I think it's a very sensible change that wouldn immediately improve the game. Is it realistic? No, but the game is in a late enough stage of development that these kind of lesser-evils need to be chosen.

Like I said in Sethai's thread, I think that would be an awful idea. Yet another small nod to realism sacrificed in the hope that the AI will have a slightly easier time playing the game. Implement the siege times, it has pretty much the same effect, and the added benefit of being somewhat realistic.

As for the state of development; the entire city building mechanics will be overhauled next beta. Adding actual siege battles would be too much to ask, but I'm pretty sure a script that delays a battle by a few turns is not outside the realm of possibilities.

On the whole, I think the Original Poster makes a very good point -- two points really -- regarding AI Player movement on roads within human-controlled territory, and Human Player movement on roads within AI controlled territory. 

For my part (perhaps because I am a more casual player, who is not looking for a game with suicidal-masochistic ( i.e. "challenging", "hard", or "ridiculous" ) levels of play, I am more concerned about the former.  In other words, I  WANT  the AI Players to not be able to use MY roads as super-highways, to crush me at lightning fast speed. 

However, the principle quibble I am raising in this reply, is that it   IS REALISTIC   to reduce or remove road bonuses, for roads that are not controlled by the side/player that is invading territory that is not their own.  Historically this has always been true.  Moving through enemy controlled territory means (some examples): the roads could be guarded by partisans; the roads could be partially mined (which doesn't effect the owner of the roads, because they know where the mines are); the roads may not be well known (well mapped); the roads could be otherwise compromised (semi-scorched earth policy, on the part of a retreating enemy); and (most basic of all) movement is slowed, because the invader will tend to be cautious simply because they are dealing with an unknown.  This is basic psychology ...

Of course, E:FE is a fantasy game.  But given the  UNIVERSAL  nature of slowed movement (reduced speed of movement) in enemy controlled territory, it is "realistic" to incorporate the same feature in E:FE.  Once outposts are destroyed, and cities are captured, the territory reverts to friendly (or at least, nuetral), and the road bonuses could be restored.  But until then, road bonuses in enemy territory should not exist ...

(AND I take Steven Aus's last point regarding harder levels of play: if you really need to allow AI players to use road bonuses, without limitations, on the "challenging/hard/ridiculous" levels, you can leave that in.  But on lower levels, road bonuses in enemy territory (especially for the AI players, IMO) should not exist.)  That would be more realistic ... 

I find the two bolded lines to be somewhat at odds with one another. Frogboy made a post not too long ago about how Computer AI is inherently very good at Defense because that is how it needs to be programmed to be competetive, as it does not have the ingenuity that living beings do at assessing a spread of options and choosing unique combinations. As Froggy said. Humans are very good with "Sharp sticks".

Slowing movement of units through hostile territory (as stated above) is both realistic (have to watch out for ambushes) and a benefit defensively, as the computer and human  players will have more time to assess what the player is doing and figure out something to counter it. That is a challenge benefit for all interms of going on the offensive and a defensive benefit for all because there is no 15 tiles past front lines city combat going on.

In terms of magic, yeah, magic is borked from an AI and fundamental system level (in my opinion), but don't you think that the overland unit engagements should make sense whether or not there is magic? I consider that particular argument a red herring in this case, as the system should work and make sense regardless of overland casting.

I completely agree with OrionM42, Malsqueek and Das123.

The enemy should have a penalty in movement speed when in the opposite territory. This being for AI and human players.

Which in a way it is quite logical if you think about it. Especially in this fantasy/medieval warfare were there is not any satellites or technology to check the enemy territory and have information what are you going to meet. The only thing you have is scout (and ok there is magic also).

So imagine you arrive in the territory with your army to conquer, normally you know nothing about the terrain and I sure you will mover slower than your opposite enemy which he is in his territory. While also most of 4x games have also implemented this mechanic.

From what I remember in Civ4 when you enter enemy territory you have decrease movement speed, and if it is in late game and there is roads you still have decrease movement speed but a little higher than if there was not roads. So they could be different movements speeds levels during the whole game. Or even a late special ability that gives you full movement speed on all terrains.

I really believe this mechanic of penalty movement speed should be introduce.

I believe what Brad was saying was that humans are naturally good at "making" pointy sticks, not that they are particularly good at using them. As in, you can keep your stack of doom alive much better than the AI can, and, as a result, is able to make pointier sticks. Basically, you'd make the absolute best unit possible, then keep them alive until they become virtually invincible. Where as, the AI has to deal with things like cost/benefit ratios and potentially losing such costly units... so it just can't do the same and has to make it in smaller numbers, with filler units, etc... it's strength is being able to analyze those cost/benefit situations. The AI should be able to USE pointy sticks if it is given to them... afterall, it's not particularly hard to run over everything with that stack of doom. It shouldn't take genius level AI to do that. The hard part is to make the stick that you can do that with in the first place.

Once again, let me be clear, I'm not against the idea of slowing down movement in neutral and hostile territory, in fact, quite the opposite. But I feel like there needs to be an order to do things. If you just remove the bonus without addressing the overland magic problem, all of a sudden, you end up with an AI that's completely incapable of playing the game because there's a mechanic that it doesn't seem to understand, nor is there any viable counter even if it does. Your unit engagement might seem a lot better, but it is moot if overland magic just ruins the whole thing... put it this way, how would the AI manage to become any threat, if it can never actually attack anything? At least with the current implementation of roads, the AI has a shot because neither side has a chance to really react with roads giving those crazy movement bonuses. I'm not sure how that's contradictory.

I think this is a terrible idea.  First, what's the logic behind the idea that the road you're army is following suddenly stops working because you crossed from an area inside your glowing blue magic line into their glowing red magic line?  In gameplay sense, what causes it?  What's the immersion reasoning?  

Secondly, it has no real historic precedent.  Roads and crossroads are generally some of the most strategically significant targets in war.  Take WWII for example.  The entire Battle of Carentan was fought to gain access to crossroads linking major roads coming off the beaches of Normandy.  The Allies needed it to link their invasion forces and the Nazis wanted to hold it because it would allow them to counterattack the Allied forces piecemeal, rather then facing them as a unified Army.  There's a reason Hitler and his top men ordered the destruction of bridges, crossroads, and the like during the retreat before the Allied advance in 1945.  

Instead of removing the effect of roads in enemy controlled territory, they should give the player more robust ways of defending their roads.  Add a few strategic spells that effect road movement (double your speed on all your own roads, halves enemy speed on you roads).  Make outposts more useful, and then allow them to exert some influence on roads (my outpost near my roads prevents the enemy from gaining the road's benefits over some area) turning outposts into strategic targets of value besides just to deny resources.  Instead of removing functionality use this supposed problem to add more strategic depth.  

I am sorry Kantok but this is not WW2 warfair rules. It is Medieval/Fantasy rules. There is not tanks and wheel driving vehicles. Just People on foot. And when you go to a new territory especially at this period of the game is played you don't know what you will find.You don't know the roads, the mountains or forests. In the other hand the people living there knows every little piece of the land

It should be more difficult for you to move in enemy territory if you attack.

What causes an army to slow down when they cross over the magic blue line into the magic red line?  Precisely that, magic.  Don't let a love of logic get in the way of a good game mechanism.  Explain the logic of why knights can only move two up and one over, and we'll talk.

Roads were important even back in the times before automobiles and such. Well documented in military history. Roads made travel faster and easier both to foot, horse, wagons, truck, Tank traffic.

You do know where most of those things are. You are invading a territory because you know what is in there, and you want it. If not, you are just scouting rather inefficiently.

Look at Hannibal's invasion of Italy. Do you think he stayed of the Roman roads, thinking he might as well travel through the fields? No, he made good use of them, much to the chagrin of the Romans I bet.

Having a good road system cuts both ways if you are being invaded. Sure, someone might destroy a vital bridge or lay in ambush to slow invaders down, but that's what scouts are for.

Exactly.

Couldn't agree more. This is a game where magic is a real thing. You can't just explain things away by saying it's 'magic', when there is real magic around. So either have the 'magic' follow the same rules as the real magic (as in needing to be cast, have a cost, etc), or don't include it.

This is a very strong argument to me: if we are going to make roads automatic, then they shouldn't have potential downsides.

While I see it as a problem, I would want it to be not as brutal as just moving as if a road didn't exist.

Perhaps check points that you could build to half movement?  Maybe some add on to an outpost?  Or something you b uild onto a road, or, possible built into the tech tree? 

I don't like the idea of locking down troop movements.  you see, I play on large maps, and that would suuuuuuuuuuuuck.  Seriously...game would never end as more troops are being built in all AI cities while you are sludging it through their...roads?