Peeps stacking heroes

[LPhillips]

So, I see a lot, and I mean a *lot* of hero stacking. People place more than one hero in their stack to gain an advantage. Now I've reaped the benefits of this by accident (two heroes in one tower), and I see how the chaos and morale can work together. But what is the overarching rationale for this tactic? Do heroes each gain full experience in that situation?
If heroes both gain full experience when participating in a battle together, then that needs to change. Maybe I'm a bit too traditional, but it looks like an exploit to me. There's a reason heroes have separate abilities, and if you can combine two for a fully-functional superhero with the advantage that experience for slain enemies goes twice as far... well, that says it all. I'd like to take this opportunity to preempt irrelevant arguments about heroes being able to gain abilities through items and unit pairing: that's within the intended scope of the heroes' individual limitations.

The rest of this is a technical suggestion to the creators regarding Archons, so do yourself a favor and skip it if you're not interested.
Also, Archons should maintain the ability to negate their full amount from each hero in the enemy army. If two heroes are providing two separate bonuses (+7 morale Paladin and +9 chaos Dread Knight for example) then a blue Archon should negate 6 morale from the paladin and 6 chaos from the dread knight. You can balance this by taking the highest attribute of each hero, applying the negate to each, then comparing the attributes of each to determine what is used in battle. So if your Dread Knight still has a +3 morale item, the game behaves as if he were the only hero, providing +3 morale and +3 Chaos (Note that if the dread knight were alone, he'd have +3+3, if this is not taken into account then you're punishing the player for including the Paladin by reducing the total bonus to +1 morale and +3 chaos). It might sound complicated, but it's a balanced solution to stacked heroes and archon negate problems; it's also simple and effective in practice even if the player doesn't understand the precise mechanics behind it. Whether you choose the highest remaining attributes of all heroes after the negate or use an elimination protocol to narrow the choices to [the two original highest attributes, now modified][or][the highest total of morale/chaos remaining to one hero] becomes a matter of whether you wish to reward hero stacking or simply avoid penalizing it. I'm wary of a world in which Archon abilities can be circumvented by using two heroes in stacks of 8; also wary of a world where Archon bonuses are applied imprecisely and players actually find themselves punished for having two heroes present in a city.

[piranha]

Experience is divided between all heroes. I might add that you only get 50% exp for defending compared to attacking.

Archons and devils negate both Leadership/chaos and morare/fear. If you archon negates 6 then any leadership or chaos value that is 6 or lower will be negated.

[LPhillips]

Experience is divided between all heroes. I might add that you only get 50% exp for defending compared to attacking.

Well, that's good. So why then are so many players stacking heroes together?

Archons and devils negate both Leadership/chaos and morare/fear. If you archon negates 6 then any leadership or chaos value that is 6 or lower will be negated.

I thought you were going to fix that? That means that an Archon can negate 12 total. When you do fix it, you'll need some way to apply it to multiple heroes and avoid the caveats I've just described.

[KGB]

LPhillips,

Well, that's good. So why then are so many players stacking heroes together?

Not sure what you are asking here. Leadership and Chaos stack. So a Paladin + DK together makes perfect sense as you get the advantages of both bonus's with the drawback of half experience.

KGB

[LPhillips]

I've been slaughtering stacks of Valk+Dread for several games now using one hero. I keep my heroes separate, so that I have more options around the map. I just wonder what's so fantastic about 2 stacked heroes that people forgo the utility of two heroes active individually?

Let me put it this way: it hasn't worked for any of my opponents yet. If you're wealthy enough that you have too many heroes to need them in individual stacks, then it's a good bet your opponent is wealthy enough to take advantage of your grouped heroes to annihilate them simultaneously (as I have done in 4 games now).
Points:
1) Grouped heroes split xp. This is hugely detrimental to my mind, as there is a limit to how many battles heroes can participate in, which is greatly exacerbated when you group them so that they are collectively participating in less battles. Less total xp collection.
2) Grouped heroes are harder to protect. You can only have 6 "body guards" in the stack, and if the enemy sacrifices enough units to overcome your hero stack then he gets a double reward! Not one hero killed, but two. So to kill your two heroes he may only need to sacrifice 6-12 units, where otherwise he'd need 14-26 (remember, 6 combat units to overcome instead of 14).
3) Grouped heroes concentrates your power on the battlefield. This is totally not a one-way positive thing. The total units and battles over which heroes' bonuses are exerted is greatly reduced, if not halved, by this strategy. Therefor your units are weaker on average.

I'm a logical, mathematical, and creative thinker. Logically, your overall tactical power is reduced in exchange for a less valuable net gain in the strength of an individual stack. Mathematically, the total fighting strength of your army is reduced. Creatively, many of your strategic and tactical options are sacrificed to gain one semi-powerful tactic. There's no appeal here for me. I see the power of combining two heroes when they are conveniently nearby and the extra power is required due to either a powerful enemy to overcome, or simply the deficient power of either hero's supporting units. But these people are doing it pretty much professionally. And frankly, it's costing them.

[strach]

LPhilips
I think you often try to draw far reaching conclusions from your individual experience. all of your arguments can be easily countered. this is because combinig a palladin with a DK can give you (contrary to what you said) more opportunities for fighting, more battles, more conquered cities and - as a result - more XP. Whats more its not true that DK + P are easier to kill, obviously, they are way harder to kill (unless someone has an archon, but then its obvious they should be split).
I always take for my first hero a Palladin, and usually I take DK next. If there's a prospect of fighting some bigger battles, and they are around each other a often join them to create a super stack. If I know that my enemy has an archon or ghosts I will surely split them. But if not I just combine them with some cannon fodder and atack as quickly as possible - that gives me a lot of won battles, and a lot o experience

[Moonknight]

Yeah, I usually go Paladin first (if there are ruins, Valk if there are not), and DK second and hope to join them after they have each leveled up to 3 or 5. A lot of the time the Paladin has some goodies for the DK by then as well

But I only immediately join the two heroes if it is a smaller map and raising the battle chances to a high degree against neutrals is crucial from the beginning.

Also, if there is an easy battle coming up and I want one of the heroes to gain the XP from it (b/c they are very close to a level up), I'll drop one of the heroes before the battle and then join them back up. Don't forget about the extra XP ability as well.

[magian]

It depends on the situation. But, I find a command hero stacked with a dready to be pretty effective in the early game. I always like to have a DK with my valkyrie (gives her a bit more def). It is also handy to have a DK with your paladin, since paladins are uber ruin-hunters and many items have a chaos bonus (way better on a dready).

I was initially a bit annoyed that the DK had a base ability that stacked with the command bonus of other heroes. I'm still not sure its a great idea, but I have adjusted my game and moved on.

[KGB]

I've been slaughtering stacks of Valk+Dread for several games now using one hero.

Something tells me that your slaughtering this combo on your turn when the Valk has no bonus's. In which case you are basically just attacking a DK. No real surprise.

I stack my Paladin/DK all the time. It gives you a bonus range of 7 at L1 instead of 3 or 4 which makes that stack much better.

Personally I find heroes to be a dime a dozen. They come for a little as 400 gold and I use them like I would Mercenary offers in DLR. In other words, they are meant to be used up because more are coming (unlike War2/DLR where offers cost a lot and were much less frequent). The only time I particularly care about a hero is:

1) When it reaches L3+ and gets to boost the Command/Chaos
2) I find items
3) There is a nearby L1 ruin to search (Paladin only)

KGB

[LPhillips]

Well, it's obvious there are a lot of opinions out there. It's just going to boil down to more playtesting and practical experience. Keep in mind that I'm defeating this tactic from players such as Bofa, Hatchfactory, and Sparkl. My tactics are different, and by experience against good players they're successful. I don't buy tons of heroes. I keep mine alive, circulate them individually on the map, and spend the remaining gold on better production. With production cheaper and some of the units' effectiveness increased so well, I find that to be the more rewarding strategy. I only see hero stacking as viable/preferable in very specific situations.

To reiterate: it's going to require testing and observation to see what is more effective. I'm glad to hear so many opinions on it, but for the reasons given I'm unmoved. The strengths of my tactics are less smash-your-nose obvious, but they're greater in total. I'm not speaking arbitrarily; it's a numbers game.

The real puzzler is why people stack consistently and move their heroes as one from the start. It's so very prevalent with most people I've engaged. And every objection I raised to that tactic still remains unchallenged. Except for Strach, who made a fair point that if your heroes aren't strong enough to succeed on their own, you will not conquer more cities nor gain more experience by moving them individually. Stratch, I conquer the map extremely quickly. Nearly nothing is attacked without a hero present, because my heroes are moving around the board individually. So I'm expanding in 2-4 directions and always up in city count, income, production, and hero xp for the first stages of the game. Granted, in specific situations stacked heroes are preferable, but not commonly.

A specific situation where rapid expansion, single-hero xp gain, and better cashflow prevailed: Versus Hatch in our Crescendo Test game. He had the full benefit of attacking with the two heroes, but remember that two level 2's are just equal to a level 3/4 Paladin. Even with split forces, better production and the available cash to fortify proved the stronger tactic.

KGB,
I find the availability of good production and the cash in hand to fortify where needed to be more important than spamming heroes. If I'm winning the money game, time is in my favor. It's never good in this game to be in a position where your hand is forced. The player with better income and production is in control. So I don't part with one-time purchases of 400AU or more easily.
My comments are prompted by observing players stacking at all times, often to their detriment. So being caught with your pants down and attacked while your valk is on defense, thinking the dread makes her safe, is a byproduct of this tactic. Then you lose both.

Moonknight,
I think your employment of stacking two heroes when they reach level 3/5 is sensible. I'm speaking more to those who ritually stack Dread+Valk without proper consideration for the extreme opportunity cost of this tactic. Given that your overall strategic situation grants greater opportunity to one hero stack than two somewhat weaker ones, it's a viable short-term tactic.