Thank you FB.  I am one for whom tactical is not that big of a thing.  Tactical battles should be short and to the point, ala Endless Space (and even those are a little long/slow at times with the animations).

My FE battles should not require as much depth as a well played game of Chess.  If I wanted that...I would play chess...or a realistic war stratefy game.

The empire management, RPG, and narrative aspects of the game are what keep me coming back.

Once again, looking forward to Beta4!

I think the solution to the tactical battle issue may be easy, simple, and oh so elegant: give us the ability to MOD these tactical battle enchancements (terrain bonuses, flanking, zone of control, special unit abilities such as shieldwall, ranged unit penalties, line-of-sight etc.), and of course to adjust the AI so it can take advantage ! #

This way the people wanting a simpler experience can stay with the current game, whereas the more complicated tac battle fans can download the mod when some enterprising modder creates it

Alternatively, you could make a charged, downloadable game extension / DLC with all the tac battle enchancements, which people such as myself can choose to buy/install and others can ignore, at will ...

Modding is not an option for this because the AI will not know how to use it. You can't mod for MP, so don't start on about it being useful for MP. When modding, one has to limit oneself to what the AI can cope with. Otherwise you might as well add 1000000 Gildar to the player and call it good. 

The best thing to do is have people like Napean mod away features that are too complicated. Let him delete hundreds of lines of xml, instead of asking me to write them.

But i guess modding away features will cause AI problems, too. I think the best way is to keep the tactical battles short and interesting like the battles in Kings Bounty: Armored Princess. There is no need for terrain bonuses if the AI is challenging and the player has enough options in tactical battles like spells or special attacks.

Endless Space is in my opinion an example of boring tactical battles, because the player has very limited options.

I don't think we need terrain bonuses, I would love to see more terrain obstacles to change the layout of each different combat map, but I don't think we NEED terrain bonuses because if we keep them out, we can get tactical combat to be way more focused on other layers. We have an intricate weapon system right now, and I hope they change it slightly (because most of them are slightly boring) or just make it more significant, I for one wont ever use mauls just for the sheer, feel they have, they don't seem to hit hard enough compared to the turn-loss my units seem to get (this is also because units start moving very very slowly due to mauls).

But I think we should focus on keeping weapons, armor and formation the key point, instead of how the hills are upwards or downwards.
(Also makes it easier for the AI to comprehend each combat situation)

Sincerely
~ Kongdej

Terrain modifiers are not among my priorities. Talking of priorities, I thought since the game is called Elemental they could give more strategic depth to elemental shards. Fell free to contribute with your thoughts/ideas on this discussion I created a couple of days ago https://forums.elementalgame.com/429318

I will be honest, I probably would not take the effort to delete even one element of XML from a purchased product.  My own projects demand too much of that from me

I would probably buy a tactical battle DLC; not out of any deep need for tactical battles, but out of a compulsive need to have the whole game

Good examples of games that get battles right:

• Endless Space (just pick three tactics and hope you've appropiately assessed your enemy's capabilities, and have designed your ships to counter)
• Any Paradox grand-strategy title, ever (just let me develop the infrastructure to field a potent force, and AI algorithms can do the rest)

I like not having control in tactical.  It's kind of a test of my analysis of the opponent.  A human can ordinarily trounce an AI anyway, so why have the exercise of actually moving.and.ordering.every.unit?

Just my two cents, full of contradictions.  Yes, I would buy the DLC.  But then again I'd buy just about any DLC for this game if it keeps development alive.  Okay, no more from me, I've probably said too much

While I personally love tactical combat (and I treasure games such as Final Fantasy tactics, Age of Wonders, the Disgaea series, etc), I can't help but agree with you on the strategic planning aspect of some of those games.

The only caveat I have is that the game has to get preparation and reconnaissance "right" in order to make strategic planning feel fleshed out. Here's what I mean:

• Unit counters need to be properly balanced.
• Logistics must exist in the game (ie. weapons, utility items,  supply or some other strategic concern)
• Reconnaissance must exist as a system that promotes scouting and provides valuable information on the enemy
• Reconnaissance must be worthwhile (from a logistics and unit counter perspective)

For example, in some tactical RPGs, you are not given a list of enemy units prior to your next battle. This forces you to create a diverse and highly capable reserve force that can handle numerous situations. The only consideration then is your tactics on the battlefield as the planning stage can only be successfully accomplished via one way: grind to a perfect, adaptable party.

Right now, FE is far better than most tactical RPGs in this regard, but the unit counter aspect needs balancing (leather, plate and chain need better balancing and so do the weapons). Also, reconnaissance needs a boost with higher tier scout unit types (ie. scouts that are invisible, stronger and/or serve as counters to specific unit types or load-outs). 

Still, I prefer some tactical combat over none. The reason: even if the AI is top-notch, I would still feel that a "loss" is not my fault in a system that does not have complete player control. In a tactical combat system, I am at fault if I lose.

The tatical 'mods' that I was thinking of, I think, are along your lines of being tatical your recommended obsticales.

Here's what I've been stewing over:

If a road exists on the tile, then if you entered combat on that tile, a road should exist on the tatical map. Just like the road improved your movement by +1 on the tile, in combat, it should improve your movement by +1 if your units are travelling along the road.

If a hill exists on the tile, then if you entered combat on that tile, a hill (or clump of hills) should exist on the tatical map. Remember, the tile is a representation of what is there...so there could be a few hills in the combat map). Just like the hill would/could reduce your movement by -1 on the tile, in combat, it should reduce your movement by -1 should your units travel past one.

If a forest exists on the tile, then if you entered combat on that tile, a forest (or a few forests) should exist on the tatical map. Remember, the tile is a representation of what is there...so there could be a few forests in the combat map). The forest could block line of sight for ranged attacks.

If a river exists on the tile, then it should also exist in the combat map. Two types of river could exist. Either, a shallow river that is fordable, at a -1 movement penalty, to cross.....or.....a non-fordable with a bridge or two. Remember, as a representation, there are peasants all over the place in this world....or ruins from the world before the great cataclysm.....bridges could be relatively abundant.

Bodies of water are relatively simple, as are mountains. They should be impassable. In both cases, should the battle start on a water edge or the side of a mountain, these elements could be represented on the combat map by reduced combat space with graphics showning the obstruction. Especially for water...there could be lake graphics and coast graphics. Maybe there is a %chance at having a cave along the mountain side...or a tunnel to outflank your opponent.

Walls, Moats with bridges, Firewalls, Walls of darkness, Walls of Arrow deflection, etc, should all exist to help defending cities and there armies (should you be within city limits). There should always be a mundane way though these obsticles and always a magical way as well.

I think that covers the basics. I believe this would benefit the game in the following ways:

First, it adds a tatical dimension to the game. No longer is it 'I've got the bigger stick", whether that be weapons or magic; the enviroment can be used to help your win battles that you might have otherwise lost.

Second, it adds an addition dimension to placing your cities and outposts. No longer are they 'resource gathering mechanics'. Now, they also must be used strategically to strengthen and defendn your empire. Decisions would have to be made: do you build the outpost in the open plains to gain access to all the resources nearby? or do you give one up in exchange for a more defensible positon on the nearby hill?

Third, it adds depth to the narrative aspect of the game. Not all stories are words. One thing I really loved about the game 'betratal at krondor' was the fact that some cities had unique layouts. It added graphical depth that pushed the story along. The same can be said for adding enviromental obsticales to battles. They become more real. They emmerse the player into the story of the game...

Lastly, I know tatical battles may not be high on Stardocks list due to all the other stuff that needs to be done to the game yet, not to painfully mention the added complexity to the AI that would be required. I just want to say, that if Derek, Frogboy & Co (I think I saw that somewhere XD), pull it off....there will be ALOT of really happy people playing this game. 

Regardless of what happens, FE is turning out to be a fantastic game and I'm really looking forward to putting in some time for beta 4.

Amen!

My vision is in line with yours however I think it's only really feasible for the tile you are directly on to decide your tactical map. If your on a forest tile then you fight on a forest map. Same deal with river, swamp, hill, road, and desert tiles. Same as currently really except with river and road tiles.

Also if we get tactical terrain I would love to see basic sieges. Nothing complicated or hard to implement just a good defensive position for the defender with some walls to create choke-points and fortification tiles that boost dodge and accuracy.

It would be nice to have city battles use a map that is chosen based on what level fortifications the city has. The better the fortifications, the more favorable the map is to the defender. 

Titan.

Agreed,

1. Build a moat and the battle field has a moat & a drawbridge that the defender can use to reduce the number of attacking units.
2. Build a castle and you have walls behind which you can place archers or catapults.
3. Surround your city with a forest preserve and the maximum attack range for all missle and ranged attacks is reduced to 4 tiles. 

Update:

Here's a 40 minute video walkthrough.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65rtyTNRrjQ

Thanks for the updated and LONG 2nd video.

I guess I don't feel so bad that the AI utterly thrashed me in every conceivable way in my 2nd game last night.  I got overrun so early.  The AIs out expand, out produce, somehow have units coming out of every direction...on normal.  I'm sure I must be doing something(s) very wrong.

I've waited a while before checking FE out and finally took the plunge.

I'm barely getting started but I like what I've seen and experienced.  I can definitely see improvements all around.

Looking forward to beta 4 and a bright future for this game.

you are so nice to give us this

Sincerely
~ Kongdej

Also, just checked out the video, a lot, and I mean A WHOOOOLE LOT of really awesome stuff awaits the beta testers, I can see, so many  thank you, and thank you for taking your precious time to twiddle with the Auto-combat and AI combat intelligence, it obviously means a lot, and you did something, so you deserve our sincerest thanks!

There was so many tiny features that I'm not going to mention them all, so thanks again, and can't wait.

PS. I like your belief in showing gameplay footage (Yeah I'm still a rookie to the forums, I know Sean ^^)

Sincerely
~ Kongdej

I am watching the long video, and I do hope that the world is still dangerous.... Part of the fun (for me) is to survive and expand at peril. 

Does the upgrade of the outposts cost anything?

At the very least, they cost city production time (they use the nearest city's production queue).  With all the things that go into it now, I would say that that's significant.  Not sure if there is any other cost.

I understand that they've made all the monsters librarians, and converted the outposts into post offices.  Too bad.

...Do you really think a company that has been creating successful strategy games for over a decade would decide to remove a key element in this style of game, this late in its development...?   If anything, I'd bet they're trying to increase the level of unease and instability for the player's units once they wander around this dangerous world.