The game needs to make sense. And all paths the player can take (whether it be tech trees, weapon choice, buildings, spells, heros vs normal military) need to be overall balanced but with appropriate trade offs between them.

Right now the game is a mess. There is very poor balance between different paths and many things make no logical sense.

Champions that have taken hours of building up to be uber level should be able to handle a group of 10 well equiped soldiers which can be produced by the dozen. Spells should be powerful enough to make a difference, and different between them for choosing a spell to be an interesting choice. Monster level shouldn't scale with adventuring tech advancement level but rather with game stage. Shortswords shouldn't give +1 speed, etc, etc, etc.

The basic problem is that the game has been rushed out the door which is ironic given Frogboy stating a number of times that they had no need to hurry it and could afford to keep it in development as long as necessary.

Another 3 months of balancing and tweaking is probably all that is required to make a great game... pity we are trying to play it now.

I don't mind that they released it early.  It means I get to play, and they got some cash.

I just hope they keep the development going as strongly as they do now.  If that is the case, then I will be happy. 

Also, it wouldn't hurt if one or two of my dare-i-say brilliant ideas that I have scattered around the forums eventually made it into the game.

and also they need to implement a no-move-once-you-take-an-action policy to prevent the kiting cheeze you can do now.

If I remember correctly, this was how it worked in beta 4. It was quite annoying being unable to move after killing an ennemy in one attack.

Option 3 is my preference, and similar to suggestions we had in beta. But they really didn't want the overland speed to affect tactical speed.

It's magic, which trumps any attempt at bringing logic to bear on it.

I can understand that.  They are not always related. 

At the farthest end of complexity, it would be a separate stat.  Since we need to combine stats to keep the game manageable, what makes the most sense from a design/logic/esthetic viewpoint? 

A.  Combat Movement is more closely related to overland movement.

B.  Combat Movement is more closely related to how fast you can swing your weapon.

Or, another way to look at it:

Are combat movement and attack speed related.  Should it be possible to have slow moving units that attack a lot, and fast moving units that attack slowly.

If we want the above combination, then the abilities need to be based on different stats.

Let's look at an example of giving your sovereign a horse.  

Should it effect overland movement: yes

Should it effect combat movement: yes

Should it effect number of spells/attacks per round: no

Is this a strawman argument?  I don't know.  Probably.  Can somebody think of any counter examples?

As a side note, the overland speed doesn't have to directly correspond to tactical movement.  There could be a multiplier in there somewhere.

like i said, i thought this at first, but when i think about it i really can't think of any good examples of units whose strategic speed is completely different to their tactical speed. can anyone?

Why wouldn't a dragon have a high tactical speed?  I can't imagine many creatures a dragon couldn't run down. 

I actually think a dragon is a good example of a fast creature with a slow attack.

Part of overland speed is endurance, for sure.   That is a good point.  I don't think it is the only factor. 

Base speed has to be an important factor as well.  A snail might have the endurance to keep moving nonstop all day long, but it is not going to beat me in a footrace, (even if I was the size of a snail).

So, again, what kind of creature/soldier are you thinking of that would have a really high overland movement, but a slow tactical one?  A mule?

Or vice versa?   The best example I can think of is a Cheetah.  It would have really high sprint, but I'm not sure how much ground it could cover in a day (assuming it was motivated)

So, in those examples, it is not a perfect fit, but I think it is closer than if it was more related to how fast they could bite.  At least it trends in the same direction.

On the one hand, it makes sense. You can stab multiple times with a dagger vs every long slow set up and swing of a great axe. A dagger granting extra attacks, makes sense.  That's what the + speed boost is supposed to represent...extra attacks.

It becomes conceptually hazier when it also controls move speed and casting speed, but, if combat speed were being used properly, equipment speed could act as a *limiter* on those actions, which would encourage units to be built along conceptual lines that *did* make conceptual sense (for instance, no archers or spell casters in heavy armor, and providing a good reason why a spellcaster might choose not to wield a two handed hammer).  But the game is not presently doing this very well.

I personally don't think combat mechanics have to make perfect sense conceptually, as long as they make for a good balanced game.  You can't really model completely realistic combat with a complex set of table top rules in much deeper tactical role playing games...you certainly can't do it in a scaled down game like this.  Everything is highly abstracted. Which is fine, as long as it's balanced and working, but presently, it is not.

this.

and not only does it have to be balanced and work, it has to make sense in lore terms and help immersion.

read the title. presently, it does not.