Yeah, i think the scaling of the damage spells and that the AI is unable to create powerful heroes with useful traits are much bigger problems.

I actually have a few complaints about tactical and this is one of them. This issue was acknowledged in beta 3, but no word on fixing was given after they promised to look into it, if I recall.

I will make a proper post about these:

1. No tactical placement as Das123 illustrates in another thread could be done very easily from the strategic map.

2. There is too much room in the rear of each map, allowing for even the slowest units to kite three or four shots before the enemy can respond.

3. Special Abilities are certain to hit and yet many of them are in denial of this fact. The mechanic does not allow for a miss.

4. The AI does not build a strong army and allows much weaker armies to attack our superior forces. This is called feeding and it is bad.

While I have my own lengthy wish list for tactical battles, which includes placement, I don't think this *feature* request could remotely be considered a "must have" prior to release.

Personally, I'd put the ability to define how units will behave in battle above placement (i.e. aggressive vs. passive vs. flee).  These are all things we'd like to look into along with things like rally points on the main map, units spawning ON the city tile (not outside the city to the bottom left), showing the path a unit is going to take before executing on that path, etc.

But none of those things are going to determine whether FE is successful or not.  So before we commit such time and energy into them, we need to see what the level of interest in fantasy strategy games is.   Did you know that FE is the only fantasy strategy game in the Steam top 100? (No Warlock, No HOMM, No Disciples, etc.).  

So I think it'll be fair to say that the market needs to decide whether it's worthwhile to continue enhancing in these areas after release.

these stats make no sense

warlock is bad despite some ppl trying to defend that untested and flawed game, i dont believe someone really played it more than once, there is nothing else to it after a full game

and in general there are few strategy games, even less TBS

combine that with the fantasy and you dont have the numbers to really make a meaningful statistics here

market as always will follow good games imo

Whether one actually gets to put the pieces themselves or not may not be make or break.  Being able to at least determine for one side front, middle, back is..

Tired of my warriors hitting the back row and archers and casters getting front row and nailed. 

Me too, me too.  

i dont have any problem ofc

i make monsters i know how to fight them

still the behaviour is much improved

i dont know why you focus so much on army vs army, that part is still not improved enough

anyway the counter to archers as usual is magic (or other archers)

you cant expect a archer to not be able to kite warriors

Good point, but I am always hopeful that the AI will get to the point where it trains a good army. I have to think about balance with that in mind. The enemy currently is considered doing well if they ever put two units together and none of them are pioneers or scouts. The correct counters to archers should be other archers, cavalry, magic, advanced armor.

Let's take a look at the .982 armies on hard difficulty at the midgame:

The AI never builds strong archers. They never use leather. They don't have the traits that make archery deadly. (Precision, Fast, Muscle)

The AI never trains light cavalry with the intent to smash archers. They always seem to target light infantry first. They use weapons that weight them down too much to get the first strike.

The AI never uses anything other than Obscuring Fog to counter ranged attacks. Mages are so incredibly rare to see in an AI army and they don't counter enemy units as well as they should. Most of the time they cast Burning Blade and then get hit by 100 arrows.

The AI does not manage an elite team with armor upgraded to chainmail. It doesn't build a new team of the best armored units and put them all together. When they do have armored units, archers can just avoid them and go after the light ones. Then the chainmail units are outnumbered and ready to be slaughtered.

Because the AI does not use these counters well and does not manage a strong army, we are able to fight with only one army and defeat many. Don't get me wrong, the AI is doing alot better in the latest patch, but I am still reigning supreme due to better management and tactics. The AI does not even fill each army to its maximum logistics point, leaving me with more units in each battle. I think the major problem is that the AI is set up to fight the world, but unable to fight another fully trained army. Once war is declared, all units need to regroup and maximize their power. There are alot of times the AI could be playing a better strategic game to make up for its problems in tactical. 

yeah ofc you are totally right about that

war ai should be improved in tacticalm, monsters are supposed to not use particular maneuver while you have to expect at least some basic things like those you listed and a good use of magic from an ai sovereign

also at the very least you should expect a good targeting decision

right now tbh the main point would be building right

both champions and troops build wrong, this should be not so hard to make, not only equipped items but also who to build, what party to use etc who goes with who etc etc

at least id liek to see some changes here fighting armies with more sense and a good development

we are fiddling with some things to try and address these issues

You have to save my archer hero Toby, please!  He's a wraith with the weakness trait, low HP and can't wear heavy armor, he can't take these beatings anymore!  Please Toby, help all the Wraith archers out there, save them!  

He probably is the suckiest hero in the game, Wraith with weakness, what evil god(dev) would put something like that into the world?  And then force him to the front lines!  It's tragic...