Definately something here....the farther the shot, the worse the accuracy. Seems very plausible.

No, you haven't missed anything. Ranged units can shoot through anything (even their own allies) and don't care how far they are away from the target or whether there is a big chance to snipe their dear sovereign in the back and kill him (ooops, sorry sire!). It's a thing that always rubbed me the wrong way, but it's certainly not high on the priority list, because it would actually take some time and effort to fix it and the complexity of tactical combat has never been the main focus in the development process.

Thats what i do expect from LH. Heavy tactical combats. like in chess. Every figure should be meaningfull and have a role. You could take some good examples from Kings bounty. There combats are looong and every mistake or wrong placement can cost a lot.

I also lack of defencive spells in this game: sumoned obstackles, bariers against range atacks (not air buff but real bariers like big rocks or something which you have to overcome or destroy), clones, taunts (could be tanking skill), debufing shoots (could be ranged skill), something like stone skin from heroes of might and magic or shield buff. I think now LH has enough damaging spells but lacks of debufs and battle controlling spells: like gives more counteratacks per turn, puts enemy or yours unit into rage, sacrifizes one for onother, gives reflection, ignites and so many more. Now many of it is in factions unique traits, but it could be also in magic schools... I totally agree that damage spells shoul have casting times while debufs should be instant that would encourige more usage of it.

I am also not happy about city sieges. They sould have much more defence as a city. In middle ages taking a city ussualy fortified was always a costly thing to do. It required more numbesr as an atacked and lots of preparation and even then it always was a costly atack. Cities should have much more archers than they have now and with much better bows and magic staves. Catapults should come as a defence tool much earlier. You can design that it would not took all its force against mosters if you dont want them to had to hard time... its all in your hands i think.

I agree that there is room for improvement with respect to the AoW system, including the specific points you make, but for my tastes LH hasn't yet done so.  

I would like to have had some skills unlock as the unit gains veterancy.  

So at level 1, for sake of argument let's say it starts with something like: single direct fire shot with some combination of: range penalty, height or terrain or walls effects, object occlusion, and/or "move and shoot" penalties.  Simulating a novice archer, taking direct aim the way he used to do at womp rats back on the farm.

Level 2 unlocks indirect fire mode, avoiding light occluding obstacles including low unroofed walls and intervening troops, but at cost of a steeper "Scatter" penalty to damage proportional to range 

Level 3, passive, reduces Move and Shoot penalty

Level 4 unlocks opportunity fire, holding fire until the enemy makes an action, but then it ignores some fraction of local terrain cover penalties (designed to counter ENEMIES IN COVER)

Level 5, passive, reduces Scatter penalty

Level 6, unlocks suppressive fire, reduces the initiative of enemy unit, perhaps at the cost of some damage (designed to counter single HEAVY HITTERS)

Level 7, passive, reduces vulnerability to ranged damage if the unit didn't fire the previous turn (incl. turn 1)

Level 8, unlocks sniper shot, ignores friendly unit occlusion and hits for +damage any enemy engaged in a melee 

Alternatively for AI/user simplicity you could have all these active skills available from the get go but they are reduced in effectiveness until you level up and gain an appropriate trait.

Various unit traits could selective boost one aspect of the archer's role over another; starting with 1 level could be important to get that first critical "professional" ability (in this example, indirect fire).

... etc.  Maybe this goes too far towards wargamey grognard complexity, or maybe my specific ideas aren't perfect.  The exact details aren't the point, the point is (a) any number of more tactical 'hooks' could add meaningful decisions to the unit design and empire building strategic layers which IMO are lacking ( b ) different types of units could shine on different battlefields, promoting combined arms in an organic way (c) for fun factor within the tactical minigame itself, battles should sometimes last long enough that multi-turn spells or tactical maneuvers are desirable.  Or simply, that it matters which spell you cast.  Locations with heavy cover like forests or walled towers are one approach to making that happen, but then you want (at least veteran) units to have the tools to counter these situations.

##

I sort of like where is coming from the idea of the big axe cleave and the spear lancing thing ... the problem is that in the absence of too many other traits, abilities, cover, counterattack by defenders etc. coming into play they, the net result is to just front-load everything into turn 1 of the engagement.  IMO those abilities are too powerful and should be reserved for some kind of veterans or elites (maybe horse-spearmen and horse-axemen only) while common infantry get different abilities that aren't so front-loaded.  (attack at range 2 or immunity to counterstrike for spears, swarming/flanking bonus for axemen)

This has always bugged me. It makes so much more sense to have your city defended by ranged defenders than a bunch of guys with clubs. Your city is a permanent emplacement which you (should) have spent some time fortifying, especially if it's a fortress. Why then is your entire defence force top-loaded with melee units, when you could (theoretically) make use of your defensive emplacements by stocking them with trained archers who can snipe an approaching invader? I understand having a level of melee defense too to keep them off your archers, but I think it should be more weighted towards ranged.

Also, amen to more ranged weapons and staves. Right now, bows take a long time to get (you can't really make any "ancient-era" archer stacks without significant technological investment) and there aren't really that many to choose from if you don't have the "Archer" faction trait. Same goes for staves, but those don't even have a trait that boosts their diversity (correct me if I'm wrong).

As a last point, I am hesitant to bring up HOMM for comparison, but I actually enjoyed the way their city sieges worked (despite the large number of limitations and problems associated with it). You actually had to break down a gate and/or walls to allow your attackers to stream into the city and slaughter the defenders; up until that point, you were more or less at the mercy of the enemies' ranged units. I also must admit to liking the way ranged units worked in HOMM, on the balance.

Some ranged weapon suggestions:

• Javelins; available from the start. Weaker damage than bows. First available range weapon.
• Throwing axes. Available at the same tech as axes.
• Also one suggestion for any DLC: Extended tech tree with renaissance techs like gunpowder, add weapons like bombards and matchlocks.