Author Topic: Time for a 4th country? (Read 468 times)

oboe · « **on:** April 19, 2004, 08:03:33 AM »

I'm becoming more convinced that the population for AH has become too large for a 3-sided war. Last night (Sunday) the Knights were outnumbered by 3 or 4 to 1, and there was simply nothing for a Knight flyer to do - only two bases to up from and both were shut down.

I think I understood the rationale for a 3-sided war (every country has a front against the others) but this allows two countries to gang up on the third - if they were 4 countries - two countries combining forces against a common opponent would have the 4th country to their rear to worry about.

Also 500-600 players divided between only 3 countries enables the creation of extremely large hordes. The addition of a 4th country would alleviate this problem somewhat and spread the players out more evenly on the map. Instead of an average of 200 players per side on 3 fronts, you'd have 150 players per side spread out over 6 possible fronts.

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #1 on:** April 19, 2004, 08:27:06 AM »

Great. There aren't 2 countries ganging on the knights, there will be 3!

Meatwad · « **Reply #2 on:** April 19, 2004, 09:32:52 AM »

Since the country names seem to come from chess, the I guess the 4th country would be the Queens

BenDover · « **Reply #3 on:** April 19, 2004, 10:44:26 AM »

or prawns

oboe · « **Reply #4 on:** April 19, 2004, 12:37:37 PM »

Not a done deal by any means, though I would favor the "Kings" as the 4th country. As Lasersailor pointed out, it wouldn't stop ganging, but maybe it would spread the action out more.

Maybe after Tour Of Duty is introduced, there won't be as many in the MA. Personally I doubt it though.

NoBaddy · « **Reply #5 on:** April 19, 2004, 06:39:29 PM »

It's already been tried (by the creator of this game, in fact). It didn't work as well as 3.

oboe · « **Reply #6 on:** April 20, 2004, 07:10:48 AM »

Nobaddy, are you speaking about WarBirds? AFAIK Aces High has alsways been a 3 country war.

I know it has been done before; I'm suggesting circumstances have changed enough (200+ in the WarBirds MA vs 600+ in AH MA) that it may be worth a try.

Why didn't the 4 sided war work, exactly? Was it because one country got ganged up on by the other 3?

NoBaddy · « **Reply #7 on:** April 20, 2004, 11:16:51 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by oboe
Nobaddy, are you speaking about WarBirds? AFAIK Aces High has alsways been a 3 country war.

I know it has been done before; I'm suggesting circumstances have changed enough (200+ in the WarBirds MA vs 600+ in AH MA) that it may be worth a try.

Why didn't the 4 sided war work, exactly? Was it because one country got ganged up on by the other 3?

Yes, in WB. I didn't play WB (I didn't find it to be "fun"). I know from talking to Dale during the planning stages of AH that he believed that the 3 country set up was superior to the 4 country one. For specifics, you would need to ask him.

I do know, from almost 14 years of playing this type of game, that arena odds are generally cyclical. Unless, of course, large numbers are moving around on a regular basis.

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #8 on:** April 24, 2004, 08:53:49 AM »

Dunno bout 4 countries but I've always been against 3 countries as while I understand the logic, its painfuly obvious they just simply do not work as intended.
I support 2 countries.
I mentioned this once before and someone claimed its been tried already Maybe it has in WB or FA I dont know
Though I've never in 7+ years seen it in either AW or here.
Well I did see it in AW but that was with a limited plane set. So that really cant be seriously pointed to as a legitimate attempt.