They improved upon this since Beta, but I like your suggestion. There must be some instance where this is a problem that they aren't telling us about.

Agree with OP.

The number of times I have wanted to remain in my original position is probably 10% the number of times I've wanted to move forward. The majority of attacks I make in any given game is clearing monsters, in which case I almost always want to move forward. Later in the game when fighting other factions there may be times where I'd prefer to stay put but most of the time it doesn't matter.

If you really want to stay put it's easy enough to make sure you have an extra movement point to move back. The default should be to occupy the square you just won. That's how it is in just about every other game and--dare I say it--real life.

Losing all movement would be fine if you moved into the damn square after you won the battle. Maybe I just get irrationally angry at how slow it is to clear lairs out of forest/swamp/hills/etc but I really don't think it adds any fun to the game to have to fight one turn and then move the next.

I think the issue with that is that armies lose cohesion when you move into a city. It's a UI issue, in my mind, and shouldn't be solved with a gameplay fix. (Plus it would be too complicated. A pop-up after each battle for you do decide? Ctrl-click to move after victory, regular click to not? Doesn't sound pretty to me.)

In case you haven't noticed, I know I'm right about this. There are no valid arguments to the contrary. I will return to this thread to swat down all comers until the day I die.

Well I guess we'll have to agree to disagree (but I still know I'm right). Obviously we don't want bugs but I think the fix should have been to fix the bugs, not to not move into the tile. I mean I understand that coding is complicated and it's a big program and all, but there's a reason that we have all kinds of fancy coding doohickies: after you call the attack function, you call the move function. Obviously there's testing and edge cases and whatnot, but that's what we pay these people for.

I think every other game does it that way because it's more intuitive: when I imagine a battle, I picture the attacker moving into the defender's territory and fighting them for it. If they win, they keep the territory. Of course in reality maybe they don't advance all the way and such, but we use square tiles as an abstraction, and it really seems that the correct way to follow the abstraction through is to occupy the tile you've fought over. Of course it's an abstraction so there's no correct way to interpret it but that seems far more natural to me.

We clearly have different ideas for strategically messy, but to me it is far more strategically messy to move into the bear's cave after you've already gone into the cave to kick him out (well, kill him, as the case may be). That's the way it is for cities.

And, honestly, the game is slow enough as is when you're exploring that I really feel it would be more fun to speed it up by that little bit and complete the move after the attack. But again that's just my preference for pacing.

(And of course I realize that this is far too many words devoted to a small thing, but hey, there you have it.)

Yep two buttons after winning combat:

"Take Tile" or "Cancel"

Haha sorry Parrotmath didn't mean to bait your new mod out into the open. Honestly I would say that that's a slightly different type of game though. As I understand the abstraction in the current game, the bear you see on the map is guarding some loot. You fight the bear, you take the loot. The abstraction that you're working on is that the lair is its own mini-dungeon and there happen to be some bears outside the mini-dungeon but on the same tile. Perfectly valid of course but different. I guess MoM was on the latter model, right?

Re: choice of battlefield I think we're getting off topic but I disagree, they both choose the battlefield in some sense in that if the attacker doesn't like the battlefield he goes around or whatever. I mean it just depends on where you choose to draw the abstraction. And of course different situations make for different "choices" (trench warfare vs forest ambush vs whatever).

As far as the coding I can't imagine it's that much. I mean really, I have to assume that the coders were at least halfway intelligent when they structured the code to this thing, and that they remain so today. The function for moving is already there, right? It's not like this is some sort of P=NP kind of thing.

Also I get really angry when I fight off monsters and the AI ninjas the loot. It is, of course, easy enough to make sure this doesn't happen but you end up wasting a few turns and frankly I don't find it fun to have to worry about that kind of thing.

Oops! My bad--it went right over my head! 

Right but then you have to waste turns waiting for enemies to leave. I find that *very* frustrating. (Not to mention that if you each had two-move armies (i.e. the most common) you could get into a stalemate waiting for the other to be the first to attack a lair on a two-move square. (If the AI were that clever.))

I like it!

TBH I've only played one game of LH (but many FE) and I didn't have too much trouble with too many heroes. I tended to go for two to a stack and by the end of the game I had three or four stacks running around so that covered it. Maybe the optimal play is one two a stack in which case I will certainly use one as the mule. (And that would have the second use of easing transport of items between main heroes.)

NO! If, as suggested, you move into the tile you attack, you can't attack targets with other creature stacks next by without risking a counterattack. The best way is how it works now, where you have full controll. Especially when playing dense monster setting (as I always do) these situations happens all over the place all the time.

NB! I also like the fact that an attack costs a movement point. That represents the time used on the Battle.

I find the current settings more useful as it caters for both scenarios when players want or don't want to move after battle.

Also there are some cases when I don't want to move into the square after battle

(1) An enemy troop happen to stop on top of a Storm Dragon Temple (the temple is just an example to show that how eager I want to avoid that)

(2) I want to attack more enemy troops instead of losing the turn after spending my movement point.

I think it is nice to have a toggle from settings/preferences, but please don't make it into "default".

By the way, I have played 1 huge game (man that took me a long time) and 3 large games so far and I don't find moving after battle is a tedious process at all, the city micromanagement is the place Stardock should look at if they want to help reducing the tediousness of micromanagement.