Hmm... WAAAAY back when i played FW demo I liked how the small battles go, but once i got to bigger ones... it was too much of a hassle to keep every damn unit healthy, and I couldn't stand loosing them for 1-2 more hits when there are enough healthy warriors nearby to win without those sacrifices.

I never gave that game another chance.

Actually, now that you mentioned it, I even doubt that tactical battles will improve elemental. Think about it - this game is long enough with auto resolve. Imagine a game with 10+ adventurous players maneuvering around tactical maps to minimize their losses.

Just so that you know (in unlikely case that you don't) - "minimization of losses" can go a looong way (no pun intended).

Actually I believe there might be some crazy "Kings Bounty - Armored Princess" videos on the tube to illustrate my point.

I know for sure that, if I filmed my own exploits there'd be more than enough.

Been doing all sort of crazy long battles back before AP, and in AP they implemented achievement for fighting battles with no losses... that was... indescribable experience...

I'm pretty sure that my opponents wouldn't want to play a second game of elemental with me and without enforced auto-resolve.

EDIT: That said, I believe KB had just the right scale for tactical battles. Enough maneuverability to exercise both maneuvers and counter-maneuvers if need be (although KB is SP game and no such things as counter-maneuvers were performed by the player). Enough distance to cover it in 1 turn or to delay it up to 10 turns depending on various movement speed factors. Enough obstacles to base your positioning around, but not enough to give certain units indisputable advantage.