I really want terrain to play a role. Not just a log blocking a pathway, but height playing a role.

I actually prefer Disciples format of using single units over the spamalot battles in HoMM, so here's my hoping for that.

Personally I wouldn't mind if it were hex or square based, they both have positive and negative aspects imho.

Other than tweaking your recommendations a litte, Mentora, I'm pretty much in line with your thinking.

Brad already mentioned terrain will make a big impact.  He also said he would like to see battles where dragons take out massive armies of units (since modern graphic cards are capable of rendering a lot of units at once now).

Isometric view is clearly the best option .. if you have a flat map. But with heights, forests, and thaht sort of things a movable camera is really needed.

Really different unit sizes is a good thing. Moreover unit size should also have an impact to the ruleset (like a morale bonus, a stomping options or things like that)

I really hate chessboard like maps. But it's just the fact that I played so many wargames with hexagones that I feel acustomed to it. A chess-map has a flaw the : diagonal move. You spent too much move points when you just want your unit to go diagonaly, and it really harms the slow units.

Also the battles should use those things that wargames use for so long : the morale (and the fact that a routed unit should oblige adjacent unit toi make a morale check) , the "quality" of unit, the impact of terrain, the fatigue and the most important : zone of control. Other things like flanking, rear attacking, surprise, critical hits, instant death would be really cool.

Unit size from Tiny (Birds) > Small (Halfling) > Medium (Human) > Large (Knight on Horse) > Monsterous (Siege Tower) > Huge would be great.

I am a MAJOR fan of Hexes of Tac Combat but I believe they already shot down that Idea.

I would love to see Morale and Zone of Control as factors but that can get too complex for the average gamer.

Sammual

The reason that i loved MOM more than AOW was that the battles didn't take a long time to resolve.  There were way too much space for the units to go in AOW and after a while, I really hated going into battle.  But at the same time, HOMM was way too simple (1 unit representing 1000 peasants etc.) and battles just got boring.

I guess the 'magic' is all in some sort of happy medium between the two.

I would love for the combat system to be a complex as they can make it and still ballance it for release.  I'm not shure who the target audiance for this game is and if that would be missing them or not.

Sammual

These details are very likely to change. I've gotta be honest, I'd love maps that were a good bit bigger because something on this scale would be overwhelmed by an 8 unit army, the options for maneuver would be plugged up terribly. Something twice this size would be really good, it'd let speed differences matter more and give the possibilty for much more tactical maneuver.

I imagine this game will have diag movement just like MoM so that slow units aren't hampered too much.   Again, I also imagine the regular foot troops have a move of 1 like MoM.  

(I really hope many of the 'sub-core mechanics' like that are like that of MoM)

It's just a bit fast for those of us who like to micromanage each unit. I generally end up with about five groups and managing the battle with them, but that has its own set of problems. I bet SD can do a really good job no matter what they choose, I just think a more finicky system with more potential for management on a small scale would suit this game better.

I firmly agree on the morale point. I dont agree on the holding off point. SD is a solid company that really supports and listens to its customers and has well over a decade track record of doing so. Consequently people order the game on faith, if for nothing more than to show that the brand is more important than a single title.