Terrain bonuses, line of sight, cover, all very interesting features that I would really welcome. Thing is that it's going to be even harder to programm the AI to make the right use at the right time of these new features. So I'd rather have the current model with a fully fleshed out AI than extra features that I can abuse easily to beat the AI. It's a hard balance, but for me tactical combat it only interesting for the big fights where it really matters. At that point I really want the AI to give me a run for my money since those are often game deciding battles. If that means (for now) a little less complex tactical battles, I'd rather go with that.

In the case that not all features can be added, I would much rather have unit "flanking" bonuses than terrain modifiers (ie. weaker units can "swarm" stronger units and get bonuses to hit and attack). The reason: unit quality trumped unit quantity every time in Beta 3 (perhaps this was addressed in Beta 4?). Still, terrain modifiers would be a good addition. I think that impassable terrain on the tactical maps has been a very good addition in the previous betas. Anything that adds choke points or obstacles is a good thing!

This will be a good addition! Getting information on enchantments would be a godsend!

I'm also of the opinion that while I think terrain bonuses would add a lot the most important thing is the AI. If the AI will have trouble with it then there is no point. I would much rather have a good tactical AI. A Feature is pointless unless the AI can use it well.

That said I think mud and hill tiles that slow units and defensive tiles would be awesome.

My two cents on tactical combat:

In the video, FB's attack on the slowed enemy could actually have be his best option. The reason is that the un-slowed bandit (or whatever it is) had just attacked, hence FB decided to attack the opponent that was next in the initiative bar. This is the best tactic if you have a good chance to kill your opponent with a single attack (which indeed happened) since you could kill them all before any of them has a chance to attack again. If there was a mistake in his strategy, that was probably to cast slow on the opponent that was not ahead in the initiative bar.

About the discussed STALL when the AI plays smart, that would happen only if the units have the same movement. Otherwise, once the higher-movement unit gets you in its range, you are still too far to catch, so you'll end up being attacked first (the next turn if oyu stay where you are, or some turn later if you keep retreating). Despite small details, I am all in for an AI that plays smarter, even if not smartest, hence I think Seanw3's and HF's concerns after watching the video were legitimate, though hopefully unnecessary

As for terrain in tactical combat, I'd ask you not to include it, since this would likely make the AI worse off (too many things to account for). Superb games like HoMM3 and 5, or MoM did not account for terrain - expect for impassable terrain or minor things - and they were a lot of fun. HoMM4, which I have not played, accounted for line of sight, and I heard that it was not as good as the others. So bottom line, sometimes less is more.

On a side note: I have not played the game as yet, but I do hope that ranged units get some appropriate malus when shooting too far, or too close, or to single targets, or when disengaging from melee units. In general, I'd say that an eccessive strength of ranged units is one of those mistakes that can make tactical battles boring and remove most strategic considerations.

It brought a tear to my eye to hear you say that.

The concept wasn't mastered in MoM, but even so, it was an excellent addition to the game. Hills & rough terrain delayed movement by 1. Roads within the tatical map extended movement by 1...all the while the tatical map taking elements of the square the battle begun on....which made it a more 'real' feel to the combat.

Obviously, the system implemented would have to somehow condense such that auto-combat and auto-resolve still work. I figure, each tile would have a list of bonuses and/or penalties depending on what is contained within that tile. Auto-resolve would use the elements of this list. However, should you enter the battle, that list would be spread around the map, to represent the layout of the tile. It then becomes the player's responsibility to determine tatical awareness. With so much emphasis already placed on the tatical battle map, it would be a shame to miss out on such a common feature. The hard part comes at the end; intergrating tatical info into the auto-combat. 

Imo, I've never seen an auto-combat in a game that I would trust. Honestly, the concept is a little odd as players should want to 'play' the game....not watch it played. The only reason why MoM had it (I think) was as a way to by-pass the combat as it didn't have the option of auto-resolve. 

Hope you include tatical tiles. Would make the world just that much more dynamic.

Would like terrain bonuses ofc but I'm not 100% sure if they'd work out well. I might settle for flanking, zone of control and attacks of opportunity. 

I understand, I really do, this is one of the factors that "Heroes 6" lost my interest, due to players having to do the Campaigns PERFECTLY, and the auto-combat feature, or quick-combat feature was not up to par to beat the campaign even on EASY!. (And assistance on important battles/big losses)

So you might want to include an option which will "suggest" what the AI would do, so people not being as interested in the Tactical Combat parts can always have a pointer, a carrot on a stick in tactical combat to follow. (with AI I mean it will show what will happen if you click the "AI, move my units!" button)

So I hope you find the best fitted solution, a lot can be done, a lot can be unnecessary too so many mines to hit, in the end I hope you get it just right

That was actually one of the better features of Heroes 4, but not what it lost its credit on, Heroes 4 had done terrible things to heroes and in the end made Creatures totally useless long-term (Yes, Heroes, a game that is supposed to be about having 1 hero and tons of creatures, made creatures useless)

Sincerely
~ Kongdej

Sure I would like LOS before terrain bonuses, but the latter can be implemented much easier and the former is more of an expansion game retrofit. So of course, I will lobby for terrain now and then lobby for LOS in the expansion. I think I just invented a new genre, DBS (development based strategy).

Never ever bought an expansion, that included a new feature, that wasn't rubbish, totally carsoap rubbish!

Sincerely
~ Kongdej

Kongdej never bought any Stardock expansions. It's not his fault, he is relatively new to the community. 

Heroes IV gets a bad rap because the devs shied away from the tried and true formula of the previous 3 installments. They implemented a lot of new concepts that threw veterans of the series for a loop (LOS, having to choose between types of monster recruit buildings, heroes being able to directly participate in combat, wandering stacks of monsters, etc).

I found HoMM IV to be very very fun and a rewarding gameplay experience. Yes, heroes got to be super powerful in the upper levels, but the only time you'd even get that far would be in the campaign missions or super huge maps. I actually kind of liked it that way because it really made me get attached to my heroes (instead of generic knight hero, generic ranger hero, generic demon hero, etc.) in a way I hadn't been able to do in the previous games (except Sandro in HoMM 2/3, but yeah). If you go into the game not expecting an updated version of HoMM III (we have V and sort of VI for that), a very fun, underrated game awaits.

12 points go to Making tactical maps more interesting, which includes:

10 points for Having a line of sight (including one-direction LOS walls);

8 points for More unit special actions that are not magic;

6 points for Those terrain bonuses;

4 points for ???;

2 points PROFIT! 

Anyhowz, it's not a game about tactical battles but empire building, I'd be willing to pay for any of it as DLC. 

HoMM4 heroes were just as generic (or not) except that they could move in combat. 

Awesomeness can't wait, hopefully this will be a major improvement and a step closer to FE completion and mass production!

The sound effect doesn't bother me couldn't imagine it being different connsidering it was in WoM if I'm not mistaken.

I think the issue is that Frogboy himself doesn't like tactical combat that much, otherwise he would have picked up on the overwealming support for more complex tactical combat on these boards. It would be more reasonable for Frog to just say that he's not really into tactical combat and it's not the kind of game he wants to make/play.

it's very unfortunate but I believe he has already said it, but he's a quick witted fellar & I think that when it's all said & done we'll have tac battles we can appreciate

I hate to admit it, but alot of the people that play these games don't comment on the forums. They are lazy and dull and a waste of space. Still, without them there would be no money to make games, so we must appease their slow-witted nature. Someday art won't be tied to capitalism and games will be made for quality rather than sales. Today is not that day.

We passed that age....would love to return to it.

Tactical combat should only be made more complex if they think the AI can handle it. I also would rather see some other features improving strategical depth before more ressources spent on the complexity of tactical combat (If more ressources are ready to be used..... ;)). That said, for this type of game, an RPG fantasy grand strategy, tactical combat is important, but I think it works good enough in FE now. Of course, everything can always be made better.

(...and Jon Shafer, if you can read me; no tactical combats in GalCiv3 please, it would kill the series and make it as vulgar as Legends of Pegasus)

Exactly so ! ... which is one reason why Derek, Brad, et. al. should   NOT  always  take the comments,  made by the 100 most prolific respondents on these forums, as unvarnished Holy Writ .  However well meaning we may be, we are not the purchasers who are going to make or break E:FE ... let alone turn it into an overwhelming success. 

Incidently some of the hoi polloi may not be: "... lazy and dulll and a waste of space ...".  Some may actually be model human beings, who lead lives of great fulfillment and joy ...

At least, I bet most of them get more sleep than I do ...         

we've seen a slight return by virtue of kickstarters, wasteland 2 will be a non-apologetic hardcore RPG.

That's one way to look at it.  On the other hand there's WoM.

Or indeed purchase it at all since for the most part we probably got it for free or have already pre-ordered it. So you could say that in order to be successful FE has to directly appeal to people who are specifically not us.

Well, now ... there, you may have crossed the line, over into blasphemy ...      

IMO tactical combat terrain modifiers are pretty low on the wish list as of now.

As the game currently stands there are plenty of core game mechanics that need to be polished before something that specific even needs to be addressed.