Not many options.

Most units, weapons and armor types differ from one another only by stats.

It worked for "Alpha Centaury" which was purely strategic, but it isn't enough if the game also has tactical combat.

Ranged attacks are point and click.

Got a hill in the way?  No problem.  Got your buddy's head in the way?  No problem.  Can't see past your own asshole?  No problem.  You can still shoot them just fine!

It pretty much removes any point to the whole tactics bit when you can simply exterminate anything with less than absurd defense on the opening round no matter where it is in relation to your units.

It's the fact each side takes turns, you know you can use your whole group at a time...every single thing basically moves two blocks when moving.  Lack of abilities is a big one as well.

For instance a wolf should move farther then your archers in a given turn.

Ranges have to be added for ranged attacks like bows...as well LOS.

I have to admit with the spell replacements a modder did, spells look pretty cool.

I don't think it is far off, alot of these things can be changed pretty easily, the look is fine, the battlefield size is great. It just needs some refinement.  At the moment it is off in that regard.

More abilities!!! I would like to see team based abilities, multi-tile abilities, morale altering abilities and more. Creatures need to aid one another or even hinder their own team if they are too strong. Such as an ogre that has a chance of going into a rage and attacking all units in sight including your own. Lets say then that we need more variety in units. If I got heavy armor on a unit they better be moving slower than a rogue with nothing but a dagger. What about a flag bearer that increases morale of his whole team? Creatures that cannot be seen or targeted unless they are adjacent to other creatures, then have a creature that can "spot" them from afar. Throw in a leadership trait that is based on the team leader's charisma that mandates how many units or of what combat rating he/she can lead.  What about pre-battle tactic formations? Too much to ask for? Add this quality in please: if my sovereign is in battle and his spouse gets killed while fighting, I would like to see something happen, lower his morale or increase his attack temporarily. This can also be used for siblings or close "friends". Don't be afraid to put some emotion into it. I would like to feel for my heroes the same way I felt for them in games like Fire Emblem or Shinning Force. This game has the potential to be epic beyond any other game out there it is just going to need a whole lot of variety... after we squash the bugs of course.

- All units behave the same regardless of their equipment. Spearmen act the same way as swordsmen, macemen, and even cavalry. The only difference is the damage they inflict, and how much they can move. Spearmen aren't better against cavalry, cavalry is just a faster unit, no charge hability or anything of the like, etc. This means you can just make 1 type of units with high attack and high defense and just spam the hell out of it. Attach some skills to certain weapons or pieces of armor (the already mentioned charge, shield bash, phalanx formation), make damage types (cutting, piercing, blunt) truly different, implement some sort of formation system (by giving bonuses to your units for being aligned in a certain way), I DON'T KNOW, SOMETHING.

- No tactical depth whatsoever. Does it matter if your unit is attacked from behind or from the side? Does terrain affect your troops significantly? Do you need to have different types of troops in your army? The answer to all of these, unfortunately, is no.

- Magic is all the same. For a game called ELEMENTAL, magic sure is homogeneous in this game. Being burned by a fireball or being electrified by a thunderbolt is the same thing.

- Really really really badly thought out turn system. The attacker always goes first, and the defender always second. Always. Personally, I'd prefer a system based on giving turns to individual units (faster units move before slow ones, and have more "turns"), rather than entire sides, but at the least, they could make it so the player who goes first is determined by a stat/combination of stats instead of ALWAYS being the attacker first and the defender second.

- Screwed up action points/speed system. Short sword makes you run faster, etc.

- No difference between evading and absorbing damage. Is that knight you're facing REALLY agile so he keeps evading your attacks? Nope, he's being hit, but since the game acknowledges both things as the same, he gets a "miss" message when his armor negates damage.

Last, but not least:

1 on 1 fights between 2 squads of troops (as in, when 2 parties/legions attack each other on the battlefield, 1 guy from each do some sort of duel). This is motly visual, so I'm guessing they are gonna change it eventually.

Sorry if I sound like an asshole, but it's just that this game has ENORMOUS potential. Like, GOTY all years for me, but we're not going anywhere with a system like this.

All of these are great examples of why Tac Combat sucks.

You forgot a big one, though:  1dN.  Though that's changing at Some Point in the Future (tm).

lack of meaningful depth.

As others have said, not enough special abilities and magic is way too generic. Most importantly, it's called tactical battle, but there is no tactics here at all. It's a strategic game, like simple chess, not tactical.

To be tactical the terrain must matter. Things like LoS, higher ground, cover and concealment should matter.

If the battle map was hex, it could be made much more tactical and interesting. I've posted this elsewhere, but I'll do it again:

You can make army setup a lot more important, especially on a hex map, by requiring action points to "rotate" (so facing direction is important) as well as move or attack. That makes formations and tactics like flanking a lot more important. A unit that's attacked head on has full defence and responds with full a counter attack, but if you hit it on the frontal sides the defence and counter attack go down. And if you hit it from the back, it's even lower. That will force the defender to use a good selection of combined arms to create a strong formation, with protection for the flanks, while the attacker tries to engage the enemy line head on while sending its cavalry to out flank and attack from behind, where the defence is weaker. Getting attacked on the flanks or rear would also have a detrimental effect on morale.

This will make unit customisation actually useful. You can have heavy troops with good all around defence protecting the flanks, while cheaper troops with strong frontal defence, but weaker rear defence can hold the main line. There will actually be a reason to have light and heavy infantry other than just going for the heaviest you can afford.

Many other things can be added to make the tactical combat more interesting and realistic. Cavalry should get charge bonuses as well as huge penalties for attacking spearmen head on. Swordsmen having bonuses over spearmen. Elite troops with active defence. And so on and so on - all the stuff you see in proper tactical wargames.

Yeah I know Brad is against hexagons. It's a shame because they give you so much more options in tactical battle. Still, facing direction and rotation is doable with square tiles too and it will add more depth to the battles by making flanking and formations important.

Sorry double post

Any other fantasy TBS game has better tactical combat. If the devs play AoW, HoMM, Kings bounty or Fantasy wars for 1 hour each, then they should know what is needed.

Agree but random damage is OK, all attack spells do look the same though, which is annoying in a game called "war of magic".