It does not seem so to me. There are comments in this very thread that claim otherwise and I for myself like the tactical combat in LH. It's quick and offers just about enough tactical choices to make me not want to skip combat after a certain time like in other games, especially if they are long-winded and you dread the next big fight. 

It also doesn't make LH any worse. The actual argument is that this is not the focus of the game and the hard decisions are made elsewhere, namely on the broad overlay of things. They depend extremely on the settings you choose before the map is created. Borg999 said it right and I add to it: "FE/LH is not empire total war...in a fantasy world". This is the crux of the matter, some players want and expect a Total War with magic. LH is not it.

Ok, the game is boring to you. It is not to me. It shines in the very foundation of things: Its sandbox capabilities. Depending on the settings you choose plus randomization, you can create vastly different gaming experiences. I don't know many games like LH that can still surprise me with outrageous, amazing, frustrating, comical moments even after 200 hours of gameplay. So there is no need to make your opinion appear more valid because it supposedly speaks for the majority of players.

On these forums I only represent myself and whatever I write is my opinion argumented to  the best of my ability, and despite it's obvious you felt the need to complain anyway.

I am content other ppl enjoy the game, it gives me the hope stardock will keep improving it or build something new I'll enjoy too.

Between total war fights (that I don't enjoy that much due to micro management hell) and lh there's enough gap to fit an interesting combat system that won't become boring that fast.

Think of heroes or king's bounty, units with abilities that are more than hp,attack, defense and initiative.  LH already moved a bit towards that with weapon's special abilities but I think it still needs more.  Maybe items that allow units to regenerate, heal or to place traps or do anything interesting  These items could replace some of the useless stuff that gets researched ratios, first aid kit etc.

umm how are rations and first aid kits useless? they adress one of the big problem of late game combat - units getting killed to quick due to the shifted balance of attack damage vs. HP. those items are there to make new units survive a few more hits, so late game battles aren't over after 1 turn. they didn't fix the problem entirely, but they are definitely a step in the right direction.

though i wouldn't mind some of the suggestions (regarding healing items etc.) being implemented, i guess they could also contribute to making late game battles a bit longer/tactical.

EDIT: that was in response to the post above Frogboy.

Rations give 3hp while first aid kit gives 2hp and 1hp regen.

Early game 5hp won't change anything (although the items require quite a bit of research to get). Late game fortresses produce units up to 4 lvl aboves normal and that means up to 8hp more. Add a few towns that give a 5% global bonus to hp (that stacks) and hp won't be a problem at all even for fresh units. On top of that there are better options for equipment slots (amulets and rings increasing dmg).

I've spent a lot of time designing, and playing with custom factions, sovereigns and units. In my experience, designing units to fit a specific role will see you doing just as you're suggesting, especially if you've developed a real "flavor" for the faction you're designing units for. Watching the AI actually use the units you've designed for them is cool, but seeing them actually be effective, and complement the faction's abilities is a real treat.

I'd of course like to see more options available, can never have too many choices.

i think that is basically represented by the concurrent initiative system in LH. in Eador, one side moves all units, then the other side moves all units. to get something that resembles a somewhat believable battle, units pretty much need that counter attack. in LH, it's very different - there is no strict player turn - AI turn - player turn sequence. units get their turns based on the initiative stat. my unit attacks when it's their turn, then the enemy unit gets its turn and does the counter attack. the result isn't much different actually. I like the LH initiative system better, since it feels less "gamey" to me.

Azunai_, maybe I`m not explain myself clearly (English isn`t my mother language so probably it is my fault). Yes, the battle system in Eador is very different and all that is simulated in FE/LH trough initiative (and I like that because it is more dynamic). I don`t like that much unlimited retaliations (limited trough stamina). Anyway, I mean something different: the weapons stats and their mechanic. This is something unrelated to the global frame of combat system (IGOYUGO, WEGO etc.). Attack/counterattack can be used to simulate different properties of melee weapons: weapons that are defensive in nature (so they are more dangerous when unit is defending herself) or weapons that are purely for attack. That can be used with current system and can give different damage on attack and on counterattack/retaliation strike (for weapons that have that ability). Especially if combined with properties as "first attack", "negate first attack" etc.

Off course all that can (and is) be accomplished in current system - I just think that this stat in somewhat more convenient (but this maybe is just me). It is not something major anyway .

I like another "stat combo" from Eador - different defense values for melee and mundane ranged attack. Off course this is present to some extent in FE/LH with ranged dodge but it is different thing.

While Strategic planning certainly has a major role in a 4x game, how well battles are executed on a tactical level has always had a huge effect on the rise and fall of empires as well.

One only has to look at the history of the American Civil War, for example, and how many rabbits Lee pulled out of his hat in the early parts of the war to truly respect this.  Of course, Lee's overconfidence in his own men, and his underestimating the Union's tactical situation there, cost him Gettysburg, but that single battle changed the complexion of the Civil War in one stroke.  Sure, the Union had the production advantage, and probably would have won eventually in any case, but thanks to Lee's (and others) tactical genius, the war lasted four years, not one.

As to how this relates to LH, the way I envision this is that, sure, your strategic and research decisions will definitely set the tone for a lot of things, and enable you to divide and conquer, how this executes on the tactical level is just as important.

And if a battle takes three minutes to execute instead of two, well that's no major loss of time, considering how much time you will be spending on other aspects of the game (exploration, city building, diplomacy, etc.).  AND, again, you can always autoresolve if you don't want to be bothered, and an Advanced Combat Options checkbox would appease those of us that enjoy seeing how our build/research decisions are panning out tactically as well as strategically, while the rest of you can have 'quick' combat.

Plus, players will feel less 'cheated' in tactical combat at times if the tactical implementation is better than it is currently.  Note the LOOONG discussions we've had in many threads about swarming, weapons/ability implementations, and unit placement, including this one.  This is because a good handful of players are feeling 'cheated' by the current tactical engine in many cases.  Elemental promises much, but the tactical execution seems to lack in delivery, which disappoints more than a few of us.

It amazes me how much money Stardock keeps leaving on the table with the Elemental franchise.  The more flexibility you incorporate into a game design (by giving your customers more decisions as to the game THEY want to play), well the more appeal the game will have to the market at large.  And it isn't like some of the 'naysayers' amongst this group are asking for the moon and the stars here.  Most of the requests I've read are well within reach of the designers, and many have said 'make it a checkbox' on several items so WE can enjoy the game WE want to play, but not force everyone else to have to do the same.  Somehow, though, those at the top are content to straightjacket the design into their vision only.  Sure, this is great for Brad and Kael, and a good number of customers will be content with this.  But the goal SHOULD be to grab and hold onto as much of your customer base as possible.  While maintaining an awesome design, of course!

Elemental has SOOOO much untapped potential, it isn't even funny.  This game could blow MOM and other designs out of the water, instead of just 'keeping pace'.  I think it currently suffers from tunnel vision and too many LCD (lowest common denominator) decisions, though.

Elemental COULD be game of the year, if the designers would stop selling the design short with implementation decisions IMHO.

While I gave up on E:FE during the Beta (mostly due to bandwidth restrictions/tight finances), I've been along for most of the E:LH Beta.  And I spent a good amount of time working inside the code of Elemental: World Of Magic, as I loved that game enough to ACTUALLY try to share mods and such with like minded individuals on this forum.  So I do see the work that has went into Elemental since the beginning.  And the untapped potential...

That's not to say that there aren't a lot of really cool features built into the design.  I do like a good number of the concepts and design decisions that remain in Elemental.  But a design is only as strong as it's weakest points, and weaker games lose out on replayability.  People will be more willing to invest in expansions and such for stronger designs, due to replayability, and Elemental certainly could be a stronger design.

LH is pretty much in the bag now, so this discussion will have to wait for the next part of this franchise.  But for those of us that bought into the dream at the beginning (I bought E:WOM at Best Buy, after absolutely loving and paying full retail for several installments of the Galactic Civilizations franchise, and Political Machine too), the next part won't be free, and whether we invest more money into the Elemental franchise will be totally dependent on where the game goes from here.

One statistic I've heard often is that it costs five times as much to attract a new customer than it does to keep an existing one.  Just how important existing gaming customers as a whole are to Stardock remains to be seen.  The ball is in your court, Brad.

Not really a goal of mine, and there ARE some game designs out there that I have been very happy with (SFC 1/2/OP, the Infinity Engine, SM Alpha Centauri/Alien Crossfire, The Warlords series up to WL3:DLR - note the avatar, etc. etc.).  And some games I will even put up with bugginess, and explore the mods that are made available long after release (Sid Meier's Railroads comes immediately to mind). But as I've mentioned before, I've seen Stardock retreat from concepts and design choices constantly within the Elemental series, which is unfortunate IMHO, hence my essays on the subject.  Not that I think that my points are getting through (pretty much falling on deaf ears I think), but there are others here that feel as I do, and I have no problem putting a voice to those thoughts.  Some are no longer with this community, which is also unfortunate as some of those individuals released some pretty cool mods for the original Elemental IMHO.

Others will be content with where things are now, but there is a reason I still invest a lot of time in games like Alpha Centauri and not in other games.  Elemental is on the fence with me.  The 'one more turn' bug isn't as strong with me with Elemental as it once was... and there are reasons for this.  I want to like it, but the 'missing' stuff nags at me, and the 'oversimplifications/dumbing down' also bothers me.

Who knows, maybe I'll win the lottery and ask Brad for a crack at a standalone expansion employing part of his team at some point... we can dream, right?

I don't agree with that. Each faction has different strengths and starts, as well as mid game development. The fact that in end you build everything in all cities is to be expected.

When I play resoln I go for magic research first because I can cast oppression in my town and just build the basic stuff then spam pioneers while my sovereign is clearing the map with basic militia, spearmen, trained widow, and familiar. Then I can go back to researching civ / warfare.

There is always choice at macro level depending on map, start position, proximity to AI players, distance to expansions, lairs / wandering monsters etc. You won't sit in your city researching agriculture because you can't move outside or expand because of powerful lairs / nearby AI, you will switch to magic or warfare to push out.

Outposts are amazing. Early outposts to grab resources for later (without setting off lairs), securing good town positions, and connecting your empire / kingdom influence area.

You say is easy to destroy outposts. I say is just as easy to destroy cities and improvements. It's your role to have awareness and see which locations are in danger of attack and cast spells, send troops to defend them.

Really a matter of personal preference.  There are a few different types of combat used in 4X games.  You have the Civ style where one unit interacts with another unit and the outcome is decided very quickly.  Then the Total War style where the battle is much more detailed, involved, and can last an hour.  And recently you have the Endless Space style where combat is a quick cut scene influenced by cards.  Each has their pros and cons and all have their supporters (and haters.) 

Personally, I like LH's hybrid style.  If it doesn't do it for you then......ok.

Not that I've played Eador, or even LH for that matter. I have been playing FE and it's in my opinion that tactical battles are indeed fun and satisfying, at least for me. Tactics are in and of themselves an adaptive approach to a given battle scenario. In the case of FE for example, I'm presented with a certain hero with certain abilities and equipment, an army and an opponent with varying degrees of abilities magic and equipment. I'm also presented a particular field and range of movement despite its limitations or even expectation. It is what it is in other words. And tactics is using what is presented no matter how complex or simple and exploiting a favorable outcome. It's arranging and deploying for war. I'm sure the Spartans at Thermopylae weren't too happy with the unfair quantity of Persians coming against them just as the Persians most likely weren't giving up just because a few Spartans were packed together in a narrow gap slaughtering dozens.

In other words, tactics is using what is given to you. You might not like it and it might seem unbalanced, but tactical is there if seen in the right way. The game of chess is pretty straight forward employing strategy and tactics in essence. How you initially deploy from the start, a pawn, a knight, etc., to advance on the enemy is crucial to the outcome. Chess doesn't employ magic, weapons, or armor and taking out another piece is as basic as moving onto its square, yet somehow strategy and tactics are used. And chess has been loved for millennia.

In FE, I'm aware of how I line my guys up and in what proximity to one another in order to protect a particular unit. Do I move them so that only one or two squares is available for the enemy to gang up instead of five? Which unit(s) can I afford to loose and still continue the quest / battle? Is there a weak unit I need to put in back and are there ranged units targeting them that I need to take out fast with mounted or my own ranged units? Should I cast slow on the ogre to increase my initiative? Or do I use that units turn to heal a near-death unit? On and on...

Tactics: A procedure or set of maneuvers engaged in to achieve an end, an aim, or a goal. American Heritage Dictionary

Again, my opinion is all, whether you agree or not. Regardless, I actually enjoy the tactical for what it is and the fact that I must victoriously utilize the given field conditions whether I agree with them or not.