Where, at all, has it been said that they're supposed to be combat units?  Again, it's only your own bias and personal taste that is creating this assumption.  Those like me who've been around since the Beta have been trained on the idea that there are Champs, and Sovereigns who are never meant to be combat units, barring only the most dire of circumstances.

"I won't argue this with you, because it gets into semantics more than anything else. However, I do think you're underestimating the complexity from the player's end and the time from the developer's end."

No, I'm not.  I gave you my mindset for this comparison.  Stacked against everything else in the game, or to be put into the game, this one mechanic would be super-easy by comparison.  Would it, comparisons aside, be difficult?  Still, probably not.  Time Consuming?  Quite possibly.  But the only problems that arise from this type of a mechanic, are not bugs, but balance, and balance, in a game where every turn counts, is much easier than in a game that's flashing by like Starcraft.  You can tally everything at every turn and start getting an idea of what tweaks need to be made after only one turn.  A hundred or so more, and you have a good basis for any tweaks you make, and while not perfect, they'd be far more accurate than tweaking things in a game like Starcraft.  Also, being that I'm going to school to learn to make games, I have a better idea than many what level of difficulty and complexity goes into making any single mechanic, at the least.  If you check my other posts in the forums, you'll notice that when I pitch any idea, I'll state upfront if I think it's actually not a usable idea, based on complexity and ease of implementation.  And there is no reason to debate it, because it is semantics, from a debate or a design standpoint.  It's trivial, no matter how you look at it, but even more-so compared to the other features of the game.

"There might be some that are useful at low levels or if you are god-awfully rich. Although I don't agree that they are necessary, the "necessary" part for them is a flaw in game design, which can better be fixed by tweaking numbers elsewhere than requiring randomly spawning champions of a specific type to show up."

While it may be a flaw in game design, at present, that does not bar the idea of them being necessary.  It only reinforces it.  If a flaw in the games design can be counter-acted by having a certain type of unit that you can purchase, while it doesn't make the flaw excusable, it does make it bearable, and at present, that's what we have is a game that's just bearable.  Removing Champions, of any kind, is only a step backwards in this regard, and at present, the very idea of removing them is ill-advised and just plain bad.

"What RPG world has only farmers, merchants, politicians, etc etc as the only adventurering champions? Very few. They may belong in the game, but they can short term be abstracted down (you don't need to see them to know they are there), and long term they should not be wandering adventurers. Right now the world IS half-assed. Removing them makes it better."

Okay, this is just totally dead wrong.  MOST games have Farmers, Merchants, Etc., as the 'only' adventuring Champions.  Born and bred Fighter Heroes, in any game, are farther and fewer between than your 'Humble Beginnings Hero,' who almost invariably start as a farmer of some kind.  Neverwinter Nights 2, to name one big title where this concept holds true.  Furthermore, what the hell is a Farmer supposed to do in a wasteland other than wander around and hope he finds a field to till?  It makes perfect sense, in a world with nothing in it, totally decimated and barren for 100 years, that some, if not many people, would wander about hoping to make their way somehow, or find a better life.  That's the concept that's being abstracted in the Champions seemingly mindless wanderings.

"They don't work because the only champions often end up being people who are supposed to sit in town! That's what started this discussion to begin with. Other things can give you bonuses without having game mechanics that DIRECTLY conflict with each other. And yes, caravans don't work either, since they have a very obscure purpose (the magical creation of food). I don't mind non-combat stuff. I DO mind bad game design."

Now you're just blatantly ignoring the point, which only serves to reinforce the idea that your standpoint is biased.  As I said before, mechanically, and conceptually they do work, and it's the implementation that's been borked.  And again, Caravans fit just fine as well, and are a necessary part of an Empire-Building, 4x TBS.

"It's not about bias or personal taste. It's about the role that non-combat champions (who are often the only option to be combat champions) are fuddled and broken. You might think they need to be polished up. I think they need to be replaced with a mechanic that fits better. I also believe that in the short term the game will be cleaner with only combat champions. I think maybe you read a little more opposition than was actually there."

They shouldn't be an option for Combat Champions, for starters, and that is the point.  True-blue Adventurers, people that have survived for possibly decades on nothing more than sweat and steel in an unforgiving wasteland should be extremely hard to come by.  And in my experience, they just aren't.  I'm used to essentially starting the game by hiring the first Farmer I find, which is far more rare than an Adventurer Champion, someone to be my spouse, and two combat Champions to adventure with my Sovereign.  I almost never have to sacrifice the last part due to scarcity, only money.  The mechanic, conceptually, fits just fine, and if you only want mechanics that fit, then Elemental, in its present state, is not your game, as currently, nothing fits the way it should because of the poor implementation of absolutely every feature in the game.  By your Logic, the game should just be scrapped and re-released in a finished state, with everything working and flowing together perfectly.  While I tend to agree about the releasing finished games part, that's not what we've got.  And as a consequence of that, we have a lot of say in how the game is shaped.  You're using your say poorly, to fit your personal taste and bias, rather than doing what you should; Being curious, wondering, from an unbiased standpoint, if something is going to work, and doing what any good Pseudo-Developer should do to come to an answer to that question, playing the game, and the mechanic, in each iteration, to see if it does work, and only making a call for removal when the writing is on the wall.

Of everything that's been changed/added to the game, Champions are one area that have gotten absolutely no love, and for all intents and purposes, we're still in our first iteration of the mechanic.  While I'm sure this is frustrating, it doesn't justify the removal of the mechanic, and only reinforces the idea that the mechanic needs to start getting some tweaks and become more robust.  A mechanic like this, non-combat and combat-based Champions, given some polish and implemented properly, can only, only, only add to the game.  And instead we're forced to sit through people complaining about how and why the mechanic should be removed, stubborn people, who can't, when it's laid out before them in a clear fashion, realize their own bias and refuse to make the choice of coming back to it with a clear head, no bias, and only design in mind.  If you came at this problem from this standpoint in the first place, we wouldn't be having this debate, as the only logical conclusion that standpoint brings to the table is, "Wait and see."  That's what I'm advocating, is that you wait, and see.

Okay...  There are just soooo many things wrong with this...  Whole post, really.

I'm not trying to vilify you, only implying you're impatient, and unwilling to see that the concept is not flawed.  Let's go back to the point made by myself and another poster, where Administration-type units, no matter how you cut it, are important to a 4x Wargame.  Being able to just build these units?  It doesn't fit.  It would be unbalancing in favor of anyone who started near a(the) resource(s) necessary to build these units, giving them an advantage in the first 10 turns that would never end.  Therefore, how it's currently implemented is the only way, and while the implementation is poor, conceptually, the design plays.  I'm sorry if I'm pissing you off, but you are being biased, where as the only thing I'm doing is calling you out on said bias, and am willing to see the concept through to its final iterations, even if that means its removal as a game mechanic.  You, are not.

You're assuming I spent a lot of time in Beta.  While I was in the Beta for an extended period, starting in Phase 2, I did not play every single build more than once.  Okay, that's not entirely true, but back then, with how bare-bones it was, the writing was on the wall in regards to what needed work, and I was generally not the first person to see this, making me posting anything other than a few Bug Reports and DxDiags moot.

I'm not making assumptions.  I not even reading anything extra into your posts.  I'm taking them, at their face value, and giving as much evidence as I happen to have on hand to destabilize every point you've made, and in the process, you've also destabilized your own points.  Paraphrasing here, "Caravans should be scrapped," was something you said, yet any 4x Strategy game without some sort of trade system in place ceases to be a 4x Strategy Game.  You're biased towards the entire idea of non-combat as a whole, at least on some level, and that is an assumption.  Civilians are what make War possible.  Without them, War doesn't fit in the first place, which would be counter-intuitive to the very concept of the game itself.  Just read the sub-title of the game.

Unintuitive does not necessarily mean broken, nor conceptually bad.  It means there's a learning curve, at minimum.  Mentioning this does nothing to make your point.  EVE Online and GalCiv 2 both have systems like this, systems that aren't entirely intuitive without taking the time to learn them, and in some cases, just plain overwhelming until grasped in more of their entirety.

I don't care if you acknowledge that the game can be harmed by removing things.  For that matter, I want nothing from you.  Now who's vilifying who?  All I want is, 1, to have an open, civil debate about the views being expressed here, which includes, at least from someone who is very, very good at debating, pointing out the fallacies of any given argument, and 2, to express my view that I think your whole opinion is created on nothing but bias and personal taste, and would, in fact, hurt the game far more than help it.

Going to ignore your next point for a moment here and address your final one instead...  I am stubborn, how else do you think I'm so capable of knowing it when I see it?  Pack-Instincts and all.  But despite my stubbornness, I've learned a very extreme level of patience, patience to the point where I can wait literally years to get my hands on something I want without ever wishing there was a faster way.  Patience enough to deal with people who, unlike you, are both stubborn and complete assholes, on a day to day basis without snapping.  I have enough sense of mind to know when I'm being stubborn as well, and enough altruism to admit when I'm being biased.  The only thing I'm being biased towards here, is the potential for a good game, hopefully a great game, with equally good mechanics.

Backtracking now...  Removing them is a bad idea.  It's a 4x TBS Game, meaning that if there are no feasible ways for you to accrue a significant advantage in any one area, you're removing the strategy portion from the game.  Since, at present, Empires and Kingdoms are all pretty much equal, this is, again at present, the only mechanic in place right now that allows you to accrue said advantages, however slight they might be.  Thus, it's a step in the wrong direction.  You can make the argument that all you have to do is focus on any single tech tree, but this argument is moot for several reasons.  A well balanced Realm, possibly with some slight specialization, will always do better than a highly specialized realm, on account of being able to produce more of any given number of resources that the specialized Realm either can't access, or has access to but only accrues at the minimum rate.  Administration-type units like these give you more leverage in these situations allowing you to cut more corners and specialize and extra step or two to gain a quick advantage in an area, and put it to its best use.

In short...  I've officially lost interest in this debate.  Your Ad Hominem attacks on my character, intentions, and motivations no longer sates my appetite for a good, honest debate.  Furthermore, I believe, at this point, regardless of anything you may post, that I've made my point, that point being, this isn't my personal opinion, this isn't personal taste, this isn't borne out of any bias.  This is what I have observed and the conclusions I have come to based on those observations, and while they may be somewhat flawed, they are still, in their majority, sound points, and it's my firm belief that, while many may not agree with my general point of view on the matter, many will agree with the points I've made on this rather broad and generalized subject.  My point being, whether or not it's the correct stance to take, I know that you are incorrect in advocating the removal of this mechanic while it's still in its infancy, and while it still has so much potential to be tapped.  Again, whether or not it's correct, I know that what you're saying is just plain false.  What you '...would do right away,' is no excuse for not thinking it through, and rather than just remove what you feel is a cookie-cutter mechanic, consider the pros and cons of each and every aspect of the game.  Decide, without bias or personal taste involved, with a design and business standpoint in mind, what would best benefit the game at present.  If you've not the stomach for this, I cannot blame you.  I'm contemplative, a ponderer, I spend more of my time day-dreaming about things than doing whatever it is I should be doing, I'm literally built for this kind of work.  Not everyone is, and that's completely fair...  But abusing any ability to sway opinions of either Devs, or Players, who at present actually have a pretty big say in the design process, is ill-advised, as you'll get people like me who don't mind if everyone else on a forum sees them as assholes for hounding someone over something (Paraphrasing,) 'Non-trivial.'

As I've officially reached my allotment of Ad Hominen attacks, bias, and stubbornness for the month in just those last few lines, I'll turn the floor back over to the people who are going to continue to post in this thread.

Come on, kids. Get along.

I know this is not really exactly on topic with conversation on hand, but in case anyone from the dev team is reading this,  I just wanted to thank you all for putting the effort in to fixing this game.  It would have been easy just to let this game fall by the wayside and move on to another project, which could be released with better press and therefore sales.  The fact that you all are loyal to this product means a lot.  I admit that I haven't bought the game yet (being a poor college student and such), because of the effort you guys are putting into this, I am confident that it will end up a darn good game.  It is definitely going on my wish list.

I am finding this generally to be true with the exception of this "resist" factor. What is that exactly?(a bug hopefully?)and how are low level units resisting damage from spells, catapults, archers, cutting weapons, and dragon fire?(this is late in the game and I'm loaded with 1000+ power rating btw) I get maybe resistance to one--but all? I have found that blunt weapons work but after wiping out drakes, trolls, and shrills etc-- getting hung up on honor guards was an unpleasant surprise.