When you win a battle, you should move onto the square

They improved upon this since Beta, but I like your suggestion. There must be some instance where this is a problem that they aren't telling us about.

I'm not sure what you mean by "they improved upon it". In WoM you wouldn't move after winning a battle, in FE you wouldn't either, and you still won't in LH. I must agree that there is some undisclosed problem with it because it seems like a straightforward thing to do (gameplay-wise, not sure about code-wise) and it's been like this for years now.

Agree with OP.

There are plenty of times I have been content to attack an enemy stack but remain in my original position. Since attacks no longer end movement, it's easy enough to make sure I will have a movement point if it's important for me to take the square on the same turn.

The number of times I have wanted to remain in my original position is probably 10% the number of times I've wanted to move forward. The majority of attacks I make in any given game is clearing monsters, in which case I almost always want to move forward. Later in the game when fighting other factions there may be times where I'd prefer to stay put but most of the time it doesn't matter.

If you really want to stay put it's easy enough to make sure you have an extra movement point to move back. The default should be to occupy the square you just won. That's how it is in just about every other game and--dare I say it--real life.

They improved on the fact that you don't lose all movement after a battle like during the beta. After any fight you lost all movement afterwards, which I think I prefer over this system, but the change has been made.

Losing all movement would be fine if you moved into the damn square after you won the battle. Maybe I just get irrationally angry at how slow it is to clear lairs out of forest/swamp/hills/etc but I really don't think it adds any fun to the game to have to fight one turn and then move the next.

Personally, I wish there was a choice to move into conquered tile or not.  I generally like the idea of moving to clear lairs and caves and stuff, but  don't like to have to reform my army after conquering a city.

I think the issue with that is that armies lose cohesion when you move into a city. It's a UI issue, in my mind, and shouldn't be solved with a gameplay fix. (Plus it would be too complicated. A pop-up after each battle for you do decide? Ctrl-click to move after victory, regular click to not? Doesn't sound pretty to me.)

In case you haven't noticed, I know I'm right about this. There are no valid arguments to the contrary. I will return to this thread to swat down all comers until the day I die.

I consider the battle to not take place in the particular square that is attacked but along the border of the two squares. After the battle one should occupy the line in the middle of the two squares or the corner if a diagonal attack. That way it represents precisely where the battle took place.

Of course I do recall when they had the mechanic of moving into the square after a battle where another creature and myself occupied the same tile. There was also the other issue that when I moved onto a tile wasn't able to loot the tile after the move. The fix for such issues resulted in not moving into the tile after the battle. I would rather this small annoyance with more content, than for them to re-write the entire code for the game.

Functionally, I prefer to stay in the spot after the attack 100% of the time. I would like it if it removed all of my movement after every battle and left me in the spot where I initiated the battle. I don't care for the other games when I move into the other location when I have to move to their tile, it is strategically messy for me.

I can deal with the fact that battle costs movement points specifically the battle itself, the movement should cost more movement points. I'm fine with this cost at present and I do like the fact that I don't move onto the next tile. I like the conscious effort to move into the next tile and the time it takes for a battle to take place. Overall, I think it is a good system.

Well I guess we'll have to agree to disagree (but I still know I'm right). Obviously we don't want bugs but I think the fix should have been to fix the bugs, not to not move into the tile. I mean I understand that coding is complicated and it's a big program and all, but there's a reason that we have all kinds of fancy coding doohickies: after you call the attack function, you call the move function. Obviously there's testing and edge cases and whatnot, but that's what we pay these people for.

I think every other game does it that way because it's more intuitive: when I imagine a battle, I picture the attacker moving into the defender's territory and fighting them for it. If they win, they keep the territory. Of course in reality maybe they don't advance all the way and such, but we use square tiles as an abstraction, and it really seems that the correct way to follow the abstraction through is to occupy the tile you've fought over. Of course it's an abstraction so there's no correct way to interpret it but that seems far more natural to me.

We clearly have different ideas for strategically messy, but to me it is far more strategically messy to move into the bear's cave after you've already gone into the cave to kick him out (well, kill him, as the case may be). That's the way it is for cities.

And, honestly, the game is slow enough as is when you're exploring that I really feel it would be more fun to speed it up by that little bit and complete the move after the attack. But again that's just my preference for pacing.

(And of course I realize that this is far too many words devoted to a small thing, but hey, there you have it.)

True, when they do make a fix and it turns out that after each battle there is a delay of 1 second (let us assume optimal code) would that be a better fix, when I could move the army in myself leave the data checking as a separate function together at the same cost of speed? There are some internals of the game and how the coding is made that can cause a lot more problems than is worth for the programmers time. I would prefer more content and leave this functionality as opposed to fixing this problem and not having the new content.

In the model of attack and defend it is usually the choice of the defender the battle field location and the attack then proceeds to attack. In few cases does the attack choose the battle field. I see the battle taking place at the borders of the two armies. The armies then battle at the border and after the battle I would suspect that the commander would rest his troops in familiar territory as opposed to enemy / unknown territory.

I killed the bear let's go in and see what's in the cave... I'm tired. but we've killed the bear lets see... oops it's a dragons cave and I'm too tired to run... chomp.

In fact given the current system of play I'm creating a mod that does just that. If you move to take the lair there is a chance that the lair will have another 3 or 4 bears. If we did the you attack the bear and then move your single battle for which you are prepared now leads to a 4 bear battle. So in some sense it might be better to not take the lair after you kill the outside guardian, until you are ready to deal with what's inside.

If there were a change to the system I couldn't implement this system that I'm currently creating... I didn't want to reveal this mod until it was done, but there you go.

Yep two buttons after winning combat:

"Take Tile" or "Cancel"

I know you strongly feel you should take the square. I don't; I strongly prefer it the way it is. However, I don't claim that I'm "right" because I know it's just my preference.

Haha sorry Parrotmath didn't mean to bait your new mod out into the open. Honestly I would say that that's a slightly different type of game though. As I understand the abstraction in the current game, the bear you see on the map is guarding some loot. You fight the bear, you take the loot. The abstraction that you're working on is that the lair is its own mini-dungeon and there happen to be some bears outside the mini-dungeon but on the same tile. Perfectly valid of course but different. I guess MoM was on the latter model, right?

Re: choice of battlefield I think we're getting off topic but I disagree, they both choose the battlefield in some sense in that if the attacker doesn't like the battlefield he goes around or whatever. I mean it just depends on where you choose to draw the abstraction. And of course different situations make for different "choices" (trench warfare vs forest ambush vs whatever).

As far as the coding I can't imagine it's that much. I mean really, I have to assume that the coders were at least halfway intelligent when they structured the code to this thing, and that they remain so today. The function for moving is already there, right? It's not like this is some sort of P=NP kind of thing.

Also I get really angry when I fight off monsters and the AI ninjas the loot. It is, of course, easy enough to make sure this doesn't happen but you end up wasting a few turns and frankly I don't find it fun to have to worry about that kind of thing.

Sorry, I was attempting to make a joke. Will use a smiley next time.

Oops! My bad--it went right over my head! 

The behavior for this is different, that's for sure.  I can't think of any other similar games I've played where you didn't move into a tile after beating an enemy on the tile.

I actually kind of like it this way but I can understand that others may not.

Shouldn't happen since you know how the game works and it wouldn't be wise to clear mobs off of something with a rival nearby.

Right but then you have to waste turns waiting for enemies to leave. I find that *very* frustrating. (Not to mention that if you each had two-move armies (i.e. the most common) you could get into a stalemate waiting for the other to be the first to attack a lair on a two-move square. (If the AI were that clever.))

I guess people can find another use for multiple heroes near by instead of parking them in the nearest city. Move them along your main army and use them to scoop up the goodies

The RPG aspect of the goodie collection will be a certain surprise to the AI, when collecting such a goodie hut... you kill 1 cub, he fights 3 bears... He dies, you get the loot of 3 bears. Advantage you.

I like it!

TBH I've only played one game of LH (but many FE) and I didn't have too much trouble with too many heroes. I tended to go for two to a stack and by the end of the game I had three or four stacks running around so that covered it. Maybe the optimal play is one two a stack in which case I will certainly use one as the mule. (And that would have the second use of easing transport of items between main heroes.)

I just want to reiterate that attacking doesn't always automatically end your move.  So if your stack has more than 2 MP to begin with, it USUALLY can move into a square after combat.  In extreme cases, you could attack multiple squares and move into them (say if your unit has 9 MP), but since getting over 5 MP for any unit (assuming you chose the race trait that gives +1 MP) is tough to begin with, with 4 MP usually being the highest assuming you made a Cavalry stack, you probably won't do this a lot.

Sometimes, if you begin your move next to the square you are attacking, you can move in afterwords, but I think that either the target square and/or the square you are attacking from must allow 1 MP for movement (i.e. no forest, etc.).  Combat apparently costs the same as moving into one of these squares, but I can't state exactly which one at the moment as I'm not sure.

BTW, the 9 MP statement was something I was trying during playtesting while testing code modifications, NOT something you will likely see in E:LH...

This is one reason NOT to combine Cavalry with Infantry in a stack (Infantry slows the Cav down on the strategic scale), but of course there are tactical advantages to consider as well which might warrant such combinations.

NO! If, as suggested, you move into the tile you attack, you can't attack targets with other creature stacks next by without risking a counterattack. The best way is how it works now, where you have full controll. Especially when playing dense monster setting (as I always do) these situations happens all over the place all the time.

NB! I also like the fact that an attack costs a movement point. That represents the time used on the Battle.

As said above, the current system is already fine, i don't want to move to a tile after destroying an army, especially if the tile is rugged terrain, and as explained above attacking should cost movement point to represent the time used on battle, that's the only rational way.

I find the current settings more useful as it caters for both scenarios when players want or don't want to move after battle.

Also there are some cases when I don't want to move into the square after battle

(1) An enemy troop happen to stop on top of a Storm Dragon Temple (the temple is just an example to show that how eager I want to avoid that)

(2) I want to attack more enemy troops instead of losing the turn after spending my movement point.

I think it is nice to have a toggle from settings/preferences, but please don't make it into "default".

By the way, I have played 1 huge game (man that took me a long time) and 3 large games so far and I don't find moving after battle is a tedious process at all, the city micromanagement is the place Stardock should look at if they want to help reducing the tediousness of micromanagement.