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.

double post >.>

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. 

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...

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

@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 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...