I am still a bit in doubt with regard to the Eagle (= flying Q) vs Terror piece value and the anti-trading rule. If the values are too close, trading Eagle for Terror might be common. And this makes the anti-trading rule for Terrors ineffective; both the Eagles and the Terrors would disappear from the board fairly quickly. Only when the Terrors stick out so much that you would not trade them for anything else, a ban of trading them for each other would result in a prolonged existence.
Now in the late end-game, when little is left to jump over, the Eagle would become similar to a Queen. Which is definitely a lot worse than a Terror, which in addition has Knight moves and hit-and-run capture. But in the opening it is not so clear-cut. The Eagle has an enormous number of capture targets on a crowded board. If it would initially be worth more than a Terror, and its value would drop as the board gets emptied, there would be a point where the values are similar, and trading would be a good option.
One could argue that even though the Eagle can strike deep behind enemy lines, most of these strikes are useless, because pieces there tend to be protected, and the Eagle is too valuable to be traded for those. And even when the targets are not protected, capturing those is risky: although the Eagle can enter the opponent's camp easily to capture, it cannot easily withdraw to safety afterwards with a non-capture. But it would usually be able to sacrifice itself for a second piece, and two Queen-class pieces might be a good trade for it. Values guestimated by simple move counting doesn't take account of such subtleties.
If the Eagle turns out to be too valuable, it should be subject to an anti-trading rule as well. Or at least the rule that Eagles are also not allowed to capture a protected Terror. I wouldn't mind so much if they capture each other; it is the Terror I want to survive.
I am still a bit in doubt with regard to the Eagle (= flying Q) vs Terror piece value and the anti-trading rule. If the values are too close, trading Eagle for Terror might be common. And this makes the anti-trading rule for Terrors ineffective; both the Eagles and the Terrors would disappear from the board fairly quickly. Only when the Terrors stick out so much that you would not trade them for anything else, a ban of trading them for each other would result in a prolonged existence.
Now in the late end-game, when little is left to jump over, the Eagle would become similar to a Queen. Which is definitely a lot worse than a Terror, which in addition has Knight moves and hit-and-run capture. But in the opening it is not so clear-cut. The Eagle has an enormous number of capture targets on a crowded board. If it would initially be worth more than a Terror, and its value would drop as the board gets emptied, there would be a point where the values are similar, and trading would be a good option.
One could argue that even though the Eagle can strike deep behind enemy lines, most of these strikes are useless, because pieces there tend to be protected, and the Eagle is too valuable to be traded for those. And even when the targets are not protected, capturing those is risky: although the Eagle can enter the opponent's camp easily to capture, it cannot easily withdraw to safety afterwards with a non-capture. But it would usually be able to sacrifice itself for a second piece, and two Queen-class pieces might be a good trade for it. Values guestimated by simple move counting doesn't take account of such subtleties.
If the Eagle turns out to be too valuable, it should be subject to an anti-trading rule as well. Or at least the rule that Eagles are also not allowed to capture a protected Terror. I wouldn't mind so much if they capture each other; it is the Terror I want to survive.