Why not explain us the results of your testing?

Most likely because it's about resources, and that horse has been beaten to death, resurrected, then beaten to death again.

And it seems you never played combat mission, or you would never say that the RNG dictates who will win. Yes ther's a lot of luck involved, but a good player will always win over a weak player. And between two player of the same level that's the tactics used that will do the difference.

I cringe every time someone says this. Have you ever played a Total War game, or a game with similar combat? At least in single-player, actions per minute has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with combat. Nothing. There is a really handy feature called "pause" that lets you give as many orders as you want, as often as you want, while taking as long as you want. There is a little bit of micro, but because of the ability to pause it's not bad at all. The only micro that I found stressful in Total War was when the pathfinding blew up, but that was a problem with the terrible pathfinding of the game, not an inherent problem of the combat itself.

Also, I just thought of another major concern for me. Right from the beginning, Brad said that we'll be able to reenact battles like the Battle of the Five Armies from the Hobbit. To be frank, that is one of the most exciting things about the game for me - that would just be awesome. But... A battle between five different players' armies in turn/tile-based combat? ...That just does not have the same appeal. You'd spend most of the combat waiting, watching everyone else take their turns.

Not only that, but if it's something like 3 vs 1, or 3vs2, or 4vs1, etc, the smaller team (assuming relatively equal armies for each player) could potentially be at a ridiculous disadvantage. It extravagantly exacerbates the advantage of going first. For example, if the larger team's players get to go first, between their combined forces they could probably utterly destroy the smaller team before it even has a chance to move. On the other hand, if the smaller team gets to go first, it could do a disproportionate amount of damage to the larger team before being wiped out.

The Battle of the Five Armies would be amazingly fun to play and watch in continuous turns. It would be boring and fraught with problems in turn/tile-based combat. Although, if orders are issued by all players and then the turns are resolved simultaneously, that would solve most of these concerns.

Elemental has come a long way in the last 8 months.  I still remember the initial beta relaease were the game crashed after just a few moves, and now we have a stable base, that just needs flesh to cover the bare bones.

I am so happy you decided on turn based combat rather than real time.  The battles in MoM and XCom are great, and you seem to be leaning more towards XCom, it does worry me a little on how long the battles will take.  Will have to wait and see how big the maps are.

The research system you now have is excellent.  The fact you get to choose one of several techs when one becomes available allows you to develop a strategy very early on.

The economic system going global is a vast improvement over the individual city.  Although I have always loved micrmanaging, I never seemed to get anywhere in the earlier releases, now I seem able to make some progress.  There are plenty of things that make me go hmm! Like do I build specialist cities?  Or have each one do a little bit of each?  I suppose against the computer AI specialists will work well, but in Multiplayer food production cities will make too tempting a target.  Its good that it makes us think.

Really looking for to the release of this game, keep up the good work.

Give us an example...

What was that about not conceding single player terrain in the name of multiplayer?

similar to HOMM 5?

Squad Leader's semi-simultaneous system was designed back in the pre-computer boardgame days, it's a bit on the complex side, and I doubt the general Elemental player base would be interested, but it's still a good system and those who question the excitement/strategy/tactics of TBS should give Squad Leader's system a try, as it might open their eyes.

 A WEGO variant of it would be interesting as it would maintain the 'fog of war' regarding your foe's intent that turn (but you could watch it unfold and react to it) and minimize waiting.

A Squad Leader turn consists of 8 "phases":

1-Rally Phase (in which "broken" units attempt to rally and malfunctioning weapons are repaired)

2-Prep Fire Phase (in which the player whose turn it is may fire on enemy units; any units that Prep Fire cannot move or fire again for the rest of the player turn)

3-Movement Phase (in which the player may move his units on the board)

4-Defensive Fire Phase (in which the other player may fire on units that just moved)

5-Advancing Fire Phase (in which any units that moved may fire)

6-Rout Phase (in which any "broken" units must flee for cover)

7-Advance Phase (in which the player whose turn it is may move every unit one hex)

8-Close Combat phase (in which any units from opposite sides that end the turn in the same hex engage in close combat).

If there's no morale/routing (which would be a shame as it's a nice feature) or repairable items then no need for the Rally Phase (1) or Rout Phase (6), so there'd only be 6 phases.

Prep fire would be archers/fireballs/etc 'softening' up the enemy.

Advancing fire is for units that didn't fire in the Prep Fire Phase.

etc.

It sounds cumbersome but in practice it goes pretty fast (especially as a WEGO), as not all phases apply in a turn, or apply only to a small extent, and players generally pick it up pretty fast.  The computer as moderator also would speed things up, as calculations for LOS/etc. would be automatic and behind-the-scenes, and it would keep track of who fired, who moved, who is subject to defensive fire, etc.

The system was set up for squad-based combat, with individual tanks/MGs/artillery pieces/etc. and also individual leaders.  It could apply to larger units a la Total War, or player created units via click&drag/etc., which would also speed things up.

Anything a RTS system can do this can also.

My wall of text died. So...repaired wall of text!

Regarding the Living World

I say yes, yes, a thousand times yes! Heroes of Annihilated Empires was, by all rights, a letdown of a game (if you want to see what rushing a product looks like, look ye to HoAE) but I still frequently play the skirmish mode. While my allies are building up bases (you can play it as an RTS or have your hero level and function like an RPG) I would have a blast hiring as many goblin/gnoll/orc tribes to fight under my banner. Couldn't control them physically, but they raided my enemy frequently on their own.

Just seeing Elemental go with the basic "Hire troops", "Leave alone" and "kill lair-dwellers" would be a letdown. I personally want to see at least some level of basic interaction between lairs. There is no way I would expect you to have something like...Gurkesh the orc champion killed Borgash the troll king 20 years ago and the trolls have been secretly planning revenge to the point of building up a massive army and are preparing to strike out across your lands while the orcs have heard of this from Gibblegob the goblin and your capital city will be where both factions converge.

What I would expect is basic interaction. Give a basic need (food?) and when that need is not met for whatever reasons, the lair dwellers go on their way. From here, let the possibilities flow - let them perhaps migrate to another lair, or take over another, or what have you. Just something more than "we will wait here until we are recruited or attacked" will be sufficient. Perhaps give a chance on encountering another faction to go to war, leave peacefully, or form an alliance of sorts (they work together, no more than that)

Why have this? Simple. The options that a player could have for their individuals games would be massive. One game could see two lairs fighting each other next to your territory, another could see them become allies. Perhaps you wipe them both out, or just the enemy of one and become allies with another...something different.

It will offer up something else, too. This is a new world, and my Sovereign has the option to restore the land and become a figure of hope and power. So can other Sovereigns. Restoring the world should have an effect beyond making those other Sovereigns want to kill me. I mean, if I am a beacon of hope to a hopeless world, I'd like that hopeless world to look at my Sovereign and act accordingly. I want to play a game and have some random lair-dweller come up to my soldiers peacefully and say, "We want to live in peace on your lands" and then have another one try to destroy me. I want to fight against more than just other players, not just sit there and let things go about because I made them. This is a WORLD that I am going to be altering. The world should react accordingly.

Regarding the Economic System

I'll be perfectly honest here - the thought of having to build up X iron, to turn into X/2 iron bars, to turn into [(X/2)*.03]/Z iron swords would really irk me. First, it seems needlessly complicated. Second, I am a physics major in school - I do my computations for work...in school. I have no intention whatsoever to have to keep a calculator nearby when I am preparing to build an army.

So, I like the idea of just being direct.

Regarding Tactical Combat

I've played various games, some TBS some RTS. I've played Age of Wonders, I've played Total War. I've played Sins and Gal Civ II.

RTS does look...better. It's more entertaining to watch, because you're watching actual combat rather than what seems to be a few pieces moving across a board. I had hoped to be able to sit back and watch battles like the Lord of the Rings unfold before my eyes, see fireballs and lightning bolts and ice storms and lava maim and kill my enemies. To watch troops advance towards each other, arches letting loose, magic filling the air with metaphysical death...everything. Furthermore, it's viable to have tactics and strategy in an RTS. If I arrange my soldiers in columns or rows, they act based on that. Soldiers will advance as a whole, with my infantry up front, ranged at back.

I do not want to have a game where horsemen kill my archers because they literally ran past my infantry. Nor do I like the whole "soldier one moves...soldier two moves...soldier three moves...soldier four moves...end turn. Soldier one moves...soldier two attacks...soldier three attacks...end turn." That is...

Look. When I first was reading about Elemental, I read something to the effect of "You can control your own soldiers. As your champions/heroes gain levels and become good leaders, you can trust in them to lead battle for you." I want to sit back and watch battles sometimes. Furthermore, I don't want to spend my playing time leading each individual unit - I'm playing a mighty sorcerer, not a general. I like battles...but sometimes, it's more fun to watch and just act when it suits you.

To that end, I think that it'd be best to go with the whole "both sides give orders, units react" thing. This could have numerous advantages! First, there is no need to worry about reaction time - you and your opponent both 'move' at the same time. There is strategy - predicting your opponent's move and countering it, reacting to their moves. Everything happens at once, so there's no need to put a line of troops surrounding each archer just to prevent a horsemen from racing around an infantry or two and take out my prized wizard, thus erasing my whole magical defense.

The battles could be cinematic, too - just take out the actual strategy phase and replay a battle to your heart's content. It might be a little choppy, but it's still something.

Regarding Hexes/Squares

Whatever works for you, Brad. I'm sure it'll be fine.

Was there a reason there wasn't a poll done on this topic of battle systems?

I'm just curious of what the results would of been.  I'm pretty sure real-time would of probably won that poll. 

ok i dont understand what is this game anymore will someone pls explain

what i expected

battle: real time like total war (not like age of empire) when i say total war i mean squads of 50-100 men

now i see turn based in turn based like hmom what is point of having 1000(or milion) men i squad its like you have 1(visualy and if oponent has same 1000 there is no point of 1000 its like 1 on 1) where 1 hit of players hero magic kill whole or most of units before it even move eh

economy,faction,making units:good freedom

eh rpg point of game:i imagined it like 1 part of game gorgon alliance where you send your hero on mission for ex and to find magical items

movement acros map: knight of honor (i dont like in total war turn based move because if you dont see some part of map when you finish your turn army can pass beside your army if not on bridge like it doesnt existe

units:and i hoped every squad could have general who would build up their skill eh

for multiplay 5 vs 1 look game  world of battles maybe im wrong here i dont know how it work he