This post is 100% win.   

Cause nothing says "I know how to design a fun game" like a Masters in Economics.  Lol!

It would be great if the game would let players save formations.

You get Karma just for mentioning that gem of a game, oh the hours I spent huddled over my PSP playing that game, I had it for PS1 as well but I much preferred the new version cuz of the multiplayer and extra goodies. Multiplayer was fun in that game. But yes I do remember the formation screen, it was awesome

Brings to mind another PSP gem I sunk many hours in some may agree or may hate it but I Metal Gear Acid. I think I'm gonna go out and buy MGS:Peace Walker and FF Dissidia 2 so I can spend some more time with my PSP... now look what you did!

I also want to say one more thing: Shining Force. That is all.

Would you accept somebody with a doctorate in mathematics? Or does it really have to be an economics major?

An economics major was suggested for two reasons.  First, they have some understanding of how a market works.  Second, they could use the exercise as a research project.   If I'm short of metal I would be willing to pay more for it than if I have an excess amount.   But I might want to sell some of my low supply of metal if the price were high enough and I needed the gildar to buy magic technology.  It would take some analysis to figure out how to program the AI, but a game like this is an opportunity for an economist to test some theories.

Technology is consistently over-valued by the AI players.  I've never seen a case where mine was considered more valuable.  The only even trade that happens is when an AI player offers one.  So I stop offering trades and wiat for an even offer.  But sometimes I do a trade as "foreign aid" to an ally or potential ally.

I think they also want to discourage the rampant tech trading that happened in some of the Civ games. I remember researching a tech and immediately selling or trading it to the other factions for tech I didn't have

It made researching down one line the way the way to go since I could always trade it for less valuable tech that I didn't have yet.

Agreed.  This is one of my major gripes with the new game.  The initial formations and battle maps were much better in FE.

In one battle I had that slow and useless champion Kasst (only moves 2 tiles) and he's basically a defender tank / blocker with no spells.  I also had my familiar imp, with 14 HP and low initiative with not much defence or damage as a means of adding spell support in the same stack.  You can guess where they were placed...

The familiar was placed in front rank and Kasst in the back rank so he had to make 2 moves before he could attack anything and the battle was over before he did anything useful.  My familiar managed to move before the 2 enemy units near it could wipe it out, but that was sheer luck.   Who in their right mind would put a slow pure melee champion in the back rank?  And a slow weak spell caster in the front rank? I dispair 

------------

Suggestion giving simple player control over tactical battles:

It seems to me that a simple solution to this problem is for the player  to be able to allocate suggested roles to units in a stack before the battle.  This could be done by simply giving some of them F for front rank, M for middle rank and R for rear rank.  And then depending on the map the units would be drawn up in either 2 or 3 ranks with all F units being put in the Front and all R units put in the rear and any M units put in the middle rank if possible and otherwise allocated to the F or R rank.  That should help the game AI controlling tactical battles place units more effectively and also give players much more control over the battle plan.

JJ

102 HOURS so far and I did not get my one more turn badge.   But any how....I know you put a LOT of work in this new combat placement but it's HORRIBLE!

    I'm a mage with weapon an put right in the middle of battle to much. I would not mind so much if I had ALL my BUFFS on. it leaves you running to buff and heal   before you can attack. Not good! the OLD set-up was BETTER. NOW I am walking across the land with my pets and SOME HOW we are scattered ACROSS the MAP in battle mode. Not realistic! Please remove this new battle set-up.

I have to disagree that it's realistic starting point blank with the enemy. Only a pretty lousy commander let's his troops march right into the fray without some type of cohesion. Now if you could set up an ambush and that starts the battle like some maps currently do, now that makes sense and is realistic. How could that mechanic work? Make units that hide in woods hidden, or make how you engage an army on the strategic map count for something. What I mean by that is say the army you want to attack is facing south, so instead of attacking them head on and starting a normal battle, swing around to their flank and engage them giving you an advantage in tactical, maybe you could be given a more advantageous setup, or an ambush style start point blank and act first. Just throwing out some ideas, what do you guys think?

Win!