Bishop / Knight pact

[Minotaur]

Leonid;

This is not a flame, just a wish.  

I don't really care what the map is.  I just would love to see them lovely mountain's and valley's everywhere .  As far as the "Simulated Eye" can see!

Merry Christmas Everyone!

Mino

[Toad]

It's just the old "what goes around, comes around". For a while, the Rooks did have a pretty smooth road. They always seemed to have numbers and it seemed the Bishops were always struggling.

Lately it seems the shoe has been on the other foot. Right now the Rooks seem to be playing a lot of defence.

That will change; it's all been seen before.

I'd prefer 2 country historical (and NO icons <G> ) but also don't think we have the planeset for it yet. Pyro's point about balance is also well-taken in this area.

I never did like the 4 country set up in WB. I'd definitely prefer 3 country over that.

Just my .01!

[TT]

 id like to take a crack at this. First off ive never seen a fight thatt an orginised, squad couldnt disrupt. As far as even sides go. Ive never seen the knights with more than a fraction of what the other 2 have in terms of numbers. even sides will never happen anyway.

 Now to the fronts. If you use the arena we have now. Country 1 and 3 could be allied and axis. Country 2 would be no mans land. We could pretend that it is France. With fields controlled by the vecci(spelling) or the resistance, depending on who is attacking. At reset there would be a surge  of activity in no mans land. tacticly just grabbin the nearest field might not be the smartest move. On the other hand if you go for the farthest field. They might just go for the ones on your common border. It could turn into a real chess match. This doesent have to happen until after some axis bombers are made. But since this is beta, im sure the axis wouldnt mind useing some captured allied bombers in the mean time.

[HaHa]

Pyro said:

 

Under a 3 country setup, it's more difficult for any one country to dominate through numbers when they're fighting a 2 front war. In a 2 country setup it's very easy for one country to get a substantial number increase and put it to good use.

Uhm not really.. if there are a 100 people in the arena then say 33 1/3   players on each team. Now lets say a buncha smoes (20) of em decide to jump onto team #1. Well now there is 53, 33, 33. Worse is that those smoes decide to start fighting poor #2 team so there is say 45 against #2 with a few fighting #3. And even worse the nasty #3 (25 of em) decide to beat up on #2 as well result: 45 + 25 = 60 vs 33

Now if we had a two team situation:
50 vs 50
20 smoes join resulting in:
70 vs 50

This is a lot more balanced than 60 vs 33 as shown above.

The problem with 3 teams is this.. say #1, #2 have a lot of players but #3 doesn't so they complain. The people seeing it think to themselves, "Well I don't care its even between #1 and #2 and I'm having fun".

If there were 2 teams and say #1 outnumbered #2. So #2 people complained, people would see this and think, "hmm they are outnumbered, (fighting outnumbered people isn't always fun), I'll join and help them out". Hence there is a much stronger tendency to even things out with a "2 team environment". I believe FA2 has 2 team arenas and they are quite fun but the FM sucks ;0

[Thunder]

Fishu,

Since this was your original thread I am addressing you. (first)You make an assumption that is NOT true. There is NO agreement between Knights and Bishops. I have been on some weekend mornings when it started 3 Knights 13 Bishops 24 Rooks. We started with only 3 fields and the Rooks owning 2/3 of the world. I spent 7 hours online fighting the numbers increased but the odds changed very little. When we finally got back all of our ground and 3 extra Rook fields.... what happened! I FRIGIN hear you WHINE!!!! "The Knights and the Bishops have an agreement! Then you come over to the Knights to kill for a while.. later you go back to the Rooks when you get more ground back.. I speak only for myself here but the reason I personaly focus on the ROOKS is (1) The WHINE the most! (2) most of the time they need a bigger spankin! JUST THAT SIMPLE!

Thunder            

[Nash]

Heya Pyro,

I thought about your point of having all of the planes take off from the 2 closest fields if it were a one front war. I'm not sure this is how it would turn out though.

Eg. (a simplified map I idea)

The border is a horizontal straight line disecting the middle of the map. 8 bases on each side bordering on the front. Additional inland bases like we have now, with strat targets etc.

Let's say the main fur started up between the two sides at the front fields between North #4 and South #4. Now, just picture how vulnerable fields 6, 7, and 8 are to capture.

From what I've seen of the players in AH, you have your furballers, but you have many other people who are interested in the strategic objectives, and will fly bombers or 47s if it means advancing thier country's position. They are not going to look at these vulnerable fields and choose instead to fly thru the Fur between the #4 fields.

So a group from the North decides to take F8 south instead. What happens now? Defence of course, and voila there are now two heated battles between F4 and F8 (north and south).
Now picture a South group going after a quiet F1 North. Defence springs up and you now have  3 battles going on.

This is a simplified version of a map, but I think it gets my point across. This 'spreading out' of the hot spots would happen naturally and quite quickly I think.

Just imagine the tension when a couple of your front bases start to fall and you're now at risk of getting flanked. Do all the planes defend? Or does your country make an offensive push at the other side of the map to relieve the pressure? One thing for certain at least is that the massive single fur between the F4 fields is now long forgotten about.

[Nash]

Er, I realize now I failed to address what seems to be your main point, and that is the balancing when one side is outnumbered. To be honest, I have no idea what to do with that.

Anybody else wanna take a crack at this?  
Or... Does that situation rear it's head under the system we have now, anyways? I dunno.

Regarding introducing planes, I also don't have much input here. Perhaps introduce new planes two at a time?

Like I said earlier, I'm sure you guys have thought long and hard about all of these issues. It just seems a shame that while *every one of us* would like to see a two country map, nobody...*nobody* has developed it for any of us to even see what that would be actually like.

My wish is for you guys to disband the Knights, chop the map in half, and let us go at it for a week. Make us eat our words  . That way we'd finally know if it's truely workable or not. And I would bet that you guys are a little curious about it too.

In 2 years when this debate opens up again, we can say "No, tried it in the AH beta, didn't work"...OR..there will BE no debate as it worked so well that it would be what we were flying then anyways. I doubt though that you will lose any potential customers by giving this experiment a week during AH's beta period.

Maybe it's too expensive for you to implement at this point in AH's development. I just can't help feeling that a topic like this, which is so *fundamental* to our experience in AH, is one that if not addressed now in beta, will be too burdensome to ever address in the future.

[K-KEN]

After reading all the priors, many good ideas are presented.  I think the 3 party system is best.  With 2 sides, unbalace is possible-anytime of the day.  A country may never recover from an onslaught from the morning/evening sorties.  At least with 3 countries, a couple of folks can "sneak" back a couple of bases undetected-sort of.
Being under seige all day long will make one side leave and go somewhere else to play.  (Like WB or AW)  I havent seen many Knights playing.  I was ROOK and Bishop too.  And I usually hit the same  ROOK or Bishop tgts-or planes.  
I havent dropped the first egg, or killed the first Knight plane-to my knowledge.  
Keep it a 3 party system, who cares if 2 form a temporary pact to help build their territory back!  It wont last!  
KKEN

[Fishu]

Pyro: Yes I have, already from the times of Dawn of Aces where I did first time get familiar with 3-country system, guess, I never liked it.
Now I am getting quite enough of this 3-country in AH also, when usually 2 countries kills the third one together.. whether it was rook/knight vs bishop or bishop/knight vs rook (same thing)

Also sides doesn't ever (well, maybe very rarely) split so that equal numbers of that "third" country would kill bishops and rooks same time.

Usually I see no knights on the another front, only there where is most of them, was that either bishop or rook front.

[HaHa]

K-Ken said:

 

After reading all the priors, many good ideas are presented. I think the 3 party system is best. With 2 sides, unbalace is possible-anytime of the day. A country may never recover from an onslaught from the morning/evening sorties.

Didn't you read my post? I clearly showed that in fact a 3 team system is WAY MORE unbalanced than a 2 team system.

I have no clue why people think a 2-team system is more unbalanced.. it makes no sense math wise.

[JoeMud]

3 is a crowd man. I vote for 2.

And if you think the balance would be off in a two team arena go play for awhile take a hard look at this three team setup and...well gues what still unbalanced most of the time.

------------------
Gijoey,Joetwo,JoeMud=me
 DHBG!!