It's possible some people are still thinking of .77 movement rates, which were crazy.

In any event, I was hoping to avoid bringing the nerf bat down on the units. We just keep making everything less fun, and the pace more glacial.  Champions move slow, level slower, cant use the items they find until the end of the game, cant group up... Enough already. 

I recognize the necessity for controlling *overland* move speed for balance reasons and AI reasons, but I still want to be able to build speedy troops on the Tac map. I don't want to lose the master Scout ability, although perhaps it could be more expensive. (although troop cost is meaningless so long as Call to Arms is so cheap, but thats another thread.)

It's just not something you have to worry about in other tactical games. You can field the troops you want to, a wide variety of them. There might be a penalty, but it doesn't feel so painful as in FE, where your armies move at a glacial speed and a single tile lost is hard to take.  If any mechanic for the sake of reality is getting in the way of the fun of fielding a wide variety of troops and monster, kill it with fire, I say. This game will live and die with the fun of designing, fielding, fighting and leveling varied champions and troop types, not with how realistic overland army movement is.

The more I think about this, the more I just want to see the concept of overland map speed separated from tactical battle movment.  Overland speed should be a function of a Champion's "logistics or leadership" ability, and not an actual measure of the same physical speed you'd see on the tactical battle map.

My problem with your idea is that it makes champions sort of mandatory components of any army.  Champions aren't always super common and sometimes you want to field a lot of armies (especially if you are an AI player).  But more importantly if someone gets more champions than you they are going to be able to field more armies, with more powerful units in them (since they didn't have to get the scout trait) with high strategic maneuverability.  This seems like it would be pretty hard to comeback from.  At the very least in the current system slow units can still play a role in long campaigns and defense.  It's not as though cities can run away from you.

By my understanding, that's the general idea of the game. Your main forces should be accompanied by a champion for maximum effectiveness.  But it doesn't make them mandatory, as I said in my original post.

  Armies can still operate autonomously as they do now, probably most commonly for defensive reasons. If you want to field an army without a Champion, nothing changes for you.  But it does reinforce the reason you'd want an army led by a capable field commander, as well as why you'd want to split them up, one per army.

The game already strongly discourages standing armies without Champions, because each battle fought without them is a lost opportunity for Champion XP gain, which mean fewer and less powerful  global spells available, if nothing else.

My point is that by taking the +speed perks now, you're forgoing perks that make your units stronger in other areas.  Once combat is balanced properly, acknowledging that it's not yet, that choice will be significant.  You're choosing mobility of your army at strategic level over direct combat effectiveness.  By making armies always move at the speed of the hero, that choice doesn't exist.  You're removing a realistic and valid choice, indeed a crucial element of strategy (the disposition of forces), from the game, for no gain at all.  

What about people who play the straight warfare route and don't learn the higher recruiting techs?  You're inadvertently cutting them off from a giant amount of army mobility, even though they want to play the big army route.

Again, nothing changes for them. Autonomous armies work as they do now. In the game at present, You can even construct them to be *faster* than early game Champions if you wish. But I'm sure you'll agree that the focus of the game is Champion led armies, and there should be strong reasons for giving your army to a Champion's control.

Also, I dont know about anyone else, but I regularly sweep a large map with 3 Champs, usually the ones I get in the early stages. Late game Champions arent attractive, because you have less control over how they level. So this idea is in no way dependent on having a bunch of champs.

Everything changes for them.  They're playing the warfare route, but their armies are gimped because they can only recruit low level heroes.  Especially on larger map sizes two or three heroes are not going to cut it.  So instead of their strong military being a viable option it's now foolish IN EVERY SITUATION because without champions to act as ferries their greater military might can't ever reach battles on time against kingdoms that are champion heavy. 

Besides that I think you're still missing my point.  You CAN construct armies to be faster, sure, but in doing so you're forgoing attributes that would make them stronger, albeit slower, troops.  And once the game is properly balanced that decision is important at both the tactical and strategic level for you to be able to defend your kingdom and wage war.  It's a decision that should be up to each player and their style that you are taking away from them.

You're idea completely removes that dynamic in favor of gaining nothing but convenience.  Under your system you would ALWAYS design your units to sacrifice movement for combat effectiveness because you have a champion-ferry to get them to battle.  Once in battle your hero negates their ranged units with a spell and some ranged attacks, or you add a ton of initiative to your heavy units, and your drastically slower army wins.  

Movement is simply too key to gimmick away like this.  Throughout history wars have literally been won or lost because an army didn't show up on time.  That has to do with strategic planning and army composition, not because the general in charge was really good at logistics.

Id be removing something from the game that I dont think really adds anything and add incentive for more troop variety in return, and emphasizing the strategic decisions you think are so important over (IMO )actual fun, to be handled at the Champion level instead of on the level of every individual troop. With greater incentive for more varied troop types on the board, it opens up many more options for strategy in deployment. Its not an army speed issue, because army speed balance can be controlled through the champion.

As to the "when the games balanced" thing, you and I simply have different levels of confidence in how much the game is going to fundamentally change between now and release. Look at the traits that you have to "give up" in order to get + speed traits and equipment. +3 to Dex? + 2 to Con? None of that is worth giving up a square of all important map movement. It wouldn't be if they were twice as powerful, and we probably dont want them to be.  CdrRogdan  said if something doubled or quadrupled his army's power, it might be worth giving up speed. Nothing there will come close to doing that. An imbalanced monster with a super ability might be worth it, but I dont see a trained unit ever being so, unless it becomes an entirely different game.  But it might be worth giving up speed on the tactical map for those kind of abilities.

Like I said, I fear the devs will simply further nerf + speed traits that are good for the tac map, and just keep slowing everything down when the pace is already glacial, IMO. 

The movement speeds in FE .86 are too slow to worry too much about penalizing players for wanting to get to play with their toys. I dont feel this restrained in other games that have overland speed penalties for slower troops, because the range of speed is greater, and you dont feel like gouging your eyes out. I get to play tactical battles with my slow troops, my fast troops, and everything in between.  Some really fun tactical fantasy games dont model this at all, it's all at the Hero's speed.  And again, I'm not saying to make armies faster, because champions are already moving around this fast.  I would occasionally like to be able to use that Drake lair I just got. 

There are many different reasons for this, and there's no one way to get to the same place. Players think myopically about these situations, where devs have to look at big picture.  Im just telling you, I really am not enjoying the effect overland speed importance has on unit design and army mix.  I thought this might be a simple fix without ripping out the entire speed system. If not, I do think I'd like to see it ripped out, and have Overland speed be separated from Tactical movement, like it is in other games.

This is not a "do what I say, or else I wont buy" situation, as Stardock has graciously decided to give this game to me for free.  But I think they've slowed the game down too far. If I'm honestly expected to move 2 spaces a turn for most of the game, in order to get more varied units on the battlefield,  I cant see myself playing it.  I simply have to play the "fun" card here. I want to use my monster units, and build lumbering shield paladins that move 1 space at a time on the tac map, and I don't want it to hurt quite so much to have to do so.

  If Fallen Enchantress was a deep Grand Strategy game, I'd be more hesitant. If I had any control over where I put roads, it might be different. But it's not. And I dont'. It's light, and hopefully fun, maybe on the level of HOMM or AOW when all is said and done.  I didn't feel this restrained in those games. I could actually play with my toys.

I'm repeating myself now, and I think Ive answered every common point that keeps coming up,  so that's it for me. I made my pitch. Just something to consider.  Thank you everyone for your replies, and please continue to eviscerate me, because debate is always worthwhile, even if the knucklehead OP has said something really silly. I just hope some of you could maybe think outside the box a little more on this issue, and more soberly weigh what you're really giving up, in comparison to what you gain.

Thanks!

[Edit] @ Kantok

I'm sorry man, I just dont think we're seeing eye to eye on things. I thought I addressed your points, but we keep just saying the same things over and over to each other.  Ive never felt gimped in the game by not using more than the 1-2 champs I pick up in the early game without much recruiting tech. Champions arent mandatory.  Does it give added value to using them? Sure, in some ways.  But nothing else changes.  Honestly, if it encourages the player to host fewer standing armies, I think that can only be better for Strategy, not worse. Having Unlimited armies makes everything too easy.

I'm afraid we don't perceive the game the same way. But I appreciate your responses.

I'm repeating myself now, and I think Ive answered every common point that keeps coming up,  so that's it for me. I made my pitch. Just something to consider.  Thank you everyone for your replies, and please continue to eviscerate me, because debate is always worthwhile, even if the knucklehead OP has said something really silly. I just hope some of you could maybe think outside the box a little more on this issue, and more soberly weigh what you're really giving up, in comparison to what you gain.

Disagreeing is different than 'eviscerating'. I do not believe there has been a single personal attack and have not seen a reply that could be read into as a personal attack which I would define as 'eviscerating'. I find your arguments interesting and have appreciated you clarifying your point of view. On the other hand, I doubt you will rally more support to your cause with an argument based on the pretense that people who disagree are not 'thinking outside the box' enough. That tact is too polarizing to be productive.

Id be removing something from the game that I dont think really adds anything and add incentive for more troop variety in return, and emphasizing the strategic decisions you think are so important over (IMO )actual fun, to be handled at the Champion level instead of on the level of every individual troop. With greater incentive for more varied troop types on the board, it opens up many more options for strategy in deployment. Its not an army speed issue, because army speed balance can be controlled through the champion.

This is the main item that is in contention. Not everyone believes the game should have champions buffed in such a way, your OP indicated a belief that champions need to lead armies and it is their main role and as such, all armies should move at the speed of the champion so as not to be a drag.I personally contest that argument/thought/concept - I think having armies move at the speed of the slowest member adds variety and makes the game more strategic in more subtle ways by making spells more useful (as most strategic level spells cannot be used outside your territory) and city defenses stronger (as if you move in with a slow heavy army - you can get smited by those aforementioned strategic spells)

As to the "when the games balanced" thing, you and I simply have different levels of confidence in how much the game is going to fundamentally change between now and release. Look at the traits that you have to "give up" in order to get + speed traits and equipment. +3 to Dex? + 2 to Con? None of that is worth giving up a square of all important map movement. It wouldn't be if they were twice as powerful, and we probably dont want them to be.  CdrRogdan  said if something doubled or quadrupled his army's power, it might be worth giving up speed. Nothing there will come close to doing that. An imbalanced monster with a super ability might be worth it, but I dont see a trained unit ever being so, unless it becomes an entirely different game.

I agree with your assessment on the +speed perks being infinitely more useful.  I disagree with the idea that no other perk can be made as useful with the current codebase... At current the other perks (outside the -15 negative ones) are almost entirely useless as they do not effect damage or HP in a meaningful way at all - I think that making heavier / slower units MUCH more powerful (turning them into brutal tanks that require magic or heavy weapons to take down easily) will go a long way towards adding balance and depth to all the different ways that the game can be played while also making city conquering harder. In essence adding more variety to the game. Currently city capturing is a joke, but, with some tweaking and insuring the militia is based on tech level and equips the best armor (or just having a city field a trained unit at a much reduced upkeep rate) it becomes much more defensible and also makes it tougher to just use a super speed army and cap the city without being within 'magical nuke' range.

I am not entirely against the idea of more +speed items at a high cost or even arguing the merits of more speed across the board (including greater territory range to allow magic a change to hit on approach), I could even see an ability for the champion to carry an entire army @ it's speed if there were a massive trade-off that heavily weakened the combat and magical abilities of the champion in return for it becoming more of a utility player. I like the fact that they have a few traits (under used / under powered) to make champions useful in cities, I would rather see more specialization with trade offs as opposed to giving more global 'god talents'. 

No, not at all, I didnt mean it in any sort of defensive way.  Im happy for the attention, and I was just speaking tongue in cheek, like in the OP where I invited people to rip me apart. The replies have all been great.

Perhaps the addled function that passes for wit in my brain is a little too dry.

I think that the +speed trait should be removed (or just make it really hard to get) and instead make mounts the main way to get faster troops. Perhaps adding special mounts such as unicorns and nightmares or something would help?

Disclaimer: I am not in beta. 

I'm on side with Yazari here.  He listed previously a whole range of reasons that I wholly agree with regarding the choices that will have to be made (after weapon balancing etc) when deciding on the composition of your army.

I would like to add another small point though, Having a fast moving champion in an army could still be a good thing if they didn't lose their extra movement when exiting the army.  Currently, if yuor Champion has movement of 4, and is an army of movement 2, if at the beginning of the turn your champion is in the army, and you exit it from the army, it only has 2 squares of movement left.  This should be fixed, so that it has all its 4 movements, or whatever is left.  Then you have another decision to make, do I exit my champion to quickly dispatch that small group just a short distance away, and rejoin the army up ahead?  At the risk of an unsean army being in the FOW?  Which would smite the champion alone?

The same goes for the opposite case.  Slow champ leading a composite army that includes some fast horsement.  Do I want to disengage the horseman to take out an oppotunity target? Or keep them safe with the champion and the rest of the army?? 

BingJack, you were right at the beginning of your argument, that having champion's that lead armies at their speed is overpowered   I just don't think limiting champion speed to accomodate a blanket rule allowing all champions to lead armies at their speed would increase overall tactical AND strategic choices (WHEN everything has been balanced,  ie no more cheese cheap spearment dominating the game )

I know when I'm beaten.

Would you guys at least be open to separating the concept of overland speed from tactical map movement?  They could be balanced and fine tuned independently of each other. Balancing the game for one would not require screwing up the other.

Most of the tactical battle games Ive played do not equate these concepts on a 1 to 1 basis. Doing so is problematic, as we see here.

I guess it comes down to our estimation of how well theyr'e goign to do balance.  I have faith that balance will take care of a lot of your concerns.  With a well balanced game, the choice between speed vs. strength (and by nature the size of an army you need) is too important to let go.

I'm happy to agree to disagree, though I enjoyed the discussion.  I hope nothing  I said came across personal.  I just disagree with you idea.  But the discussion would be boring if we agreed.  

As for you last point about separating tactic and strategic movement, I think that could work.  The overland movement rate of armies could be tied to a few techs (logistics?).  

I'm curious, what size map do you generally play on?

Large.

If its later deemed necessary, I'm fine with separating Strategic movement from Tactical movement. At the moment it doesn't seem necessary though.

(I mean a fast army probably should not be more than twice the speed of a slow army, so if tactical movement disparity ever got larger than 1:2 with trained units ... then I could see a reason for separating it)

As an example, if slow melee could get as slow as 1, and if fast cavalry could go as fast as 6 ...

Then I'd say any footman army moves at 2 tiles, while any cavalry army moves at 4 tiles.

-> even 3 move footmen would only move 2 tiles, and even only 3 move cavalry would move 4 tiles ... but also 6 move cavalry would also move only 4 tiles ...

Champion-only armies would be immune from this (possibly)

I'd just like to see a wider degree of movement range on Tac maps. I'd like there to even be units that move 1 square at a time in those battles, and still have a reason to take them.  The way it is now, you can't do that without jacking with Overland speed which needs to be kept within a certain range to be either tolerable, or  not unbalanced.

It might be as simple as specifying in the +speed items, whether they give +Tac speed, +map speed, or both.  I dont want to see the loss of +speed  improvements in the unit designer, because I want to be able to build fast tac units. But I also want there a reason to build slow ones, without slowing overland to a crawl the entire game.

I agree overland map speed boosting items should be rare. 6 speed overland is too fast. 2 speed the entire game in order to use a wider range of units is too damn slow.  I'm actually ok with 3 and 4.  Nothing feels better than finally getting those overland speed increases, though, and Im not giving them up for anything. If Im forced to move that slow to use Drakes, or ogres, or being able to design any troop I want without feeling obligated to load them up on +speed at the expense of unit concept...well, I just have to conclude the game isn't for me, and move on.

You cant make everyone happy, and if you have to crawl along like a snail in order to balance your game, I accept you are making the game for people other than me.  Which is odd, because I really like tactical turn based strategy fantasy battle games, and dont find this to be a common problem.

*Shrugs*

Roads are for faster than 2 move travel.

I am fine with 2 move travel in underdeveloped lands. (as I think in FE you can use enemy roads?)

(so it probably will not be that large of a problem, other than in wildlands. Do you not agree?)

That would be great if I had any control over placing roads in this game.

If you place a series of outposts, it creates a designated road.

Sorry. Double post.

Anyway, roads are for moving units between your cities, but the game is about adventuring. Your main armies will never see many roads. I dont consider it relevant to the issue, in that they wont be a part of my adventuring experience.

I think you'd be surprised Mr BingJack.  I capped an enemy city (after I had the first road tehc that goes between cities), and boom!  There was a road all the way to that city....   AND even better was that the enemy already had roads!!  Guess what my army did   followed the road to riches!! and all at a faster pace than 2

Another way to strategise away from the disparity of movements between armies and champions, is to only join them up when you need the extra power to kill an enemy.  Ie, the army follows along behind (naturally slower )   and the champion can go on ahead looting and pillaging until it needs the backup of the army which shouldn't end up too far behind  

PS: I'm with Tasunke with the split of tactical and overland speed.  Ie, IF necessary.

I never sign a treaty with a faction that I fear is too powerful. It is a great gameplay feature that trade can be so disastrous with more powerful factions. I hope the AI becomes aware of this soon. Kind of like a Trojan horse.