So it's just a matter of taste ? I think that a We-Go system really adds to the usual You-go-We-go System :

• Less direct total control over everything in the battlefield (which can be a good thing. After all if you're the sovereign you're not every citizen of your kingdom)
• Less chess-like reading of the game : you can't just count how many squares an opponent can travel to know exactly where to put your units. You have to evaluate what will your opponent do, so you have to think "global" instead of "local". And because you can't do exactly what you want you have to rely more on general strategies and tactics than on human computing skills.
• Feints : if you can attract the fire ot your opponents with one of your units, then Time become a new variable. In a We-go-you-go system you don't have to take time into account, just movement range. A WeGo system adds time and everything you can do with it : feints, hit and run, etc. And think about magic : a fireball thrown at the wrong time and you kill your soldiers instead of the enemy ones. But if your enemy can out-think you they could "feint" they are casting a spell and you would split your armies etc. Just imagine how epic it would be.

Those are, in my opinion, things that would do well with a turn base strategy game and would add a lot to the tactical possibilities. If you can try Frozen Synapse you could have a good idea of what it would be.

Ufo: Aftershock, Ufo: afterlight had similar systems, they work pretty well too (imo)

It is a question more of strategy than of "counting tiles", wrong timing = Friendly Fire

The whole combat is more fluid. As all the units move at the same time, new strategies and new possibilitys become possible, AND I think it would be more "Fast Paced" for MP.

Just my 2 GILDARS...

So we'll have to agree to disagree : for me less chess-like thinking is not a good thing. With a lot of units, with a lot of skills and possibilities it would be a game for rainman in the late game to compute everything in-battle.

Less direct control isn't the same thing as no direct control and different as light direct control. You would still have a strong control on your units, but less on the outcome.

I played UFO afterlight for a long time and the tactical module is better than the system of XCOM terror from the deep and UFO enemy unnown.

And with a lot of units you could still got that kind of control if we can create armies like in real world : with general that command sub-generals that command etc.. So you just give orders to the level you want : to a whole army or to every soldier if you need.

I know it's been said before, but I want to vote against the winner take all system because it promotes a serious issue with constant build up and everyone afraid to initiate combat for fear of losing the game in one massive battle.

I'd rather build the ability to retreat in as a game mechanic that requires the user to choose that ability. Spells that allow it, troop skills that help support it (a Rear Guard ability) or something similar.

How is it realistic to send out your units in a we go system with by nature a limited number of options for the AI, can you really program a unit to think for itself. Really how many games has the AI been a really tough opponent(without cheating)? I spend all the time and effort to craft my kingdom and my military to entrust their defense to a limited computer entity deciding how to carry out an attack. My preference is knowing that I have enough control to accomplish what I want. I understand that controlling vast armies in strict TBS can daunting, but there always is the option to auto combat.  If we go, and continous real time, and RTS are your what you like, good, there have been hundreds of examples of these made in the last 10 years. This is a good thing because choices and variety are great. But this is the first major game to have TBS tile based combat for close to a decade, I for one am looking forward to it.

Your English is pretty good. "Real" in this context refers to what might be called "traditional" or "true" fantasy strategy games. It's the way the biggest games in the genre have worked in the past, so it's the way some people expect it to work now. It means that games that don't do it this way aren't real "fantasy turn based strategy games" in the way the others are.

Every genre of game has some expectations like this. RTS games like Starcraft have some of the same expectations.

Actually IIRC it was labeled as Turn Based, then it was said it would be CT, then it was changed back to TB.

Again I could be incorrect. I know when I pre-ordered I was under the assumption that it was TB. And later I found/read it was going to be CT.

The whole CT thing for me was a major let down, but it will be what it will be. (Granted I can say this now because I am happy that it went back to TB. If the shoe was on the other foot I am not as sure I would be as understanding lol.)

What I wonder is how they'll manage epic battles with a one unit = one tile paradigme.

If my thousand-troop legion of swordsmen and my thousand-troop legion of archers takes 2000 tiles just to field, what room is going to be left on the map?

How about combining these two issues into one system:

Retreat is not possible for the defender until pre-determined moment N, when the attacker starts losing morale. (the attack is faltering and in no position to persue immediately) At this point the defender can stick around since the attacker clearly Chose Poorly and it's time for payback, or they can seize the oppertunity to make tracks while they still have feet to run with.

The attacker can withdraw at any time, maybe with a couple turns notice while morale plummets due to the retreat order so the defenders can get their licks in on the retreating cowards. The attacker automatically withdraws if morale reaches zero for all units. (or a set percentage?)

This gives the attacker an advantage in that they have more control and choices, (gotta make offence desirable) but gives an outmatched defender other options than death, if he can hold on long enough. The attacker should also have plenty of time to wipe out small defender armies that would always retreat if given the choice.

"N" would be determined by the situation: Relatively short on roads/open terrain where the attacker charges in hoping for a quick victory, very long in sieges where the attacker obviously comes prepared for the long haul. In sieges this lets the defender still have a victory against the attacker if they can hold out long enough, (if they can hold out until "long N" has long passed and attacker morale has zeroed out forcing their retreat) the the defender can't retreat in this case because in a siege the attacker naturally has the place surrounded. 

I hope the battle system will do my laundry and cook me breakfast... If not... I'll be awfully disappointed.

Well most of the people [especially those, who didn't preorder] think that EWoM is the successor of MoM. Do you really think that those people are expecting to have an RTS or WEGO style combat system?

Which is why I said IMO. Either way, it's pointless to argue, since we know that the vanilla game will have a turn/tile based combat system, and I am happy that they decided to use this system.

nm 

I think it is wrong to call the tactical maps a choice between random or pre-made. The choice is between algorithmically generated or pre-made. If you make a number of cool maps, you could analyze what makes them great and try to make the battlefield generator make some of those details. What is even better about generated maps is that it could be made modable similar to how AIs are modded. So modders might make new interesting battlefield generators, that given inputs of terrain makes new battlesfields.

I always favor generated. Battlefields are not that different from world maps. The underlying issues of balance, interesting features, and uniqueness are the same.