Chrono Trigger!!!!!!!

...

.....

Wait, what were we talking about again?

It gets more interesting when you have multiple varied units and you have to plan tactically for them to engage enemy units that they are best equipped to deal with, while trying to deny the same edge to your enemy.

PS: Chrono Trigger is great.

Sounds promising.

More variety in combat will make it a lot more fun.

Its true that a 1v1 battle is hardly a great example for why damage types shallow tactical combat, but it is a good method of illustrating a specific point. Planning for an enemy army is not a tactical decision, but a strategic decision. In the most general case, damage types ad resistances add a large amount to the strategic elements of war.  You carefully consider the enemy forces and create armies best suited to engage those forces. Yet, none of this has yet to actually deepen tactical combat in any meaningful way. Let assume for a moment that only damage types and resistances are added to the game, in lieu of any other consideration - abilities, terrain, positioning, etc. Now lets call these damage types rock, paper, and scissors for all intents and purposes with the standard definitions for counters. Thus, our entire tactical choice becomes abundantly clear, as the entire combat devolves into a grand ballet where rock tries to attack scissor while avoiding paper and so on. This does not expand the tactical choices for the player, but simply refines tactical choice to the minimization and maximization of a set of game mechanisms. 

Do not misunderstand me that I believe adding damage types would be a bad thing for WoM or FE. As I pointed out before, it does add a very interesting strategic element to the game as well as gives a framework by which a natural advantage can be given beyond simple unit attack power and accuracy. However, with respect to the actual combat itself, additional combat actions are a simple and easy solution to greatly expand the tactical choices of a player. The term "special ability" is something of a misnomer as a special ability need not be all that special in fact. Consider adding something as simple as a "Block" to the current actions fight and move. This command could confer a defensive bonus of some kind representing a unit preparing to be attacked. The action is not necessarily anything special nor would it be a replacement for either the attack or move actions. Yet, this one action would greatly increase the tactical possibilities of combat, but would be something the player would have direct control of. Now, if this action was applied to a shield, then a player who brought sword shield units would not simply gain some mechanical bonus, but would have a real choice whether to strike or block. The big one for many players is the spears v mounts mechanism, yet spears are not great against mounts for some magical reason. The reason a spear is so great is because it can be braced, and thus become deadly to a charging enemy while being unable to attack directly. Therefore, a spear could confer a "Brace Spear" ability which has this type of effect, while still allowing the player to the choice of how to proceed. Does he then brace for a mounted charge or move his spears to join an attack? Thus, we gain both strategic depth in selection of units to attack an enemy as well as tactical depth in how to proceed in the battle itself.

Special abilities 

These are certainly things that would be useful in E:WoM also, not just E:FE...

Tactical Combat is still the reason I don't play the game in moment. It feels for me like exploiting the AI whenever it comes to it.

- I always get "First Strike", why? There need to be a mechanism someone is attacking and the other more defending.

- I can easily kite opponents around.

- with defense structure the AI has no plan how to attack effectivly. It often move only a small part of his army

Tactical battle needs a lot of AI improvement. I'm not sure I like the idea to make the battle even more complex. Make a better battle concept first before improving tactical spells, etc.

A very good point.

All of these suggestions in this thread are nothing less than a major AI project, but that doesn't change the fact that it must be done. If you're going to have tactical battles and have them be fun, then you have to be willing to accept that the battle AI might take twice as many lines of code than what you currently find in the strategic AI.

I think if you look at GC2, it explains why tactical combat is so simplistic. The current system is essentially the same format as the automatic battles we had, except now the human can choose its target and the computer has to deal with distance and obstructions. These are new concepts and it is no wonder that it has taken a good while to get the kinks works out. 

Can't wait to see the finished 1.2! 

I think this one has a great point about some low hanging fruit to improve combat currently.  Giving the shields a "Block" ability would really add to their combat utility, I have a mod that does this type of thing if you could ever get the AI to actually use a shield.  I also think adding some more "basic" actions could really help speed up tacticle:

Volley: unit with a ranged attacks uses all action points making them against selected target

Full Attack: unit with actions points uses all of them making melee attacks on a selected target

You might kill yourself with the counterattacks, you might waste an action point or two firing arrows at nothing, but hey that is the price of speed!  Uses the slower ones for maximum control, Volley and Full Attack when they make sense.

if it eases your mind Jon wasn't in the office that week, he was forced to talk to me instead  

Heyyyy I live in Lansing as well

The issue with Kenata's mod is that, although it's an amazing piece of work, it's extremely constrained by the limitations of the moding engine right now. There's a lot of stuff that could add strategic depth that currently cannot be coded into the game. Passive, reactive or conditional abilities aren't in the game yet, for the most part.

Also, abilities and a richer environment for tactical battles go hand in hand. Stealth/speed related abilities need a larger battlefield with cover and hiding places. Wall crushing/climbing requires walls to crush/climb. Etc. They could also benefit from somewhat more complex combat rules: positioning, D&D-style attack of opportunities or zone of controls. Abilities that interact with those rules could add a lot to the game.

Otherwise, yes, Kenata is right. Take a simple example, magic the gathering: a huge number of cards and creatures, almost all different, and many interesting and useable in a way or another. Almost all of them have abilities (the ones that don't actually become interesting because they're relatvely unfrequent and trade their lack of abilities for slightly increased straight power).

The point he makes, though, is still interesting. The point of AoO is to allow you to prevent the opponent from ignoring your line of defense in a turn-based environement. In a Total War game, in there's a hole between 2 units of the defender's front line and the attacker just goes through without any other backup tactics, the attacker will have its flank naturally exposed and will put himself in a pincer formation. But this is real time: if someone goes between 2 of the units of my defensive line, I just ask my 2 units to attack on both sides while he is moving. 

In Elemental, there is neither facing (sides and front are the same) nor flanking (having 2 units around an enemy units doesn't give a bonus) and you can't react in real time to an opponent going through your line of defense. AoO model the reaction in a tactically interesting (if not very realistic) fashion, allowing you to maintain a real line of defense.

In other words: abilities aren't enough: we need more importance given to positioning. Interaction between this and abilities could give much richer tactical battles.