I wouldn't mind it tbh ...

That would probably send me screaming into the streets. I have been doing some insanely good stuff with unit customization. It's part of what people mean when they say the game has alot of potential. Hope it doesn't change and I really don't think it will. Why change it now when we have come so far?

That's a lot of the reason I'd be willing to open my wallet for DLC with that visual variety; I know it involves a great deal of artist hours to go and design a completely unhuman model that doesn't look ridiculous.  Making a race of lava men who build volcanoes instead of towns ain't cheap, nor is the race of flying squids who shape clouds into boats.  Don't ask why flying squids would require cloud boats.

To point at the 4X great MoO2, you had several races with significantly game-changing stats going on.  Playing as a race who eats rocks would be very much a different game from the race that was full of telepathic spies, much like how Alpha Centauri would dramatically change if you played the Gaians or the Pirates.  That sort of variety helps replay value considerably by offering new experiences to the player and really does something for the feeling of vitality in a game.  In both cases, the actual visual variety was fairly minimal in that MoO2 only had a few spots where one actually saw people instead of just stars and lines, and AC involved only humans (until the expansion).  But now we have shiny magical computers that are way better than back in the day, and people are gonna want the pretty graphics to go with the game.

Hell no.

Just visual variety is not worth giving up custom units.

I would like greater gameplay variety and less homogeneity. Moreover I don't see this as being mutually exclusive to player designed units. If the art pipeline is the bottleneck, I'm quite okay with having limited template body types for more faction-based customizable unique units like Juggernauts and Iron Golems to replace the generic Spearmen and Mages and Monks etc that all factions get.

"I did so because it was a game solely involving differently-hued humans fighting over some huts."

But I like Rise of Nations. And Team Fortress 2 (Hell, it only has TWO different colours.)

"Would you be willing to give up player designed units to have a greater visual variety in the races?"
        "No freaking way. One of my favorite parts of Stardock TBS are these."

There are faction specific clothes! Pickers, be picky. Just expand on the current system to add in some kind of 'Cultural' difference between the races. Slightly different armour styles per race would make battles look a little more dynamic too. At least in monopoly you can be a car or a shoe or an iron. In this terrible game? A PERSON, OR A PERSON, OR A SPIKEY PERSON.

Edit: How2forum.

No thanks!

Besides, not to argue with you, but the issue isn't body type / skeleton. That's why Stormworld has Centaurs, Frost Giants, Undead skeletons, Golem, halfspiders, haldrakes, halfsnakes, living stone units. All those were done using the normal bodytype. No, imho, the problem isn't bodytype but what you decide to do with it.

 Edit: I said above they used the "normal" bodytype but I actually use all the bodytypes available in vanilla - fallen male, kingdom female, kingdom male, empire male, empire female. So actually it was not a very good argument... but the point is that the bodies can look different and use the same bodytypes.

What he said, if Heavenfall can do it, Stardock should be able too

~ Kongdej

I'm curious what you did to pull this off. Did you re-use the models/skeletons/animations in FE for for the half-spiders and half-snakes for example? Did you create and rig your own skeleton and animations and import them? How would it work if I decided to equip the half-spider thing with boots?

More than visual differentiation (wich may help, but I find secondary) is the stats differentiation.

It has been said some posts before, and I will add more suggestions:

- Unique units. Each faction should have at least 2 or 3 unique units with an specific use. Like jugs. Like hench. Like slaves. I miss monks that can heal, magicians that can use one or 2 spells (attack or defence), druids that can entangle or daze...I think it can be easy introduced by adding traits. Many of the special units are deep in the techs, so it could be good a early specific unit (weak) and a powerfull unit for mid/end game. With a magician unit (monk, warlock, summoner, druid, necromancer, vampires with charming....) we can have now 3 specific units for each faction.

And that, only by using "humanoid models". I think a faction could train ignis or ophidians, skath, spiders, ... almost any of the monsters... But don't attach it to camps.

- Unique traits. One or 2 specific traits for each faction, that will really make difference in standar troops. Many of the traits are already created, just give some of them to a specific raze. Other traits could be like some of the skills of heroes: heal (for the monks), swipe, double attack, ... That can really make different units with different uses.

- Mounts. Using spiders, bears, or even skaths could add more variety. How to implement new mount techs? Don't do. Change current to: Basic mount (half bonuses) and Advanced Mount (full bonuses). I find that splitting wargs from horses is a mistake.  With my suggestion, any mount can be added without new tech requiered.

- Specific technologies and specific buildings. Only by changing the order of the tech trees for each raze, would make playing each one more different. Like making bows starting sooner in tarth. Change the % bonuses for the buildings in each raze: more magic for the magic razes, more production for the ironeers, tune the research, the food, the unrest, the money... that each building provides for each faction... You can even customice the metal and crystal (instead of 0.5, give some 0.3 and others 0.6). Light changes like that makes light changes in each gameplay...but become big changes when you see all them together. And all this, without creating new techs. Of course, creating new specific techs would give still more difference. Balance issues? Well, we are here to test them... But at this moment, balance is the least important of the issues.

- Heroes. Yes, they need some differentiation. I find many of them with 2 or 3 schools of magic. Give them traits form different paths (like administrator, researcher, or others like stun), to expand the difference. A mage with double strike? Well, it may sound strange, but why not? Why all mages are evokers? Mix them, give them personality, and then let the player decide what future wants for them. Don't close the traits from other paths, because if not, all mages are the same, all assassin etc.

- Weapons. All swords with counterattack? No please. Give each weapon a unique feature. We can play with stats like accuracy, dodge, critiks, % armour pen, and initiative, to make more different each weapon. More wapons exclusive for each faction (without having to select assasin tools, or athican, or whatever. Just because their faction uses them).

So, except for the new mounts and the new traits (some become new units , all I have suggested is already there, just is needing a tuning.

I would like to suggest to limit the player designs to non-visual elements like perks, abilities, spells etc, maybe also allow weapon and armor upgrades that don't require visual representation (Chainmail->Masterwork Chainmail->Mythril Chainmail, with variants like fireblessed mythril chain etc) - that way, the player can keep creating custom units but the developer doesn't require the extra modelling resources etc. I usually don't care too much how exactly my units look, but more about what they can do, due to my custom design.

This. 

Pigeonholing the question into an ultimatum between Custom Designed units and Greater visual diversity is leading.  Both please.

If the poll is to get across that you only have the time to implement one of these things, that's fine, but the way it's phrased it makes it sound as if those two things are mutually exclusive.