My chief complaints

Your post echoes a lot of my feelings, especially about the tactical combat.

Hack n' slashers may like that it puts you right in the middle of the fight, but I do not. I have been posting high and low for bigger battlefields all week, because I believe that they will alleviate some of this problem. Units can spread out more, the distance from the enemy is further, and all units can fit on the battlefield (In some sieges some units are placed off grid because there isnt enough room to fit them).

Right now it's close to impossible to use formations effectively because of the random deployment of both forces, and the fact that most battlefields the AI is a single turn away from basing your units. What I've been doing to try to remedy this is marching my units as many tiles back as possible on the first turn, so that I can form them into somewhat of a cohesive fighting force.

The battle AI does need a serious revamp, I don't think Tactics is in it's dictionary. They seem to employ more of a Zergling Rush strategy rather than a basic medieval battle formation.

I also agree about roads, except in my game, instead of going through dragon lairs, they go through Elemental Temples, much less brutal I admit but still a major inconvenience. All in all great post.

This post is 100% win.   

Cause nothing says "I know how to design a fun game" like a Masters in Economics.  Lol!

"Economics of trading are absurd

Why should opponents demand 1/3 more for the same technology?   Long ago humans discovered that money was the best way to express value of assets.   Find an economics graduate school major and have them design a system.  They could write a thesis on it."

Down at the used car lot, no one cares about economics. Everyone involved in a transaction wants to get a 'deal.' When one party wants the transaction more than the other, prices may increase as the more patient party realizes their advantage. This can happen in pre-monetary barter, too.

The AI always wants a great deal. Sounds semi-realistic to me.  

It would be great if the game would let players save formations.

This!

Anyone remember Final Fantasy tactics? There was a pre-battle screen where you'd set up your army, not knowing what you would face, but able to form up based on expected strategy. 

You get Karma just for mentioning that gem of a game, oh the hours I spent huddled over my PSP playing that game, I had it for PS1 as well but I much preferred the new version cuz of the multiplayer and extra goodies. Multiplayer was fun in that game. But yes I do remember the formation screen, it was awesome

Brings to mind another PSP gem I sunk many hours in some may agree or may hate it but I <3 Metal Gear Acid. I think I'm gonna go out and buy MGS:Peace Walker and FF Dissidia 2 so I can spend some more time with my PSP... now look what you did!

I also want to say one more thing: Shining Force. That is all.

I agree. My mage holds a sword not a staff . If i can't cast a spell to kill them , then I WAK!!! them. 

Unfortunately I am now placed right in the middle of BATTLE!

Would you accept somebody with a doctorate in mathematics? Or does it really have to be an economics major?

Only if they are a Parrot

An economics major was suggested for two reasons.  First, they have some understanding of how a market works.  Second, they could use the exercise as a research project.   If I'm short of metal I would be willing to pay more for it than if I have an excess amount.   But I might want to sell some of my low supply of metal if the price were high enough and I needed the gildar to buy magic technology.  It would take some analysis to figure out how to program the AI, but a game like this is an opportunity for an economist to test some theories.

An explanation here is that the trading is not the same technology but the same category of technology. The more you have in this place the more valued your technology. Trade Military knowledge between two people. If one has a lot of military knowledge already, they know pitfalls and otherthings already. The purchase of what your knowledge is won't be realized until you see it in full. But if you already have a lot wouldn't you value your technological category a lot higher than the others knowledge.

The economy could use some work, but I don't think it would make a good research project (there are more accurate programs available for testing these theories).

Technology is consistently over-valued by the AI players.  I've never seen a case where mine was considered more valuable.  The only even trade that happens is when an AI player offers one.  So I stop offering trades and wiat for an even offer.  But sometimes I do a trade as "foreign aid" to an ally or potential ally.

It's hard to determine if they overvalue their technology or if they are undervaluing your technology. I believe that the mechanic is not in place as it should be for technology trading. I haven't played enough to determine if prices are really good if you are allied with the other characters. It's hard to do trades with an empire that you may go to war with, especially if everyone is seeking profit.

I think they also want to discourage the rampant tech trading that happened in some of the Civ games. I remember researching a tech and immediately selling or trading it to the other factions for tech I didn't have

It made researching down one line the way the way to go since I could always trade it for less valuable tech that I didn't have yet.

I could go for a BLIND setup phase where you don't know the positions of the enemy and you setup your units like say in Dominions III. I kind of have to agree putting mages in the front and melee is the back is sort of ridiculous. Now archers in the front I wouldn't mind since those nasty bassturds rip me a new one sometimes.

Agreed.  This is one of my major gripes with the new game.  The initial formations and battle maps were much better in FE.

In one battle I had that slow and useless champion Kasst (only moves 2 tiles) and he's basically a defender tank / blocker with no spells.  I also had my familiar imp, with 14 HP and low initiative with not much defence or damage as a means of adding spell support in the same stack.  You can guess where they were placed...

The familiar was placed in front rank and Kasst in the back rank so he had to make 2 moves before he could attack anything and the battle was over before he did anything useful.  My familiar managed to move before the 2 enemy units near it could wipe it out, but that was sheer luck.   Who in their right mind would put a slow pure melee champion in the back rank?  And a slow weak spell caster in the front rank? I dispair 

------------

Suggestion giving simple player control over tactical battles:

It seems to me that a simple solution to this problem is for the player  to be able to allocate suggested roles to units in a stack before the battle.  This could be done by simply giving some of them F for front rank, M for middle rank and R for rear rank.  And then depending on the map the units would be drawn up in either 2 or 3 ranks with all F units being put in the Front and all R units put in the rear and any M units put in the middle rank if possible and otherwise allocated to the F or R rank.  That should help the game AI controlling tactical battles place units more effectively and also give players much more control over the battle plan.

JJ

Some cursory control over deployment or battle formations would be a much welcome addition to this game.

102 HOURS so far and I did not get my one more turn badge.   But any how....I know you put a LOT of work in this new combat placement but it's HORRIBLE!

    I'm a mage with weapon an put right in the middle of battle to much. I would not mind so much if I had ALL my BUFFS on. it leaves you running to buff and heal   before you can attack. Not good! the OLD set-up was BETTER. NOW I am walking across the land with my pets and SOME HOW we are scattered ACROSS the MAP in battle mode. Not realistic! Please remove this new battle set-up.

I'd love to be able to customize setups, but it's nice to have battles start at varying, unpredictable ranges, from Agincourt set-piece distance to knife-fight close.  Adds another element of risk and unpredictability to the game, and is again, realistic; the best-laid plans gang aft agley.  

Of course, if one were optimizing coolness, then a Commander-type maneuvering skill would allow competing stacks to vie to choose combat battlefield size / range.  

I have to disagree that it's realistic starting point blank with the enemy. Only a pretty lousy commander let's his troops march right into the fray without some type of cohesion. Now if you could set up an ambush and that starts the battle like some maps currently do, now that makes sense and is realistic. How could that mechanic work? Make units that hide in woods hidden, or make how you engage an army on the strategic map count for something. What I mean by that is say the army you want to attack is facing south, so instead of attacking them head on and starting a normal battle, swing around to their flank and engage them giving you an advantage in tactical, maybe you could be given a more advantageous setup, or an ambush style start point blank and act first. Just throwing out some ideas, what do you guys think?

Battle formations do need some attention imo. Perhaps having the Commander line of abilities have a way to allow for customizing formations before battles begin. The real question I think then becomes, how will the AI utilize this feature? Perhaps giving AI commanders a bonus of initiative or something equivalent to make up for the advantage given to the player.

Win!

That is actually my most hated map because of that problem, along with how small it is (it's like 4 tiles wide) along with the dead tiles which look like they should be accessible but aren't which compounds the existing bottleneck problem already present.