Minimum move cost for fliers

[Moonknight]

Yes, i realize these are giant beasts, but I'm imagining some of the land units even larger (the sandworm, elephant (like in LOTR), mammoth). And I haven't seen a Griffon in real life, it is half lion, i'm sure he can run pretty well

Nope, still not convinced...

[LPhillips]

Real life animals fly without using landmarks. They are designed with the ability to utilize sun, wind, and magnetism to determine direction. It's literally impossible for most of them to get lost. Getting whopped over the head, causing brain trauma, is an irrelevant exception.

I think protestors need to carefully read over the description of "time slices". The real equivalent here would be to cut fliers' movement number in half and give them 1 movement over all terrain, not 2. They're not being penalized; they are just no longer being aided. In fact, I think that is the more appropriate and intuitive design option: give fliers 1 movement everywhere, 2 on penalized terrains (mountains, ridges, waterfalls, walls, whatever). That makes far more sense and it's really what is being described in the first place. It also requires zero additional programming (fliers don't need to be programmed to ignore roads; they are 1-travel cost just like everything else).

The only real argument here, logically, is to say that road movement is needed for game balance. Right now roads are like magical man-made gulf streams that push fliers around at two times normal speed. If you really understand the intent of the movement point system (time slices) then it makes zero sense under any circumstances whatsoever. Fliers could be penalized to 2 movement at sea (nowhere to rest, nowhere to drink, etc.) and then get 1 if moving with a ship. That would also be a huge help balancing this water kiting thing, where people travel over water to remain invulnerable when using fliers.

The game balance argument was the one I used when on the other side of the argument. However, game balance now favors fixing fliers.

[KGB]

And I haven't seen a Griffon in real life, it is half lion, i'm sure he can run pretty well

I think you are confusing battle movement with turn movement.

Sure a Gryffon runs fast and so does a horse. Horses are tremendous sprinters over short distances (1 mile or so). This obviously gives Cavalry/Gryphons certain advantages in combat reflected by their combat strengths. But it doesn't say anything about marching over long distances where horses must walk because they aren't physically designed to trot for hours on end (a human can beat a horse in a marathon since ridden horses tend to be near their maximum trot distance around 15 miles or so and slow dramatically after that).

Distances moved in a Warbarons turn would be on the order of days/weeks/bi-weeks/months depending on how long a time frame you envision a turn length to be (certainly it's more than a couple of hours). So we are talking about marching over long distances. So being able to run fast for a mile isn't any indication of how far you can travel in a period of days/weeks or what your most effective means of travel is. A horses primary advantage in those time frames are it's carrying capacity since 1 horse can carry a rider and 100 lbs of gear at a steady 2 mile/hr pace on open ground for several hours where a human certainly can't carry that same 100 lbs of gear for the same length of time. That's why cavalry moves further than infantry in real life and in Warbarons.

Then factor in terrain which greatly affects movement distances because where you might be able to make 2 miles/hr in open ground you might barely make 1/2 mile in a swamp slogging through water/around water etc or 3/4 of a mile in heavy forest ducking under branches/over fallen logs etc. But fliers don't suffer any of these issues. They simply fly at whatever pace they can move for as long as they are physically able to fly. It doesn't matter whether it's road, forest, fields, swamp, hills, desert, snow etc underneath them.

The only argument for giving fliers 1 movement point cost is to say some other unit is carrying them. There is just nothing to suggest that when Dwarves lead a stack in the hills they are carrying all the other units in some manner. The game already has a unit that carries other units in a certain terrain. It's called a ship and it has clear rules to indicate this whereby units get boat movement to signify they are being carried so that all units move the exact same distance. If Dwarves were carrying units in hills then they should all be getting Dwarf movement of 8 a turn.

KGB

[smursh]

The real issue might be the dwarf getting a 1 pnt pathfinding skill in hills. The idea with pathfinding is you point out the straightest path for other units to follow, but even if the path through the hills is straight it wouldn't be as level as a road.

Consider that a dwarf moving through hills is faster than an elf moving through forest. Seems a bit of a stretch. Same with his pathfinding, why does a dwarf allow a horse to move faster through hills than an elf does in forest. If both are showing the easiest path the forest path would still be equally difficult.

[LPhillips]

Dwarf pathfinding ability has always been absurd. But it's a lot of fun and a neat game mechanic!

[KGB]

I don't mind the Dwarf moving for 1 in the hills. That could be some innate magical ability to them similar to all the stuff they get in AD&D underground regions.

I do agree that it's definitely absurd they can lead others for that same 1. It should be 2 for other units in hills when led by a Dwarf. What I do (and many others I bet do too) is space out several Dwarves along hills so that stacks jump from 1 Dwarf to another when the movement of 1 Dwarf runs out so that they can move a 12-16 squares depending on the slowest move of the rest of the stack.

KGB

[LPhillips]

Didn't we have this out before, when I was arguing that dwarves effectively doubling other units' movement was absurd? Then you said I was wrong. Position change?

It's easily abused, and it makes no sense. However, it's a very fun game mechanic.

[ptGamer]

It is a love and hate unit for me. I use them to "connect" a highway too, but it's a pretty expensive highway

[KGB]

LPhillips,

We did discuss this. But it was in relation to the Sandworm on 'The Waste'. I said units that lead for 1 isn't quite the same as doubling movement since it only works on one terrain.

I'm still fine with 1 on the Sandworm since it's a 3 turn unit and it seems reasonable that Giant Sandworms could carry/drag units across a desert.

I honestly don't really care much one way or another if Dwarves keep/lose lead others for 1 move in hills. It's not game breaking by any means and all players know/use this so it's hardly unfair. My prime reason for having them lead for 2 would be because it would lead to a decrease in Dwarf cost from 400+ down to the Pikeman 325 range. As you know I am always in favor of changes that create cheaper 1 turn units.

KGB

[Moonknight]

So KGB, you are for or against the idea of land units getting 1 group move with dwarves in hills while flyers still move at 2?

It's hard to tell from your last couple of posts.