The "Mono Stacking" Problem

[Graavarg]

For I while now I have felt that competitive multiplayer is the worst thing that could have happened to AoW4. No other thing or mechanic have had such a limiting and debilitating effect on the game as the continuous need to "balance online multiplier".

From a solo role-playing viewpoint it is the most negative thing about the game, especially now that the content has started to swell to a point where it really can be considered "diverse".

Looking forward I cannot see any other factor getting even close (to online multiplayer balancing) as a limiting factor, and the limits such balancing puts on the games will just become more and more severe the more content there is.

The only way around this, without removing competitive multiplayer altogether (which at this point would be fine by me) is to free the game from the shackles of balancing by introducing online "rulesets". In other words, playing AoW4 online against other players would apply rules (that do not exist in the core game), and online gameplay would be balanced by tweaking these rules, NOT by tweaking and limiting the whole game.

If someone wants to monostack or herostack or whatever in their solo game, that is simply "roleplaying". If it gives them some advantage against the AI, who cares (it is "roleplaying"). The same which each and every other trick in the book, and any new trick we can come up with. And the same when playing co-op, if two or three gamers want to fight together against "the hordes" each with their own "herostack", who cares. If they are having fun it's all positive. It simply doesn't matter as long as it is fun.

Everyone with some sort of brain understands that the same approach cannot work in online competitive. But the solution should NOT be strangle the whole game, but to balance the multiplayer. Using rules that DO NOT impact solo role-playing. Because in solo role-playing diversity is king, and so is becoming all powerful, neither concept of which is functionally applicable in competitive online matches.

I understand that playing online against other humans is a must, and even the most fun you can have, for some. But there are times when I longingly think back to older times, when it was only you and the game. No cheats, no help, no youtubers spelling any meta's out for you, and once upon a time not even any internet at all. The focus then was all on the "single player experience", and I'll be damned if not more than a few games were better because of it. Now, AoW4 clearly beats MoM, just to get that out of the way. But it sure would be a shame if "multiplayer balancing" would act as the anchor keeping AoW4 from the greatness it otherwise can achieve.

I would not mind paying for a few more seasons, in fact I would happily do so, even in advance. But not if AoW4 goes the typical way of games with online matchups, with an insane focus on meta, on "more power" and with large part of the existing content falling off and becoming irrelevant. I don't believe this will happen, and I trust both Triumph and in the Paradox "game philosophy". But whenever online meta raises it ugly head in the forum I get a bit distraught....

 

[GloatingSwine]

I don't find the argument-from-roleplay terribly convincing. There are two reasons.

One is that unless your specific goal is to roleplay a degenerate sweatlord optimising to the tech and unit meta (like an isekai protagonist or something) you go into a roleplay-forward playthrough accepting that what you're doing might be unoptimised or even quite bad anyway so which specific things fall into that bucket don't affect your choices.

The second is that a more overall balanced game environment will mean more of those roleplay builds feel viable and interesting to play so you actually win from a better balanced system (unless, again, your only roleplay goal is "Strategy game Kirito").

 

[Kitschy]

• Just remove the Mythic T4 units at this point, they aren't working. We can all see it.
  • This will only cause more problems down the line regarding mono stacking.
  • Give them a class. Phoenix was Shock, Living Fog was Fighter.

Hold on, isn't Fog, Judge, Mistress and I think you even said Ironclad considered quite strong?
So this leaves basically only Phoenix, Mimic, Bone Dragon and 3 Giants, all of those have problems that aren't really Mythic type specific but individual. Phoenix wasn't spectacular before it became a Mythic and it isn't great as one too, same goes for the others.

(Banes I think are banned in MP)

The reason you care about low tier units being relevant is the lack of units. Your culture units are always going to be there, and taking tomes out of theme just to grab units is annoying and unfun. It is just bad for RP to be forced to take tomes of Subjugation or Destruction just to have a front line, so you want to pour all the enhancements you can into your honor blade or barbarian or primal warrior. This is even worse when there is one mounted front line unit in tomes. So now if I am no going order and want a fast front line unit it's phase beast, or my culture units, which need every bit of help they can get

Nah, low tier viability is important 'cause it give players more ways to achieve their strategic objectives. Vertical tier progression is a hamster wheel race to the highest stat stick and inherently makes everything else that comes before it obsolete.

So it is better to flesh out or fix counter/enchantment problem instead of going in to 3D printing mod for every T4 type. If counter/enchantment problem is fixed low number of different T4 types is less of a problem (if a problem at all that is) 'cause other things become viable. It is also less of a strain on their art department. Plus besides look at how culture unit roster is designed from T1 to T3, it is the whole army and other things are supplementary.

 

[Cry_Havok]

I don't find the argument-from-roleplay terribly convincing. There are two reasons.

One is that unless your specific goal is to roleplay a degenerate sweatlord optimising to the tech and unit meta (like an isekai protagonist or something) you go into a roleplay-forward playthrough accepting that what you're doing might be unoptimised or even quite bad anyway so which specific things fall into that bucket don't affect your choices.

The second is that a more overall balanced game environment will mean more of those roleplay builds feel viable and interesting to play so you actually win from a better balanced system (unless, again, your only roleplay goal is "Strategy game Kirito").

It's a balance approach however. You can either balance for hyper optimized play, or you balance for RP. If you balance for RP then people can break balance by choosing hyper optimized tomes and units, but people playing for an RP or theme can still win a game at least on default settings. You have to choose one or the other.

Unlimited enchantments means you can win on a backbone of culture units, and can make sub optimal RP choices like not taking any of the T4 units because none of them fit your vibe or preffered tactics. It also means playing optimally can trivialize the game

Now let's swap to a capped enhancements and transformations model. 1: Certain "intended" paths (because I remember when folk whined about excessively diverse affinities) stop working (because mono nature and mono chaos have more transformations than the balance folk want, and mono order and mono materium have too many enchantments). 2: Those RP choices stop being viable because you can't drag your culture units across the finish line. 3: You have to make the transition to endgame tier units because the handful of T4s just win with capped enchantments. 4: The game is balanced more in favor of T4 spam because at most you have two-three endgame visible units, but at least they don't walk over the opposition.

 

[seperamos]

Theres also an argument that can be made where certain tome paths can buff low tier units with additional enchantments, where the upkeep becomes excessive mana while saving on gold that could have gone to elite units. Some cultures and tome paths may want to focus on units under t3.

Counter can still be possible in such a system, but require a battle of enchant stacking and HOW they enchant stack against each other, which could lead to more complex strategies instead of simply relying on a basic counter system.

But a basic counter system must be completed, and it must go by the tier system. Certain Enchants and transformations should allow units to punch up a tier or 2.

 

[GloatingSwine]

Unlimited enchantments means you can win on a backbone of culture units, and can make sub optimal RP choices like not taking any of the T4 units because none of them fit your vibe or preffered tactics. It also means playing optimally can trivialize the game

T4 culture units would also mean you could win on a backbone of culture units A narrower power curve from T1 to T4 with T5 being designed as one-off centrepieces not general combat monsters would make more of the existing T1-T3 units including culture ones more viable as well if they fill a desired role because they wouldn't just have too weak a platform to help even with enchantments.

Unlimited enchantments is actually more of a problem for lower tier units because they come into ORKO range for the higher tier ones more easily.

Remember that the balance being asked for is actually "make it so that one narrow set of choices doesn't beat all the others all the time", and "get as many different damage flavours as possible on a tech rush to T4" encompasses all the choices you really viably get to make.

Theres also an argument that can be made where certain tome paths can buff low tier units with additional enchantments, where the upkeep becomes excessive mana while saving on gold that could have hone to elite units. Some cultures and tome paths may want to focus on units under t3.

They can't really though. The only ones that favour low tier units are Mighty Meek and Fury of the Horde and they're exclusive to T1 and don't solve the problem of being a squishy platform for a combat unit. There aren't enchantments that let a <T3 stack perform as well as a T4 stack, especially not the very good T4s that come with inherent splash and lots of base magic damage.

 

[GloatingSwine]

So it is better to flesh out or fix counter/enchantment problem instead of going in to 3D printing mod for every T4 type. If counter/enchantment problem is fixed low number of different T4 types is less of a problem (if a problem at all that is) 'cause other things become viable. It is also less of a strain on their art department. Plus besides look at how culture unit roster is designed from T1 to T3, it is the whole army and other things are supplementary.

The way to actually do cultural T4s is to promote and replace the T3, because the T3s are kinda designed as an apex expression of that culture already so it would be thematically strongest to keep them as the final form.

 

[Turing37]

For I while now I have felt that competitive multiplayer is the worst thing that could have happened to AoW4. No other thing or mechanic have had such a limiting and debilitating effect on the game as the continuous need to "balance online multiplier".

From a solo role-playing viewpoint it is the most negative thing about the game, especially now that the content has started to swell to a point where it really can be considered "diverse".

Looking forward I cannot see any other factor getting even close (to online multiplayer balancing) as a limiting factor, and the limits such balancing puts on the games will just become more and more severe the more content there is.

The only way around this, without removing competitive multiplayer altogether (which at this point would be fine by me) is to free the game from the shackles of balancing by introducing online "rulesets". In other words, playing AoW4 online against other players would apply rules (that do not exist in the core game), and online gameplay would be balanced by tweaking these rules, NOT by tweaking and limiting the whole game.

If someone wants to monostack or herostack or whatever in their solo game, that is simply "roleplaying". If it gives them some advantage against the AI, who cares (it is "roleplaying"). The same which each and every other trick in the book, and any new trick we can come up with. And the same when playing co-op, if two or three gamers want to fight together against "the hordes" each with their own "herostack", who cares. If they are having fun it's all positive. It simply doesn't matter as long as it is fun.

Everyone with some sort of brain understands that the same approach cannot work in online competitive. But the solution should NOT be strangle the whole game, but to balance the multiplayer. Using rules that DO NOT impact solo role-playing. Because in solo role-playing diversity is king, and so is becoming all powerful, neither concept of which is functionally applicable in competitive online matches.

I understand that playing online against other humans is a must, and even the most fun you can have, for some. But there are times when I longingly think back to older times, when it was only you and the game. No cheats, no help, no youtubers spelling any meta's out for you, and once upon a time not even any internet at all. The focus then was all on the "single player experience", and I'll be damned if not more than a few games were better because of it. Now, AoW4 clearly beats MoM, just to get that out of the way. But it sure would be a shame if "multiplayer balancing" would act as the anchor keeping AoW4 from the greatness it otherwise can achieve.

I would not mind paying for a few more seasons, in fact I would happily do so, even in advance. But not if AoW4 goes the typical way of games with online matchups, with an insane focus on meta, on "more power" and with large part of the existing content falling off and becoming irrelevant. I don't believe this will happen, and I trust both Triumph and in the Paradox "game philosophy". But whenever online meta raises it ugly head in the forum I get a bit distraught....

This a thousand times.

You have articulated my biggest gripe with the game, something that i really observed starting in AOW3 and has now accelerated in transforming the game from a fantasy game where you can get immersed in cools worlds to a dry, spreadsheet-loving, experience, obsessed with competitive multiplayer "balance". Every time a game series goes that way, losing the core experience that made the franchise so beloved and popular in the first place, I am deeply saddened that another jewel becomes just one more PvP grind, barely distinguishable from the horde of similar games.

 

[Cry_Havok]

T4 culture units would also mean you could win on a backbone of culture units A narrower power curve from T1 to T4 with T5 being designed as one-off centrepieces not general combat monsters would make more of the existing T1-T3 units including culture ones more viable as well if they fill a desired role because they wouldn't just have too weak a platform to help even with enchantments.

I actually agree with this, a vastly increased unit roster and total unit rework could definitely fix the issue as well. But "triple the number of units" is key, and enchantment limits would have to be part of a larger rework. Enchant limits on their own would be a mistake. At minimum every culture should have: at least one mounted and non-mounted T3+ front line unit, support should all be optional cavalry, and T4 should be a flashy mounted gadget unit, and a reply for the main T1 combat unit. There also needs to be a unit for every T3 and T4 tome before we start tweaking enchantments.

 

[GloatingSwine]

For cultures as I said I thnk the thing to do is to promote the T3 to T4 because they kinda best represent what the culture is and fill in maybe even with 2x T3 where one is a combat unit and another is a support/crowd control/debuff oriented unit.

 

[Codyksp]

Hold on, isn't Fog, Judge, Mistress and I think you even said Ironclad considered quite strong?
So this leaves basically only Phoenix, Mimic, Bone Dragon and 3 Giants, all of those have problems that aren't really Mythic type specific but individual. Phoenix wasn't spectacular before it became a Mythic and it isn't great as one too, same goes for the others.

(Banes I think are banned in MP)

Mage Banes aren't banned because they were changed to +25% CP rather than the insane 100%.
Fogs are never played, we all agree that they are even worse as a Mythic unit than as a Fighter.
Judges arrive very late, they're just a bit of a meme. They aren't bad but cannot compete with T5.
Mistress is only "OP" in vanilla because Insanity was changed to be completely unfair now.

Phoenix was better as Shock... Mimic is also a bit of a meme but could be played (it's boring though).
Bone Dragon is entirely fine if you could actually obtain them more reliably (as I did for the mod).
The Giants are both weak and hard to obtain. I very much assume Giant Kings will tackle those units.

Regardless, T4 Mythic units are stackable just like the T5s. This is problematic if we make changes.
I see no reason why they can't all just have a class and receive some nerfs to off-set this change.

 

[seperamos]

We can appease the multiplayer and single player crowds with multiple viable tome paths or builds, and units designed for different playstyles. Role playing typically falls within most common fantasy archetypes, and there only needs to be at least one large realm that encourages RPG tactical adventures, with predefined free cities and ways to gather units or heroes to your initial stack or full 3 stack army. The free city that you wish to be aligned with can provide the player bounties and even make the player hero ruler of that city through intrigues. This custom realm can offer unique win conditions specific to that realm and RPG playstyle.

Several times, I've stated that players want to see a variety of strategies that lead to victory in MP and SP. Conquest is the most fun, but also the slowest way to win, requiring total war against all opponents and free cities. Each affinity should have at least one tome path that encourages the meeting of this condition, with cultural differences and objectives. There's diplomacy, which is less ravaging on realms and less war intensive, beacon building for architecturally focused players and city makers, magic victory emphasis that can be attuned to culture and alignment...the possibilities of RP and asymmetric balance coexisting are there and with a great variety of strategies.

 

[Kitschy]

They can't really though. The only ones that favour low tier units are Mighty Meek and Fury of the Horde and they're exclusive to T1 and don't solve the problem of being a squishy platform for a combat unit. There aren't enchantments that let a <T3 stack perform as well as a T4 stack, especially not the very good T4s that come with inherent splash and lots of base magic damage.

In hindsight after what Jordi said the T1 exclusive part actually make sense if design revolves around T3 being the standard.
Also Battle Seeker Training needs to come back in one form or another, same goes for Hero of the Meek and it should include T2s also when it comes to Status Resistances.

The way to actually do cultural T4s is to promote and replace the T3, because the T3s are kinda designed as an apex expression of that culture already so it would be thematically strongest to keep them as the final form.

I'm not so sure that the design goal is to replace everything with T4s, imo it is to make T4 excel at specific narrow niche.
Why should Tyrant Knight be a replacement for your T3 cav unless you are going for Moral build specifically, if you are going for that Moral build then yeah it absolutely should be the best thing on the block in its niche. This approach gives a lot of wiggle room for variety of army comps instead of tier being the one and only deciding factor.

Mage Banes aren't banned because they were changed to +25% CP rather than the insane 100%.
Fogs are never played, we all agree that they are even worse as a Mythic unit than as a Fighter.
Judges arrive very late, they're just a bit of a meme. They aren't bad but cannot compete with T5.
Mistress is only "OP" in vanilla because Insanity was changed to be completely unfair now.

Phoenix was better as Shock... Mimic is also a bit of a meme but could be played (it's boring though).
Bone Dragon is entirely fine if you could actually obtain them more reliably (as I did for the mod).
The Giants are both weak and hard to obtain. I very much assume Giant Kings will tackle those units.

Regardless, T4 Mythic units are stackable just like the T5s. This is problematic if we make changes.
I see no reason why they can't all just have a class and receive some nerfs to off-set this change.

Roger, I missed 25% CP change on Banes completely.
Surprising to hear that Fogs are considered weak with their true damage/other bonuses and Bone Dragons is fine when they have two resist holes.

Btw what about Ironclad, how peeps use it in MP that it isn't considered bad?

 

[Codyksp]

I'm not so sure that the design goal is to replace everything with T4s, imo it is to make T4 excel at specific narrow niche.
Why should Tyrant Knight be a replacement for your T3 cav unless you are going for Moral build specifically, if you are going for that Moral build then yeah it absolutely should be the best thing on the block in its niche. This approach gives a lot of wiggle room for variety of army comps instead of tier being the one and only deciding factor.

Why would I bring a T3 Knight with 90 3/3/3 and 24 DMG when I can bring a Tyrant Knight with 110 5/3/7 and 27 DMG?
Don't get me wrong, Tyrant Knights are horrible units. But they still bring more value to an army slot than a T3 Knight does.

Roger, I missed 25% CP change on Banes completely.
Surprising to hear that Fogs are considered weak with their true damage/other bonuses and Bone Dragons is fine when they have two resist holes.

Btw what about Ironclad, how peeps use it in MP that it isn't considered bad?

Right, so. All unit weaknesses were cut in half because having -4 of anything is far too punishing in the current game state.
So Constructs have -2 to Lightning and so does Ethereal. In return they only get +1 DEF and Reinforced/Warded were lowered.
Specifically with Undead I removed the +2/+2 from Unholy Leader, as the mod already adds this by reducing the weakness.

These changes make both Undead units and Constructs playable. Not "OP", just actually worth using for once.
Ironclad is a good unit if you use it for a timing attack, the longer the game goes on the weaker it becomes.
I'm sure you can all guess why this strange phenomenon occurs. But it starts with Ench... and ends with ...acking

Let's be entirely clear here. Lightning is utterly busted thanks to Lightning Torrent and Stormborne just existing as options.
Which is why I yeeted Lightning Torrent all the way into Tome of Astral Convergence, it's far too nasty for a T1 tome.
Constructs already have 3 horrible units, out of 4, they don't need to be dumpstered on by Stormbringers too.
Even T3 Storm Spirits will mess up Ironclads, and then there's the Mage ability Lightning Evocation doing 100+ damage.

Ironclad is played with Nymph/Skald/Druid and often paired up with Alchemy and/or Mists for more Support stuff.
As far as a frontline goes... There's Golden Golem late game but otherwise there's nothing good except Bastion.
So, most players quite literally just stack 3 Heroes with a couple Supports and Ironclads. No other units required.
You can push units out of ZoC with the main shot and you will often run melee based Heroes for a frontline of sorts.

 

[Jolly Joker]

The more I read the less I understand the actual problem.

Letme phrase it this way: If it all amounts to having THREE superior stacks in the end - what is wrong with MONOSTACKS? I mean, why would you have more than one CORE unit in your superior stack triple? Because of a secret unit combination that unleashes more power than a monostack combo and finding it involves more skill? Even if it was so - once played, eversone else would go for it.

So what the hell is the problem here?

 

[GloatingSwine]

So what the hell is the problem here?

Monostacks are one dimensional. If your endgame power combo requires multiple units working together then you have to think about how to use the different parts together to get the best results. Like I love playing Shakarn in Planetfall so my endgame stacks will have a Tactician and so I need to think "which unit is best to use Press the Advantage on?" every time it's available. Do I use it on a Refractor for a turn 2 big blast whilst everything's still close together or do I pile a Firebrand in with the charge attack then immediately reactivate it into its standard melee to spike a key target? Which is most appropriate for my current situation? And that's two powerful things I couldn't do at all if I monostacked either Firebrand or Refractor.

In a monostack every unit is the same so every unit can solve every problem just as effectively as any other and I barely have to think about which one does what, it's just automatic from the positioning of the units.

And that goes double in multiplayer because now you also think about how you can disable the power combos your opponent has whilst protecting your own.

 

[Kitschy]

Why would I bring a T3 Knight with 90 3/3/3 and 24 DMG when I can bring a Tyrant Knight with 110 5/3/7 and 27 DMG?
Don't get me wrong, Tyrant Knights are horrible units. But they still bring more value to an army slot then a T3 Knight does.

In that specific case 'cause of the Giant Slayer that gives + 40% more damage vs large, and when it comes to stats it is more like 100 3/3/3 that is 40XP away from 120 4/4/3 vs 110 5/3/7. (but imo making T3 and T4 flat HP gap closer would not hurt)

In general T4s would still need a look, no matter what. Like just on the basis of their damage. Templar has the same damage as a T3 but half of it is magical (that is great imo), but for some reason Tyrant Knight has more damage and it is all physical (funny part it is on class that supposed to counter shields that are primarily physical), same goes for Exemplar why does it have so much damage (18 damage) in comparison to every shield unit when it should be around 14.

Right, so. All unit weaknesses were cut in half because having -4 of anything is far too punishing in the current game state.
So Constructs have -2 to Lightning and so does Ethereal. In return they only get +1 DEF and Reinforced/Warded were lowered.
Specifically with Undead I removed the +2/+2 from Unholy Leader, as the mod already adds this by reducing the weakness.

These changes make both Undead units and Constructs playable. Not "OP", just actually worth using for once.
Ironclad is a good unit if you use it for a timing attack, the longer the game goes on the weaker it becomes.
I'm sure you can all guess why this strange phenomenon occurs. But it starts with Ench... and ends with ...acking

Let's be entirely clear here. Lightning is utterly busted thanks to Lightning Torrent and Stormborne just existing as options.
Which is why I yeeted Lightning Torrent all the way into Tome of Astral Convergence, it's far too nasty for a T1 tome.
Constructs already have 3 horrible units, out of 4, they don't need to be dumpstered on by Stormbringers too.
Even T3 Storm Spirits will mess up Ironclads, and then there's the Mage ability Lightning Evocation doing 100+ damage.

Ironclad is played with Nymph/Skald/Druid and often paired up with Alchemy and/or Mists for more Support stuff.
As far as a frontline goes... There's Golden Golem late game but otherwise there's nothing good except Bastion.
So, most players quite literally just stack 3 Heroes with a couple Supports and Ironclads. No other units required.
You can push units out of ZoC with the main shot and you will often run melee based Heroes for a frontline of sorts.

Dang it, I forgot about Unholy Leader skill with it +2 Fire/Holly Resistances.
Thanks for the explanation, 'cause I don't get Ironclad as a unit at all. I wouldn't mind if ZoC requirements for it got removed, but mb that would be too much.

 

[plansburn]

The only way around this, without removing competitive multiplayer altogether (which at this point would be fine by me) is to free the game from the shackles of balancing by introducing online "rulesets". In other words, playing AoW4 online against other players would apply rules (that do not exist in the core game), and online gameplay would be balanced by tweaking these rules, NOT by tweaking and limiting the whole game.

I completely agree. A less severe solution to balancing would be a handful of standard rulesets, especially competitive, alongside toggles for custom rulesets. They can tweak the numbers but regular changes to the mechanics of core features isn't fair to anyone who doesn't want them.

 

[Jolly Joker]

Monostacks are one dimensional. If your endgame power combo requires multiple units working together then you have to think about how to use the different parts together to get the best results. Like I love playing Shakarn in Planetfall so my endgame stacks will have a Tactician and so I need to think "which unit is best to use Press the Advantage on?" every time it's available. Do I use it on a Refractor for a turn 2 big blast whilst everything's still close together or do I pile a Firebrand in with the charge attack then immediately reactivate it into its standard melee to spike a key target? Which is most appropriate for my current situation? And that's two powerful things I couldn't do at all if I monostacked either Firebrand or Refractor.

In a monostack every unit is the same so every unit can solve every problem just as effectively as any other and I barely have to think about which one does what, it's just automatic from the positioning of the units.

And that goes double in multiplayer because now you also think about how you can disable the power combos your opponent has whilst protecting your own.

See, that's the thing that's not working: You cannot argue with a different game, since it has different mechanics. And in PF those mechanics differ a lot.
4 is much simpler in this regard.
That said, no one is keeping anyone from building mixed stacks - it's just that in MP that's unnecessary or takes too much time - I'm sure that you can strengthen a mono-stack of Stormbringers with this or that different unit, but there is really no need for it, since it would take additional time, at least. The "supporting magic" is too much of a factor, so the simple recipe is picking your tomes with a view on one unit and a maximum of enchantments.
Now, if units were limited to 3 enchantments, this would just nerf Skirmishers - you'd still have to prove that mono stacks of T3 ranged would be inferior to mixed stacks of T3s, for example. And that the additional time needed for that was worth the while. Or that Transformations wouldn't be overly powerful then. Or...

 

[GloatingSwine]

That said, no one is keeping anyone from building mixed stacks - it's just that in MP that's unnecessary or takes too much time - I'm sure that you can strengthen a mono-stack of Stormbringers with this or that different unit, but there is really no need for it, since it would take additional time, at least. The "supporting magic" is too much of a factor, so the simple recipe is picking your tomes with a view on one unit and a maximum of enchantments.

It's not that it's unnecessary or takes too much time it's that it's worse. In almost all cases you make your stack worse by substituting one of the units in it for something else. This is a consequence of high tier units being too self-sufficient, support units and effects being too weak, and the ability to stack up extra damage to the point of consistent ORKOs of most targets.

Planetfall's mechanics do not differ by that much, but its support units are relatively more powerful and flexible, the power gap between its combat units is narrower and its top tier of units are predominantly not self sufficient combat units but either support units or need to be supported because they are inflexible (Earth Crusher is slow and short range, Sonokarn's best trick needs a setup turn and it's quite fragile.)

Once more, I'm not the one suggesting a 3 enchant limit because I don't actually think most of the enchantments are consequential enough to be used in that limit, I think the limit should be one active damage enchantment per attack type (so one for melee and one for ranged).