Right now with 1DN you're rocking (something similar to) the age-old problem from Civilization 2:  a Spearman can kill a Panzer.  1DN does bizarre things.

I've said this before, but it's my opinion that every strategic combat system should have these five logical, statistical premises:

1.)  Attack.  Chance to hit.  The very first principle of combat:  Did your Panzer's shell manage to hit the spearman?

2.)  Defense.  Chance to not be hit.  The companion to Attack.  The spearman's a much harder target to hit than the lumbering Panzer.

3.)  Damage.  What is the maximum and minimum potential damage dealt if the Attack landed?  Those stone-tipped spears are a joke compared to a Panzer shell.

4.)  Armor.  How much Damage is negated if an attack connects.  Those spears won't even scratch the tank, and I doubt the loincloths will do much good against the Panzer's machine gun.

5.)  Hit points.  How much Damage can a target sustain before it is killed or disabled?  Arguably you could make this the same as Armor, with Armor reducing as Damage is taken, but that's a whole other can of worms that implies some kind of fatigue system.  Keep it simple.

Logically, the Panzer should always win, either by killing the spearman or by forcing a retreat.  Don't even bother adding some secret hidden condition where there's a 1 in 100,000 chance that the spearman wins.  It's chintzy and silly and dishonest.  Let the numbers do the work.  Don't be cute.

These are the bare bones basics.  Initiative, special traits, terrain penalties or bonuses, or other circumstantial conditions are all just gravy.  They add quite a bit of depth, but they're not *necessary*.

And I'm not saying you should ignore those circumstantial conditions.  Elemental absolutely should include special traits for units.  You'll probably want an equivalent system for Magic that is parallel to those four basics, as plate armor preventing a lightning bolt doesn't really make sense.  Initiative-based move order is pretty much expected at this point.  Terrain bonuses/penalties are somewhat expected.  Movement speed (how far a unit can move per turn) is expected.  Line of sight and obstacles are expected.  And that's just scratching the surface of cool additional mechanics you can come up with.

I think a lot of posters on this forum put the carriage before the horse.  They want weather effects and invisible-life-stealing-first-striking-weapon-immune diamond dragons that can shoot laser beams out of their eyes as a free action once per round.  That's great.  That sounds cool.  Maybe a little complicated, especially with the free action nonsense, but still cool.

The problem is, I don't think many of these suggestions realize that you have to bake boring spongy bread before you can slather icing on a cake.

1.)  Base statistics should be icons equal to the numerical value of a statistic (5 attack = 5 icons) and not just numbers (though numbers are fine to include).  The icons should represent what the statistic entails.  Attack could be bullseyes.  Defense could be... well, that's a tough one... shields, maybe?  Damage could be a sword;  Armor could be an icon of plate armor.  It's the Simtex method.  You want graphical, at-a-glance ideas of how strong (or weak) a unit is:

2.)  Hover tooltips.  Lots and lots of hover tooltips.  You can turn them off in options.

*Hover over the word "Attack" and you get a concise tooltip such as "Determines how likely this unit is to hit its target.  Attack is countered by the target's Defense statistic."  Likewise for all other stats -- even something as basic as mana or hit points.

*Hover over the icons for Attack and you get an exact numerical readout.  Perhaps even a "base chance to hit against a Defense of <average Defense value in a typical game>:  <% chance to hit>."  Again, a quick, concise, at-a-glance idea of how this unit stacks up against the "average."  Likewise for all other stats.

*Hover over any special abilities and get a fully detailed explanation.  "First Strike" should say something like "In combat, this unit will strike its attacker before the attacker strikes it."  That's the bare bones explanation -- but do better than that.  Add in a full description of conditional mechanics, such as "If an attacker also has First Strike, the attacker will attack first as normal."

Another example: If you're talking Lifesteal, be exact.  "Steals life from a target if the target is damaged" is passable.  "Takes 30% of the inflicted damage against a target and adds that number to this unit's hit points" is MUCH better.

3.)  Tactical combat calculated tooltips.  You're controlling a Vampire with Lifestealing.  You hover over a Spearman with First Strike.  Somewhere on the UI, you need an exact readout of Hit Points, Chance to Hit, Potential Damage, Counter-Attack hit + damage, and a description of any other circumstantial abilities that will affect combat.  Basically, you want an exact tactical readout of what will happen if you commit to an action.  This should include probabilities, damage ranges, and any other circumstantial effects.  The effects should be fully documented.

Example (you're controlling the Vampire and hovering over the Spearman, the icon has changed to the "Attack" command icon).

Attacker HP:  4/12.  Death possible! (2.5%)

Comments:  HP should always show Current HP/Max HP.

Because of the Spearman's first strike, include some indication that the unit could die if he goes through with the attack.  Also include the percent chance the unit will die -- in this case, the Defender has a 10% chance to hit and a 1 in 4 chance to do the 4 damage required to kill the Attacker.  Thus, the chance for the attacker to die from all circumstances is 2.5%.  Oh, and Red = dangerous!

Damage range should include the enemy's reduction from Armor.  Calculate the exact numbers beforehand and report them to the player.  Don't make the user do the math.

Attacker Chance to Hit:  85%. -- Damage: 9-12 -- Lifesteal: 3-4.

Comments:  Note the inclusion of Lifesteal and the exact amount of HP that would be gained assuming the attack landed.  Green = healing. 

Defender HP:  4/4.  Death possible. (85%)

Comments:  Red for consistency, except there's a period instead of an exclamation mark.  Again, the % is the chance the unit will die.  In this case, the Vampire will hit for at least 4 damage, so it's a guaranteed death if the hit chance is a success.

Counterattack Chance to Hit: 10% -- Damage: 1-4. -- First Strike (this unit will counter-attack before your attack).

Comments:  Draw the user's eye to the enemy's special ability using red text and fully describe the consequences of it.

Here's another example of a Spearman versus, I don't know, a Sheep with First Strike.

Attacker HP: 4/4

Chance to Hit: 100% / Damage: 2-4 / First Strike (this unit will attack first).

Comments:  The Attacker's First Strike supersedes the Defender's First Strike due to the defined mechanics.  Point this out by making the info green and re-affirming the Attacker will indeed attack first.

Defender HP: 2/2.  Death possible. (100%)

Counterattack Chance to Hit: 0% / Damage: 0 / First Strike (attacker also has First Strike).

Comments: The sheep will die.  Thus it's Counterattack stats are 0 across the board.  Note that the sheep has First Strike, but gray it out (or use strikethrough) because it's irrelevant and note why it's irrelevant.  (EDITs:  It's hard to covey gray on this board.).

This is essentially the King's Bounty way of doing things, except with more detail and mechanics explanations and reminders.

4.)  Put all the info you could ever want about combat, from a detailed description of each special ability to the exact formulas for attacks/damage/etc in the Elemental-pedia (I forget what this is called -- the ingame help).

k, that's all for now.

I didn't mention it specifically, but it falls under my comment about more pre-combat options. A stronger connection between what happens in the strategic level and the tactical level as well orders that bridge the two. It should make a difference that I'm in friendly territory or not. Something as simple as a morale modifier based on location for instance and marching order as you mentioned. If I can make a different on the tactical level by smart action on the strategic (and vice versa), I don't have to be stronger or win to win.

I've outlined bits and pieces of my ideal combat system in other threads, I think I'll pull it all together here. That said I'm in favor of a detailed and complex system of combat which might not be popular with some people so assuming it's all possible I've got a goal for modding.

Battle Setup:

-First things first I'd like to see larger army sizes, right now the maximum is 12 units per army. Ideally this would be able to scale up to 100 or so but that would require a better UI with regard to army management.

-Due to the size of armies we would also need scaling maps, whichever side has a larger army dictates the size of the battlefield.

-Players need to be able to place their units on the battlefield beforehand, the random setup just simply does not cut it

Maps:

-As I said more maps will need to be created of multiple size ranks. These maps also need to have more tactical variance and places that are desirable to control for logical reasons. High ground, cover, concealment, areas that sap movement, provide a boost to magical power, the possible options for tile bonuses and the tactical options they provide are staggering.

-Overall map bonuses day/night, weather and environmental concerns. Cold areas could see fire magic being less effective with frost being amplified. Stormy weather enhancing lightning spells and snuffing out flame spells. Desert heat amplifying the strength of fire spells while weakening frost. Where your battle takes place should be important and this brings me to the magic.

Magic:

-Spells need damage types and secondary effects.

-More support spells both offensive and defensive.

-Most important of all, magic needs to be able to alter the battlefield. Channelers can raise mountains, volcanoes, cause blizzards and storms. All on the strategic map, translate this into the combat. Magic ripped this world asunder and the new channelers are able to reshape it at will so allow them to do so during battles. Stop a cavalry charge by creating a flash flood in the tiles ahead of them, raise the land itself to give your archers a better vantage point, create lasting storms that interfere with enemy archers. I want to see magic play a really important tactical role in every battle that contains it. These people are powerful and it should be reflected in the battles tactically.

Combat Damage and Items:

Right now as many have noted, combat damage is simply too random and combined with current HP levels on units like champions, it's quite frustrating.

I'm a fan of Hit/Miss Damage/Damage resistance for items. This creates more reason to have a varied army with light/heavy infantry, archers, cavalry, spears vs hammers vs swords and so on.

Some item examples:

Boar Spear:

Damage: 5 (Piercing)

Defense: +5  (Due to reach)

Grants Ability: Spear Wall

Crit x2

Max Targets: 1

2h Warhammer:

Damage: 20 (Blunt)

Defense: -5 (difficult to parry with)

Attack: +10 (able to put all strength behind the blow and aim)

Combat Speed: -1 (slow lumbering weapon, high damage to compensate)

Grants Ability: Stunning Blow

Crit x3

Max Targets: 2

Leather Armor (set)

Slashing Resist: 15%

Blunt Resist: 20%

Pierce Resist: 5%

Lightning Resist: 10%

Fire Resist: 5%

Frost Resist: 10%

Defense +10

Grants Ability: Evasion

Plate Armor (Set)

Slashing Resist: 65%

Blunt Resist: 30%

Pierce Resist: 10%

Fire Resist: 15%

Frost Resist: 15%

Lightning Resist: -10%

Defense: -10

Combat Speed: -2

Grants Ability: Hold the Line!

Tower Shield:

Piercing Resist: 60%

Defense +15

Combat Speed -1

Attack -10

Grants Ability: Shield Wall

Ok so hypothetical situation here:

12 spearmen in leather with tower shields vs 6 hammerers in platemail

Assume the base attack/defense of all units is 50

Assume combat speed is the number of actions you get per turn as well as the number of counterattacks you get per turn

A critical hit is achieved if the difference between your Defense - attack roll is equal to half your attack score.

Spearmen have Attack of 40 and a defense of 80. Hammerers have an attack of 60 and a defense of 35. Both units have 20 hp per soldier so spearmen have 240 and hammerers have 120. For the sake of this experiment the spear group has a combat speed of 4 at the start of the engagement and the hammerers a combat speed of 2

ATTACKER TURN

Hammerers Attack:

They will roll attack vs defense for each unit in the friendly stack (I'm using excel to randomly generate the rolls)

So in this attack round the hammerers inflicted 20/20/60 blunt damage on the Spearman team.

Leather armor has a 20% blunt damage reduction so total damage inflicted is 16/16/48. Now the warhammer has a max targets of two, so in one swing it could possibly damage two units. In this case we apply 16 to one spearman, dropping him to 4, the next hammerer hits him for 16, 12 of which spill over into spearman 2, he's down to 8 and spearman one is defeated. 48 is applied to spearman 2, 8 is enough to kill him and the remaining 40 is applied to spearman 3 which kills him outright.

Spearman group is down to 9 members now, they counterattack:

This round the spear group inflicted 5/5/5/5/5/5 damage to the hammer group, plate only has 10% pierce resist so it converts the damage to 4/4/4/4/4/4. They succeed in killing hammerer 1 and wounding hammerer 1 for 4 damage.

Hammerers Attack:

This time the superior mobility granted by leather armor helped out the spear group and they take only 16 damage. Leaving spearman 4 at 4 hp.

DEFENDER TURN:

Spearmen group uses evasion (+10 Defense for 2 turns)

Spearmen Attack:

This time the spearman group deals a total of 20 damage, this kills another of the hammer group outright.

Hammer group counterattacks:

While the evasion didn't really help much in this case the hammer group misses on all counts anyway.

Spear group attacks again:

This time they deal another 20 damage killing a third hammer unit.

Hammer group retaliates:

They deal 16/16 damage total. 4 kills spearman 4, 12 carries over onto spearmen 5 and he's at 8. 16 hits him and 8 carries over onto spearmen 6.

Spearmen group attacks again:

They deal 16 damage wounding a hammerer and leaving him with 4 hp.

ATTACKER TURN:

Hammerers use Hold the line (20% bonus to resists for 2 turns, unit is immobile)

Hammerers attack:

They deal 16/16 damage, spearman 6 is killed, 8 is dealt to spearman 7. The other 16 applies to spearman 7, killing him and carrying over to spearman 8.

Current Battle stats:

Hammerers are at 44/120 hp and retains 3 members

Spear group is at 88/240 and contains 5 members

Spearman counter:

Normally they'd do 12 damage but due to hold the line this is further reduced. Base damage of 5/5/5 is reduced by a total of 30% 3/3/3

9 damage is dealt to the hammerers, but since spear damage cannot carry over multiple units, it takes 6 of it to kill the 4hp hammerer and leaving the next one to only take 3 damage.

DEFENDER TURN:

Spearman attack:

This time they deal 12 damage since hold the line remains active. Hammerer has two members remaining and one of them has 5 hp.

Hammerers Counter:

They deal 16 damage, again killing a spearman and wounding a second for 8.

Spearmen Attack:

They deal 6 damage, killing the second to last hammer unit.

Hammerers retaliate:

He manages to barely kill another spearman and wound a second for 8.

Spearmen attack:

They damage the final hammer unit for 3.

Hammerer is out of counterattacks for the turn and cannot respond.

Spearmen attack again:

They deal 9 damage tot he hammerer, he's down to 8 hp now, and still cannot retaliate.

ATTACKER TURN:

Hammerer attacks:

Crushing blow used: Enemy unit cannot retaliate this turn.

He gets a fairly lucky hit and strikes down another spearman while wounding a second.

Spearmen are stunned -50 defense

Hammerer attacks again:

He kills another spearman and wounds the final unit.

DEFENDER TURN:

Spearmen uses spear wall: (+10 defense +20 Def/Att vs mounted units lasts 2 turns, unit is immobile.)

Spearmen attacks:

And deals 4 damage to the hammer unit (hold the line has ended) hammerer is reduced to 4 hp.

Hammerer retaliates:

He misses

Spearman Attacks:

And he hits for 4 damage, killing the hammer group at long last.

Now obviously the numbers can be tweaked, I just kind of threw them all together at random for this mock battle but it should be able to convey the kind of numbers I'd like to see backing the combat system. I'd also like to point at out that the training techs could easily allow you to train units with higher attack/defense skills as well as hp, that would've changed the outcome of this fight quite easily. It might also be a good idea to make the attack/defense rolls a bit less random by having a minimum value as a % of the total added in, just to normalize the results a bit more.

Special Abilities:

-No doubt you noticed that I placed special abilities on the items and armor sets that the units in my fake battle used. This is something I'd like to see for pretty much every weapon/armor combination so that there are more reasons than just damage to design a unit. Currently unit design is pretty bland and the only real concerns are what you can afford that has the highest #'s I'd like to see that change. Variety is the spice of life right?

-This feeds into champion development as well, I'd like to see champions able to pick from a list of special abilities based on their "class" in the game as they level up. They also need some more HP in order to survive in battles with units that are composed of 12 soldiers or more. Alternately they could be used to command units, say you can merge a group of 3 units into a regiment led by the champion himself, granting bonuses to morale/offense/defense/etc.. based on the skills of the hero. That way you can build up combat champions or commanding champions in addition to mage champions.

Combat Phases:

-I don't particularly care for an entire side going at once, frogboy posted in another thread the possible new system of splitting the turn into 10 more turns or phases then allowing actions to occur on certain phases for the different combat speeds. Combining that system with my damage system would likely work very well with a few tweaks and I like the way they were going with combat phases. Just thought it needed a mention here.

Movement and animations:

-I'd like to see a continuous animation system so when two units are engaged in combat there is a fighting animation that continues while it isn't either units turn. Ideally once a melee unit engages another melee unit they would be "stuck" in combat and would not be able to retreat without penalty.

-This goes hand in hand with the previous suggestion but the animations for combat with multiple soldier units should reflect that kind of fighting, one guy walking up and smacking them is kind of odd to see.

-All movement and combat animations need to have an option to be sped up if people want to do so.

-Have the option to plan movement ahead a few turns and a visual representation on the map of the planned path so you won't have to move every single unit every turn all the time.

I know this is a gigantic post and I doubt anyone is going to read the entire thing, but if you do, let me know what you think.

I just want to quickly add that if the devs are reading all of these, I feel your pain. There's a lot of good ideas but some of these sounds like it'll need a new game and a half to implement.

I'm largely repeating things that have been said, but the important changes to me would be:

Split up attack chance to hit and attack damage into 2 stats.  

• Heavy hammers and claymores could do wild amounts of damage but have a low chance to hit.  
• Lighter arms like daggers and short swords should have a highly reliable chance to hit but do less damage.
• Longswords and spears as a "happy medium".  

Split up chance to dodge, amount of damage soaked, and magical resistance into 3 stats.

• Chance to dodge and amount soaked should be inversely related, with the exception of shields.
• Magic resist would act like a damage soak, but with the chance to reduce damage all the way down to 0 if it's strong enough.  The INT attribute of the caster would oppose this stat; higher INT means greater penetration through the enemy's magic resistance.
• This would allow for greater variety of magical gear.  Split up "arcane armor" into two techs, one for physical resistance and one for magical resistance.  Physical items could include "dodge stones" or "force field stones"; load up a unit on the heavy platemail, then give him a dodge stone so that he still has a decent dodge chance.  Have a generic "+5 to magic resist" stone for 10 crystals, and have specialized "+5 to fire resistance" stones for 4 crystals apiece.  There should be intriguing choices for army design in every game, situational to the opponents you're fighting.

Have spells to buff and debuff all of these stats.  Blind, Weaken, Bless, Strength, etc.

With the implementation of a global mana pool and upkeep, I would like to see the ability to cast persistant buffs on a stack for upkeep.  

Magic should be highly reliable with low variability of damage.  Magic is supposed to be the heart of the game, right?  The force that creates or destroys existence?  Against a wolf or a group of 3 peasants, there should be a 0% chance that a fireball will Miss or do 1 damage.  Against a magical creature like a dragon with a high magic resistance stat, low damage or zero damage with a "Resist" message makes sense.  

This all allows for greater variety in monsters as well.  Things like darklings that "cannot be the target of offensive spells" should simply have a very high magic resist relative to their level.  Agile creatures like wolves have relatively high dodge chance but zero damage soak.  Stone giants have zero dodge but 70% damage soak.  Etc.

And above all, greater transparency of the mechanics of all of these things.  Like someone else said, tooltips, tooltips, tooltips.  The more informed that I am, the more I feel that I am making Important Decisions instead of just "this stack has the highest attack number, I'll use him."

If you could release some modding integration for custom AI personalities I'm sure the modding community would love to help provide multiple challenging AI opponents.  The modders would eventually challenge each others AI personalities in games not only against humans, but other AIs to determine which are the most powerful AI personalities. 

IF you build the modding integration for custom AI personalities...  they will come.

Each unit has a base Initiative score. At the beginning of the battle the unit gets a Battle Initiative of their Initiative score plus a random number (ties go by Dexterity and further ties go by random). Each turn starts with the unit of higher Battle Initiative and ends with the unit of lowest. Recalculing Battle INitiative each turn wouldn't be crazy and can add some nice randomness too.

Each unit has X action points each turn. Actions go from moving to attacking or casting a spell, and usually cost a single action point. The units don't need to spend any action point every turn. Units cannot counterattack unless they have action points remaining or have a special skill that gives them counter attack.

Terrain affects battle (movement, cover...).

Units with (quite) more individuals (and/or size) than their opponent(s) (of same or less size) have penalties when attacking and defending (12 humans vs 1 human). Bonus against units of bigger size (4 humans vs 1 Dragon).

Unit can have skills by themselves and/or by equipment. From spears giving first strike against cavalry units to tower shields giving more defense against arrows. And skills that allow to regroup broken units, to counter attack extra times...

Formations.

Tactics phase before battle to deploy your troops in your "initial area". (or maybe a skill for a champion that does that... something along those lines anyway)

And most importantly a nice log IN battle to read everything that it's going on no matter if you payed attantion to the screen or not.

Just my uninformed opinion.

After playing a lot of Elemental, I've come up with a lot o things from other places that I'd like to see in the game.  A lot of these have been mentioned before, so if so, please simply consider them to be a +1.

Ideas, in no particular order:

1.  To hit roll - modifiers (magic like displacement, agility, etc)

2.  Damage on hit (die roll+modifiers) - Defense modifiers (damage resistance from armor, magical protection, whatever)

3.  Clearly obvious effects of bonuses in the UI.  If piercing weapons matter, let me know about it when I'm looking at weapons, when I'm attacking, etc.  Mouse over box for bonuses and resistances to everything on units in tactical combat

4.  Clearly defined effect types (magic, physical, fire, water, earth, air, evil, good, life, death, etc)

5.  Magical items having affects on this stuff.  Ring of +1 to all elemental resistances, whatever

6.  Unity of scale.  I have trouble telling what "awesome" is.  Clearly defined limits of things would help get an idea of where you are in the grand scheme of things.  In D&D 2nd Ed, for example, creatures don't have more than 400hp.  I think the scale should be smaller than it is now.  A +1 to hit should be a fairly big deal, even late game.  Or your cool magic rings and whatnot don't matter much.  If the scale is going to keep getting better, and you can only wear one ring of a particular type, you'll need to be able to make/get better rings of the same type.  +5 Ring of Damage, etc.  Deciding how big a square in combat is, might help, too.

7.  Bonus definitions.  I'd really like to see a definitive list of what bonsuses there are, how they stack, how they don't stack, what maximum values they can have if any.

8.  More versatile spell effect shapes:  Square (1x1, 2x2, 3x3, etc), Radius (3x3, clip corners to make round effects), Cone (generally triangular, expands wide in two directions), Line (2x4, 1x6, etc).  This would greatly increase the versatility for different spells to be put into the game, Fireball (round) Cone of Fire (5 square cone), Burning Hand (2 square cone) Polar Ray (1x6 line)...you get the idea.

9.  Combat ranges.  If I have a big honking spear, let me strike from two squares away.  If I have a bow, clearly define the range.  Six squares, etc.  A good way to control weapons is to keep the ranges interesting.  Have a reason to have a pike, a bow, a sword, an axe, a warhammer.  Remember, 5 guys with swords are really scary 10 feet away, but a 5 guys with longbows is a lot scarier.  Ranged weapons were invented for a reason, the SHOULD be really good.  Counter this with heavy shields.  If someone is behind someone else, they were be a penalty to hit him if he's the same size, say 50%.  That means you can have heavily armored shield wall guys with bowmen behind it, or even casters. 

10.  Combat abilities.  Charge (attack in a straight line on a horse), set for charged, whirlwind strike (hits guys around you), overrun(knocks an opponent back one square), leap attack (attack with melee weapons from two squares back), acid breath, fire breath, daze, dominate, confuse, entangle, etc.

11.  Simultaneous combat based on Initiative:  in MoM, in a melee, both guys attacked.  This happens, now, but the attacker always goes first.  Have a roll (to simulate the randomness of combat) with a unit's combat initiative bonuses.  Whomever rolls higher with bonuses goes first.  This makes combat equipment matter.  A short sword strikes faster than a longsword does.  This makes having quick skirmishers matter in the game, rather than biggest weapon wins. 

Hope this helps.

@Boltcutter

Yeah, DomIII's combat system is awesome.  It really strokes my grognard the right way... wow that sounds wrong.  Something on that scale would be ideal in a dream game, but frankly I'd just be happy with what I and others have outlined above.  A simplistic system, but one that is infinitely more nuanced than what we currently have.

Yep, yep. The Doms 3. system is excellent indeed.

Note regarding dmg types & resistances - Damage resistance should be a "natural" ability [Ex.: 20% Res. to fire] and armors should "offer" damage reduction.

Without reading any reply...

I would like to point out, that two most common things, which people are complaining about combat are:

1. Randomness

2. Seperating movement and attack points.

And its no wonder. randomness is good for replayability but it must be within certain boundaries. Combat must be somewhat predictable, so people can actualy use strategies and planning. 

For seperating action points to movement and attack. That system is simply more flexible and allow better balance and customizing units.

Anyway, there is much more to do. I am in a favor, of dmg reduction from the stats instead of chances. Simply because, one can plan his moves in advance.

There is more things to do, like ressistance stat and other. But I would like to see at least those two. Seperating actions into two pools. And less randomness from the combat.

For a major overhaul, I would really like to see a We-go system put in place as described in various threads.

For a minor change:

1.  Lower overall attack values.  Right now, combat is too deadly.  It would be nice to have a few rounds of fighting, so important units have a chance to retreat when hurt.

2.  Raise HP (mostly for heroes).  Also, allow heroes to fall unconscious at 0 health, but not die until they reach -10 or maybe -con.

3.  Average the damage with 1/2 the attack value.  For example, a unit with an attack strength of 20 would calculate the damage per the current system, and then average that value with 10.    Dam = ((AttackRoll - DefenseRoll) + (AttackValue/2))/2

Implement heavy, medium and light weapons by changing the formula slightly.  Light weapons would also tend to have slightly higher AttackValues to compensate.  (Hits more, but for less damage)

Light:      Dam = ((AttackRoll - DefenseRoll) + (AttackValue/3))/2

Medium:  Dam = ((AttackRoll - DefenseRoll) + (AttackValue/2))/2

Heavy:  Dam = ((AttackRoll - DefenseRoll) + (AttackValue*2/3))/2

Basically, the formula would be: Dam = ((AttackRoll - DefenseRoll) + (AttackValue*X))/2

Where X = 1/3,  1/2, or 2/3 for light, medium and heavey, respectively.

Note, an (attackRoll - defenseRoll) equal to zero now hits.  Negative does not (even though the formula says otherwise)

4.  Make all weapons and armor only subtract action points, heavier items subtract more.  (Why does a shortsword make you move/cast faster?)

5.  Make Movement cost (2 / strategic map movement value) action points.  (If you really need strategic map movement to be different, then make a strategic map only movement bonus ability)  I'm guessing it will be rare.

6.  Have option to Speed up/Skip animations.  Have spacebar (or another key) skip any current animations

7.  Add TAB key functionality to find unmoved units

8.  Add option to fight the tactical battle after seeing the results of autoresolve.  This might be (more?) controversial, but I like to autoresolve fights when they are forgone conclusions since i like to attack with overwhelming odds.   Sometimes, I misjudge or get unlucky, and I lose a unit.  Those seems like the most interesting fights to actually play, so I always feel like I missed out on an opportunity for fun.   If you don't like the idea of getting two chances, at least show the likely results of a fight. (Maybe run the autoresolve a few times and average the results)