Author Topic: Go to a two sided war, and use perk planes to ballance it if numbers are out of whack (Read 301 times)

LtHans · « **on:** June 13, 2001, 03:02:00 AM »

I don't know why we have a 3 sided war. I guess to spread the fighting out. I don't think we need it myself.

The other reason I would prefer it is that using perk planes to ballance the game if one side is outnumbered. Right now with 3 sides thats a bit ambigous if your outnumbered or not, because the other two sides could be fighting each other, and not the minority. The other extreme is they could both be only attacking the little guy. I am not overly fond of the 3-way war simply because of that ocassional problem.

Now that there are perk planes, there is definetly a way to use them other than as the occasional ride. When your outnumbered, lower the cost. When you badly outnumbered, the cost hit's zero.

Well, is it a good or bad idea? I think it would work.

Hans.

[ 06-13-2001: Message edited by: LtHans ]

DocFalconer1 · « **Reply #1 on:** June 13, 2001, 08:02:00 AM »

Good idea. In my opinion, v1.08 should be an arena update and include ground targets, an infrastructure, and server-controlled tank attacks to add more variety to AH.

Swoop · « **Reply #2 on:** June 13, 2001, 08:06:00 AM »

Do you now?

Ground targets? yup, we have those.
an infrastructure? yup, we have that too.
server controlled tank attacks? you wanna explain that one some more.....

Westy MOL · « **Reply #3 on:** June 13, 2001, 08:07:00 AM »

2 sided war will be a constant gang bang of one side against another. Why do people think that if there were only two sides the players would self regulate themselves and even out the sides?

--Westy

Ripsnort · « **Reply #4 on:** June 13, 2001, 08:12:00 AM »

Two sided wars in online sims have historically been more of a gang bang than 3 or 4 sided wars. See Warbirds Axis vs Allied for a recent example.

SFRT - Frenchy · « **Reply #5 on:** June 13, 2001, 08:30:00 AM »

HAns, I think that it would not do you any good to take off from a vulched field in a TA152 or Tempest. Those planes request some altitude before they can kill/run home. You would be way more effective in the usuall Niki/Spit combinaison.

Dago · « **Reply #6 on:** June 13, 2001, 01:44:00 PM »

This has been discussed over and over.

It won't work any better than a 3 sided war, and would probably be worse. Imagine if in a two sided fight, one side has a big numberical advantage? Then what? Will guys ask for a 1 sided war? Maybe we would just all chase drones?

One drawback to a two side war would be that you would not have another "front" to move to if things were too hot in one area. Also, you wouldn't have the third country picking away at your enemy from a differant direction as you do now. Despite what some of those with a narrow view think, all 3 countries are constantly fighting two countrys all the time.

Nope, two sided would have too many disadvantages with no real advantage or improvement to our current system.

Dago

Zigrat · « **Reply #7 on:** June 13, 2001, 05:30:00 PM »

i think the 2 sided war would work not if you gave fere perks to the losers, but started perking the good planes for the ppl with the numbers!!!

IE in a 60 on 30 situation, the 30 have normal perks but the 60 have dora, f4u, p51 perked etcera

i bet sides will even out pretty damned quick!!!

SB · « **Reply #8 on:** June 14, 2001, 08:46:00 AM »

This discussion has been hashed out long before. Any two sided conflict will never balance even if you add perk points for the side that is lowest on current numbers. Adding perk planes for the lower numbers would cause people to jump then start squeaking when too many jumped over and the perk planes were no longer available.

The two sided "Historical (Hysterical?)" arena sounds great when you first discuss it but take a look at how the air war progressed during WWII for the Germans. First they had the air superiority fighters that gradually changed to an interceptor role. The Allies had to fill the interceptor role first until they went on the offensive in 43 and then the planes developed were air superiority fighters. The numbers swing from Allied underdog in the early years to overwhelming advantages in the later years.

Few people would really like a truely "historical" arena. Would you fly a 7 hour escort mission where you may find four or five enemies being chased by 50 fighters and shot at by 100 bombers? Didn't think so.

Warbirds was built with four countries because Hitech did not want to copy from AW. Four countries can turn into a 3 on 1 gang bang fairly easily. Three countries work best for this type of game. Kelton got a lot of things right when he designed his game.

Torgo · « **Reply #9 on:** June 14, 2001, 10:34:00 AM »

Yeah, for some reason people have eternally convinced themselves that some number of countries other than the ones that currently exist is some sort of magic panacea for side balance.

It isn't.

And IMHO if you want a "realistic" arena, you do it in formal scenarios. For all practical purposes, WB's Axis and Allies isn't more realistic in any way than AH's arena.

Basically, I only want the two opposite spectrums in AH...a furballing 3-sided MA and tightly controlled, large scale formal scenarios. I think everything "in between", like HAs, WB's "Axis and Allies" arena, manages to combine the worst aspects of both.

Though, I would like to see a rolling plane set in the MA , but NOT a two country arena, or countries with planesets restricted to certain countries, which makes me a bit of an oddball.

AKSWulfe · « **Reply #10 on:** June 14, 2001, 10:38:00 AM »

Some people, like Torgo, get it...

Other people... well they a ways bit out in left field on this issue.
-SW

Sandman · « **Reply #11 on:** June 14, 2001, 06:45:00 PM »

Go the other direction... Give us SIX countries.