Sorry, I think this makes the game better and should stay. Single mega stacks are less likely to win an entire war in one turn, which was possible. 

This will make the AI a little harder to defeat and outmaneuver. 

I vote it stays. 

While I see the point of the change and don't disagree with it 100%, the problem then becomes that I can spam small militia groups to keep an army away from targets, assuming I'm close enough and the supply chain is uninterrupted. It's a giant legion of cavalry stopping for an entire season to massacre a tiny platoon.

Perhaps there is a middle ground?

I liked it better when combat didn't end turns.  The lair cleaning problem is super annoying.  I was super ticked off the first time I cleared a lair and then the AI stole the reward from me.  Very un-fun that was.

I'm pretty heavily against combat ending your turn. FE/LH is already a slow game to play, making combat end your turn just adds another layer of micromanaging by encouraging you to split your army so that you have a follow up group to take the loot after you kill the monsters. Stardock should be reducing the need to micromanage (eg by implementing production overflow, fixing pathing bugs, etc) rather than increasing the need!

In overall consideration, if the priority is to leave it as is, don't change it. Instead, put it in the XML so players can make their own mind, just like most other things. This is what really gives players the most fun, after all.

In my "game", I would change attacking to cost 2 movement points. Most units never get above 5 movement, so move 2, attack (cost 2) then move one more is reasonable. Of course, attack, move, move, attack isn't reasonable. I will just have to take this one as it is and look for workarounds, maybe a spell that grants one extra "move action" or something.

Whoops

This is clearly a problem. Those thinking it's not haven't thought it through.

Your party comes up to a camp, decides to attack, runs inside and attacks, then after winning the battle they.... Decide to walk outside the camp and wait for next SEASON to loot? It shouldn't work like that at all. 

Please fix this Stardock!

This is a very logical suggestion.  I am all for ending movement on the world map when combat occures but if you are the attacker and win then you should occupy the tile you just fought over since that is the tile you tried to move into to start combat.  Most games already do this.

if army moved into tile, it shoud move into tile instantly, and then engage any enemy in this tile, one by one, after enemy units wiped, army shoud automatically loot\pillage\capture whatever.

this will not allow to stop army, it will still move, but only single tile per turn, no more loot stolen but no win in single turn allowed.

also this will allow to stack hurge amount of units inside single cell, this will allow to defend strategic locations from any mega stack without issues, no stack will be able to defeat 5-6 full armies in single turn.

Next turn, a nearby empire had moved into that square, and stole the fame from it, despite me immediately moving when the turn ended. I declared war over that, and took his capital city, getting me his tower of dominion, so it wasn't all bad... But still, as long as the AI has the ability to profit from something I killed, I will not be happy.

It would need to make sure to trigger the square too.  But if any battle (against monsters, or against AI players) if you defeat the last enemy, you should move automatically onto and trigger the square.  Probably so many would use this that it may as well become the default, which would help the AI too.

Although it could be an option each time for players and an always-on for AI, so for example, if you defeat an AI player's army sitting on a resource, you may not want to move because you will be capturing the city and won't have to rebuild the resource.  Either way it would help the AI a lot because it is quite easy to steal the AIs rewards if you're near at the time.

Agree with this, as long as the conquered square is empty of enemies.