[FE][Suggest] I think Army Speed should = Champion Speed. Here's Why.

I could maybe see the logic in the whole, LOTR reference "They run as if the very whips of their masters were behind them." And so I think having a trait for champions that allowed their associated army to move at the same speed they do.

Yet, I've always prescribed to the theory that you are indeed only as fast as your slowest unit when it comes to mass unit movements. 

So I like the idea of a trait or property of some sort, but I don't think it should be a given that units will move at champion speed.

Why not?

Is it so units don't move too fast?  That's already addressed at the Champion Level.

Is it because it lets slow units get a "free ride" from Champions? Right now they arent being taken at all. Shouldn't armies be made up of more than just fast units? Wouldnt combat be more interesting on the tactical map with units that moved different speeds?

I don't see it as actually changing anything in the game, other than increasing the type of troops we see on the tactical map. Right now you'd pretty much never take a slow unit, and all my units are being built with horses and + speed traits to keep my army mobile. It would be more logical for some units to not be so fast, and free up those slots for more logical conceptual traits. 

There are buildings allowing the construction of powerful monsters. We want powerful monster armies, yes? Thats fun!. But theres no easy way to increase the speed on the monster units, as you cant design them. So they get left at home on guard duty, if they are built at all.

Agree with this.

Imho, the maps are not large enough to give every champion what the OP described.

I also don't see any point to increasing the speed of every army in the game by +2.

double post >.>

So that cavalry have a use other than looking pretty.

Maybe as a high level, rare trait this would be viable, though I'm suspicious it would be game breaking even then.  

As an always on champion ability it's game crushing.  What's the point of roads?  What's the point of defending the direct route into a territory if your 5 movement champion can grab a bunch of plate wearing knights and take the long route in 2 or 3 turns?  

The ability to move freely and quickly around the map is one of the most game altering factors that exist.  It's the reason people still generally get up in arms about Cloud Walk whenever its mentioned.  The greater the ability to move around the map the less your military disposition matters.  The placement of your military strength is a pretty big part of any strategy game.  Your idea would make increasing the movement of most of your kingdom's champions a necessity if you wanted to survive.  Instead of increasing choices, you're limiting them. 

For example, if you have your troops massed on Capitar's border for a surprise attack, but Capitar talks an enemy on your far border into attacking YOU  (or that enemy just seizes the initiative because you're troops are out of position), who cares?  Your armies are all led by champions who can traverse your kingdom in 2 turns.  Plenty of time to redeploy your military power to negate the invasion's threat.  

As for: 

Theoretically that slow unit is slow for a reason.  You've made him slow because it increases his strength in another area (attack, defense, whatever).  Why shouldn't you have to make that design trade off in order to have full plate wearing knights with giant flaming axes?  

Your idea also makes light, fast forces irrelevant.  Why on earth would I train high movement leather wearing soldiers in an attempt to out-maneuver my enemy when I could train veritable tanks and stick them in a stack with a high movement champion for the same effect at none of the cost?

Once units and combat are better balanced, there will be realistic trade offs between unit types.  That's an important decision for you to make when designing your army.  This idea makes the decision a lot less important and inherently makes the decision for you.  Make your army as strong as you can regardless of movement because heroes fix that problem for you. 

Please see point 2.

Speed is valuable on the tactical map. Theres plenty of reasons to build fast units still.

The difference is, theres also now a reason to build *slow* units.

No max speed changes. Armies are still moving at the Champions speed. It doesnt speed up armies, because you wouldnt take units that slow down your champions right now.

Champions have been slowed way down. They move at 2 for pretty much the entire early game, moving to 3 once they get mounts. +Speed items and bonuses are rare. It's easier to build  faster armies, than it is to make faster champions right now.

Bingjack, wise troop mixing is part of basic manoeuvring principles. In real life, cavalry is either light or heavy. Heavy cavalry is more powerful than the light one, because of it's armour and weapons... it sacrifices manoeuvrability for strength, while the light cavalry although not as powerful offers the advantage of manoeuvrability.

Armies are formed with slow units, fast units or a mix of the two. Either way, the speed of the group is ALWAYS the speed of it's slowest unit. And units already move differently, based on individual speed and group mixture...

Nothing Changes. Armies are still moving at the same speeds they are now. But they get to bring different types of troops with them.

Unless you want to claim you deliberately slow down your army by taking slow troops. In which case, why would you do this?

I only bring troops that can move at my Champions speed. As along as we always want to have a Champions in armies, and as long as you control the games balance by controlling how fast Champions can be at a certain point in the game, theres little point in *also* gating the overand speed of every other unit.

Yes, and that slowness is expressed on the tactical map as a weakness that you trade off for something else like powerful close combat ability.

There should be speed differences, and units should have strengths and weaknesses, but on the tactical map, not the overland. If a unit keeps us from getting around, we wont take them.  Tactical maps are large enough now that speed makes a real difference. It makes the difference between being able to reach a unit before their archers tear it apart, or being able to reach an enemy spellcaster on the first round.

Rationalize it however you need to.  Don't think of overland speed as the actual physical speed of the troops, but rather A champions logistical ability, the ability to coordinate large number of troops. Think of it as magic if you have to.

Reality that gets in the way of fun is bad. Right now taking slow troops is not fun, but it is fun to have a variety of troop types with different speeds in tactical battles.

If I could split the concept of overland speed and tactical speed, I would. But this seemed like a good cheat to achieve sort of the same thing.

No, they're not.  My champions almost always have faster base speed.  My sovereign can routinely move at a speed of 4 or 5 late game when he's moving on his own.  Unless you're designing your units for movement speed, they can't keep up.  And if you are designing your units to keep up, then you're forgoing combat power in the form of combat focused traits and/or armor.  Your system removes the need to make this decision.  You always design for combat power because you have a champion-ferry to get you to battle.  

Armies travel more slowly than individuals.  Not only is that a staple of military movement in the fantasy genre, it happens to be real life fact as well.  A soldier carting plate armor to a battlefield (or a catapult) can not possibly move as fast as a dude in a tunic with a bow or a spear or a guy on a horse with a lance or bow.  In order to be an army, those disparate units must move together.  Hence they move at the fastest speed of the slowest unit.  

You're completely ignoring the fact that there should be strategic advantages and disadvantages to building your military around speed vs. strength (or trying to build a balance of the two).  Yes, under your system speed is still a major factor in tactical combat.  However, the speed at which you get your troops TO combat is at least as important.  You can't win a battle that you can't reach.  You're system destroys any need to be concerned with how fast your troops travel overland.  

If we proceed from the assumption that the combat system ends up relatively balanced, then by eliminating this choice you're eliminating a major strategic consideration... from a strategy game.  

Another point. I realize we are all familiar with other Turn based strategy games where slow units slow down the overland speed. But consider than many of those game also have separate overland speed and battle movement speeds concepts, and that in general, youre dealing with much larger movement ranges. In Shogun Total War, for instance, is the difference between moving maybe 5 squares worth of  FE movement, instead of 7. 

That is much easier to accept.

When your champions are going usually to be moving 2-4 squares max over the course of your game, taking even a single square off that really hurts.  The payoff for taking a slow unit has to be so worth doing that, you'd actually want to put up with that pain. I dont think we're ever going to get to that point...the traits you assign them dont make that profound of a difference to put up with the lost map move. Not for + 3 here and there.  But we might trade it off for slower Tac speed.

Exactly.  And my champions finished the last large map game with a max speed of 4. If you still think thats too fast, you can throttle the speed at the champion level.  Meanwhile units  can be deigned with both mount and Scout bonuses, when your Champ only has a mount available.

I fear the dev response to this will be to simply remove most of the +speed perks from the units as well, making the game speed ever more glacial.

I'm really not. Ive addressed this point numerous times now. I just dont have your confidence that Im ever going to want to deliberately slow my overland speed down to take a slow unit in this game, when army speed is going to be 2-4 for most of the game.  Traits dont make enough of a difference to deliberately take slow units, and I doubt that they will ever allow you to create supermen. Possibly special monsters with insanely unbalanced abilities might make me want to do it.

I agree that the speed you get troops to combat is very important. Which is why we're not seeing any but the fastest troops on the field.

It would be different if Armies were moving 6 or 7 spaces.  But when youre moving 3 spaces,  it's precisly because overland speed IS so important, that it's dictating army design and mix right now, at the cost of variety.

But we ARE seeing slow troops on the field. Maybe you only fight with fast troops, but that is not the only way to play the game. Troop builds should be a choice on the strategic level as well, not just on the tactical level.

I just think that you're asking for way too wide an effect. If you want a spell to give the effect, or a trait, I'd be ok with such a spell in the game. But you're asking for a total gamechanger for everyone. The direct result of this is that every player army will move at 3 or 4 overland speed. That's too much. Way too much.

Are your armies not already moving that speed in your game? I dont see where it changes anything but army mix.

I suppose its possible to play the game with slower armies, but why would you under the current system, and do you think the traits in unit builder at the power ranges they are now, will ever result in a troop you'd want to slow down your all important overland speed for?

 (Thank  you everyone for your replies, by the way)

I agree with this, but I think that should be handled on the Champion level. I think you should have to make more painful choices to increase your champions speed at the expense of other traits, and build different champions for different purposes. And you should then have to decide who is the right Champion for the job.

I think having to make these strategic decisions for troops as well is an unnecessary level of complication, when you're already controlling it at the Champion level.  I want to make troop mix decisions based on Tactical considerations.  I want to get more varied armies into play, and I dont want the game to take every possible opportunity to make using armies a drag.

My armies move at 2 speed 95% of the time. The other 5% are scouts. The game isn't balanced around 3-4 overland speed. That's why it's a bad idea.

In .86 from my experience, Champions move at two speed for the early game, and three once they get mounts for the bulk of the remaining game. A few might get lucky. 

I dont see how this increases the speed for armies, if you always want to have Champions in your armies, and speed is gated at the champion level.  Im not advocating a speed increase to champion movement. If anything, I'd like to see it slower for more of the game, or mounts be much more  expensive.

What do you mean, "I dont see how this increases the speed for armies"? The entire point of this post is to increase speed of armies. If army movement = champion movement, players will rush boots of the spider and mount and have every army move at 4, at the very least. Get Warg mounts and you're up to 5. It was a bad idea in E:wom, it is a bad idea for FE but most importantly no map is balanced for it - tactical or strategical.

I mean, my troops are already being made to keep up with my champions.  My champions already move at 2-4 speed over the course of a large map.  You can actually build faster troops, sooner than you can have faster champions. Speed can be gated and balanced at the champion level.  Nothing Im saying increases the speed of  champions.  If you think Champions are still able to be made too fast...Change it. You have my endorsement. 

The entire point of this post is to get a greater variety of troops into the tactical battles, to separate the concepts of overland speed and tactical speed to some extent, and to make armies more fun to use and design, instead of taking every possible opportunity to be a pain in the ass. I want to be able to build a troop with the logical traits to make a good heavy units, rather than feeling compelled to add master scout and mounts to every single unit so that all important overland speed is not compromised.  What does it benefit us to have troops with that weakness, if they never get used?

@Heavenfall Are we playing different games? I recall boots of the spider preventing knockdown not increasing move. In fact there are no such move boots anymore. Warg mounts also increase move by one not two. Perhaps you are confusing high movement with stacking Master Scout bonuses.

In any case, I think the crux of the matter is the scout trait. For the most part I am in agreement that I would never place a unit in my champion army that slowed down it's overland movement, because +50% strategic move is so powerful, but the only reason I can do this is because archers can be built at a minor cost with the only penalty being they cannot wear armor (that I don't put on them anyway).

Perhaps scout should grant +1 sight and reduce mountain and forest moves by 1. Then the decision to have slower units would be based on the reasources available (mounts). Again if the issue is that all units are being equipped with a singular trait then there is something wrong with that trait, and not necessarily with the way movement works. I would be fine accepting a 2 move speed if it meant doubling or quadrupling my army strength, but since I never need to make that choice, it creates the effect that lower army move speed isn't worth it.

I would like to be able to make an item that gives +1 to Strategic movement for the whole army, but does not include Tactical movement. That would solve many problems. 

Banner of Haste.

I like the current speed difference in units as it allows for the possibility of additional tactical considerations such as the following:

• Do I pay more for a trait to boost the speed of my armies?
• Do I pay more for horses for my troops?
• Do I sacrifice armor/weapons/traits to accommodate the aforementioned speed boost?
• Do I have my champions run a different route (with additional objectives) and meet up with a slow army later?
• Do I use an army of all champions?
• Do I need champions directly leading my army?
• Do I risk attacking a heavily defended city with a super speed army with limited capabilities?
• Do I risk waiting a turn in enemy territory where they could smite me with magic?

Granted most of the above considerations are not in the game as it is not balanced yet. My current games are uninteresting as I usually just decimate the opposition with fast moving, armored, spear wielding and instantly built pioneers harvesting every champion, resource and land while dropping outposts most everywhere.

However, the potential for the above questions to matter is in the game and would be compromised by implementing the old WoM style perk.

I think the following would help make the choice between slow and fast more interesting and meaningful:

• MORE distinction between heavy/light armor - possibly with low tech entry points for both.
• MORE distinction between heavy/light weapons - possibly with low tech entry points for both.
• MORE distinction between tech tiers.
• More perk trade-offs (scouting could limit the quality and type of weapons/armor that can be fielded)
• Boosting/Creating perks that are geared towards heavier armies and have meaningful boosts.

In the end; I would like to see a slow moving, slow initiative army that is virtually impregnable to blitzkrieging pioneer/militia/scouting types. This combined with more variety (and range limitation) in ranged/ensnaring units would allow for more variety and put more of a focus on 'combined' arms as no one wants their heavy army to be kited to death by a fast army. Heavy Archer or even light archers with a wall of heavies would solve the kiting problem and add more interesting tactics without reducing options. A slow moving army would also be much more prone to magic (as there would be more steps to cast nasty spells), so it would not be in and of itself imbalanced.

My 0.02...

dbl post.