mrkgnao: Not that I remember. I am not one to be thrilled by skill point allocation.
Not at all. The caravan management and forced autosave pretty much ruined the Banner Saga trilogy for me. And the combat was quite boring too. So I didn't even try Ash of Gods.
But I am now playing an excellent game that is quite similar to Blackguards in my eyes --- The Dungeon of Naheulbeuk.
Haven't tried them. Way too expensive for me. I rarely pay more than $13 for a game (including all gameplay DLCs) and I have never paid more than $26 for the same, nor do I plan to.
Indeed.
P.S. You didn't say whether --- based on what I liked about Blackguards --- you think I would like Lost Eidolons or not.
Zimerius: I'm always inclined to spread my love for panzer general look a likes to other people. In this case that would be either the original fantasy general or its modern descendant fantasy general 2 :)
it might be an odd choice but i guess it is mainly that tactical games really come to life for me if there is a slew of characters that follow a path, enriched with an enormous amount of odd mercenaries to recruit and at least more then 10 individual controlled characters up against impossible odds.
A greater number of characters to control and multiple recruitment paths also opens up the tactical challenge in my eyes. Still, from my experience with Lost Eidolons i can say that, even with lesser numbers to control it actually does a pretty well job to stay away from an experience that could be described as 'to puzzly'.
Games that are more rpg in nature of course manage to also evade the puzzly verdict though in my experience on lower levels paths to follow to beat the game's combat challenges are by nature quite strict.
anyways.... long story short.
Point based Lost Eidolons seem as a solid recommendation
There are trade-offs to some of these design decisions, however they're done.
Having more controlled characters, for example, has the effect of making combat longer, to the point where, at some point, the game needs to implement some sort of mid-combat save. For example, when playing a Large Battle with Fell Seal's DLC, you need to have a significant block of time to play, as the battle will take a while. I note that Fire Emblem games do autosave the current battle state constantly, eliminating that issue (though I don't know if that's the original idea). (Fell Seal's DLC is nice if you like monster party members, but be aware that it can make fights with enemy monsters more difficult in a chaotic manner.)
There's a trade-off between the strategy elements and the RPG growth elements. For a game focused on the more RPG side of things, you can have a situation where the player can make a battle easier by fighting extra unimportant battles. Also, I think those RPG growth mechanics can work better if you can create generic characters, which may be at odds of the idea of having only story significant characters. There's also the issue is that too much character growth can have further issues with the strategic elements of the game; in Disgaea's postgame, it's rare to find a battle that isn't either trivial (to the point where a 1 turn victory is easy) or outright impossible.
Also, I note that you can have RPG and puzzle mechanics in the same game; it happens in the Disgaea series, even to the point where at least the first two games have a story map where you can softlock yourself if you're not careful. (Think invincibility, applied to the entire map, because you destroyed the wrong geo symbol.)
When you mention "too puzzly", I can actually think of the term "kaizo". It's usually used to refer to difficult platforming games or hacks, but I think the term can apply to this genre. You can have a battle where there's basically only one strategy to win, and you need to figure out that strategy. Some people like that style of gameplay, while others do not.