Updated from my original reply.

I looked back in the August 2015 FAQ where Frogboy initially brought up the issue of Front Lines and groups moving right through each other. You have to go down to reply 40 before the first and only mention of unit suppression affecting speed in combat. That's the only clue have as to why they went this way in patch 0.50.

I had mistakenly believed the speed penalty would eventually be removed in favor of a global ability that would slow down enemy groups. Now I don't know why I thought that was happening because I don't see the devs saying that anywhere. So as it stands right now the combat speed penalty seems here to stay. I'm sure the devs will say "we can change it from 25% if it makes sense with pacing". It seems a number that can  balanced right only after all the core game elements are in place.

Your idea might be a good one, and there are many others, but there is no indication the devs are interested in exploring anything beyond a combat speed penalty.

I usualy dont dont link diferent groups in 1, i make them all separate or that slows the intencion off make individual units attack diferent points and slow some attacks .

But i have notice some problems when link groups ,some units are faster then others and when in group they dont work well.

So when we want attack poin A to point B there where problems start ,some units go, others go other way, othes dont even moove so i think formations are a big problem for now because not all units have same speed ,and you find problems when you want send units to a distance bit far from where you are.

Since not all have same speed  ,the faster units arrive there first so without backguard they and up die first, the others that arrive  attacks and win ,others die ,but the group isnt work all toghether ,the group formation dont use the full potencial.

I think is bether when link a group since we still dont have formations that i think work bether they all must have same speed,that way when they need to fight all arrive at same time with exeption of T3 units.

In this case most units are lost i have send them to finish the game  but only some attack the others even when link to the group just stay watch .

I don't quite understand all of that but I will try to answer it.

The Zerg method (being a bit faster in your own territory): This is in Starcraft, a game with 3 distinctive races and importantly a game that really is very well balanced. So 1) Unto itself it is not suddenly a win all strategy. 2) The other races in that game don't have it and it is balanced, in this game all sides have it so it is even more balanced!

Death blobs? Really this is a negative way of saying big groups of units or armies. This game is about big groups of units/armies so you will get them regardless. Composition and where you put them and how you use them is what will win the game.

I think you are over estimating the slightly faster speed within controlled territory. I cannot see it leading to stalemates at all. In fact the current system is more likely to have battle-stalemates as as soon as the battle kicks off they are essentially frozen in that position until one side is vanquished. With my system the battles will be faster and more dynamic than now.

On bigger maps I think it even adds strategy. Player A thinks Player B will attack though the faster (slightly) route of its controlled territory and prepares static defences etc. accordingly. However Player B charges through a load of neutral territory in a wide flanking attack and attacks player A in their unprotected belly.

I won't go in to static defences here as I don't think they relate directly to the system I am suggesting. (A slight aside: I have seen a line of those powerful cannon things be quite effective against a Dreadnought lead army. In the really big maps I suspect we will have to have a fair sized army sitting near the core of our empire to act like a rapid reaction force as point defence won't be enough. (Having commanders is cool but it might be that that game setup is so synonymous with SupCom that the Devs might not want to put that in and be seen as an imitator)

Sorry if I got the wrong end of the stick with your post.

Cheers.

As an aside, I realised perhaps this system is more parallel to TBS games where the holder of the territory gains extra speed from its road/rail while the attacking opponent doesn't. I think the lore aspect of the system would be easy as nodes spread the influence of the AI or Humans and that allows a little finer control over their armies hence the small speed improvement.

Agreed.

They have said the new map will be an example of open maps and there will be a map editor so I don't think they have designed the game for corridor play. Though it seems their pathing might be? I wonder if the armies will form long columns in big open areas or if it is smart enough to know it doesn't need to do that. 

I think to get to the point "why is blob benefitial?" we have to ask: "Why is actual War NOT about one big group of units moving towards the opponents capital?"

- Armies that are overconcentrated require a lot of supplies over a single route, making it very vulnerable. (Look at the german army sorroundet in Stalingrad)

Since supplies are not needed in Ashes we can drop this one.

- the territory somebody gains for sure doesnt equal up for the territory the opponent gains everywhere else

Again looking at WW2, the ardennes were the last big offensive against the allied forces by the germans. Anyway, If you look at maps back then, it was one sad little spike into allied territory. Not being able to be properly supported and pretty much encircled north and south, there was very little this was actually good for. A similar setting can, and probably will occur in ashes. When you dont have 5 or 6 Nutrinioum places, but 20 or 30, one big blob of units is just too slow.

- The opponent might not be where you hope he might be

Even if you have your big army heading towards the enemy mainbase, if there would be some mechanic that would allow you to move your buildings ("teleporting", "crawling"), you can sacrafice parts of your army to buy time to relocate your base. Making the enemy strategy of just walking through and removing you from the game void.

Last example of WW2, when the sovjets finally got half of Berlin, it was pretty much useless, since all major german officers and staffs were moved to other places.

You can't make a blob and win. We've tried it ENDLESSLY.

A single Zeus, for instance, can annihilate a ton of cheap Brutes.

Similarly, a bunch of well placed Artemis's can wreak havoc on an advancing enemy.

Generally, good players create a combined army. 

However, this combined army can be justifiably be called a "death ball" which is an issue in all these games. This is where the other two dimensions come in. First, bringing in air support (the AI is terrible at it right now).  Second, the orbitals. This is where the whole Act III comes in.

In Supreme Commander, knowing when to upgrade was crucial.  Your higher tiers largely replaced the lower tiers. In Ashes, the lower tiers remain important.  But understanding their differnces is not currently well communicated.

@eviator, some things go would take too much effort to show. For instance, armor levels And how armor piercing different weapons are. You ca t really show that.

and yes, tat, the supcom unit tiers were mostly the same unit but better, your fantasies about supcom notwithstanding.