricted in Watcher
• Releasing cities was restricted in Watcher
• T3+ tome CP gain was reduced in Watcher
• Heroes have been restricted in Wolf

Luckily your idea requires hardly any change and will just work perfectly. I know this because you are the one true player, everyone else isn't really playing the game.

You can be as sarcastic as you want. Limiting the existing enchantments is less disruptive than reworking them entirely.
And reworking the current enchantments won't stop stacking unless you begin removing damage from all of them.

That will lead to an entirely new issue of units just slapping each other like wet noodles until one of them dies of boredom.

 

[Jolly Joker]

For Skirmisher, here is a comparison: The first two are Shield units from possible Rally of the liege hirings, which mirror available enchantments, that is, show how the unit would perform and what it would cost in upkeep. The third is a Slither, single unit (no hero support), also with available enchantments.

Compare the unit characteristics (including stuff like Slip Away and compare the performance characteristic with the upkeep. Note that the Range 4 poisoning spit attack of 32 of the Slither involves just two enchantments Legion of Zeal and Bloodfury Weapons that work for BOTH Skirmisher attacks (!), will add 20% to a follow-up melee attack, so against a poisoned opponent the melee attack is actually 26. The Exemplar costs double as much gold and 3 Imperium and the only thing going for it is a +5 defense. When you look at mono stacks.
However, if you look at additional abilities, the Exemplar actually passes for a support unit with Embolden allies, so adding ONE Exemplar to a stack of otherwise Slithers will make the Slithers another 20% more effective, with the Exemplar obviously a better pick than a support needing different enchantments.

We talk about SKIRMISHERS here. Cheap ones.

 

[Codyksp]

Unless someone posts something constructive after this, this will most likely be my last reaction.
Clicking disagree on every post by me or clicking agree on each other's posts all the time is rather childish.
At this point it's the same 2-3 people over and over, rather than the general public voicing their opinion.

Initially people contributed and reacted and it's clear enough from the first few pages what the consensus is.
Whether or not a few select people agree is irrelevant when deciding what direction the game should go in.
There is enough information in this thread for the developers to make up their own mind on what to do.


As for the above images and "Skirmishers OP" post. Your comparison is so inaccurate, where do I even begin?
Bastions will be using different tomes than a Slither, already changing your economy pace and enchantments.
Also, 246 research, 219 gold and 66 mana income on turn 47 is horrible and will make evolutions seem better.

At this point you should have unlocked a T4 tome and have easy access to T4/T5 units as well as more enchantments.
You should also have at least 4 cities by now, hired that 4th hero and have far higher hero levels than you probably do.

If you really want to convince someone, play against another human.

 

[Jolly Joker]

Oh the arrogance.

You should really stop seeing the game only through the glasses of your simple MP game setting that makes the game a sandbox, the only challenge being to optimize better than the other humans (don't get me wrong - it's fine to do so and you can play anyway you want; but you should be able to see that different settings necessitate different playing). Try optimizing the game when infestations from all over the map after the first couple of turns start to send troops to pillage your provinces, so you have to have a sizable army there to beat them, since pillaged provinces don't gain anything, and when you don't want to manual every fight you need something sizable, since the pillaging stacks will all too soon be 1000+ strong and involve Phase Beasts and Horned Gods and so on, while guarding Marauder stacks (for example, on magic materials), may surprise you with a Balor when you arrive after turn 20 or so.
OF COURSE the income plus is low. You know how many troops I have running around? 6 full stacks. And autocombat has cost me my starting T1s except a Darter and 3 or 4 Hatchlings as well. About half of those troops are Slithers (T3) with the mentioned 15/8 upkeep, while about a dozen are still Hatchlings which cost even more mana upkeep since they have one more enchantment, 11. So mana income is actually around 300 higher.

With these settings you need TROOPS and at EVERY stage - and good ones as well and ASAP. In other words, you build a unit on turn 1. And when you pick tomes you have to make sure you will gain something for your strength to increase.

Bottom line is, you don't get to turn 40 and Tome Level 4 witthout actually having a couple thousand strength points army worth before that, which means you cannot rely on a few units and your heroes to do the work.

Which brings us to higher hero levels - you need XP to gain them. I suppose that to develop heroes to high levels in your MP games settings you will let them deal with everything, together, farming all the XP, because otherwise, with everything on normal/easy there isn't much XP to grab, is there? Also - with AI players and Free Cities, there isn't that much SPACE where to expand to that isn't already taken by someone. You know - full map and all that stuff. And on brutal AI difficulty you can't just attack and conquer them either - they have pretty heavy stuff, too. And even IF there IS a fitting space to get another city founded - you have to be able to defend them all, otherwise they won't flourish.

Lastly, I play a Champion. You know, because of the challenge. Dragon would be obviously better, but I have a weak spot for champions of the people, you know.