Damn it!
And i thought this thread was dead and stopped looking for quite a long time.
You still need another betatester?
I haven't read everything carefully within the last 10 pages, just some new thoughts which I hope haven't been mentioned already:
I read often times people here saying that stuff like pike-man > cavalry or cavalry > archers, and I have to say from a realistic point of view that's too simple. Every battle is like a choreography, and so often it doesn't depend what your army holds as a weapon but more how they are positioned and how they react on enemies position.
Example: pike-man are only good vs cavalry if they stand in formation, their lances in the air when the cavalry rushes towards them, then they fuck them pretty badly though. If the cavalry gets into their side or back, there's no way the pike-man can win. even it's like 5 : 1 in numbers. Why? They block each other, a pike is no sword. You'll hit your comrades on the head, turn very slowly, can't really get a defensive position with the others. A part of them have to retreat and reformation. Pike-man are very defensive fighters, they're the best when enemies rush in them and the worst when enemies are in between them.
The next example: Archers vs cavalry.
Yeah, if cavalry stands in the middle of a group of archers, they can easily kill them even if they outmatch them by a factor of 10. But you can't say cavalry > archers.
If a group of cavalry rushes towards a group of archers, they will unleash a shitload of arrows on them, if not killing the knights (who are unlikely to carry shields) then at least the horses. And if you're a guy laying on the ground between the rest of your group and the enemy, you're fucked.
What i want to say with that?
I know it's hard to implement in stuff like the wc3 engine, but make the fights more about positioning, since that's really the key to victory.
Also make the unit-counters "real" unit-counters. Only to vary in damage and armor types doesn't quite hit it IMO.
Example:
No matter what armor type a spear-man has, an archer will fuck him since he has no shield.
A regular soldier with shield (and this should be regular, not only after upgrading a "defend" skill) on the other hand can push slowly towards the archers with very few losses. Maybe even implement different shield-types. E. g. with big ones you are good vs archers, small ones help in close combat to quickly block hits.
Also i think cavalry shouldn't only deal bonus damage to stuff like archers, they should seriously just walk over them and kill them. There's nothing an archer can do, and that's another point of cavalry, they are only good if you get them in the middle of the enemy, if you blindly rush towards archers and defensive pike-men they will just fuck you.
very long story short:
-make the game more about positioning (will be hard to implement)
-make counters feel more "realistic" (should be quite easily to implement)
Just a little "example battle" to show my point and how this stuff would play out strategically:
A defends a position, pike-men in front. B sends forward his archers to get them. A expected that and quickly swaps the pike-men with big shield soldiers. As B also tries to get his defensive position back, cavalry rushes into B's front side. There's a hole mess between archers and pike-men, the cavalry just runs over them and kills everything. The shield soldiers stand no chance vs the cavalry and just go down. Meanwhile B tried a desperate attack with his cavalry which he hold back to flank A, but since A really only needs his cavalry in the middle of the enemy he got his troops in a defensive position again. B's cavalry goes down like nothing, end of battle.
What do i want to show? Let's expect A and B have the exact same amount of troops and experience and weapons upgrades etc etc. In a "normal" strategy game both would just have attack-moved their stuff into the enemy. Ye, maybe they tried some flanking or stuff, but it really wouldn't have made a big difference.
While in my case B lost all his troops while A only lost part of his cavalry and maybe some spear-men.
I know positioning stuff like that is really hard to implement, but it really would make the battles more strategic and would give smart players an advantage even if they are behind in troop count. And let's be honest: Ye in LoE you have to make some troop counters etc., but basically it's a big economy fest and he who pumps out more troops can just overrun the enemy, no matter the positioning.
That's just something to think about from me, hope the map will develop fast and come out soon (or at least the beta

)
Once again, English is not my native language so please excuse any mistakes.