I still disagree with your reasoning. Basically you are saying that tactics and variety hang on the fact that a unit can enter mélée without armor and come out unscathed. This simply doesn't compute.
I think that, on the contrary, tactics enter more in the equation when you have to take this into account - and it allows the game to be more logical, seriously, who would expect to fight toe-to-toe without defense and still survive ? - and to actually maneuver in order to minimize the damage of retaliation, and use all the methods to weaken an enemy before contact with the "glass canon".
And I don't see how it has any link with homogeneization, again. You want max damage and defense for any unit, that feels rather logical. The point is, the game simply need to have drawbacks - cost, speed and the like. This has nothing to do with the ability to kill a unit in mélée before it can retaliate. In fact, this entire thread exists BECAUSE of the "kill before it can react" effect exists, and is easily abused. The method you defend is actually much more prone to exploits and homogeneization than the other.
Not at all. I'm saying by common fantasy gaming convention, there are different types of melee units, built differently, with different roles in combat. A striker/rogue (+ speed, +attack, _hp, -Def) is built for maneuverability and finishing power, to be able to attack *opportunistically*. His role is to move around and finish off targets that are vulnerable *that round* that can be taken out with one strike, because he trades maneuverability speed, and stiking ability, for the ability to suffer much damage. These characters are fundamentally built this way...not *only* relying on special abilities, although those are important too.
In your scenario, I don't see any value for a character built that way. The right character to take an attack, always has to be built to survive heavy punishment, because they will always take damage. There is no reward for using them opportunistically. It becomes checkers, instead of chess.
Consider the typical following typical tactical combat scenario, where you have limited number of moves per round, and success means minimizing damage to your army as it is out on the road, unable to restock its units:
1) 2 enemies: One target with medium armor and a powerful 50 point attack has been fighting my tank who has high armor and the ability to suffer punishment, but low speed and only a moderate attack. That target has 50 HP left, but my tank only does 25 hp damage a turn. In turn, my tank with his armor takes only 30 damage a turn, but has 120 hp left.
2)Another enemy target , 4 spaces away, is identical, except it has the full 100 Hit points left. My tank is too slow to reach him that turn.
3)I have a striker unit that is fast, and therefore able to attack either of the targets this turn. He can do 65 HP in damage, but has little defense to speak of so he will take close to full damage, and only 75 HP.
My tank obviously has attacker 1 well in hand, and can take that punishment to kill him in a round or two. So should my striker then close to the new opponent and engage him? No, because while he could deal that attacker a mortal wound, he couldnt kill him, and would take severe damage from the counter attack, probably resulting in his death before the tank could reach him in a couple turns. The right move is to move in opportunistically (since he can be anywhere), and deliver the deathblow to my tank's target, while the tank them moves on to the new target , where he can absorb the damage better than the striker, as well as any counter attacks (if counter attacks were limited as they should be).
One scenario results in greater damage for both units and possibly one death, the other keeps both units alive for the next battle, with only moderate damage to one. This is tactical thinking. Had both of my units been tanks, they would have taken more overall damage, and been in poor shape the next battle.
In a simultaneous attack scenario, not taking into account special abilities which you may or may not have access to, that striker disappears from the field. He cannot survive the counter attack from either enemy. Outside of ranged attackers and magic(which you may or may not have access to), there is no incentive to build that striker character. You are simply building units with the most powerful attack, and the most powerful defense (but emphasis on the latter) you have access to every time, because every unit will have to go toe to toe and suffer damage in return for every blow delivered, even a deathblow. Then they simply gang up on whatever unit is within reach that turn, and hope to win the battle of attrition. That is not what I want, and I don't find the notion of building "disposable" units very appealing in a game like EWOM, where you're out of reach from reinforcements most of the time, and speed is of the essence.
Theres nothing wrong with the idea of units built with high offense and low defense. I want to see diverse roles and unit mix on the battlefield. It's simply that this role is a bit out of proportion in its effectiveness in EWOM right now, diminishing *other* roles that might be played, for instance a High Defesnse, low attack unit. It's clearly a problem, but I dont see the idea of getting a deathblow against an enemy depriving it of a counter attack to be the problem in and of itself.
As another poster said, the tactical combat mechanics should be diverse and effective on a basic level, outside of the need for special abilities (which are still vitally important for the game to see developed), which you may not have access to all the time. Whereas from the first turn, you can build units to serve different basic roles, eventually unlocking special abilities that help you specialize even further, and add other options during combat.
Furthermore, I find the idea of an enemy whose head I just chopped off, still doing damage to me, conceptually distasteful.
