In Chess, you have a turn, you can decide whatever unit to move in that turn that you want. Giving you lots of strategic options.
OK. But this is a new objection, quite different from the one in your post and to which I was replying. Yes, chess and FE are not exactly the same.
I understand that theoretically, you might end up waiting a long time between the moves for one particular piece. but while you're waiting, all the other pieces are moving and doing interesting things. The game is not made more boring because there are more pieces. Yes, it might take a couple turns before your unit gets close enough to do damage, but the same is true in many games.
If the tactical battle system is so lengthy that you are forced to autocalc all but the most potentially interesting tactical battles...then I don't really see that as a good thing.
This is not responding to what I said. My point was that suggesting that adding units might make some tactical battles boring is not a valid criticism. There's already an autocalc feature which suggests that even the developers recognized that the tactical battles are not always going to be interesting.
The truth is that uninteresting, lopsided battles are a given in turn-based tactical combat. The number of units involved in the uninteresting, lopsided battles is irrelevant. Instead of taking 2 minutes to pointlessly march your units over and wack the wolfs, it takes 2.5 minutes, the horror! If you want to "drive an easy tactical battle just to conserve resources or optimize" then that's what you want to do.
And you want to talk about boring: in the current game, take your stack of doom and go and fight 3+ stacks of enemy units on the same turn then attack the city that those stacks were marching out of. The same exact battle fought four times! Just in case you didn't get enough excitement the first three times. That's how battles work in the end-game currently, because you can generate far more units than can be in a stack.