[0.914] [Suggestion] On Tactical Combat

This would effectively remove range 1 spells with a casting time from the game, which would be an unfortunate loss. If you want to interrupt the spell, you can already counterspell, or kill the caster.

For example playing a beastlord, "tame" requires you to get hit before you can tame the creature. This is actually a great mechanic; you have to survive a series of mauls from a cave bear to have any chance of taming it, which makes for some interesting tactical decisions (and a few very close calls).

I do think that each champion type could benefit from a unique way of dealing with spellcasters. Mages can counterspell, warriors can one-hit most mages, defenders just pump spell resistance and take it in the face.

Interrupt the spell on a critical hit, perhaps, for the assassins?

Or perhaps there can be a % chance to be interrupted based on spell mastery?  Maybe a base 50% to be interrupted at 0 spell mastery, then raise up to 100% at, say, 90 spell mastery?

Yes, quoting myself.

On second thought, getting resists on a 2-round cast is penalty enough lol.  So I think I am cool with no interrupts except the counterspells and death.

I'd like to see a feature to interrupt spells with attacks. I don't know how hard it would be to implement something like that at this point, but i don't think it would be that hard to balance.

For example: Give each attack a chance to interrupt the spell, based on the amount of damage taken and max. hp of the caster*. Make the spells wich require multiple turns to cast more powerfull, so it's still worth casting them. And give those multiturn-spells range, that require close-combat at the moment.

It would make strong caster potentialy more dangerous, but at the same time also more vulnerable... Encouriging different tactics to protect/attack them and increasing their distinctiveness. It would also lead to tougher choices whether or not to cast a spell/try to attack a spellcaster. All in all, it would be yet another way of making the combats more challenging/interesting.

*An example of an rather simple possible formula: The busy caster gets hit by an arrow and takes damage for 10% of his max. hp. So would be the chance of this attack interrupting the spell.

This isn't much different to just linking it to crits, which would be much simpler to explain as it is an existing and well understood mechanic. That's what a critical hit is, after all.

Options for non-crit-based builds come from traits, such as a dedicated spell breaker defender ability (range 1 counterspell), or linked to skill/spell effects like stun or confusion.

Like with most others, there wouldn't be a need to explain the exact formula. Something along the lines of  "Attacks may interrupt spellcasting. The bigger the hit, the higher the chance." should be simple enough.

New traits could be build around both suggestions.

Linking it to crits would have impact on the way it would be used and experienced by players. For example, the feature would then only effect battles with hi-crit-units and/or through traits specialized units in it. And in those battles, decisions if a spell should be cast or a caster attacked would be simpler, because only those few units would need real considaration. It would also shift the overall importance of critchances, which would require further balancing.

Such differences are mostly a matter of taste tho. Nevertheless, there are differences.

"1) The minimum you should do for placing the units on start is a heuristic that moves ranged and "weak" melee (mages, pinoneers) units in the second row and strong melee units in the first row (you just have to "look" at the weapons)."

I think instead of some already determined placement, there needs to be some kind of "troop placement" screen before tactical combat starts which lets you setup the layout of your army. I've seen this brought up enough on the forums for it to not be addressed eventually.

All in all, tactical combat does need an overhaul IMO. It doesn't really play the way tactical combat should and just feels like it's there so that the game can get credit for having "tactical combat".

I have never been able to do this as a player, but AI armies do this all the time (even, sometimes, when supposed to be frozen by tremor). They get to complete their move and (in the most common example) destroy my outpost before I defeat them in combat. Extremely frustrating.

Also supporting some kind of unit placement - not least because my high initiative champions who are designed to lead the charge get stuck behind, say, spearmen, and wasting a turn moving around them.

I think it happened to me in the first battle after I loaded a game. Perhaps a cache is filled or something. The loading was going on and on so I decided to try to move another army - with success.

This is a better solution. Otherwise casting time spells just become redundant when facing ranged units.

The line of site thing is tougher. If you just put a 50% damage penalty on it under the hood, then people just won't realise why some of their attacks aren't doing full damage. It would just be gay. And what about lightning bolts from the sky: do they still suffer penalties. There are bigger are bigger and more easily solvable problems in the game than line of sight. These kind of mechanics need to be incorporated into the game from the ground up to work properly.