Shortsword won't make you run faster because you need 2 points of c.speed to move 1 tile further and weapons only give you 0.25-0.5. But your point is right, especially how sword or even 2-h longsword(the one with 15 attack) is faster than a dagger.

And obviously combat speed is working strange, you can strike even with 0.1 action points if i'm not mistaken. Would make much more sense if movement will be the same as on strategic map.

i agree with spitz.  i would prefer a system where doing things cost different amounts of action points.  right now there is no differentiation.  but if it was changed to a game like jagged alliance 2 where i think doing things had a base amount and then you added whatever modifier to it(weapon, spell, special ability etc) you got the cost.  basically you start with say 100 AP and it cost 10 to attack + 5 for the shortsword which would give you 15 AP cost.  but if you had an ax then it would be 10 for ATT and +15 for the axe giving you an AP cost of 25 to attack with it.

i love this system because you can add modifiers so easy.  like if you were blasted with a fatigue spell which either added + 5 to all actions, or you could subtract 20 from your total AP.  there are many things possible with this system.

I have an example for you of units which will have a different overland speed versus Tactical speed.  This may be much more important once modding comes into play especially.

These will be any units which require setup / bacing or are of a mechanical nature such as Ballista, Trebuche, Mortars, Cannons, Greek Fire Launchers or anything of that type. Basically any equipment you have to do some type of setup on and once it is in "battle configuration" no longer moves as swiftly.

Ok, this is good.  You kinda blew my mind.  :)  

I don't really have a good answer for that.  The best I can come up with is that even when broken down, trebuchets are still really slow to move.  That's why they would usually just build them from a nearby forest once a siege was in place.  

On the other hand, perhaps you want to be able to upgrade the reloading mechanism so it can fire faster.   Can that be done with the current system without also increasing its move?

Yeah, I get that.  A dagger is faster than an axe.  But, is a dagger faster than a fist?  I think this is why option #1 makes sense.  If equipment only reduced APs, then everything would trend correctly.   A dagger has no AP penalty, an axe would have a fairly large one. 

I think the rest of your post is spot on.  You actually nailed the reason behind the complaint.

It just doesn't sit right with me that the best strategy for equipping spellcasters is giving them a short sword and legendary armor.  It would be one thing if the penatlies were minimal since maybe the devs were going to for a warrior-mage kind of feel.  But, the fact that this allows them to cast more spells and move farther, was just a bit much.

I think Run speed and Attack speed (stats only affecting tactical battles) should be flat out separate.

So, even if we still have only 1 pool of action points, Run speed makes travelling cost less AP, and attack speed makes attacking/ countering cost less AP.

Problem is, remove the speed buff and there's absolutely no reason you'd want a sword over an axe or hammer. Personally I have no problem with some items increasing combat speed, but then I'm under the impression you wouldn't be running full pelt through a battlefield in the first place. At least not if you intended to survive the experience.

We've been saying that since this system was announced a year ago (back in like beta 1). That's just not the direction they want to go.

Well, I'm not suggesting that they get rid of Action Points. By golly, they can still have action points.

However, determining HOW MANY Action Points are used by an attack, or movement, should be determined (imho) by separate Attack Speed and Run speed.

Fully in agreement with those who say you should start with an action point pool (which can be increased by levelling up, magical enhancements, etc) and then all actions have a cost with that cost influenced by your equipment.

Stmorpheus had a good example of that. So using his system where a particular unit has 100 points and continuing along that line, you could have this:

Move 1 square into plains: 20

Move 1 square into swamp: 40

Move 1 square with plate: +50%

Move 1 square with Awesome Boots of Tactical Movement Speed (tm!): -50%

And similarly with all actions, attacking, casting etc. Have modifiers based on the item but make the base action cost be what an unencumbered creature could do and modify accordingly. You would need to put min and max limits on it. eg regardless of how many penalty modifiers you have you should always be able to move one square or attack once so long as that is the only thing you do in a turn, similarly there must always be a cost for every thing (multiplying modifiers could help here, so 2 items giving you -50% to move would multiple to allow you to move for 25% of the normal cost rather than a 0 cost).

Mostly, I like what you said.  Speed of weapon deployment should be calculated in terms of AP's used.  Someone swinging a two handed battleaxe is going to have fewer strikes against the enemy in a given time span than someone swinging a short sword.

Also, I like the distinction between strategic movement and tactical movement.  Mounted unit vs foot movement in battles should take into account tactical terrain.  No way horsemen are going to be very mobile in swamps or forests.  Historically this was the worse terrain to deploy mounted units in, not that history has much bearing here but some relationship to reality helps the suspension of disbelief and makes battles more credible to most people.  Horse units should actually pay a movement penalty if fighting in swamps and forests.  Finally they might gain some advantage in open terrain, perhaps an extra movement point or two since mounted units' speed differential, compared to foot units, is considerably more evident in tactical situations than in strategic movement.  Horses can't charge across a strategic map, but they sure as heck can charge in a tactical one.

Some units, particularly critters, might go faster in swamps and forests.  That seems logical to me.

I agree, weapons should effect number of attacks, armor should effect move speed. I wouldn't want it any other way.

Someone above said something that made the most sense to me...   Overland map movement is like Endurance  and Combat movement is like sprinting, ( I agree) and if so then wouldn't it make sense to tie Sprinting to Quickness to Dexterity?  And shouldn't a large Plate Mail suit of armor reduce one's Dexterity some? 

I agree with that the current implementation of combat speed needs to be completely reworked. At the very least (as an easy but hopefully temporary band-aid fix) no weapon should increase combat speed, it should be varying amounts of reduction so you can never run faster holding something than empty handed.

A better but more complicated solution is to have different weapons have different costs to swing, i.e. dagger takes 0.7 AP and short sword takes 1.0, two-hand sword takes 1.5, etc., having no effect on how fast you can run. Of course this leaves the problem that anything increasing your movement (i.e. a mount) still lets you attack more and cast more spells. This can be fixed in a similar fashion - variable movement costs, i.e. it takes an infantry 2.0 AP to move one tile, it takes a cavalry 1.0 AP. Now everyone has similar AP pools, and most items just change the costs of various actions (attacking, moving) - a mount makes movement cheaper without changing attack speed at all, weapon makes attacks cheaper or more expensive without affecting movement at all.

And to make things really interesting, spells and abilities could have varying AP costs as well, but that's not essential to fix the system - just a nice bonus that shouldn't be too hard to add in if movement and attacks already have varying costs.

As an aside the unified combat attack/move speed has some unpleasant side effects on spells, abilities, and magic items as well: you can't have a spell that just increases attacks without speeding movement, for example, and mounts make you cast faster, and so on. Note that if attacks and moves were separated somehow, you'd still be able to create a spell or magic ring that increased both at once - but you wouldn't have to, you'd just have the additional option to create spells/items that do only one or the other.

If you can't prove how it makes the game less interesting, then I don't think these "logigal suspension of disbelief" elements should apply.  Good shoes make you walk faster, so does a horse.  A light weapon makes you move faster in combat.  I don't see the problem.

Easy fix. Probably already being looked at. Speed of an unarmed unit is higher to start. Shortsword takes up very little of that speed. Axe takes a great deal. Mace even more. Magic users with be unarmed because casting will take alot of speed points up. Staves could give better stats at the cost of speed points. That would give us a very different set of wizard strategies i.e. many weak spells vs. a few very powerful ones.

I have no idea about horses as the main point is that they increase movement but absolutely nothing else. A mounted magician is the real problem as I exploit this to the extreme in every game without even meaning to.

they will always be in the game of my heart...