I think the reviewer made great points.  I personally would also like to see the tactical battle be more complex as well.  It would be nice to limit the range of the archers somewhat.  This would also make more incentive to research longbows to give extra range.  It would also be nice to make the environment play a bigger role.  Creating line of sight issues with hills, trees, and buildings would add extra depth to the battle.  Also having magic that can be use on trees to create a tree unit to fight for you or cast a spell on water to create a water elemental would create an added element that is not known until entering battle.  Maybe these can be added to the expansion pack. 

I think a lot of the criticism of Civ V is due to people who loved Civ IV wanting Civ V to be a more polished version. I don't think that's really fair.  It should be judged on its own merits.

Regarding the tactical battle discussion, it's a very tight balance there. Because the game should be won and lost based on the civilization you've constructed over hundreds of turns, not how well you use your units in tactical battles.

As some of you know, I lobbied for terrain and other elements in tactical battles and was ultimately convinced that this would simply result in the game boiling down to who had mastered the tactical battles the most.  Ultimately, Fallen Enchantress is a 4X game.  

In Galactic Civilizations II, we let players watch the battles.  For Fallen Enchantress, we took it one step further, the players could  now participate in them. But the fate of the world shouldn't rest on the tactical skills of the player. That would be a very different game for a very different player base.

Spoken like a true game Developer.

It's entirely fair.  In fact, nothing in this world is so fair as what people will and will not like.  If many/more/most people wanted Civ V to be a polished Civ IV, then that's probably what Firaxis should have made if they wanted good reviews and ultimately to build on their success.  This is especially true for a game like Civ, which followed a pretty similar plan from versions 1 through 4.  if they want to ultimately branch off in a newer direction, like Civ V did, that's fine, but they also have to accept the entirely fair criticism that they did not give some/most of the people what they wanted.

I played Civ V quite a bit.  There were some good things in it, but they ultimately left out too many of the good things from it's predecessors for me.  If there is a Civ VI, good bet I won't buy it sight unseen like I did Civ V.

PS - Fallen Enchantress would be a failure too if it wasn't building on all the good things in E:WOM.  However, seeing as I'm writing this on my work lunch and my F5 key is starting to wear down and my wife has cursed your company's name - well I bought THIS game sight unseen

The game got good reviews and lots of fans, what the hell are you talking about.  It has a 90 metacritic score.  You're talking out of your ass.  Most people do not share your opinion, just a few loud forum people.  Lot of people liked Civ 5, it shows in sales, and critical reviews.  Don't change history to make your argument.

I'm not.  Actually, based on what you said, assuming it's correct, Firaxis apparently did a great job with Civ V according to the measure of metacritic scores and sales vs other games. I didn't look up any info before posting it.  Note all the "ifs" in my argument.  Don't pretend I said something I didn't

That doesn't mean my argument doesn't stand on it's own merits, because I wasn't arguing that Civ V wasn't a good game (though I found it lacking).  I was arguing against Frogboy that it's entirely fair for anyone to judge a game on by their own criteria.  Of course, a quick check shows CivIV had a metacritic score of 94, so if your criteria was that Civ IV had to be at least as good as Civ V, assuming metacritic score is an indicator of the average opinion of the game - according to that criteria, it failed.

Again, you can ask someone to judge a game on it's own merits, but it's entirely fair for them to judge them on whatever merits they like.  We're human beings - we do it all the time.

 Cvi5 has also been a top 10 most played steam stats game for years.I have never seen CIV4 in the top100.

Fallen Enchantress is already so much more than just a 4x game; with potentially a much larger target demographic.  For just one example, it is also blatantly a RPG.

As we see, in-depth tactical battles are a natural extension of this game's underlying mechanics.

Like it or not, you have the Heroes of Might and Magic killer on your hands.  The fate of the world already rests on the tactical skill of the player as they maneuver strategic terrain, especially if their goal is conquest.  Depth is a good thing!

A game either has tactical battles or it doesn't, and will be reviewed accordingly.

Personally, (and I'm pretty sure I'm not alone), I might not entertain FE if it didn't.

The two are distinctly related.  Civilizations interact in many different ways; one of which is commonly war.

Romans; Mongols anyone?

Tactical battles are merely the pinnacle of one form of interaction between factions, diplomacy its opposite.  Both of these areas need to provide deep, engrossing game play.

People can judge anything, anyway they want to, but if they express feelings loudly that have no merit or logic, then they can also expect to be shown to be an asshole.   I am frankly very, very tired of people hating things and calling them bad for stupid fucking reasons.  I don't understand why they have to live in such a black and white world where everything is either great or terrible.  And frankly, there are some games out there that  people say are bad because they've changed from previous installments or that the game didn't live up to impossible standards.  If you are going to say something is terrible, or garbage, please have a sane argument. 

This is still a puzzle to me why you oppose a more complex (fun) tactical battle set up.  Such as walled Outpost/towns being displayed on the tactical map and mean something (AKA AOW:SM and other games with TC like that)

Even though I love Total Wars TC I'm not asking for that in this game as I said something more akin to MOM and AOW:SM would be fantastic.

Well I don't think people aren't an a**holes because they are illogical or irrational.  It probably means they don't share your enjoyment of whatever it is you're talking about probably because you are using different criteria. Personally, I share your distaste for people "loudly" (a funny statement over this medium - but I get it) expressing their feelings without some kind of support.  People tend to exaggerate for effect.  For example, if someone called Civ V "a piece of garbage" - well it is unlikely that person has the support to back up their claims that the software has a much use as say, an opened candy bar wrapper.

However, developers (and I know a few, myself included) are notorious, IMHO, for wanting things judged on merits that most people doesn't normally judge things. If someone wants to hold something up to an impossible standard, it's fair for them to do so, even if it's irrational to do so.

Civ V is to Civ IV as FE is to EWOM (except that EWOM stunk and Civ IV was awesome!).  Does that help clear it up?  In other words, Civ V was a totally different game than Civ IV.  Civ V is like playing Chess where every piece counts.  Elemental's third expansion will be totally different than Fallen Enchantress.  I hope people don't get mad that Elemental 3 is not Fallen Enchantress 2.  In fact, Elemental 3 will probably be about dinosaurs.

If we could stop bashing people who prefer Civ IV to Civ V--in fact, if we could stop discussing the Civ games altogether--perhaps we could get on with the actual content of this thread.  Just a thought.

Can't agree with you on this. However they are two different types of games. Yes they are TBS and they are Empire bulting games however CIV V is more Epic while FE is not so Epic. CIV V has navies while FE has water you can look at and do nothing with. FE has basic tactical combat while CIV V does not.

The games play very differently as well. You would not compare MOM, AOW:SM, HOMM with CIV of any version because they are different typs of games.  And to Compare Civ 4 Fall from Heaven to FE or other games like FE (MOM, AOW:SM, HOMM ) would not be right as well. 

So to sum it up comparing Civ to FE is like comparing Apples and bananas.

I have to agree with you here. They are different and that is good. Sometimes I'm in a mood for one type or the other, and having the diversity is great. Especially having good games within that diversity!

I'm one of the people who prefer Civilization IV to Civilization V, but I am still glad that the latter got made, and I think its designers made the right choice for their employer.  But Brad has an extremely good point.  Make tactics powerful, and you make civilization development less important.

Civilization V is a lot more of a tactical game.  I remember playing Alexander close to release, and using a cavalry/artillery combo all the way to the end on the largest map. Good tactics just overwhelmed the AI.

We do not have to go this far for an example.  By restricting 'regeneration' to the strategy map, Stardock did a great job at pushing civilization development to the front. 

Before, I could take a level 3 hero, buy him a horse from an AI, and level him to 14 against cave bears, trolls and obsidian golems in the space of ten turns.  Before kiting worked much better, and no one had to ever build a city.  So, by making tactical combat less complex, thus less abusable, Stardock made a better 4X out of Fallen Enchantres.

Of course, simplifying is not always the answer. If I had come here for the tactical battles, I'd have just left. It's all about knowing whom you want to please, and having the skills to please them.

The argument has good merits, but I'm not totally convinced.

First, even a single, properly (or poorly) fought/planned battle can turn the balance in the game of power. Happened in history several times.

Second, if tactical battles are included, they should prove satisfying - if they are meant to mean little, maybe it's better to remove them.

The argument about the target player base has more weight imho, but to me it seems most FE players actually agree that tactical battles do need that little something to spice them up. Of course I have no official data on this, I may be wrong  

I'm frequently more satisfied with the results of my tactical battle vs, say, the results of Auto-Resolve.  So being human does count for something - not little.

I feel like there is already a lot of tactical planning BEFORE the battle starts, than the actual X's and O's of the battle.  Like bringing my troop led by my fire Mage against Ophidians - bad idea.  Waiting for the pair of Warriors to do the job - good idea.  Historically, most the battles won tactically didn't happen because of superb execution but careful planning.

I don't really subscribe to that point of view.  One of my favorite games was Balance of Power which was a diplomacy game.  Fallen Enchantress has diplomacy but it doesn't hold a candle to Balance of Power.  I don't think, however, that means we should remove diplomacy.

Speaking just for myself (not Stardock but as a long time gamer who is passionate about this topic):

I would rather have tactical battles that are sophisticated enough to be satisfying but not so sophisticated that the computer players can't fight them effectively. I think Fallen Enchantress strikes that balance.  I know of many games that have tactical battles (land and space) and in each case, the AI fights them with varying degrees of incompetence.   As a result, I feel like I have to personally play out each battle because I know that if I don't, I will severely compromise my civilization's ability to win.  Specifically, I know in the typical tactical battle game that I can make a total loss into a total win easily by playing out the battles personally which sucks the fun out of it for me.

But in Fallen Enchantress, if I might be so bold, you can set your units to auto-play and know that the computer players will play it competently.  Maybe not as good as an expert player but well into that "good enough" realm for most players.  

Playing out the tactical battle should give some advantage to the human player vs. autoplay.  But it shouldn't take an obvious defeat and turn it into a victory. It should be more of a tilting the tide.

Not to mention, we have a reasonably sophisticated tactical battle system in place.  Initiative based combat (as opposed to side A, side , differing effectiveness of different types of weapons vs. different types of defenses, and lots and lots of spells that, on the whole, the AI uses fairly well (and before someone suggests otherwise, I would ask them to list a game that does it better -- and I'm talking about a 4X strategy game, not say a game that only has tactical battles like XCOM).

In other words, the complexity of the tactical battles shouldn't get ahead of the capability of the computer AI to make use of it.  

Tactical battles, in any game, should account for a few things.  Terrain, movement, range, and formations.  It looks as if they are adding something that will help with formations, having archers in back.  I don't see terrain being anything yet.  Range is unlimited, or close too, and this takes away from tactical movement and placement of troops and formations.  And movement is hampered by a lack of ZOC, it should be difficult to move around an opposing enemy without becoming engaged, most games simply just limit movement when close to an opposing unit.  And the game uses Octagon grids, they look like squares, but they act 8 sided, not four.  This makes forming line formations difficult, as if you form a line, the opposing line can focus three units on a single unit.  In a hex, you can form a lint, and limit it to two, and then force flanking to get an advantage.  

The game's tactical combat is limited, but not unfun.  I enjoy it, but it could use a few tweaks, like having archers in back.  Limiting range would also be nice, but not entirely necessary at this point.  

The biggest issue I have with tactical fights, and the battle themselves  are the use of "overpower" abilities, like breath weapons, spells, and just being a big monster.  The problem is, that this makes trained units, which take a huge investment in time and resources, extremely vulnerable.  I don't think it's needed, and the game could be balanced without that.

Are you playing .990?  Archers are pretty much always in the back. 

Also, all the versions I played made you either take the long way around or you are limited in movment near enemy lines.  If you are on a horse, right in front of an enemy, you can't move 3 spaces past it...

I agree with you here.  If I bring a trained unit to a battle, it's to either form a line of fodder in front of some BB to buy my ranged champs 1 more turn (or just a turn at all).  Essentially, though, it's almost always Champs vs Monster and Trained Unit vs Trained Unit for me.  Hencemen would bridge the gap nicely but the cost is so high.

If I might suggest, Tactical combat might be more meaningful if the cost of a unit wasn't so damn high and there were simply more of them.  But I expect that might tax the AI to increase the # of units.

There is some zoc, but it's pretty minor.  And I haven't played .99 enough to really field a lot of archers yet.

I think you've got that balance for me.  And surprisingly, sometimes there is a battle where my set of tactics just don't win and the AI surprisingly does it for me.  It's rare, but it happens.

Could be what people are looking for is variance.  I imagine the more variance you introduce into the tactical battles though, the more difficult it becomes to keep the balance you mentioned above.  I suppose it's easy for us to say "try harder"

I see little reason to limit Fallen Enchantress to the classification of a 4x game.  How long must we live in the shadow of Mr. Meier, and MOO?  This is a genre defining game, containing elements of 4x strategy, role playing, tactics, and creative suite.  The prospective market for FE is much larger than just players of 4x strategy games, especially with all the customization available.

Pretty much this.

If plot were added to the sandbox mode, this could easily become the first 5x game, creating an entirely new experiance. Not that the plot has to handcuff a player down a certain path in the game....there could be several or many avenues to persue. Kinda like a 'create your own adventure', but in a sandbox mode.

Anyways, Stardock chose not to persue this option...which is probably one of the main reasons why so many are comparing the game to other 4x games.

Yo da MAN!!!

Hey tell Jon that IMNSHO that CIV 5 is the best version of CIV ever made and I really loved how they did the one unit per hex combat. And yes Gods and Kings even made the game better.   I just wish it was easier to make custom CIVs without taking up a current CIVs place.