No it wouldn't. I covered why back on page 4, and the main problem with it is that a defender has every reason to draw out a fight as long as possible to get the attacker morale penalties in place. That's horrible for multiplayer.

I apologize since I did not read the whole thread. If any of these have been mentioned before, just consider them seconded (or thirded, etc.)

Combat Speed: I like the idea of generic action points ala X-com, MoM, et. al. that may be expended for moves, attacks spells etc. More Combat Speed = more action points.

Morale: Morale as stated sounds fine as stated with the exception of certain units which have fixed morale, or immune to morale effects. This is probably so obvious it  should go without mentioning. If so, my bad

Terrain: It should be harder to assail a dug-in foe on unfavorable terrain. Most games of this ilk only address terrain bonuses when it comes to fortified positions (castles, keeps, etc.) that have walls or fixed defenses. But attacking a defending force in the jungle, or swamp or mountains should be dicey business.

WINNER. TAKE. ALL.: Lots of debate here. I think there should be an option for standard retreat, but it should come with a significant risk of total annihilation. I also believe there should be some kind of magical option for retreat (Get out of jail free spell). Lastly, I think there should be some units which are, by their very nature, bad at standard engagement, but designed specifically for harass and retreat, but this might be harder to implement and downright annoying to deal with.

Combined Arms: I hope it's not quite as simple as Ancient Art of War mechanics, but balancing / maximizing the strnegths of your forces in consideration of the battle criteria should always be part of the equation.

Thresholds: I like this in theory, but there should also be a "player override" as in all players in the multiplayer game can vote Y/N if the people involved wish to manually duke it out (plus an adjustable game setting to specify the resolve criteria). Or as in the case of all of these items, a magical option to force a manual encounter/auto-resolved encounter should be included.

Controlling the length of a tactical battle: The board game Titan has a set number of turns an attack must be won by (10) or the attacking army is defeated. The defender also gets to muster an additional reinforcement unit after a certain amount of time. This tends to force the issue and give the defender an advantage by virtue of making the attacker press even in unfavorable circumstances. I like how this system works otherwise defending doesn't really have any benefit. As stated above though, I believe there should be magical "loopholes" here for increasing / decreasing the battle length, etc.

Randomization vs. Richness: I like the idea of hybridizing the random and rich. Rich for "special" locations which are part of the lore and random for generic map tile #02033. Once again, I advocate for magical manipulation of terrain.

I've already out in my two cents earlier but just looking over several of the pages I can already see things have gotten into an in-depth discussion.

Ultimately, though, I think Mr. Raven's idea (whether it was his intent or not) is a good one: Separate systems for single and multi-player.

Furthermore, though, I think that if the tactical battles are /fun/ I wouldn't mind them going on forever, and if they all end artificially and in a contrived fashion I'll be a little miffed.

Options would be a good idea, leave the option open for people who like longer battles and more advanced tactics, but for people with less time and patience allow the option for forced retreat after N turns, sliders, check-boxes, etc.

Ultimately; I like being able to charge in and attack them retreat, taking no losses but slowly whittling the enemy down, and Winner Take All, as has been already emphatically stated by several, pretty much cuts your options, makes battles all about decisive clashes, and enhances the steamroller effect that makes most Strategy Games boring and un-challenging.

Still, though, some ideas; Perhaps units based on their speed and mobility have a 'retreat cost' and morale also plays into this somewhat, morale based on losses.

In this case, you could build units, like say, cavalry and skirmishers, who can retreat more effectively, and with good morale, won't 'lose' when they retreat, and these units could be used for harassment, while other less mobile units with lower morale would 'break' when they retreated, or be open to attack.

Maybe that would help keep options open, but make it so the players who don't have the time don't have to engage in long campaigns? Either way, I'd really like more in-depth combat, but I trust you guys to make something fun in the end either way.

So! gone through and read all of this...give or take. Ish. And I have found some questions...mainly because I really don't think we have enough information to clearly point out ideas regarding how to do tactical combat.

• How many tiles are we looking at here? Is it like Heroes of Might and Magic where you have a handful of tiles, some units take up 1 tile, others take up a 2x2 tile, and it's not terribly hard to cross the map in one turn? Perhaps it's like Age of Wonders, with a fairly large number of tiles to move around on? Maybe even more, like Total War in tile mode? This brings me to my next question...
• What is the estimated size for battles? in Heroes you could have one million v. one million and at the end of the day, the armies would take up the same amount of space. Size itself didn't matter...army composition did. Age of Wonders had each stack being no more than 8 units, and while you could surround an enemy and fight with up to six stacks (more in later games, like AoW 2 and Shadow Magic, especially while defending) sand generally a 'large' battle was anything more than 8 v. 8. What's the size of a battle in Elemental looking to be, on just a basic estimation?
• Are units going to be controlled one by one, by groups (swordsman platoon 1, swordsman platoon 2, etc.) or as a whole? How will this be handled?
• Will having competant leaders in an army matter? Will I be forced to command/control each and every battle, or can I sometimes trust in the AI leaders to guide my army to victory? Is leadership even something that's in the game, or has that been tossed out in favor of player control in each and every battle?
• Will terrain actually matter in regards to battle? That is, if I have a forest, I'd expect units in that forest to have some measure of focused ranged attack (an archer batallion loosing a cloud of arrows, versus a mage igniting the whole tile). Will fighting on the muddy banks of a river incur a speed penalty? Crossing water have some effect? Etc. OR will it be like Age of Wonders, where I made it a point during a siege to hide my warriors behind houses and the like to prevent arrows (that is, terrain matters insofar as where something is placed, like it did in Age of Wonders)
• How long is a universal game turn? I read some people saying that one universal game turn, on the game map, is one year. Taking this into account, it could be difficult to have retreats (oh, we fought for a bit, they fell back. We waited the remaining 11 1/2 months of the year, and fought again)
• I remember Frogboy saying something about battles having two parts. There's a strategy phase, and (for the fact that I can't remember the details) the action phase. Basically, what this told me was thus: battle starts. Both sides input commands (you go there, you protect them, they'll shoot at him, that dragon will fly over there, my mage will throw a fireball there, etc.) press the 'finished' button. Battle happens - we leave the strategy phsae and go into the action phase. Action happens. The action phase stops. Strategize again...etc. I have two questions for this...one, how long is an action phase, how does it matter to units? That is, is one action phase one 'turn' where things happen, and when the things that are happening run out of points to make things happen (all units run out of movement points) or is an action phase a set amount of time that continues regardless (the two swordsman platoons clash, they fight. They fight some more. They keep fighting until the end of the action phase 30 seconds later).

I am going to ask that we get anything - a sketch, screenshot, drawing, diagram, movie, anything - so that we have something to go off of. In all honesty, I feel that we're totally ineffective giving information because what we're commenting on is something we all seem to have a totally different idea about.

-N

EDIT: Why do these questions matter?

• How can we decide on random v. premade? If maps are only, say, 15 long by 7 wide, then go for premade. Not that it'll matter much. Likewise, random maps at 100 long by 100 wide would be fairly difficult to do without maps appearing, well, stupid - AoW maps were generally plains with various splotches of trees and rocks on them. And cavern maps, even in a wide cavern, would usually have some sort of a chokepoint - when no walls existed, even, in the cavern.
• If maps are only going to have ~20 units on them, then personal strategy matters much more compared to universal strategy. Placing individual units (as they're all you have) is thus paramount, compared to placing units as a whole.
• In short - for absolutely massive maps, I'd favor pre-made with the ability for we players to make more OR a random map generator that isn't random to the point of having one lone tree sitting around doing nothing randomly. In this, I think that it'd be safer to rely on the devs until we have more information.
• Controlling units one by one will make for larger battles being annoying and immensely difficult (20 units/side still means that I must move 20 units/turn) while platoons make for smoother, shorter and more realistic battles.
• Somewhat with the map comment above: if terrain matters strategically (forests hinder arrows, plains are good for horses, hills allow for enhanced charges) then massive numbers of premade maps would probably be much easier to implement, and more strategically sound, than random maps.
• Turns themselves depend on knowledge of the system being used, knowledge that we are currently lacking. How can we decide on things like movement speed vs. combat speed? Smaller maps could allow for the strategy of having slow units movement-wise but swift attack wise, allowing for heavily armored units to really shine. Likewise, what's the point of having swift units if they charge into enemy lines at the end of the first turn and get cut to ribbons?

As far as the retreating mechanic the Total War series does this well. You flee to the edge of the map and hope the enemy does not catch up and cut you down. Now they have a slider that can be adjusted at any time to speed this up so that it won't take too long. Also with this method you can turn and attack a pursuing unit to by time for the other fleeing units.  Yes they take a hit on moral but they are still alive at the end.  Battle never get tedious or seem to long (I prefer long battles myself) But I can adjust the slider to accommodate my tastes for how fast I want the battle to go on.

So modifiers should depend on training & experience you say? I like it, since it makes sense indeed.

However morale caps should be in. Each and every creature should have a "panic level" for example. While X creature will panic & try to flee once his morale goes below 25/100 [100=max], but Y creature will only panic once his morale goes below 10/100. This is what I meant on caps. I guess it's quite logical.

after thinking about it a while, i think that both sides should have morale problems.  i think that at teh start of the battle each unit has a base morale of 100.  any bonuses increase this amount.  also a champions leadership skill affects it as well.

each combat round(each player goes once) 1 morale point is ticked off the units morale pool.  each time a unit is attacked another point is ticked off.  when the units morale drops below 75 % total they lose the 25 % combat bonus.  when they drop below 25 % they lose their normal status and gain the 25% penalty.  at 0 they go into panic mode.  each level of morale change is indicated by the color of the morale pool number.  green for bonus, black for normal, yellow for penalty, and red for panic.

now of course you would have many spells and battlefield events that could cause the drop or increase of morale to a unit.

if a unit panics it immediately starts to head for the nearest edge of the map at full speed.  if it makes it then the unit is off the battlefield.  preferably one space in the general direction it was heading.

Retreats should be in, but instead of automatically losing some units on retreat, there should be a way for the other player to halt a retreat.  such as if the player chooses to retreat then, it is announced to the other player.  then there are some options to try and halt that retreat. so as to finish them off.

If we're going with a % based system, limits are needed for sure. Both at the low end (for panic level), and at the high end for bonuses. High morale is great and it giving you an effectiveness bonus is good, but you want to cap that. You don't want a situation where someone finds a way to cheese it and has 300 morale, and triple unit strength.

In fact the original numbers given in the OP are pretty good. 125% on the high end, 50% as a base panic number (modifiable of course by abilities/unit type). The difference is just that every number in between is allowed, instead of just 75/100. You can have a lot more things affect morale that way.

(*Jumps out of the lurking spot)

Regarding Randomisation vs Richness : 

There doesn't need to be any serious compromise there, just good planning & careful allocation of resources. Pre-made maps' cost is O(N) while procedural ones are O(1). Availability of hundreds of very carefully crafted maps doesn't sound very realistic, and if there are so many resources available, I think they'd be better spent on focusing on the gameplay which is more important. A procedural system whose output is evaluated by artists, who can then feedback on programmers/designers who make the rules, makes to me the most sense, as it will be iterative and artists are an essential part of the process. Not sure if something similar was mentioned before, but anyway here's my idea : 

• Programmers make rules for generating base maps ( a really simlple layout at this point ) based on core required strategic features (e.g. a fort or a bridge) taking into account the environment type.
• When requested for a map, the generator :

1.  
   1. Phase 1 : Picks an appropriate base & applies some simple random transforms / rotations. Here we don't have much procedural variation, as we need some key features to be in which don't play well with procedural rules. The simple procedural layout revolves around the core strategic features that have been carefully crafted by the designers.
   2. Phase 2 : Depending on the terrain type, applies minor modifications (terrain features, props, materials) that will add richness on the environment. Here we can go wild with all these little modifications which don't have a significant effect on the playability, but as a total they can have a significant effect on the perceived variation - props here & there, minor terrain features, etc.

• Generate a few maps
• Run them through the designers for playability
• Run them through the artists for visuals/mood/atmosphere.
• Depending on feedback, modify rules & generator
• Rinse & repeat till everybody is happy

Also, really, no tiles for map elements, they were a necessity back then (90s). We have instances nowadays, and they're so much better.

Okay this post just rocks. Incrediably well written and cuts to the heart of the matter we are all dealing with.

And yes i think this post was so well written and formulated that it deserves a +3

WINNER. TAKE. ALL:

I would like a realistic touch here, not just win/lose. And I don't like the bonus idea much. If you have to win in N turns to get a certain bonus the result will be that you WIN or LOSE AND RELOAD until you get a win... Then it is a puzzle game, not strategy, and I don't like it. 

You should of course be able to flee, but get penalties when doing so. A lost battle should not...no.. MUST not be the end of the game! You may lose control of some land but there should be a possibility to turn the war to your advantage again... That's what I miss in most strategy games, you are either winning or losing, there's nothing in between.

AoW is the best game in this regard imo, you can fight large battles and the outcome determines if you can expand your empire with a city or two, but one battle never determines the whole game.

I actually like the morale penalty idea.  However, I think it needs to have something to offset it.  I believe that is power of the army.

In the past,  games have said "your army is worth 100 pts,  their army is worth 3000 pts.  you have bad morale."  I don't think this is a good system other than the first time or two that unit goes out.   After that, It should be based off the point value of the size of armies your army has killed.  Like this.

I make a super uber archer unit that runs very fast, and equip them with quivers of unlimited ammo, and cast guardian wind on them (a spell that makes them immune to normal  missile weapons).   Because the design for this unit is very powerful, despite it's cheap point value, it's going to kick some serious butt.  I square off against a 500 point army.  The first time I do this, I have a bad morale penalty.  And rightly so...  my little guys are outnumbered 20:1 vs these guys!   They are going to be scared the first time this theory is tested!!!!

After I demolish this 500 pt unit,  My soldiers suddenly realize they are much more bad to the bone than they thought.   Now, I square off against another 500 pt army.  My troops already know they can wipe the floor with the enemy troops, and so do they.   So now I have a positive morale bonus, and they  have a negative one.   They are after all, horrified of the invulnerable flying death squad that is my country bumpkin archer unit!

Given a bit more time, and my opponents lack of ability to come up with a suitable counter, I end up wiping the floor with one of his main 5000 point armies.   Now, his troops are so petrified of my little archer unit,  that they have pretty much no morale at all.  The mere thought of my troops brings fear and dread to the hearts of anyone who opposes me.  Parents get their children to stay in bed at night by telling horror stories about the terrible flying  army who's name must not be spoken, lest they hear it, appear out of thin air, and slaughter everyone you ever knew.

This could actually help greatly with the tedium of the "mopping up" phase.   Once your troops are unbeatable,  enemy troops would figure that out.   And they would start surrendering as you approached out of fear of being murdelated.  And it would allow for attackers to take morale penalties the longer the fight goes on.  because if it is just a small annoying enemy force,  which you are having difficulty pinning down.... the morale penalty for the tiny army is going to be far more severe than the penalty for taking too long to kill said small pathetic army.