I agree, but I think there will be a problem if tactics can easily beat excellent strategy. Knowing Stardock, however, I trust fully that they will "get it right."

There is one thing I'm afraid of, though...heroes. I'm afraid we might not be able to treat them like units. In HOMM5, they auto ran away and such like that. They couldn't be attacked, like they were disabled and in need of protection -- that's what such a thing is, a disabling. I want heroes to fully be part of the tactical combat, to be used directly...to be killed directly if that should happen. I want the heroes to be mine, not the game's.

Remember, though, Stardock tends to listen, and they are not arrogant; they can accept ideas that didn't originate with them. This is to say, the way it is now it not set in stone...remember, we're still in beta.

Well, auto combat surprised me a bit, it tries to save your heroes even in hard battles: first it lose regular units, trying to block attacks with them

One thing i afraid, that it will be better than manual battle )

Actually, I had a battle with four heroes that can't kill a mob because their attack rating is too low.  They have a better overall combat rating but, according to the combat log, keep missing when they try to hit.  I tried this battle several times to see if I could change the outcome, but it's always the same.

Later,
LAR

I hope the tactical battles are similar to Master of Magic.  I know I had combats that I would always lose on auto-resolve, that I could win by controlling the fight.  Usually involving missile attacks while keeping the enemy at bay with Earth to Mud, or massed Phantom Warriors.  I hope that magic used in Elemental combats will be as versatile as MoM magic.

I do sympathize, the combat is pretty awful right now - very "civilization," compare the numbers, send a unit in and the game rolls a dice. But it doesn't bother me yet, keep in mind that this is not the tactical combat beta, I don't expect them to even touch combat 'til Beta 3. There is a point to this beta and it's not combat, it's everything else - graphics and stability and economy and (eventually) magic, diplomacy, etc etc.

I might question how well we can really evaluate some of those systems, without tactical combat to test out our new technologies and spells and such, but still - there are things that can be tested without 'real' combat, combat's turn will come in Beta 3.

Will tactical battles be something like NeverWinter Nights down to the character level or hex based (Kings Bounty)? I think the tactical battle system could make or break the game. Would really like to see a video of tactical battles!

Yes a good well designed tactical game is the MOST important aspect of this game. I found the MoM or AoW combat quite good. But it could be even better if the designers are adept in historical wargame concepts too. Unfortunately today the tactical combat in contemporary fantasy games is better in graphics but its basic concepts are rather bland and childish. (Disciples or Homm which is IMO awful)

What I would like to see is, if I recruit a cavalry unit, then its role should FEEL like a historical one (medieval or ancient) in tactical combat. (which means, that you should have incentive to use it if it is heavy armored as shock cavalry as it was in reality. Other uses could be scouts, or pursuit cavalry or for covering flanks if lightly armored) More modern variations if you they have flintstone pistols or the elemental fantasy equivalent of them, they could be used as skirmishers to soften up enemy formations)

I dont speak from "complicated" rules. No. All these effects above can be done with some few simple basic ideas. (eg. giving units special abilities like "shock combat" or "skirmish" and not just attack and defense numbers)

Now such depth I would love to see in addition with all fantasy goodness like spells and dragons. But for balancing such a ruleset its not sufficient that the designers are good computer programmers or adept in the usual computer games. For these its necessary to take a deeper look at board and PC wargame concepts and ancient historical warfare.

Why shouldn't more intelligent use of your resources be able to net you a victory when the odds aren't in your favor numerically? That's pretty much a staple event in many battles throughout history and fiction. Nobody is saying you should be able to take down an army of 10,000 heavy cavalry with 100 peasants. I don't think there is a valid tactic the peasants could provide that would let them defeat 10,000 heavy horsemen. Extreme examples are not what you need to be using to discuss this.

I'm a little confused by the constant comparisons to X-Com (not in this thread). While I love X-com... I don't know how literal people are about it. Do people really want to put their bowmen on overwatch? Or crunch action action points to maximize the efficacy of sword blows?

Good tactical needs :

• Placement of units matters : if you're on higher grounf you should have a bonus on damage but a reduced evasion, attacking from behind should give bonuses to hit %age, pincer attacks, ambushes in special squares
• Morale : it shoudn't be only bonuses/maluses. It should be about breaking, being pinned, fleeing in terror, being paralyzed by terror, being berzerk, getting less morale maluses when you get hit.
• If you have 1 hit point you shouldn't be fighting like if you had your full HP. There are two ways to do it : %age (if you have 50HP/100HP you gat 50% maluses on your attack and defense, thus first strikes would be really important) or "wounds" (each time you get hit you can lose HP and get a wound dependant on the number of hp lost. 125 HP lost ? You'll have a greater wound that lessens you attack/defense/morale and you start bleeding. 1 HP lost ? that's just scratch = no wound)
• Separating two things in armor and two things in attack : probablity to hit/escape the hit and how much damage is done/reduced.
• special skills : like aikido that would let units reflect damage if they succeed a "concentration" (or whatever you want) roll, chareg that would let you get more damage (multiplied by the number of squares travelled to close combat) but less defense for the round, feint enemy, trying to bash without killing, capturing, skilled retreat, anti-cavalry defenses, decoys

Add magic and you get something really interesting.

Also agreed.

The idea of moral and unit effectiveness was a big part of my thread on persistant status effects.  Magic (or unit abilities) should have the potiential to place poison, insanity, (possibly domination effects by an enemy) that persist even after a battle and have strategic consequences for a surviving unit after a battle. Units that have a break in moral and sucessfully flee the battle, would remain on the strategic map, and may be rallied by a nearby friendly hero. Insane units may go berzerk and attack friendly units or towns, or may just wander off being outside of the "control" of their soveriegn.  Dominated units could be used by the oppossing soveriegn until the domination effect was broken, or wore off.  Additionally, movement on the strategic map should be also determined by the relative " health" and rest levels of the units. ( Wounded or fatiqued units will move slower ).

All of these types of persistant unit "status" effects would have an effect strategically. But none of it would matter if the "tactical" portion of the game is not well thought out. Having the ability to have units "retreat" off the tactical battlefield should also be allowed. Many times in historical ( and fantasy) battles, a few units engaged with a superior enemy, wuold sacrifice themselves to allow other units to "escape" to fight another day. Terrain should be a "big" factor..... Think of the movie "600" where a small elite force used a natural "Terrain" bottleneck to hold off an army that was over 1000x it's size.

The other major issues for any tactical "combat" would be the various uses of combined arms.....  Elite armored Hoplites or pikeman (with sufficent "ranks" are nearly immovable and unstoppable from the front, but weaker on the flanks and very weak from behind.)  Also they move slowly. Calvary moves quickly, and can attack infantry from the sides or rear where it is weaker due to their mobility. Calvery is weak against misslefire ( but relies on it's speed to outrun it) and is weak against immovable blocks of infantry if it attacks infantry from the front.  Calvery can detroy archers quickly if they can close to melee range. Archers are weak in melee combat, but can weaken enemy infantry ranks in range ( especially more lightly armored infantry) and can decimate calvery that remain()s in it's effective range.  Archers are generally as fast, or faster than infantry in movement, due to lighter armor.  Artillery ( Balisticas, Trebuchet's, catapults ) are very slow moving, but are excellect at siege warfare, or punching big holes in enemy lines. They definately are vulnerable to anything else at close range.

Rich

X-Com combat is not designed for a fights in the open, without any cover. So it's pointless to use that system. I think a better candidate is a wargame Fantasy General or tactical JRPGs like Gladius or Disgaea.