Ridge move cost changed to 8

[hatchfactory]

I mentioned this suggestion a while ago on a thread in the map making forum, but thought I'd give it it's own wish list topic.

There is room for argument that fliers are already too powerful (most powerful units in game, able to use roads??, no docking cost, mobility, mobility, mobility) and a map maker has very little control over how fliers are to be handled short of banning them altogether. (oh the terrain looks tough, I'll just buy fliers and why use boats?)

The move cost of ridges is currently 4, the same as mountains and like mountains provides a convenient perch for fliers to avoid attack. Where mountains are at least 3 tiles wide (and a penalty of at least 6 moves to cross), they create an obstacle for fliers to slow them down or fly around, ridges are always just 1 tile wide and therefor provide only a minimal inconvenience of 2 extra move points in a flight path, there are steeper costs for land units across regular terrains . The benefits (perching) on the ridge for fliers currently outweighs the penalty cost for using it.

If the move cost of the ridge terrain type was increased to 8 or at least 6, I believe, would improve map play-ability and give more options in map design. I don't believe it should be impassable (although an additional wall tile-set would be nice and lava has it's uses) but fortifications or obstacles designed by a map author should have at least some significant effect on fliers without having to resort to lava.

I don't believe 8 is extreme if you look at the units individually and keep in mind that the perching benefit remains (option of park then attack with full moves), Crows and Ghosts it would merely be a speed bump and leaves plenty move left to do scouting or ambush duty on the other side. Eagles and pegasi's would be hampered but would still have room to launch an attack up to 10 moves away. Where the 8 cost would take it's toll would be the Griffons, Archons, and Demons as their moves would be at least halved but that is the point, they're the heavy hitters and should be slowed down, but they will still have about as many moves as a pikeman or a dwarf left over and It's basically not even an obstacle for the dragons 22 and 26 moves.

I believe this improvement would increase the complexity and play-ability of maps like "The Waste", "Highland Vale", "The Pass" and parts of maps like "Cresendo" and "Dilf G.". I also believe that if this change was implemented it would see more use in other maps as well, fortifying certain cities or dividing starting areas.

[Jingleyman]

I agree with the previous post. Though visually stimulating, ridges are not really a hindrance at all to fliers. Land units have to way out of the way to find a pass through the ridge, while fliers use them to spy. I agree that ridges should be more of an obstacle to fliers than mountains. I removed fliers out of most of the cities on highland vale to make the ridges have some use. Not that I don't like fliers, but the map was to have two bases on the tops of two high places. On the map, ridges are used to show elevation, and limit traffic to the passes. If fliers hadn't been removed, the map would be just like any other. I would allow more cities to have fliers if they were slowed sufficiently to defend against them. I believe adding movement cost would help with this.

[Chazar]

While I completely agree that non-fliers are currently not good enough, I don't think increasing the cost of ridges is the right way to go. It is unthematic, and ridges are normally meant to hamper ground-based units and give an edge to fliers. Reversing that purpose seems odd. If a mapmaker wants to restrict fliers, then lava tiles should be used.

Fliers ought to be good at mobility. It is their purpose, so don't take that away. The problem with the current warbarons is that fliers are not just good a mobility, but also at providing all the essential bonuses and fighting power. There needs to be more anti-air (e.g. high-level city could provide some anti-air to all defenders, making city walls worth buying; or a unit providing anti-air to a stack), and ground-based units that provide better bonuses than fliers (e.g. lower pegasus morale to 4 and have a ground based unit with morale +8, etc.). When I buy city production, I would like to be tempted to buy non-flying units. Currently, it is very rare that it is worth buying any non-flying that takes 3 or more turns to produce.

For example, did you ever try to invade a coastal city without a port? A stack of serpents and krakens is rather weak on city terrain, boats cannot attack with them (unless there is a port), so again the only option is adding fliers to fight and to provided the bonus. Whether your are ground-based or aquatic, you always need fliers anyway, so its best to be versatile and not to buy krakens and serpents in the first place. That is bland.

[hatchfactory]

@ Chazar, I agree with you about non-fliers not being good enough and mostly agree with the rest. In raising the move cost on ridgeline alone though, I don't believe you take away the fliers mobility as land units can't pass ridge terrain at all. As for using lava for a wall, Yes it is impassable but is as ugly as sin when used where lava shouldn't naturally be, and lays down 3 tiles thick. Fliers would still remain the most mobile units as their move isn't effected by swamp, desert, forest, rivers, sea, and snow. Mountains are good, and ridges to match but you don't tile out ridge in clumps like mountains, just a single line which accomplishes nothing.

[LPhillips]

I think this problem would be adequately solved by the addition of two tile sets, which I have wished for recently when making maps. "Wall" and "High Wall", one obstructing ground units only and the other obstructing fliers. The tile set should have some sort of "Guard House", preferably upgradable and razeable. Controlling the guard house could even change the graphics of the wall to be civ-friendly, but then that's 18 tile sets instead of 2.

Wall tile sets would be extremely visually pleasing, and really put a nice touch on maps. Defining cities and civilizations with walls would be pretty darn epic, and then every single map wouldn't have strange mountains and ridges everywhere

If ridge movement is increased then it should be as a temporary measure only. The trouble with such temporary measures is that maps will be built around them. The upside is that all maps must be updated for new versions anyway, so whenever the version with walls comes out and ridges are restored, we will have to overhaul our maps.