I do agree that better tactics would be fun, although I should point out that they can all be time consuming too, which can be a problem in multiplayer. There is a reason that all the games have had an auto play button. This makes balance all the more complicated, because if you have the AI play worse than a human then they will never be satisfying opponants, but if you have the AI play as good or better then you never have a reason to play it yourself.

As for improving gameplay in the tactical layer, we know that all the cultures have their own unique units, in addition to units for all cultures in each era. I forget the exact number, but I think that's at least a hundred units. It would be difficult, but it may be possible to give each unit their own unique abilities, such as letting Egyptian chariots move, fire, and move again so long as they stay on flat terrain, making Roman legionaires immune to negative moral, giving a Byzantine navel unit Greek fire to apply damage over time to navel units, or letting German Panzers attack multiple times per turn. You could even add bonuses for particular types of terrain or elevation. In some ways it would be like getting new types of units from minor factions in Endless Legend, where they all have their own quirks.

Of course, we'd probably still need statistical increases to earlier units in a culture in order for them to stay competitive. It wouldn't make sense for chariots to go against tanks without replacing them with motercycles with sidecars for shooting from, but they'd maintain the same special ability. Maybe each era has techs for upgrading units from each previous era for this purpose, or perhaps there will simply be a "Classical/Medeival/etc" weapon/armor ability which upgrades the offensive or defensive abilities of the units from previous eras like the same techs from EL, although that raises the question of how and if strategic resources play a role in the game.

I don't think you'll get the same impact from this combat as you do from X-COM, as cool as that would be. Remember, these are representing hundreds if not thousands of warriors, and you know what they say: a ten is a tragedy, a million is a statistic. We neither can nor want to know our troops on an individual basis, and seperation is the inevitable result.

Good posts and an interesting topic.

"its extremely boring to have tech that improves, say health of a unit by 10%, in the tactical layer. Often, these improvements feel meaningless because they don't effect any change in gameplay in the tactical layer. "

This is a very good point.  One of the problems I have with the Civ 6 combat system is that it plays the same throughout the game.  Unit attack strengths gradually increase and different troop types upgrade at different times, but your Classical battles and your Modern battles play out the same way.

I would prefer to see a system where the introduction of the machine gun dramatically changes battlefield tactics, where a horde of horse archers cannot be fought the same way you tackle an army of heavy foot, etc.

We also, however, have to be aware of game balance.  This is where limiting the effects of winning battles to historically realistic gains comes in.  In the traditional 4x system where you can capture all the cities and rule the whole world, introducing revolutionary battlefield impacts from being the first to adopt Maxim/Gatling guns might be bad game design, as first to that tech wins.  If there are pros and cons to conquest, if civs can lose wars and still bounce back, it becomes easier to include game-changing battlefield techs/tactis.

Similar considerations exist on the economic front.  There is no "revolution" in the Industrial Revolution in Civ 6.  It's just one more incremental production increase, fully offset by incremental production cost increases.  Economically, your Modern era cities look and behave the same as your Medieval cities.  From a traditional 4x game balance perspective, that makes sense.  You want economic growth to be incremental, not transformational, or else first past that line gains an insurmountable advantage.  Free up game play from the tyranny of "conquer the city, own the city" though, and now the U.K. industrializing first gives them an advantage, but doesn't knock the other civs out of the game.  They'll get around to their own transformation when they get to it.  

The Fame system, if it works well and is linked to fun and reasonable limits on expansion, could open up a lot of game play options that would sink traditional 4x games.  I'm looking forward to what Amplitude does with it.

Actually just saw in one of the screenshots of Roman legionnaires fighting up a hill, and the front line units were in a Testudo formation, while the rear one was not. Potentially some unique unit abilities that can help in certain tactical situations are going to be included.

Dont even know why people dislike Endless Legends combat so much, sure its no xcom, but it was a lot more engaging than civs one unit a turn.

Terrain had an impact on how effective your army could be as well as the physical properties of each unit like flying and whatnot.

I wouldnt mind an enhanced versiom of that combat with more control 

My biggest issue was the whole "pick what your units do before the turn starts" issue leading to some odd things happening. I know it saves some time, but it still is annoying to have to decide what a unit that might not even live to take it's turn will do.

Dinode wrote:

My biggest issue was the whole "pick what your units do before the turn starts" issue leading to some odd things happening. I know it saves some time, but it still is annoying to have to decide what a unit that might not even live to take it's turn will do.

As an old table top miniatures grognard, I love combat systems where you issue orders in advance and see how things play out.

I do get that this system would not be for everyone, but it does have the potential to be fun, as long as you're okay with the reduced control that comes from this type of "fog of war".

I generally favor the "issue commands in advance" form of tactical combat because it allows you to create and attempt to orchestrate a general combat strategy and employ your tactics turn-by-turn while the enemy can upset your plans by killing units before they can act. 

I could see an argument for unit-by-unit instructions as they come up in the turn order but this dynamically changes the combat from a strategy being executed to a reactive form of combat. 

Both are fine with me, it just comes down to what system fits the game design better. Are they trying to create a more "large army, execute strategy" feel or more of a "small army, react in real time" feel. 

When your life is on the line people tend to get very, very conservative. That means that armies and units in those armies tend to have certain ways they fight and do things, and are very reluctant to 'try something new' that might just get them killed faster. This is called Doctrine, and leaving it out of any tactical game system turns a 'historical' game into fantasy.

That means a Roman Legion will fight in certain ways, in certain formations - and they will not be the same formations or tactics that a French infantry force of the Seven Year's War will use, or that a force of Dark Age Northumbrians would use in the 8th century CE. Only part of this is due to differences in weapons: more of it is differences in training and leadership on the personal and unit level, cultural values ("Victory or Death" as a choice  gets very different answers from different people in different cultures!) and amount of 'engagement' by the participants in their military endeavors.

Therefore, even if everybody fields your basic Spearman with a big wooden shield the units/armies can be as different as Spartan Hoplites, Sumerian militia from the Vulture Stele or Saxon Fyrd at Hastings: they won't fight the same way, and you cannt make them fight the same way without lots of pre-battle work stretching over a long time. And, of course, even within the same army some units are better than others, may be able to do things others cannot: there's a reason some units in European Armies got nicknamed "The Iron Division" - or Brigade, or Regiment (hint: that doesn't mean they are rusty, it means, if they are on the other side, you should Avoid Them at all costs!)

In game terms, specifically in Humankind's potential tactical mechanism, that means a lot of Intiial Placement and movement could be relatively Fixed. A Greek Phalanx Will form up in a deep line and advance on a broad front - unless you have a General of talent like Epiminendas who can 'weight' one side of the line and crush you. IF your army is all Militia or other part-time semi-civilian soldiers, there's not much you can do with them, and certainly nothing fancy. If you are facing professional Roman Legionaires or Alexander's full-time Pezhetairoi, the relative weapons won't matter much, they are going to do things that you absolutely cannot do, and do them To You. If in addition they are commanded by a Germanicus or Alexander, then in game terms your best tactic is probably to Avoid Battle.

There are lots of good details and examples of all this in all eras in good miniature wargame rules, because virtually all miniatures games are Tactical. Take a look at the relative factors and capabilities and requirements for units in rules like Age of Reason (18th century), Fire and Fury (19th century) or BattleFront (WWII) - they tend to concentrate the 'tactical lessons' much better than wading through stacks of volumes of military history trying to glean what's useful . . .