If I really wanted to create a melee oriented character, I'd go for a Warrior. Warriors are more actively involved in the melee side of the battle than Defenders are (unless you count 'serving as a training dummy' as 'actively involved in melee'), and I think that they're generally superior to Assassins at both melee combat and archery. I'd also probably end up using the Warrior as a hybrid fighter/caster (probably with Earth magic for Diamond Skin, Giant Form, and Shockwave in the mid and late game), since that's how I play my mages in the early game, rather than as a pure melee combatant

My opinion of Assassins, Warriors, and Defenders is that I'd trade dozens of them for a single good Commander or Mage champion. Beyond that, though, I'd sooner have Defenders and Warriors than Assassins, as Assassins are just too luck-dependent for my tastes. "Oh, you want to survive in melee? Hope your dodge doesn't fail you. Oh, you want to deal lots of damage? Hope you make that critical hit. Oh, you want to make use of your anti-champion traits? Hope there's a champion you can reach quickly in this army." They also need luck with getting the right kinds of equipment, but this applies almost equally to Warriors and Defenders, too. Basically, I feel that Assassins are luck-based Warriors, and I don't really like playing luck-based units. High-dodge troops can work, but they work because they start with high dodge and their dodge keeps pace with dodge from levels if you build the correctly, though they become less effective once good commanders and fortress accuracy boosters come into play. Assassins start from no dodge, get small amounts of dodge from early traits, and then get stuck on a +1 dodge per level trait, and have to face the same things that dodge-based troops have to, without having the benefit of being replaceable if things go wrong or at least starting strong.

As far as Warriors and Defenders go: they fill roles I'd rather be using trained troops for - melee damage and melee tank. Early game, it's fine because the troops aren't that good yet, but mid-game it gets dicey if you don't find good equipment quickly, and late-game it's almost a no-go. Defenders would be okay, except that for some reason Warriors are the ones with the counterattack bonuses when it's the Defenders who I want to be taking the hits, which leaves Defenders stuck with the marginal default counterattacks, and besides that all of the 'defense bonus while defending' stuff would make it a great tank if it weren't so boring to always be passing turns in order to actually use that bonus (why don't most Defender abilities leave Defenders in defensive stance like Ironeer Guarded Strike does?). Warriors I feel just end up too vulnerable to troops to be worthwhile in the late game, unless I really need a dragonslayer or something like that (but high-level mages with the right spells work at least as well for that, and are in my opinion more fun, so ...).

As for Defenders as army support: they're okay, but the Spell Resistance line has most of their army-support abilities, and the Spell Resistance line doesn't have that much else going for it. Defense line Defenders can potentially occupy the attention of half the opposing army without too much concern, as long as you are willing to keep them defending, but that's kind of boring and requires that you either have a good counterattack weapon or decent supporting troops for killing whatever you're fighting against. Defenders do, however, make decent battlemages, as they have the health and armor to sit up on the front lines casting short-range spells like Shockwave and Burning Hands, which work best when lots of enemies are in close proximity to the caster.

Warriors, at least early on, and potentially later on if you can find decent weapons, are like what Assassins should have been: high damage attacks against single targets, with a few special abilities thrown in for dealing with crowds, but not really particularly effective against hordes of enemies. If I were to make serious use of the direct combat champions, it's Warriors that I'd go to for eliminating specific units on the battlefield. Assassins are too unreliable to entrust with something that might be vital for my battle strategy. With Giant Form and Diamond Skin, Warriors can be powerful and durable late-game frontline units, but I'd sooner throw those on trained troops.

I'd say that overall, the three warrior-type classes should have been combined into two - one offensive class and one defensive class, with varied lines for how you want your offensive and defensive strength to show - with Commanders picking up most of the Defender's army boosting traits and a real governor class or second magic class making up for the missing class, but it's too late for that now. I'd have less of a problem with these three classes if they were less gear-dependent, because I don't usually find sufficient quantities of high-end gear to outfit more than one or two champions until a point in the game where I don't really need additional champions in my armies anyways, and if I have a choice between spending hundreds of gold on buying a piece of equipment to give to a champion or spending that same hundreds of gold rushing production or upgrading troops, I'll rush production or upgrade troops because I feel I get more benefit that way. Spending 300 gold on some chainmail to keep my warrior or defender on the front line in the mid game just isn't worth it when I could instead spend a few turns training some chainmail-armored troops or upgrade existing troops to serve in the same role, especially not when it would probably take 20 or 30 turns just to accumulate that much gold in the first place, and when spellcasters and commanders are usually sufficiently well protected by partial sets of leather armor (or even no armor) unless I'm facing large numbers of archers.

In all honesty, I think that Warriors make better archers than Assassins do, despite the bonus abilities Assassins have for archery. Not that Assassins are really any better as melee combatants, though.

As far as I can tell, Accuracy - Dodge = Hit_Chance, and Spell_Mastery - Spell_Resistance = Spell_Hit_Chance, with a minimum and maximum chance which prevents you from always hitting or missing.

All good points from joeball123. I usually only have a couple of main heroes, my sovereign mage and one extra hero. The extra hero is quite often a melee type who I give all the best melee magic gear to. That way I feel like I am actually getting some use out of all the plate mail and superweapons I find. If you do it like that (create one super warrior) the chances of having a hero who can actually survive and do some damage in combat are much higher.

The higher level heroes you get later on with more fame can have interesting special abilities, but I have in the past stolen their best equipment and given it to my melee hero, who is probably higher level and who I will have been able to choose the abilities for as they went up levels.

Yes, it is very rare that you will regularly alternate ally, enemy, ally, enemy etc.  Normally, the units in an army have similar initiative.

Yeah I would have to agree that warrior is the strongest in terms of "raw" combat.

I'd have to agree that defenders are very "luck based". I think it was a deliberate design decision, one that may not be what most players want - consistency. Mage I agree is the most potent when played well.

Out of curiosity, what do you see in the commander? I've always debated between keeping my commanders at home (but the problem is they don't level if you do) against a better combat oriented fighter?

Right now, I would argue, that the defender needs better counter attack buffs, and some sort of "army wide" buff, kind of like what the commander has. Another option is some sort of "aggro" mechanic that forces all damage (or most damage) to be directed towards the defender.

Assassin, some people like it, some people hate it.

unless i dont have a choice i always have a mage or commander. i like commanders for thiers buffs to the entire army the accuraciy and init bonus is amazing also being able to make a unittake a turn instantly is awesome and mages well just destroy everything. the two melee classes warrior and assasin are just not good late game. they dont nearly do as much damage as a trained unit. also seem to die more than trained units. i have not tried the assasin solo thing just yet but thats not really how id like to play the game.  i tried a few defenders but again the die quickly and damage is pitiful. i hate just putting them in defensive mode. would much rather have a trained club and shield unit. 

Lately i've been trying the Sovereign "retirement" build. Basically i get the sovereign a few levels in commander, then settle him in a city and paragon my first champion to high levels. Its been decently effective so far.

I'm not crazy about it either, but if you're on a tight budget and need more troops than you can currently pay for, it's a decent choice.

It depends a lot on just how large your armies happen to be, and how big your empire is (including Town vs Fortress vs Conclave balance, world resources, and city enchantments). If I have two or three towns already, I probably don't need anything from the Merchant line unless I have enormous armies. If I'm still on my first city, which may or may not be a town, and have to fight tough enemies to expand, Merchant I (or Merchant II if the first or second champion already had Merchant I) becomes a bit more appealing because it will fund a few extra groups of troops (of course, if you have to fight tough enemies to expand, a low-level commander probably wasn't the best choice of champion). Late game, it's more for increasing the speed at which I can gain the gold to fund equipment purchases for champions, or for rush-buying stuff in high-unrest cities. In neither case is it likely to be essential, but it can be useful.

Generally speaking, I only clear lairs which are within my own borders, and I don't always clean out all of the Wildlands, because those tend to spawn relatively large armies of decently strong monsters that I can fight to pick up reasonable amounts of experience. If Altar is in the game, I also might try to stay friendly with them (and also keep them alive) in the hopes of buying Quest Maps from their shops to help with late-game leveling.

Now, as for the differences based on how I want to use my commanders: I have two categories of commanders - Field Commanders, who lead armies, and Governors, who sit in cities reducing unrest. Field Commanders have priority for anything that grants experience until they have both active abilities, and sometimes until they have the Trainer line (though I personally don't like the Trainer line enough to go into it very much). By the time they have this, they'll be granting their armies +3 initiative and +50? accuracy, and they can almost ensure that the entire army has first strike. Governors, on the other hand, are at the very bottom of the priority bucket for gaining experience, especially if they already have a level or two of Administrator. If there are available weak monsters who aren't worth going after with one of my main heroes, and a Governor is nearby, they might be sent after it, because improving the unrest reduction or getting a small research bonus or extra gold income is useful, but not usually to the point that I'd send them instead of a different champion I'd like to level a bit more (Mages or Field Commanders, usually). Also, for any champions that are not commanding armies (or not waiting for their new army to assemble), if there aren't any settlements that I think are particularly worth stationing those champions in for unrest reduction, I'll pile them on wherever I built the Adventurer's Guild. Sure, it's not likely to do anything for them in terms of actually gaining a new level since the experience gain rate is so insignificant even at low levels, but it'll push them a little closer so that maybe instead of fighting a Lord of the Flame with accompanying shrills and Fire Elementals to pick up another level they might only need to fight a couple Ogres.

As for how I play Field Commanders - usually, I'll end up trying to get them some decent support spellbooks (Air I, Water I, Life or Death if they came with it, perhaps Earth, but not Fire unless I've nothing better to give them, but Fire Mages usually get Path of the Mage if I have the choice) and then playing them as a support Mage with a few extra abilities and better armor. Haste, Slow, Growth, and Heal are excellent spells, and Path of the Mage doesn't really do much for them (alright, Heal gets a nice bonus from Compassion, but Haste and Growth don't really gain anything, and usually mid-level champions or better don't have too much difficulty overcoming spell resistance). This keeps them off the front lines, which allows me to delay giving them Chain Proficiency or upgrading their armor, which lets me get through Leadership and into Tactician a little faster, and gives them something to do once it becomes a bad idea to put them in the melee line (early on, or fighting monsters, it isn't usually a problem; when facing decent troops or some of the stronger monsters, it can become a problem if they are in the melee line). I prefer to equip them with daggers or swords, since that gives them more opportunities to cast support spells or use their two active abilities; if it's early enough in the game, I might give them any ranged weapon I find just so that I have some kind of ranged support for weakening enemies, taking out archers, and finishing off runners.

Word of warning: Warriors are great early game, and Defenders are decent. Early game is precisely when commanders are at their weakest unless you just really need that extra gold from Merchant I starting at level 4, because even though Leadership means your troops hit more and Command lets you make a unit go again, you just don't really have the hard-hitting ability of Warriors or the endurance of Defenders. If timed correctly, the extra attack from Command can be a lifesaver, but as with critical hits you shouldn't be planning your battles to rely on that ability, because sometimes the initiative order just won't play along, and sometimes units don't make their hits. Play your early game low-level Commanders as you would a low-level early game Mage, and possibly develop the Commander into a support spellcaster if you've got the right spellbooks on them - just don't count on always having the spell mastery to overcome enemy spell resistance until your Commander is high level.

Also, if you're going to make your sovereign be a Commander, or if you want to make your first champion a commander, Air and Water are good spellbooks to have, because Haste and Slow are cheap spells even without the bonuses from Path of the Mage, and later on they'll further reinforce the initiative disparity between your Commander's army and your opponent's army.

assassins can spike pretty hard with heartseeker, and some bloodrage casts. there is also another cheaper weapon that gives a +250 percent crit damage effect and +15 percent chance, though with less damage(but you have bloodrage.)

Assassins can def be useful in the right circumstances, you people need to stfu.

Mages have an instakill spell, with death magic. That's pretty strong.

Commander specials are good as well.

but in most circumstances I would say that the warrior is better then the assassin. Assassin is best as a late game spike tool, and cant wear plate. The majority of the time a warrior not only hits harder, but can wear the endgame armor.

I'm still trying to make assassin work at higher levels, but the main things limiting it atm is no swarm immunity (dodge do not work well without it), and lack of attack in abilities. I've tried doing an insane game with both of those and I still lost So there needs to be some buffs here and there, Bleed most likely and some initiative buffs is the direction I would go in for the early game, as in trying not to mimic warrior path. 

My assassin is really dominating on my current play through. I'm probably 50- 75 seasons in and he has 110+ dodge and solos epic stacks depending if they're melee oriented or not. 

Pazuzu,  Lord of Fevers.  Or not..... Oops, just killed him and got a 8 poison damage horn.  Maybe it was from another monster.

It's a horn.  I know that for sure....lol 

Yeah, I actually haven't played that many hours of LE yet, but that's been my experience so far, too.