I also think the combat system in 0.77 is too simple to be much fun, but I understand that the engine can support terrain cover bonuses and certainly a wider range of unit abilities, zone of control, and counterstrike.  (Tactical magic is on track to be a blast once it's balanced up, but the mundane units not so much).  Other people seem to like it though, so YMMV.

We'll see what they do with it going forward. Devs have been playing the cards close to the vest this time around.  Otherwise it looks like there are enough features in there that the modders will get it going.

Ya it's terrible and i'm worried about it's future.

Paths like the ones we already have or advanced paths?

Ex

                    Rogue ----<

Assasin ----< Blademaster ----<

                    Ranger ----<

or dual paths?

                  +Assasin= Bladedancer

Warrior ----<+Mage= Spellsword

                  +Defender= Weapon Master

Maybe you're right.  If that's the case I'm surprised to have not seen it referred in the otherwise generally excellent "what's next" post.

I completely agree with Solam. 

The battlefields are way too small and movement boni too numerous, which makes the current (very simple) ZOC system pretty much redundant.

On top of it, there are no stratagic considerations beyond the "What can I afford?"-think process when it comes down to the question of what to train. 

Basically higher attack value is better. End of story.

No counter system in place (but pls don't transport the counter-system from galciv2 into elementals tactical combat, because it wouldn't work well). Almost none weapon properties to differentiete each weapon from each other - the lack of purpose for each item. Additional the lack of a limit on how many accessories a unit can equip makes the choice between each one almost non existent. It's just the more the better kind of thing.   

It would be nice if player could set up a formation. (e.g., like HOMM)

If no formation is chosen (i.e. quicker start) then your army is set up in same formation as the last encounter.  

I hate it when I have an earth elemental stuck at the back of my army and it take three turns before they are anywhere near the enemy.

From past experiences with WoM ... the general 'feel' of a tactical battle doesn't change. (within a given game)

Tactical battles will be MORE BALANCED and LESS BUGGY upon release, but they will use the same philosophies that they have today.

Yea, MoM's tactical battles had a similar aesthetic format to FE    ... must admit I'm a bit more of a Total War fan myself (well, until they required steam that is, hehe)

To my point, it would be a great boon if you could indeed have the units pre-placed intelligently, or even have the human/AI able to place them in the nearest 2 rows of the grid.

The philosophy of WOM was turn based ... and stayed this way for the entire game (regardless of what beta testers said)

The philosophy of FE is, among other things, Initiative based. Im not really making a criticism or suggesting something here, I just want to remind lurkers that the game doesn't change drastically within any given installment (over the course of a beta)

-> If I was going to make a suggestion from dreamland however, I would ask that Tactical Battles get larger maps as their armies get larger.

-> I would also ask for relatively low tactical movement within an initiative turn (melee 1 move, mounted 2 moves ... normal speed increasers only affect Initiative)

Given Frogboy's comments, I am hopeful that even if the map size does not change (which isn't necessarily the only possible fix), that at least tactical movement is reduced to something more manageable.

If movement was a bit slower (melee 1, mounted 2) with faster units having higher initiative only ... Then we could have something cool even without larger maps

-> it wouldn't be identical to Checkers, Chess, Go, or Stratego per se ... but I think it would place a greater emphasis on troop formation and positioning, and the movement required to get there.

(as units slow down, with stats unchanged, ranged effectiveness will go up, but stats are relatively small details ... No? I mean, changing them all has got to take some serious man-hours, but I do not think it would be a serious issue, and perfectly capable within a Beta framework. That is, I think the game could still be balanced between Melee and Ranged, with a new slower movement format, without changing too many of the cogs and gears)

-> Also, if you did go all the way to 1 move non-mounteds only ... you could even give certain (most?) weapons a maximum range

For instance, a Short Bow only being able to shoot 3 tiles out, with Long bow only being able to shoot 5 tiles out ... wouldn't be that large of an issue if Melee can only move 1 tile per initiative turn.

Good points. ZoC would still be important for Mounted Units and certain creatures though. (even if most non-mounteds were capped at 1 tile)

Lower movement, Initiative based motion, and ZoC all seek to implement a simultaneous nature inside of a turn based atmosphere.

There is nothing wrong, imho, for ZoC to have limited usage.

I suppose instead we could start out with maps being at least 50% 'longer', and having 2 move melee/ranged and 3-4 move mounted.

Gary Grigsby?

Not entirely true about the MOM tactical battles. The bumps/hills would slow down non-flying units moving across them. Roads in the tactical battle would also allow for extra movement(cost 1/2 movemement point on roads), plus city walls, that force non-flying units to have to fight their way in to the city, or use spells/specific units to take out the walls. Wall of Darkness could also be used, to prevent ranged units from shooting over the walls.

He beat me to it.  And said it better.  Even FB's MoM screen shot had an example of the bumps that would slow you down.