it's very unfortunate but I believe he has already said it, but he's a quick witted fellar & I think that when it's all said & done we'll have tac battles we can appreciate

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.

We passed that age....would love to return to it.

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)

Exactly so ! ... which is one reason why Derek, Brad, et. al. should   NOT  always  take the comments,  made by the 100 most prolific respondents on these forums, as unvarnished Holy Writ .  However well meaning we may be, we are not the purchasers who are going to make or break E:FE ... let alone turn it into an overwhelming success. 

Incidently some of the hoi polloi may not be: "... lazy and dulll and a waste of space ...".  Some may actually be model human beings, who lead lives of great fulfillment and joy ...

At least, I bet most of them get more sleep than I do ...         

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

That's one way to look at it.  On the other hand there's WoM.

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.

Well, now ... there, you may have crossed the line, over into blasphemy ...      

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.

Thank you FB.  I am one for whom tactical is not that big of a thing.  Tactical battles should be short and to the point, ala Endless Space (and even those are a little long/slow at times with the animations).

My FE battles should not require as much depth as a well played game of Chess.  If I wanted that...I would play chess...or a realistic war stratefy game.

The empire management, RPG, and narrative aspects of the game are what keep me coming back.

Once again, looking forward to Beta4!

I think the solution to the tactical battle issue may be easy, simple, and oh so elegant: give us the ability to MOD these tactical battle enchancements (terrain bonuses, flanking, zone of control, special unit abilities such as shieldwall, ranged unit penalties, line-of-sight etc.), and of course to adjust the AI so it can take advantage ! #

This way the people wanting a simpler experience can stay with the current game, whereas the more complicated tac battle fans can download the mod when some enterprising modder creates it

Alternatively, you could make a charged, downloadable game extension / DLC with all the tac battle enchancements, which people such as myself can choose to buy/install and others can ignore, at will ...

Modding is not an option for this because the AI will not know how to use it. You can't mod for MP, so don't start on about it being useful for MP. When modding, one has to limit oneself to what the AI can cope with. Otherwise you might as well add 1000000 Gildar to the player and call it good. 

The best thing to do is have people like Napean mod away features that are too complicated. Let him delete hundreds of lines of xml, instead of asking me to write them.

But i guess modding away features will cause AI problems, too. I think the best way is to keep the tactical battles short and interesting like the battles in Kings Bounty: Armored Princess. There is no need for terrain bonuses if the AI is challenging and the player has enough options in tactical battles like spells or special attacks.

Endless Space is in my opinion an example of boring tactical battles, because the player has very limited options.

I don't think we need terrain bonuses, I would love to see more terrain obstacles to change the layout of each different combat map, but I don't think we NEED terrain bonuses because if we keep them out, we can get tactical combat to be way more focused on other layers. We have an intricate weapon system right now, and I hope they change it slightly (because most of them are slightly boring) or just make it more significant, I for one wont ever use mauls just for the sheer, feel they have, they don't seem to hit hard enough compared to the turn-loss my units seem to get (this is also because units start moving very very slowly due to mauls).

But I think we should focus on keeping weapons, armor and formation the key point, instead of how the hills are upwards or downwards.
(Also makes it easier for the AI to comprehend each combat situation)

Sincerely
~ Kongdej