The Illogic of Flight

[MaxWilson]

Kind of a tangent, but supposedly flying causes "extra" fatigue loss. I haven't spotted the pattern yet, myself; sometimes flying units pick up oodles of fatigue very quickly and other times it seems modest. Does "blinking" count as an extra melee attack for fatigue purposes?

-Max

[lch]

Gandalf Parker said:
If we had map commands for terrains that only allow certain travel it might be interesting. That way a map could have a passage that is only open to flyers, and combat would only occur between flyers.

Like, flyers should totally be able to pass over underwater provinces as if they had sailing. Yes, they should. Don't disagree with me.

[llamabeast]

I imagine that all the flyers in the game have low stamina/get hungry easily. So they have to keep landing for breaks, and going over a sea would be too much for them.

Anyway for balance reasons, I think it's great that flyers can't go over water.

Not that I'm disagreeing with you lch

[Gandalf Parker]

Now that the game has a difference between "sea" and "deep sea" I think that allowing flyers over coastal waters and stopping them from going over the deep waters would make sense.

[llamabeast]

Why, Gandalf?

[Gandalf Parker]

Most birds cant handle deep ocean flights. Provinces are 1 month travel? Maybe 2 if its your environment? So if people want to argue that flight should be able to go over water, and a compromise is desired, then allowing coastal waters but not deep waters might be logical.

[Psientist]

Obviously adding a "hover" option to battlefield mechanics adds a level of complexity which is probably not worth it, but perhaps the current system wouldn't hurt a few tweaks such as the suggested coastline flying (so long as flying units don't end their movement on a water province) or trample-protection (not all tramplers even HAVE trunks!).

Some of the same could apply to underwater "flyers" if any still exist.

[Sombre]

Yeah I can see that fliers should be trample immue, so thumbsup for that change if at all possible.

[Sir_Dr_D]

Earthquake immune would make sense too. But that could make earth quake too unbalancing, if you have flying earth mages and an army of fliers.

[Archonsod]

Flying archers would certainly be illogical (how would they aim the bow and stay airborne at the same time?). As for flying mages, perhaps the effort to stay airborne affects their concentration for spells, or perhaps they're simply unwilling to risk tiring themselves out with spells while being a few hundred feet off the ground.
Alternatively, perhaps flying units are simply unwilling to place themselves in a position which puts them in line of sight (and possibly attack range) of every archer, mage and priest in the opposing army?

Not sure about immunity to trample. Presumably the trampling unit would simply wait until they land. On the other hand, a flying unit would have an easier time avoiding the unit, but then any sufficiently agile unit should be able to 'dodge' a trample in some manner (elephants for example, are not known for being nimble).

The problem with coastal movement is handling combat (should any occur) between underwater and airborne forces. Unless of course it's treat in a similar manner to sailing (i.e. the unit effectively skips the water province).