I like your ideas for initiative.

I would consider replacing battle speed with experience in the initiative rating of a unit; thus a more experienced infantry unit would have a greater chance to move before a lesser experienced unit.

Likewise not all units should be able to move each turn; due to the fickleness of combat, some units might fail a movement check and remain in place as they did not receive or comprehend their leader's orders whereas other foolishly brave units might disregrd orders and charge towards the nearest enemy unit.

So;

1. Initiative Check - Order in which units are activated, affected by presence of adjacent hero or lord.
2. Command Control Check- If this check fails the unit disobeys orders and automatically moves to attack nearest enemy unit.
3. Movement Orders Check - If this check fails the unit does not move this turn not having received its orders.
4. Morale Check - A morale check is made when an army has lost 50% or 75% of its strength. Units that fail this check panic and flee the battlefield unless rallied by a champion or a lord. So the question is - does the lord use his movement action to rally paniced troops or does he attack.

An initiative system is much needed, yes.

Yes the tactical combat definatly needs to be more tactical.

Initative check, and Morale check are good ideas.  Command Control Check, and Movement Orders Check.... could get a bit annoying I think.  Its possible to tie that into the Unit level system, and instead of having a check, change it to response speed.  So a veteran unit will respond to orders quicker, than a non-verteran unit (instead of not at all).

Some of my suggestions for improving tactical combat....

Right now the game is pretty much "My stick is bigger than yours, I win."  Which is fine, but why have tactical combat if you are very limited tacticaly? 

The main reason for this is the weapon and unit design system.  The tactical benefits of equipment is either too low, or non existent.  Take the spear for example.... a weapon that was used for almost 400,000 years of human history because of its tactical advantage, is uselless after the early game.

The most important factors to choosing weapons now is damage, range, and cost. 

My suggestion is to change the weapons system.  Instead of just getting better weapons, you get a better class of weapon.  The classes would be something like: spears, ranged weapons, swords, axes, and blunt weapons. 

Secondly give each class of weapon a tactical bonus.

Spear:  first strike, bonus versus calvary

Blunt weapons:  bonus vs. armor and/or each attack reduces targets armor value by a certain amount in addition to doing damage

Swords:  good blance between damage, and speed

Axes:  High damage, low speed, and maybe have some bonus against shields

Ranged weapons:  range (obiously)

Lastly, for very weak weapons like dagger that are USELESS!!!  If you make a secondary weapon attribute for weak weapons, and then you can equip it to say.... your archers (ie units can have 1 primary weapon 1 secondary).  These weapons are no longer useless, which makes designing units more important, and increases the tactical depth of the game.

2 handed vs 1 handed - right now the attack bonuse from 2 handed weapons far outweights the shield bonus form one handed weapons + shield (in my opinion)  since if you are smart.... in most cases you can always hit the AI first. 

Give additional bonus to the shield.  Maybe something like % depending on shield size to avoid ranged attacks.  I know that right now shields give a dodge bonus, but the benefits are marginal in my opinion.  Also maybe give a special ability to shield carrying units, like shield wall.  For a certain amount of action points you can increase the defense of a unit for 1 turn.

I mentioned earlier about having a secondary weapon.  This can be used to make dual weapon units which would make both weak weapons, and one handed weapons more tactically important.  Plus it might give some sort of bonus or special attack to units.

2)  Horse/wargs.... no real tactical advantage.  Only movement bonus, but movement per cost wise you can make infantry as fast as horsemen by adding extra equipment for almost the same cost.... tactically the difference is marginal (in my opinion)...

Add some bonuses/abilities to horses/wargs

Charge:  mounted units do more damage to unmounted units

Harass:  a special attack that allows mounted units to use all thier action points to do a non-counterable attack (counterd only by units with first strike ability) and retreat

Also you can make horse archers with long bows... first of all that`s ridiculous.   If mounted units were only allowed use the short bows ----> short bow doesn`t become obsolete ---> unit design becomes more important ---> tactical depth increases

3) Some other tactical features

Gaurd - Shield carrying Units can protect adjacent units

Flank - Attacking a unit that is engaged with one of your units from the side or rear will increase damage

bump for supporting tactical battle love. As of right now tactical battles consist of my mouse clicking the auto-resolve button.

I would also like to see more results beyond "hit" or "miss".  What about "stunned", "knock unconscious for X turns", "parry a blow", "blood loss" etc.  We need all sorts of different possible reactions beyond either a miss or -X HP.  The animations and sounds need to be completely revamped, too.  I want to hear swords hitting shields, or the clang of blade on blade.  Battle cries, trumpeting horns (perhaps for a morale boost?), etc.

As far as I am concerned, tactical battles haven't been developed at all.  What we have now really seems like a placeholder.

I don't know if Brad will but these in, We talk a lot about those in beta but as you can see none was in.......

Well it's true that actual tactical battles have no interest.Just wait 2 tiles away from the enemy unit to give the first blow,that's all... and sometimes shoot at range enemy,that's all... no fun.

The job of the developpement team must be insteresting at the present time with all suggestions going on.I hope they preordered a full truck of coffee

I would like to see larger maps, so that a player can attempt to outflank his opponent and gain a bonus to his attack. This would also allow both sides more room to manuever. Now all you see is a straight attack down the middle of the map.

I agree that a mounted unit should get a bonus to his attack.

I would also like to see more tactical options for a unit. Example - a company of infantry units could be ordered for form a shield wall and gain protection from archery attacks. A company of men armed with polearms could be ordered to plant spears and thus gain a defense bonus vs. calvary attacks. Perhaps, only experienced units can execute certain commands.

Example of tactical command available for units: Shield Wall, Opportunity Fire

No Experience - No shield wall, even if armed with shield.

Experienced - Shield Wall (Movement reduced to zero, +2 defense to frontal attack)

Highly Experienced - Mobile Shield Wall (movement reduction -1, +2 defense to frontal attack)

No Experience Archer - No opportunity fire possible

Experienced Archer - Opportunity Fire (Archers fire automatically at first unit that moves within range, movement reduced to zero, no normal attack if opportunity fire)

Highly Experienced - Designated Opportunity Fire (Archers fire at first unit that moves to attack designated unit, no movement, normal attack allowed (i.e. 2 attacks: 1 opportunity fire  + 1 standard attack)