Quick Combat vs Tactical Combat

[marc420]

Well, right now it seems like both these combat methods have some flaws that could use fixing.

At first I was using Tatical combat. I've been playing games like Age of Rifles and the Battleground games for a long time. So a strategic game that then turns into one of these types of games for battle resolution seems like nirvana to me.

But, I also got the impression that I was handling the tactical combat AI pretty easily. So I felt I was unbalancing the game by using tactical combat. Thus I started using Quick battles.

However, now I'm starting to see a couple of problems with using Quick Battles.

-- The army training abilities. From the descriptions in the manual, a lot of the army training options are useless in Quick Battles. What good is an improved morale bonus when forming emergency squares in Quick Combat? Seems like every training option that effects combat should effect Quick Combat and Tactical Combat both. Otherwise a lot of them are useless if you use Quick Combat.
-- Leader casualties. Just read in another thread that there are no leader casualties in quick combat. Given the number of leader who got killed, wounded or captured in battles in this era, this seems quite odd to me.

To me, these are both problems with using quick combat.

Long term, I'd love to see a tactical AI that gives me a good fight. But I suspect that's a long term effort, if its possible at all while also devloping a strategic game. In the meantime, could some of the holes in using Quick Combat as the method of battle resolution get fixed?