Ridges should not be safe havens for fliers

[TheVic]

Change ridges to no be safe havens for fliers i.e. nice looking mountains. Or, alternatively, have a "double" ridge tile that symbolize steep cliffs that are safe and have the "single" ridge that we have today to symbolize ridges that are not safe for fliers.

[ezras]

I think that the problem here is that if I attack a crow on a ridge with an elf then I have to occupy that space. An elf or any other unit can not sit on a ridge by design and thus can not attack the flyer sitting on the ridge. Maybe we just stop calling it a ridge and call it a cliff instead. Then in our minds it makes sense that a crow is safe coasting around in the currents on a 100 foot cliff......

[LPhillips]

This basically boils down to the same old argument of whether land units should be able to attack adjacent fliers even if they cannot occupy the flying stack's territory. The specific terrain type is less of a key issue.

Unless, of course, you're looking for dividing terrain that no unit can occupy. This is still a big wish among mapmakers, but it will probably have to come with some sort of "dungeon" or "underground" tile set to make sense.

[TheVic]

Yes, but not exactly the same, if you want to create boundaries for troops, mountains are fine, but I would like to have boundaries with the ridge 'between' two tiles so there is no safe haven for fliers that a ridge now creates. If you look at The Waste map for example, the ridges creates way to many good spots for fliers all over the map. One of the biggest problem with that otherwise very nice map in my opinion.

[LPhillips]

That's an interesting application for ridges. A graphical presentation of a barrier between tiles? It seems like the way you'd expect ridges to work in the first place, but the current map system doesn't really support that kind of feature.

[hatchfactory]

Yes, but not exactly the same, if you want to create boundaries for troops, mountains are fine, but I would like to have boundaries with the ridge 'between' two tiles so there is no safe haven for fliers that a ridge now creates. If you look at The Waste map for example, the ridges creates way to many good spots for fliers all over the map. One of the biggest problem with that otherwise very nice map in my opinion.

Yes, when I first created "the Waste" KGB pointed that flaw out in a first run, Griffons for instance could travel the length of the map unmolested by ground units until in the opponents cities. I realized the flaw and considered canning the map as it was not the gameplay I had meant to design. I understand the constraints of current artwork and energy required to overhaul ridge code (if it ain't broke, don't fix it) but an idea I had that would be easy to implement would be to greatly increase the move cost of ridge tiles. I believe it would make ridge far more useful in map design working as a speed break for flyers, also penalizing using it as a perch to avoid land units rather then just another pretty way of adding mountains, only flyers with 8 or so moves left could land on or pass ridges. (I'd argue that from a birds point of view a cliff would provide more of an obstacle to fly-over/perch-on than a mountain and more abrupt distance vertically.)

[bengute]

Hatchfactory, if a bird came down from a mountain and went onto a ridge, i'd think they'd move faster, as they are descending, maybe make it so moving from non mountain tile to ridge tile costs eight, while moving from mountain to ridge costs 4

[hatchfactory]

While that may be true, the solution I suggested was based on the simplicity of just changing a value using pre-existing code, I'm sure there are better solutions that would involve more art, coding and calculations, I suggest simplicity for a more immediate fix and to not burden the already very busy developers.