Formations and tactical battles

Agreed. 

Another recommendation is square... +4 defense against cavalry (or large creature) attacks and no flanking or encirclement bonus to attackers, but -3 to defense against missile weapons, and movement reduced to 1.

Shield wall (similar to line, but better defense and worse attack): +4 defense, but -1 attack and -1 movement

Phalanx (only with spears or pikes): +5 frontal defense against infantry, +8 frontal defense against cavalry or large creatures, +2 morale for neighboring phalanxes (so having three phalanxes in line would give you +4 morale for the center one, and +2 for each side phalanx) -2 to defense against missile weapons and twice the normal bonus for flanking attacks on said unit (so if a normal flanking attack increases attack strength x2, if flanking a phalanx you would get attack strength x4)

Full support for the concept, less for the implementation.

Mobility should be a big factor, but a morale system is how you handle differences between a single unit and a party of four.  They outnumber the guy.  He'll get his ass kicked with the 4v1 odds just fine without an extra attack bonus.

A party of four would reasonably translate to skirmishers.  They don't have a formation, thus don't have a facing.  As such they can't be charged in the rear, something very scary to a standard formation where everyone is facing forwards and doing an about face leads to entanglement if handled poorly.  A standard formation however has the advantage of multiple ranks, there's someone watching your ass, so you're less worried about it.  They do have a facing though, and changing it takes time.

A small party of skirmishers would be immune to flanking modifiers and require no time to change facing, but gain no rank bonus.

I do like having logical benefits for different formations though.  The standard formation would come with a sizable increase to defense however.  Starting with the base means starting with individual units if you have to research the larger groups.

lwarmonger: your phalanx gives me a good idea.  how about context formations.  there will be 5 formations, 4 standard formations and 1 special formation that is based on the weapon the unit is using.

psychoak:  well as far as morale i don't know if that is gonna be implemented or if so, what plans they have for it, just working with what's known right now. i was thinking that changing formations used up 1 movement point of the unit.  i still think that standard should just be whatever the unit base is because if there is no commander a kind of everyman for himself sort of thing, and i do realize they would still have training, but no battle strategy to make use of bonuses for formations.

And for horse archers-> Cantalabrian Circle +4 defense vs ranged attacks, -2 defense vs melee, movement 0 (move in circle)

Thinking in RTS terms and knowing the little work it takes to activate formations which achieve great results I'm negative towards it.

Meh.  RTS games are geared towards the brain dead RTS base that wants a game to be over in 20 minutes and take as little thinking as possible.  Switching formations should be a significant undertaking that one does not do when coming under attack, and never while already engaged without severe penalty.

Agreed.  Shifting from column into line or wedge in the face of the enemy has always been one of the most difficult manuevers, only attempted by extremely disciplined soldiers.

This type of thing needs to be at least partially modelled.  This is a 4X strategy game, not some brain dead RTS.

That's the sort of system that will allow proper ambush function as well.  You walk into a hidden army and boom, combat starts with all your troops in columns and spread out with the enemy appearing within striking distance.  Massacre ensues, with no need for any silly rigged systems outside the normal combat mechanics.

i personally find that formations in RTS games are largely useless.  you could change the formation types in supreme commander but it really didn't help much besides getting all your units there at the same time.  i think in elemental formations should be attributed to movement points.  if a company of swordsmen with 2 movement were to fighting then you could:

move 1 space then change formation

change formation then move 1 space(or more if you changed to a movement style formation)

change formation and then attack

i think each action should use up one movement point.

Perhaps the devs should take a look at the formation system what was used in Kohan: AG, and perfect it for EWoM. It worked very well in that game, and it's a squad based RTS. Basically EWoM will use squads as well.

What is everyone's thought now on formations, etc. with regard to Tactical Battles now that we have confirmed that tactical battles are turn based (Post by Frogboy):

https://forums.elementalgame.com/382811

There are some important point being brought up in the post with regard to tactical battles, not the least of which is managing multiple units on the battlefield that might ultimately result in tedium. I, for one, don't wish to mange 3 dozen different units each one with potential formation options.  I can't imagine how this might drag down a MP game.  

On the other hand, if these units could be linked/chained such that my four 1,000 unit pikeman turn into one 4,000 unit pikeman unit (either by depth/breadth or both), then I would appreciate the tactical formation options.

well the idea of formations presented here, formations would only be used in company level units or higher.  so if you had 5 single units, 2 parties and 4 company's.  then the only formations you would worry about are the 4 company units.

I do not want a system like HOMM5 or Kings Bounty.  Talk about stupid, pointless tactical battles with no depth or even really purpose for existing.  That would be a massive let down.  Multiple units for large armies is important to have.  Dumbing things down to "avoid tedium" is the last thing I want.  It renders tactical battles meaningless, for as the player you now have little impact on the outcome, hence there is no real reason for playing them.

In Crown of Glory (a Napoleonic game) there are the standard Inf-Cav-Art units.  There is also a bit of specialization of each type, Light cav, Heavy Cav, Lancers, etc.  Then, as individual units gain experience they can do certain types of upgrades.  For example, a Cav can do an upgrade that allows them to recover from a charge faster than normal.

This type of specialization can be crucial in deciding what types of units to build, and how to 'train" them.  Allows for great differences in strategies.

I would LOVE to see Formations used in Elemental. Imagine being able to choose between a Wedge or a Line for your Calvary charge. Have your men form a Square or Break Ranks to avoid a charge. Imagine a incoming Fireball heading at your group of Lightning Archers so you command them to "Scatter".

Formations can have a wide range of use and Add a Lot of Strategic Depth to even simple tactical battles. Just like in X-Com, each man (or woman) can shoot while either Standing Up, Kneeling, or Laying Down. Each of those "positions" when applied to a entire unit becomes a Formation.