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.

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.

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.

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

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

Sincerely
~ Kongdej

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.

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

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.

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.

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)

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

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.

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.