Tactical battles.

Me too.

I don't. I've got plenty of wargames. What I don't have is good 4X fantasy strategy games. Tactical combat can be very cool, but I feel it is ultimately just a proving ground for what you've accomplished on the larger scale. I don't want them to be complex, I just wamt them to be fun and out of the way soon enough that the main focus of the game remains on the world map.

Hell, I want blocking terrain and line of sight. Before we worry about flanking and ZoC, let's get walls working.

My god yes. I was beginning to think I was the only one...

I too would prefer deep battles. Maybe with all the new features we can mod in enough battle content to get somewhere here. At least we will get better AI this time. 

I'm a fan of Magic: The Gathering. When I refer to hopes of FE being like MTG, yes part of that is spell/counter spell. However, I want abilities on units like First Strike, etc. I want tactical combat to have the feeling of depth that a MTG duel brings to the table. And line of sight, walls, cover, flanking, would all be badass too. I want tactical to incorporate meaning full decisions.

And ponies.

Good idea. That thread was misleading since the title was 'tactical combat' or whatever not just 'tactical combat AI' or something. They are both very important topics. Honestly though, I think we are well past the point of adding in major new features such as big changes in the way tactical combat works.

 

Depending on how FE turns out, I'd like to see the next expansion / sequel / whatever add things like LOS, ZOC, Sieges / Assaults, etc.

 

For now, lets just see how FE turns out and then we will have a better idea of whether the system is fun and works, or if it would benefit from some additions.

I'd love this to. There's tons of your classic 4x games out there with simple tactical/non-tactical battlles.
Really hoping for something different. At least that it's being worked for and perhaps introduced in the 3'rd game.


I'd rather not have tactical battle than have a card-system implemented.
If we are talking about gameboards then War Hammer is my vision, certainly not MTG.

Hoping that FE at least has the vision of something like Age of Wonders battle or HoMM 2-3 battles.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAGjlqYOoRU&feature=related (4.00)

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhJCpJE97ck 

 

 

 

I have my own personal dreams of a game with great strategic and tactical depth where battles last for a good 30 min each and aren't over in 3 min, let's say a mini version of Panzer General 2 wiith better graphics where it takes some time to assemble an army and where loosing a big one is really going to hurt.
But I understand this is not for FE. I just hope it will be similiar to HoMM or Age of Wonders at least

Deeper combat or not is IMO also a question of time consumption. If there are twenty combats each turn than the length can become unbearable. If there is one per turn or less, it is nice to see some tactical elements involved.

I want this too. Adding abilities to the game is all well and good, but if we wanted that we'd be better off playing Pokemon. Elemental, even in the upcoming iteration (judging from everything we've heard of it) needs a hell of a lot more before it can be said to have tactical battles in the literal sense. Which is a bit of a slap in the face really, since better tactical battles were allegedly one of Derek's goals for FE.

Big changes are the reason the beta's been delayed. At least in theory.

Then which expansion will give us dynasties, turn champions and sovereigns into proper characters, bring back naval gameplay, and finally give us espionage? You can only say "it'll be in the next expansion" for so much stuff before it loses credibility.

Of course it will benefit from additions. Being able to have situations that require (or benefit from) thought can only add to the game. The only question is whether Brad and Derek will think they ought to give it to us or whether they'll think they've done enough other stuff to make FE good without tactics.

I think it is best to treat the Elemental devs like a dartboard. We need to throw as many darts at them as possible and some of them will stick. Sure we could form threads for the really important things that should be added or fixed, but that will have to be after the beta. I think that attacking from the rear and having one's flank covered should confer a bonus to attack for instance. That would go a long ways towards tactical completion. 

I'm less concerned about time consumption, because it seems pretty rare I have a ton of battles going on at once, unless the enemy AI is sending armies of one unit at a time.  Also, I don't believe that the addition of these kind of rules would make the battles any significantly longer, just more fun.

I agree with Lord Xia entirely on this matter.

I agree, but that also necessitates facing and turning rules, which expand the workload a good bit. It's worth it, in my mind, but it's not nearly as essential as impassable and impenetrable terrain or raised grounds. It would also require things like cavalry charges, setting pikes, and forming shield walls in order to be a truly compelling mechanic. Those may or may not be in, but if they're not, that's another dollop of design time. Plus they have to write AI that uses all of this.

While personally I don't think Stardock should be rushing this, they do presumably want to release it some day, and I feel like the work/reward on this is substantially worse than on more than a few other things. While it would be good, I don't consider this stuff essential - it's not nearly as important allowing for more complex battlegrounds.