I see what you mean now. Only a certain number of "actions" can be performed per "turn" and someone other than the "players" controls the passage of time. But even then there are a number of ways you can configure it. The players don't always have to act at the same time.

But that is like any other game. Learning how the system works is something that becomes reflex over time. You don't need to go looking for information because after a point you already know. Of course you have to draw the line before things become overcomplicated, but there are games that take complexity to the extreme and people still play them. You might favour simplicity in the system but the little details are what make the game interesting.

Personally, I'd like to see simultaneous turns like the game Combat Missions.  Each player issues orders for their units and then the turn plays out.  This would make a tactical multiplayer mode more feasible, plus you could better use maneuvers like feints. If unit stats were available from hovering over a unit, it would make custom weapon types manageable I think.  This system along with fog of war would make for a very deep tactical battles.  Unfortunately, with the large strategic component to this game, I'm skeptical about the depth of combat they'll be able to have. 

Perhaps roll a gaussian around attack and a gaussian around defence  (gaussian being a bell curve which returns the mean more often then anything else, has a 66% chance to give somehting within +/- a predefined range.)

if attack exceeds defence then you hit,  then role another gaussian attack - defence for damage

then you can have differnt weaponds have differnt responceses to hit and to damage,  so maybe the to hit gets gausian *1.5, or best of two gaussians to hit. and to damage gets worst of two gaussians to damage.

For example.

GC's three attack types three defence types was fine because there was no tactical element every ship could hit any opponent every round, and it was automated. 

At any level beyond 1- 10 units vrs 1-10 units actaully tracking all the damage types and defence types would be overly burdensom, and unnessiary.

If you want to have say
slashing damage, peircing damage and blunt damage for example  
you can get most of the game play effects from 

+ to hit - to damage, increases effectivness of armour
- to hit + to damage, reduces effectiveness of armour
- to opponent defence if light armour, + to opponent defence if heavy armour

Now you don't have damage types and have only 2 armour types heave light.   All weaponds are classifed not by how much of each type of damage they do, but by there  +/- to hit, +/- to damage, and effectiveness of opponent armour. 
 

The goal achive directly desirable game play effects without unnessisary and unclear variables/ clasifications.

at least that's what how i would like to see it.


Robbie Price 

The gaussian is semetric... with equal probability of high and low rolls,  so I really don't understand where you're getting the high change of exremely low damage from?

The standard in these games is uniform from 0 to def or  0 to attack.   Meaning that if your attack is 12 then on average you can expect about 6.  but you have equal probabilty of getting 12, as you do of getting 0. (sometimes it's done as low - high so you have equal change of each value between low and high.) a slightly less painful method is the 2d7-2  method,  it gives the same range, but 0 and 12 are about 7 times less likely then getting 6.

I would prefer a more flexible system that says

One weapon might be attack(6) +/- 2, and another could be 1.(attack(6) +/- 4).  on it's to hit. and some simulare shifted gassian comparison for damage rolls.  Where the modifier could depend on light vrs heavy armour, or mounted or not.


I think 'when you click' mechanisms will be highly surpressed in the final game, i belive the intention is to have most of the battle be simulation where the user is content to watch, but can interup to change battle plans when they see fit(the goal being that they won't want to often because there is no need). Also that the final will be 'continous turn baced' which I interprite to mean that you won't be able to stop mid action, or give instrutions which matter when you tell them, they still will 'wait for thier turn' in a sence.   but we'll see.

Dominions battles have alot of stats, but the combat isn't exactly what I would call "complex."

In elemental, it seems like terrain will have a large benefit in battle, like greater range/ better footing up on a hill, ect. Also (hopefully) there will be formations, morale, and endurance. Even with a few core "stats" the battle system already looks far more complex ... from a fun perspective. (aka you have alot of control over it, glass ceiling and so-forth)