Must add one thing:

 what I loved in AoW was that when you fled with an army and it got caught up from behind by an enemy army in the wilderness, you then started the tactical battle with your own army dispersed (often just a few, slow-moving troops at the end, closest to the enemy). The fast moving troops then still had the option to flee the battle (exiting to the right of the screen), but it meant you would sacrifice the other poor guys. So often you had to go through a battle (that you by definition made everything to avoid) with your troops in disarrange, with some coming to the rescue of others or trying to cover them until they also could escape. Made for a lot of interesting and challenging play. Don't let every battle screen automatically start with the units of both sides arranged like on a chess board, always in the same way - boooring!

Having attack, defence and HP is enough.  It takes away lots of interesting potential decisions.  There should be at least a damage stat, acuracy stat, an armor stat, an evasion stat,  and probably multiple magic damage and resistance types.   Some special modifier would also be pretty cool.  Stuff like +damage vs. certain unit types, multiple attacks,  bleeding effects, stun effects and so on.  Basically I feel the combat should be at least as complicated as other fantasy strategy games, such as, Age of Wonders, Disciples, Warlords !V, etc...

triple post editing grrrrr....

grrrr...

This would fit in with mobility.

Leaders could break too, and if so, necessitated another morale check for associated units (so there was balance between risk&reward for using leaders).

Leaders would also affect unit 'skill' (damage done, to hit rolls, etc.).

For me, in the order of importance:

1) Have Auto-Resolve for tactical battles work well. In games like the Total War series, I tend to grow tired after the AI has sent hundreds of armies to kill you, of the same build, and does so in some delusion that this time will be different. The problem is that the Auto-Resolve function doesn't work nearly as well as a human player. A battle fought by human vs the AI might result in a victory with a small loss for the human player, but the same battle with AI vs AI might yeild a total loss instead.

I liked how the ship combat system in GalCiv 2 worked as I could design ships and make fleet compositions that worked rather well. The outcome of the battle relied very little on my participation (it would probally be a nightmare trying to do this on the biggest of maps anyways).

2) Don't ask the player to manage the leveling process of every minor unit. Lets face it, if you have a thousand and 1 units, and they all level up, you are probally going to be tired of choosing how they level up maybe after the first hundred or so. Instead, how about you allow players to pick abilities and traits that units might learn or improve as they level up.

3) Allow for the existance of Soveriegn created super units. Few things make you feel powerful than making something that is powerful and watch it do its thing. For instance, my "Soul Knights" would have ghostly limbs stretch out from their bodies to engadge enemies who think they can flank one of them. My "Necromancer Abomination" may emit powerful death magic that would kill many weak/inexperienced units before it could it even got close enough to murder them, and could consume the flesh of the living for renewed vitality.

----

Thats it for now...

I'm hoping for complex combat rounds.

One round not being one attack from stack A and one retaliation from stack B.  Real regiments.  I'd prefer a fully customizable system where I choose the size and allignment, I'd not mind some sensible standards.  Eight figures that make up one unit with one attack and one life, no...  I've already bought it so I'll have to live with it, but I wont mind saying it's boring and limited, detracting from an otherwise complex game centered around warefare.  Big regiments are preferable to small ones, two rows deep with ten guys, ok, but I'd rather be able to have late game armies with regiments of 100, in armies of a thousand.

Each member of each unit has their own attack, only attacking members of units they can reach.  No attacks from the second row with swords.  This makes weapon differentiation vastly more interesting than otherwise.  A phalanx of pikemen really are dangerous when the first three rows of troops stab the hell out of the enemy charge.  They're bloodly worthless when someone hits them from the side though.  You can mimic it with a ridiculously complex system of counter bullshit, or you can just do it the real way and have the same end result with fewer balancing problems by copying real world function.

I'm hoping for even more complex combat.

No shooting targets with units that can't see them.  I'd prefer a volley fire method, complete with reduced accuracy, for archer blocks, won't mind not having individual LOS within the group.

Charges, facing, penalties for disengaging.  Think Warhammer.  If you were in a regiment, fighting another regiment, you couldn't just turn around and move to attack another regiment you liked better.  They'd slaughter you the second you turned around.  If any of you made it to your target, you'd still be killed from behind just as soon as they caught up.

More than just hit or miss from the combatants.  One of the advantages of doing an individualized attack system is that you can have wild swings in power while not turning the system into a shit pile of luck driven bs.  A critical strike that kills versus a glancing blow means the end of the stack in one, but simply the end of a squad member in the other.  In such a system, you can also have meaningful damage types.  Critical strikes that freeze, alight, stun, pierce armor.  If it's animated nicely, it will look utterly badass.  The gameplay possibilities are endless.

You can tie battle experience into a critical strike chance.  Your prowess determining how effective you are at hitting the weak point in the armor, striking directly to the head, etcetera.  Your veteran spearmen would become increasingly more dangerous to high defense units.  If stun takes out your turn, blunt weapons become increasingly dangerous against high value targets that both take and dish out a lot of destruction.

You can also tie battle experience into a morale system like TW has done.  When you hit zero, you route.  Plus one for presence of this or that unit, plus one for outnumbering the enemy, plus one for having protected flanks, minus one for getting creamed in reverse.  Under such a system, having a few extra points makes you an exceptionally valuable unit compared to the fresh recruits.  The advantages is largely useless during easy fights, but invaluable in a tight spot where not breaking wins the fight.  If units are tied down when engaged and take a significant penalty if they try to disengage, you have the makings of a real combat system.

Since I'm not an eternal optimist, I wont hold my breath.  It would be nice to have a 4X TBS with real combat though.  I'd have given my balls for a multiplayer campaign from Creative Assembly, but no such luck on the TW front.

• Speed defines the initiative.
• The unit that can retaliate semi-like in HoMM3. By default it can retaliate only once. It retaliates with only 0.5 strength. Range units also can retaliate (if the enemy is in range). Retaliation is executed after the attack (with smaller forces), but  - of course - with penalty to attack.
• Every unit - by default - can attack only once.
• 5 damage types: wind, water, earth, fire and physical. All the damage is always translated into pure damage (ratio 1:1). Ex. sword 4 dmg, fire enchant 3 dmg, total damage: 7.
• Elemental attacks have some specific attributes, which would have a chance to trigger. Fire: burn (DoT). Earth: immobilize (can attack, but can't move). Wind: chance for double attack (obviously quite slim chance). Water: freeze (can't act - chance obviously smaller than in case of earth damage).
• BIG battlefields with possible maneuvers, where you can flank opponent (not like, ok, I can reach you in one turn :/).
  
• Various terrain objects like some water, wall, forest, etc. Such objects should hold a tactical value.
• Tons of special units abilities (I listed some in my long thread about unit diversity).
• Attacking from sides/back should earn you a bonus (no more turning enemies).
• 5 levels of experience. 1st level is the basic one that every unit starts with. 2nd level can be obtained be building special barracks/developing a special technology. 2nd level grants some small hp, atk, def bonus. 3rd-5th levels should offer some significant boost in atk, def, hp and even some bonus in for example speed or the range. Apart from that a unit should receive from 1 to 3 special abilities. Of course lvl 3 - 5 are only obtainable on the battlefield.
  
• Every unit/group of units needs different amount of space. A small group of standard soldiers (1 - 24) will take only one space, while bigger group will take 2 (25-49), or 4 spaces (50-100). More units will be divided into 'legions'. There should be some special units like knights, that right away take 2 spaces (1-19 knights) and then 4 spaces (20-40). VERY special units (DRAGONS) are units that can't be put into groups, and each drake occupy a 2x2 (4 spaces) region.
• Smaller units are treated as stacks, while the bigger ones receive more attention and are treated as single all-powerful units.
• Morale maybe? Need to invest in better units (more expensive), more experienced or large groups of weaker units which can support each other ("Hey, I am one of 100, it's like 1% that I will die, no?" :)).
• Sovereigns spells to be cast on battle? Yes please! Sovereign doesn't have to be participating in battle. If he does, he's a super powerful unit.
• Big bump for Fog of war! Really it would be so nice to see a FoW in a tactical battle. Now the battles would really be trilling! You would have to have good scouts and be prepared for unexpected.
• Big bump #2 for meaningful battles. The better you fight (the more fierce opponent - in comparison to you - you defeat, the better rewards. So for example there should be medals (as already proposed). If you win quite a few medals (you really got some mad skillz) you should obtain a special medal, that should allow you to get one of those (predetermined - no choice):
  • Special spell (not 'developable').
  • Special unit upgrade (look up).
  • Special building to be built in one of your cities providing you some gold/special resource/morale boost/whatever.

So many people asking for damage types, but I don't think they're necessary. Even with the magic casting.

What would be far more interesting than damage types for spells is interesting effects that define the nature of the element type of the spells.  Fire spells do lots and lots of damage for example, water spells could have ice that slows units down.  I'd rather have a variety of ways to USE magic than a variety of damage types.  Damage types don't add fun.

yes, yes, and Yes.

Another good idea is to separate Equipment Attk/Def from Skill-based Attk/Def ... research and better crafting increases equipment ratings while experience increases skill ratings.

- sure most of the time both values add into the same value/thing, but sometimes this takes things into account. If you flank a unit, you could ignore the unit's defensive Skill, while if you have a 10-rating hammer or mace, you could ignore its armor-defense/equipment defense. Say axe-type weapons have 1-10 damage and lower equipment Defense by a third, while a Hammer would have 2-4 damage and lower equipment defense by half, while a mace would have 1-5 damage and lower equipment defense by half. The higher the weapon rating (for a blunt weapon) the higher its ignoring of armor defense, so a lv 10 hammer or a lv 20 axe could ignore opponent Armor Defense entirely, while at lv 1 its only half or 33% lowered, hammer/mace or axe respectively.

Meanwhile, a dragon's claws would ignore armor defense entirely, and only be weakened/avoided by Skill-defense.

In addition, I think both types of Attack and Defense be only "to-hit" chances, while the amount of damage recieved is based upon things like weapon type ... and perhaps more experienced units (with higher attack skill?) have a higher chance of getting a high-end roll.

So an elite lv 10 axeman with 1-10 damage, is twice or three times as likely to deal 10 damage than 1 ... if it hits. Or you could have most units simply have 1 hp, and most attacks dealing either fractional damage or 1 damage, and the 1-10 is a randomized "attack" value, so in a lv 10 axeman unit, each individual soldier attacking can have a weapon attack of 1-10, although in a unit size of 100, probably 20-25 will have a weapon attack value of 10 Assuming all 100 are locked in combat.

Of course, no unit will have all its soldiers locked in combat at once, so I hope combat rolls are dealt individually for each soldier ... including hitpoints (which makes a 1 hitpoint system so much easier) however all stats will be the same for all in the unit, including level. This way, each soldier is fighting its own slightly randomized battle, however all soldiers have the same max hitpoints, same level, same attk/def, same morale, same fatigue.

Bringing another point. At the very least Morale and Fatigue should be added. This works especially well for real-time tactical battles with all sorts of formations and flanking .... especially flanking. Fatigue is a great way to differentiate armor-types, certain environmental issues, and mounted vs infantry.

All units should slowly recover fatigue over time, but faster units, and lightly armored units, and mounted units should recover fatigue faster. No unit can recover fatigue during battle, and infantry can only recover fatigue while standing still. Heavily armored infantry being the slowest to do so. meanwhile lightly armored cavalry can run the fastest, and can even GAIN fatigue while at normal (non charge) speed ... which is kind-of a crazy advantage during a run-from me type of warfare. Also, royalty cavalry or sovereigns, ect, would increase morale and fatigue more quickly.

Special units would of course be able to increase nearby allied morale, or decrease nearby enemy morale. Nation-wide civics should affect the morale of lower-class soldiers vs the morale of royalty and nobles. In general heroes/adventurers and the Noble class should have higher morale, and recover fatigue at a higher rate. Certain equipment, or types of training in unit creation, could increase morale and fatigue.

Upon Levelling Up a unit should naturally increase in Morale and Fatigue, as well as choose between increasing attack skill, defensive skill, speed, or some other learnable ability. Perhaps upon levelling up you could also increase a more interesting stat, like extra damage dealt wielding a certain weapon, or extra defensive skill vs a certain weapon ... or halving the effect of magical-based fear attacks (upon morale).

Unit Training upon creation adds a large amount of health, and experience of combat (along with increasing morale, fatigue, and skills) should also increase a small measure of health.

On Powerful Monsters, I think that claw weapons, bite weapons, ect should increase with experience until they reach full-rank, which would be ignoring equipment-ratings of the opponent ... or rather a lv 10 dragon should ignore the armor rating of lv 1 iron plate, although perhaps only ignore 80% armor value of lv 1 mithril plate. And a lv 10 dragon should perhaps be on par with lv 10 mithil plate, while having a 20% advantage against iron plate. While attacks for such a creature as a dragon only be separated into a physical ATTACK and magical damage from abilities such as a breath weapon .... things such as Defensive Skill should still be separated from *equipment* defense. A dragon's equipment defense is the natural armor class of its skin, which depends on the specie of dragon and the age of the dragon. Meanwhile defensive skill is based upon the dragons experience level. Experience level will also increase a magical beast's Magical Power and Defense, although some games have dragons being completely Magic Immune at all stages of development, which would also mean dragon's could only harm each other using physical attacks, instead of being able to use large area of effect spells/breath weapon on both enemy army and opposing dragon, having to use magic vs army and physical attacks vs other dragon. Also, for archery, obviously a flying creature's physical/material defense would be ignored and only defensive skill would be used, for "to-hit" although actual damage dealt would be lessened to an extent based upon the equipment defense. (unlike melee battles where its all one *to hit* stat) -in my opinion anyways ... easier to hit a flying creature, although impossible to properly aim for damage vs flying

On Weapon Types and Equipment I have earlier stated that I would like various damage ranges and abilities for various weapon-types. reducing armor effectiveness is a potential ability for blunt type weapons, while reducing defense SKILL effectiveness is in the ability range of rapiers and short-swords. Regular swords less-so for skill effectiveness, and axes less-so for anti-armor effectiveness.

I think the best way for equipment to interact is based upon other equipment. For instance, "Blunt" type objects like hammers and axes have bonuses vs Plate armor, while Swords have bonuses vs Chainmail and Scalemail. Meanwhile mobility-based armors like Leathers can give the user a bonus to defensive skill, or somesuch. Use of no-armor or light armor can also give precision bonuses to Archery, Dagger-use (assasinations, poison usage), or sword-fighting. The use of a sheild would perhaps lower these mobility/precision bonuses, meanwhile no-sheild + light/no armor could increase the "Parry bonus" of a one-handed weapon which can parry, like a short-sword or rapier (although all swords, including long-swords, can parry quite well, it doesn't synergize with "light armor"). In addition, the weight of total equipment used should be a factor in Fatigue of the unit.

Also, heavily armored troops should probably work better in tight formation (as most melee groups would) ... however highly skill based units might fight better in loose formation (as certain bonuses to Skill-defense could be lost due to tight formation).

On Heavy Cavalry

In addition, while a wedge formation will not work against pikemen/spearmen, a massive wave of heavily armed lanced Men-At-Arms can still crash against a Phalanx to good effect. The problem of course, is that cavalry are generally more expensive (therefore generally fewer) and even though the pikemen would still LOSE MORE TROOPS, the cavalry would also lose many more than would be expected vs a less organized foe, so it would strategically not be cost effective.

Heavy armor still protects vs Pikes (pointy things), and if you invest heavily in armors, pointy things such as swords and pikes will be less effective over-all, you can also equip your horses with armor-which is a good idea if you are going to be charging into a sea of pointy things, even if you flank them and charge their backside, which is an attack that ignores their defensive skill, guaranteed to cause a good deal of enemy casualties (as they are not facing u ... its only their armor vs all of you) ... and if they choose to break formation (if at all possible) their overall effectiveness will decrease, while they will be able to face all sides outwardly.

On Auxilliary Cavalry, I think any weapon-soldier combination can be placed upon a horse. Wether it be Archer, high-priest, Necromancer, fire-mage, hero, royalty, Soveriegn. Usually alternative cavalry include "light cavalry" and "horse archers" ... however I would like to potentially have my entire army on horseback if I can buy/fund enough horses. In addition, I would also like the in-battle option to dismount. For tactical reasons ... given the strategic mobility for horseback plus the tactical option to gain dismounted advantages, would be nice given the extra cost of all those horses. Dis-mounted Horsearchers would have increased range and precision. For an archer, attack skill = precision for my purposes. while equipment attack = sharpness/speed of arrow. Still, a mounted sovereign (or any non-divine magic user) might have a miscast chance, or need to pass a concentration check. You should never be able to lose essence on a mis-cast, but I suppose losing mana is okay. I think their should be some feats or skills available to soveriegn/ royalty /heroes/ adventurers that could make them more proficient at horseback ... specifically more profecient at casting spells on horseback, as to not suffer any penalties (other than the opportunity cost of the feat). As to mounted pikes, swords, and axes ... perhaps a slight penalty in reach for pikes, of course. Not sure about axes or swords, perhaps a penalty to attack skill? of course, for heroes and such the proper feats could be taken to negate this. Also, a horse gives you height advantage, size superiority, ect. Probably increase your equipment defense while perhaps lowering your skill-defense slightly. (a feat called horse-mastery, or "way with beasts" could negate any possible penalties to your defense skill).

On Physical Damage, it could be useful to create two physical damage types, Blunt and Piercing, just to differentiate between attacking armor or attacking skill (aka partially ignoring armor or partially ignoring skill), although you could just make the distinction for every type of weapon and every type of physical damage spell (aka Earth spells which don't focus solely on poison) ...

Archery/ranged attacks would have to be handled quite differently methinks. For flying units a to-hit is based soley upon your attack skill vs their defense skill, while against units on the ground its effected by sheilds, cover, elevation, other terrain considerations, ect. If on the battlefield, an arrow hits a soldier on the battlefield, the soldier (if land)'s defense skill probably effects where the arrow hits, while if it hits armor then its the arrows weapon class vs the armor's armor class (equipment defense). If it doesn't hit armor, arrow does full-on damage. If it does hit armor, its a percentage on the battle between weapon and armor class as to how much damage is dealt, as a percentage of max, (like an axe attack in melee with earlier example) ... or simply wether any damage is done at all. Alot of times no damage will result.

Shields and Parries should be similar, but obviously not the same. If an attack lands upon a shield, no damage is given, but of course the defender will slightly lower in fatigue, just as all battle-actions. A parry will usually block all damage, but sometimes it merely minimizes damage. A Parry is a defensive skill action vs a melee opponent. Parry cannot defend vs arrows (unless some superhero/jedi) however Shield has double-bonus on defending against arrows, and any arrows that land on shield do no damage OR fatigue for soldier, however deciding to "focus shields" (probably a unit ability) will use some small amount of fatigue ... so walking or running towards the enemy with Shields Up will use more fatigue than simply walking or running.

As far as magical elemental damage types, I'm not against having them, and I'm not sure that's what Frogboy meant when he said only one damage type (he was pretty clearly talking about weapons in that post). But I think some people are overstating the importance it actually has to the game.

Elemental damage is magic damage, and each side is limited to one spellcaster in the person of their Soverign, plus however many channelers they choose to imbue with their power. So is's present, but fairly limited. It's also incredibly powerful.

The rest of the army is going to be mortal troops, for the most part. And none of them, archers, footmen, knights, whatever, have any reason to be particularly resistant to magical fire more than magical frost. They probably won't have much resistance at all, and big damaging spells will just annihilate the troops.

The way the setting has been described, there are supernatural creatures like ogres and dragons (and giant spiders), and so on. But I haven't seen much to indicate we'll have the standard fantasy gamut with a bunch of different dragons and a bunch of different elementals all color-coded for your convenience with different elemental vulnerabilities. So those big powerful creatures who are going to resist your magic only really need a single 'magic resistance' stat, and that's more fair to all the players rather than screwing over the guy who chose fire magic when a dragon pops.

You can have elemental damage types, they make sense, I just don't think they're necessarily as all-encompassing as some players are describing. Really, the biggest place where you're going to see them used is in your heroes (including your Soverign), and your troops if you choose to equip them with magical protections.

Practically speaking, it's going to come down to 'how much defense does my soverign have against spells cast by the other soverign from different elements'. And you can just as easily have a unified 'magic defense' for that too. In fact, you should. Elemental Rock/Paper/Scissors isn't any more fun than unit Rock/Paper/Scissors. It comes down to one player losing because he chose 'fire' and the other guy chose 'water' rather than tactics and strategy. That's not fun, it's simplistic.

I think posting the strat guide combat details from MoM would be a good idea. Would give people a lot to look at and chew on. I imagine while a lot of people here have played MoM, a lot have not, and maybe even some who did didn't delve too deeply into the numbers.

It has a lot of complexity with abilities, a very different meaning to the attack and defense stats and is surprisingly deep.

It would be nice to see battle stats born of research techs that are not traditionally att/def based.

EG : As if the yellow techs in GalCiv2 that boosted morale and influence of planets, also translate to the battlefield as unit stat boosts. You could have similar bonuses with the Green Tech Tree...where medicinal techs improve fatigue stats and the like.

I like the idea that in place of the 3 colour attack/defence elements of GC2, there are several damage types, with a hero that could boost (or deplete) any of these scores with spell casting. As well as terrain boosts, trade bonus boosts, artifact boosts etc.

Yes, without damage types, you lose lots of possible counters, defences, and yes like said above, everyone gets the "Giant AoE fireball" type spell. Every time.  Every game.  In a game where you can build most any unit you want, not having damage types means little way to counter with anything but spam.

Perhaps three "basic" types (Ranged/Missles; Physical/Weapons; Magic/Spells).  With possible sub-catigories for of the basic types. Like adding fire (Fire + Missiles = "fire arrows" for example) or Cold (Cold + Armor = Cold resistant armor) or Fear (Fear + weapon = morale lowering).  Morale would be great, and really make combat more realistic.  Especially with the rare/giant units I've heard about.  Your army sees a dragon, it's morale should go down a bit.  If it's an undead or mechanical = no morale.  Dark spells could cause fear (morale loss). 

As for Attack & Defence stats, please try not to fall into the borring combat rut HoMM has fallen into:  It really matters very little which stat you raise, because if you add it to defence, you take less damage, yet do less damage, so it all equals out in the end reguardless most the time.  What if there was a "to hit" mechanic to combat; armor lowers damage taken, defence lowers the chance to actually be hit by attacks.  THEN, there would be very different and important reasons for chosing Atk or Def stats.  For example wisp could have a very high def (tiny and fast, so very hard to hit) but little armor (dies with one swat).  Without this difference, it very difficult to make the kind of units you imagine or want to recreated from fantasy yarns (you'd have wisps that are just as easy to hit as all other units, and die just as fast).  And you could make units such as giant metal golems (very high armor, but low def, so pretty easy to hit).

For a cover-all example:  You want to make a catapult that fires fiery bolders at the enemy:  That's Missle + Fire + High Armor + Low Defence + low speed, and since you can name your units whatever you like, you can call it a "Flamming Boulders of death Trechbucket".  If your enemy spent all hit time/money/resourses/research to build masses of FBODTs, you could make units with "Armor + Fire = Fire resistance" to help. 

Erm I think you meant "Having attack, defence and HP is NOT enough." This is why I check my posts after I hit the "Post Reply" button usually...:)

This sound like best idea so far,imho...simple and fit just fine with 4 stats per unit,everything else is resolved with abilities or qualities,as Demiansky like to call them.Could be used for units experience as well,unit that survive few fights while defending the city will gain "Defender" ability,granting her increased defence while in the city,more fights and "Defender" become "City Guard" abiliity giving her all prevoius bonuses from "Defender "+ bonus to attack against units trying to enter city.Later ability could upgrade to "Guard Commander" adding more units to your side if defending the city.So the enemy will see just 5 units when he aproach town,but when combat start,you will have 20 units and those 15 will be there since all 5 have "Guard Commander" ability.

As for Frogboy's " want to stay away from damage types",i believe he was talking about different non-magic types like blunt,cutting and piercing.

But Boogie more or less said in another thread that elemental damage types plus 1 physical damage type have been planned for a while.  That's not certainty, but I'd say it's likely.

IMO: turn-based/stat heavy combat is the way to go.

I understand that turn-based is a pipe dream at this point but I would like to see strong 'hero class' types of units as well as experience for troops, equipment/artifacts/gear, hero/troop unique abilities, unit combos/bonuses and damage types. I know it is easier said than done.

The whole point of this extended beta period is to try things out, get feedback, and refine them. I don't doubt that we'll start with something like the simplified system we have now. If the playerbase stays as overwhelmingly against that as it is right now? I highly doubt we'll end up there a year from now.

We may not get what some of us want either, but thats because the suggestions on some things are all over the map. There are some general themes (more then one damage type shows up in almost every suggestion, even if the details change). Boogie actually already mentioned that additional damage types are planned, just not piercing/slashing/etc physical ones.

I like to think they wouldn't run a year long public beta and ask for all this feedback if they weren't actually interested in it.

Yeah. That's pretty similar to the AoW system that I mentioned earlier, and it worked pretty well. Especially if we're able to enchant units or create enchanted weapons that can alter damage types/confer abilities.

Chimling in to say there are two things needed:

MORALE

FORMATIONS

Formations needn't be complex. A simple orientation/angle of attack would be enough for most. Typically a phalanx formation is suprt hard to damage from front, hard from the shield-side (its right), and slaughtered from left and back, making mobility something useful.

I doubt that SD will change the real time pausable combat system to turn based. I frankly don't understand that why did they choose this real time system instead of TBS, but ah well....

I confess, I haven't read every post, so if the same idea was mentioned before: sorry.

Every type of unit has some special attacks and/or defenses (someone on the first page mentioned the feat system of D&D 3.5). Now you don't just have or haven't these feats, but also have a %-chance to implement these successfully in a given combat situation. (Ex: A shield-bearer could block an incoming arrow with maybe 30%)

This chance is low at the beginning, but during training in the barracks you could raise (slowly?) this chance. The skill won't raise with this above a certain limit, e.g. 70%.

During combat you can a) raise this stat faster if it was used and b) can achieve a higher limit, e.g. 90%.

With this system it is a good idea to have a standing, trained army which can constantly better their skills in their barracks. If you would just build your troops when you're about to attack, you would have lesser costs for the downside of a worse training. Should your troops prove successful in the battle, they will get a significant boost, because they are battle-hardened. You just can train up to a certain point in the controlled environment of a barrack, but the chaos on the battle field is a complete different setting.

So maybe give each type of armor/weapon/special one or two skills associated with it. Every turn a troop is trained in the barracks, it would get a certain amount of training points to hone their skills. Here I would prefer a system, where you could check for each troop, how much each skill would rise (with a standard setting of "everything equal"). Just use slider bars like in GalCiv2 where you chose how much of your budget was spent on military/social/research.

Examples for item->skill:

• Shield -> Arrowdeflection
• Heavy Armor -> Reduction of bulk-influence (meaning: a trained troop won't be slowed or fatigued as much)
• Mount -> Hit-and-Run
• Bow -> Sniper-shot (double damage) or increased reach
• Spear -> Anti-charge
• Wand -> Partially circumvent enemy magical defense

With this implemented you will have a distinction between:

• Fresh troop who just learned to use its gear without hurting itself
• Trained troop who knows effective ways to handle its gear
• Experienced troop who can use its known skills without problems even under the stress of the battlefield

It allows a fluid system where one first put his formations on the map and give them their initial orders and then, as the battle starts and things happen, one can pause and change facing/cast spells/use cavalry to flank. Add to it a slight lag between order and realization (we are in 'medieval times' after all) and it can be pleasant.

Of course, if we're talking multiplayer with a system requiring pause everytime someone wants to give orders or choose between the 15 spells his sovereign can cast, it could end either a click-fest without pauses or a nightmare of stop-go-stop-go-stop-go...

Myself, I never played MP but I can't imagine how frenetic and anti-strategic it could be to play, say, Europa Universalis without pausing, planning, considering the situation. We'll see when they'll give it to us.

(Totally off-topic but...can someone tell me why it's impossible to previsualize our posts on this forum?   )

Yeah, it won't work in MP games. [Well it works, but it will be extremely annoying...:(]