I understand wanted to limit the number of units in a stack so you don't end up with the Civilizations style stack of Doom. But as a result you end up the Epic undefeatable mini stack of Doom like MoM had.

It's funny the OP should mention MoM because the stack limit was one of the things I didn't really like about MoM and was hoping they would fix in a sequal. As I just assumed they did it because of some technical limitation.

The reason I didn't like the limited stack size in MoM is because once you get a stack 9 uber units they could pretty much win every fight. For example I recall using the cheap tactic of Regen on the stack so in the off chance one should die in tactical combat it would come back with full health. But cheap tactics aside the inability to bring a lot of low-medium powered units against a stack of uber powered units was frustrating.

So the end result in MoM was a bit like Civ where whoever has the more powerful stack win. Except in MoM it was more limited because you couldn't use superior numbers to overwhelm them as you chip away at their stack.

I'm inclined to have some sort of logistical system which limits the number of UNITS (not people) in an army.

So level 1 would allow 4 units (a unit could be 50 guys still).

Level 2 would be 6 units

Level 3 would be 8 units

Level 4 would be 10 units

and then you'd have refined logistics which would add +1 every time.

This way, players who want to go the single big army route have to make some trade offs to do that.

a suggestion for slowing the logistics leveling could be for each logistics level increase you need additional food for the troops which would guide the increase in garden/food productivity in the civic tree OR have a couple of food production cities.

harpo

I agree. If food remains the same, without apiaries or farm land you would have a tiny army.

- Othello

Since troops come from population, which costs food, in that sense troops already cost food.

Regarding logistics, however it's done, how's about adding a 'logistics' skill possibility for champions, allowing 1 (or very rarely 2 for an exceptional champ) extra unit for armies led by that champion?

Another way to limit unit number is supply -- the ability to support the army in enemy territory (supply can be assumed in friendly territory).

If by 'logistics' Frogboy includes supply, then nm.  if not, then the difference between logistics and supply would be that the former is the theoretical maximum number of units (the number of units that could be supported), and the latter is the implementation (the number actually supported after taking into account enemy actions, weather, etc.) -- ie supply can be cut by the enemy, where logistics is unaffected.

Supplying an increasing number of units should take increasing skill (tech or however).

Units out of supply would lose combat effectiveness (attack/defense ratings, morale, etc.).

This would enable a 'forage' skill for champions that would lessen or remove the effects of being out of supply.

Problem with this suggestion is that there appears to be no game mechanism to trace/cut supply lines.  The usual method in strategy games is being able to trace an unbroken line of hexes back to a 'supply center' (in Elemental's case a city or fort or the like).  Roads would not be necessary (tho could augment the number of units supplied if desired).

That sounds pretty freaking Awesome if you ask me!!! This people who want their "Stacks of Doom" can have them, but, they have to Work for them and make sacrifices in other areas.

On a Side Note, please Don't hard code the limits on numbers of how many Units and People the game can have and have displayed at one time. Some of the more Hard Core types might want to up them later down the road

so whats combat going to be like in the strategic mode.

Is it like MoM. 1 tile creature runs into another and zooms in into a 9vs9 or something.

Still dont know how company and squad things will be like.

Interesting idea, but it falls into the same throes as MoM.  It looks like Elemental will have very linear warfare goals like MoM.  For instance, "kill the sovereign" or "kill the capital" appear to both be what will end wars quickly.  So what will we have?  We will have one stack with all of our super units and a bunch of other stacks with weaker units clustering around that super unit stack like chicklets around a mother hen.  They will move, in a big blobby mass, toward the enemy sovereign or capital at which point, we will play out a dozen or so tedious battles.  Yay.

Emphasis on a big stack will shift toward an emphasis on a stack with super units.  In essence, you trivialize armies that integrate weak and strong units.  So I propose an amendment to the idea.  Instead of a hard cap based on logistics, institute penalties if you go over the cap.  For instance, let's say the cap is 500 units at some point in the game.  If you stay within that cap there is a small green bar next to your army that represents that all is well.  Now, if you go over that cap by say, 100 units, the bar is light green.  This represents that your soldiers are taking a small movement and moral penalty.  

Now, if you more than double your logistics cap again, you end up with a yellow bar.  More penalties.  More than triple the cap?  Orange.  You get the picture.  The more you exceed the cap, the more penalties that army suffers.  So sure, the player will have to choose between whether they want one super dooper stack that has a nasty red penalty or lither armies without any penalties with which they can strike multiple strategic targets.  Ultimately, though, there will be a point where the player will say, "you know what, it's just not worth stacking penalties in this stack anymore."  And this is what you could call the "soft cap" on stacks.

This way, you can still rely on numbers rather than only elites.  And what's more, it opens up some strategic venues.  You might decide to rely on multiple green stacks to strike strategic targets.  You might rely on one super stack of elites to keep your army "green barred."  Or you might forget logistics completely and stack zounds of peasants into an army who have to march through their own filth.

What is up with the concerns for CIV IV like "stacks of doom?"  This is not something I see as something to really worry about.  First, your troops cost money.  The more troops you have the more money they cost, and the better those troops are skill wise the more money they should cost.  So there is a natural economic limit on whatever size your army is. 

Now, for combining all of your troops in one stack.  The way the economic and city development model appears to be going you can go one of two ways with city building.  First, you can build a moderate number of medium sized cities, each of which is centered on resource.  Or second, you can build a couple big cities supported by a large number of smaller "resource" settlements feeding them.  Either way you will have multiple locations to protect and go after.  Throw in significant advantages to the defender during sieges (and you need to make a siege of a well defended city a somewhat time consuming process... underprepared assaults should be pretty costly), and now you have your response to a stack of doom without hard limits and without magic.  You throw your stack of doom at one of my fairly numerous medium sized cities?  I have my armies split into several components and go around razing your resource gathering operations that are feeding your big cities.  You go after one of my big cities with a stack of doom? In the time it takes for you to seize my well developed big city I take two of your medium sized ones... either that, or you ruin your army in a costly frontal assault.

This is why fortifications were developed to the point they were, and why military uses for gunpowder were so revolutionary.  You had those real life stacks of doom wandering around.  However, having a heavily fortified empire meant that they weren't able to make those numbers felt.  They key is to not to even things out for field battles.  If you have a significantly larger and equally equipped army, I shouldn't be able to beat you in a field battle.  Same thing if we have numarical parity, but you happened to concentrate yours.  This is why we have walls.  It gives us time to react, to consolidate our forces or to take effective action while you are tied up on our fortifications.  If done right, anything magical done to a large army should be a bonus reason for not concentrating, and actual concerns about what is being done to the rest of your empire while that large army is tied up in one place should be the motivating factor.

Larry, the numbers are completely and utterly abritrary.  Whether it's 100, 500, or 10,000 is irrelevant to the mechanism I'm proposing.  Look past the hypothetical examples and toward the concept, please.

And you are missing the point about elite units and small stacks.  The original problem is that we end up with people putting all of their eggs in one basket because it is the best strategy. 

Now, without stack limits, players are often driven to putting all of their units in one stack.  With stack limits, people always put their best units in one stack.  So in other words, stack limits dodge one problem but make a second, worse problem.  In both cases, you still have players driven to making "mega stacks" rather than dividing their units into multiple armies to achieve multi-phased objectives.

Make sense?

Hardcode limits are rarely arbitrary. They're usually rather purposeful to make sure the engine is stable. There's a lot of competition in a game for system resources, and they do have to find a fine line where they say "Okay, we can't really have any more of this or other stuff starts breaking badly". Sure it may not be a big deal with native 64 bit, but with 32 bit where every megabyte of the 2gb addressing limit matters (see Sins), you gotta put some limitations to make sure your engine stays stable (meaning, doesn't start crashing left and right due to being out of memory and other fun goodies).

You can't have a completely hardcode-free game with any guarantee of a decent performance. Sure they can make their campaign perform well because they know the engine, but I'm sure they wouldn't be excited about their support getting bogged down from people who decided to make one unit actually have a million soldiers and then tried to start a battle with 30 units and their computer went "lol you gotta be kidding me".

Honestly, if Tactical Battles are done well ... it won't always be "who has the most soldiers" ... instead who has the best tactics/ etc

also, a dense army (units with large numbers) are probably more suceptible to AOE spells than an army of a Dragon and a few trolls (or heroes).

       -like a lot more, but not to the point of 'insta-kill" merely that the AOE can hit a lot more and do a lot more damage than vs single targets

That's a pretty good idea. In that case I would say add a whole new "Skill" or "Stat" (which is actually very easy to add and not time consuming at all from a coding perspective) . Call this new Skill/Stat "Leadership" or "Command". The higher the Skill/Stat the more "Units" the Champion can command. This skill could be boosted in multiple ways as well. Through earning "Experience" and leveling-up and spending points in it, or perhaps by "Magical" means as well.

Perhaps when a Sov "Imbues" a Champion they should gain a Small yet Basic boost to All their stats/skills and be given the "Leadership" ability if they don't already have it. Then as they level up through normal play you can put the points where you want, like into Str or Dex or "Leadership/Command" . This way you can "Specialize" your Champions for more specific uses. One Champion may be a Powerful Sorcerer yet have no Str or Dex. With a high Int or Wis a Champion like this could stay behind the mass of units and cast spells (in real life usually the Commander or General stays behind the front lines of a fight) . Rarely we get Commanders/Generals/Leaders who get down into the thick of the battle With their soldiers, like "Alexander the Great" or "King Richard the Lion Heart" . In game those would be the same as the "Adventurer" or "Warrior" Champions.

Note: I'd also Love to see the option for us to be able to Re-Name our Champions once we acquire them as for a lot of players being able to name our Champions what we want makes us more attached to them.