Originally posted by Zazen13 That's entirely possible. Being one that never switches countries and finds good/frequent fights far more fun than steamrolling I suppose I could have a biased viewpoint. Most of the people I play/talk with are old grizzled vets like myself and think likewise. To a newer, less established player I suppose the perceived 'success' in terms of base-counts and resets could seem very important in choosing country affiliation. For us old vets it's all about friendships, comraderie and adapting your fighting style to suit the situation, which is half the fun of the game once you've mastered the basics. That is opposed to those that choose to change their situation via country jumping to suit their inflexible style, which is what you are suggesting people tend to do...I have no doubt of the existence of 'fair weather flyers' who do tend to change, over time, to countries that are on the upswing in the balance flux. I also suggest that those people who do that are of little use relative to those who stay put and persevere at a disadvantage. Those that jump to have advantage are doing so because they are failing to adapt, those that cannot adapt readily are of little value in terms of combat effectiveness. So, I suppose if you look at it from strictly a raw numbers perspective their jumping to gain advantage seems significant, but what it is really doing is diluting the talent pool of the advantaged team and enhancing the concentration of dedicated talent on the disadvantaged team...Zazen
Originally posted by Hammy i disagree with this statement. i know of alot of ex bish, shifted to rooks so that they could hide in the horde to continue their score horing unmolested.I wont name names but they know who they are.
Originally posted by DoKGonZo We're not that far out of agreement then.A concrete bunker going down to .50 cal fire is no less realistic than an aircraft carrier being sunk by 20mm fire. Which is to say: not very.I routinely see heavy and medium bombers working in groups of 2 or 3 flights, often with one or two escorts. And they pork bases just fine, and I have no problem with that whatsoever. That's how it should be happening.It's the solo dribbler who will overfly incoming attacks - which he could delay or stop - and defer helping friendlies simply to get his moment of glory as he porks a base and disrupts the play of 20 or 30 other players. Just to be clear, my problems with pork-runners are that:1) It reduces the importance of bombers. A20's and B26's and Mosi's and Sturmi's should be the tools of choice for tactical base attacks, how often do you see these planes anywhere in the MA? Most of the action Sturmi's get is as base defenders when FH go down.2) It keeps a lot of players from actually learning how to fly and fight. They are contributing to the team, but they will suck at the game for a long, long while if this is all they do. 3) It gives one person too much power to disrupt the flow of play for many others. Same reason HQ's were made tougher, so one lone Lanc flight couldn't take out country-wide radar. One lone Tiffy shouldn't be able to cripple base capture along an enture front.4) It is virtually impossible to stop a Kamikaze - always has been - any time you have something on the food chain with no natural enemy, it will be exploited - as it is being done now.As for turning the tide, yeah. The Bish put up a great defense at A15 on Sunday - but we ended up diverting to another field and that's what led to the reset. I know the Rooks were pushed back pretty far on one of the big maps a week or so ago, and we ended up winning the map after a lot of work, much of it without any sizeable numbers edge. So it can be done.I'm really kind of surpised the odds have swung so heavily. I fly with the same bunch I usually do, so I really don't pay much attention to what's going on elsewhere. But when looking at the roster this weekend it became clear that either people are moving or people are standing down or both.
Originally posted by Zazen13 I don't necessarily agree with that. Plenty of resets have been won during periods of relative numerical parity to prove that this is at least partly untrue. All things being equal, the most tightly ogranized team able to concentrate talent at the correct strategic points at the correct time wins resets. All numbers do is make it more likely success can be achieved without having talent concentrated, being organized or focussing that talent properly. Less numbers mean that for success to be achieved a higher degree of focussed effort, organization and talent will have to be applied at the correct time and place. It's easier to comprehend what this means if looking at it microcosmically. Take a 10 vs 10 furball between team a and team b. If team a has 2 skilled vets; 3 average players; 5 complete noobs and team b has 7 skilled vets; 2 average players and 1 complete noob. Well, you can safely predict that while numbers are perfectly equal success will go to team b, all other factors being equal, every-time.Now suppose there's a 12 vs 9 furball between team a and b, this is roughly the ratio of numerical disparity teams can have in the MA before the ENY kicks in. Let's say team a has 2 skilled vets; 3 average players and 6 complete noobs. Team b has 6 skilled vets; 2 average players and 1 complete noob. This fight would be a win for team b most, if not every-time despite being at a significant numerical disadvantage. The point is, absolute numbers are not the end-all be-all deciding factor of outcomes in the MA. Relative skill and its timely and prudent application is far more important imho than raw numbers. I would rather be in a contentious furball with 5 grizzled old war dogs than 8 complete noobs everytime, anytime, anywhere. Comparing sheer numbers only works as a measuring stick if we are all cookie cutter copies of each other, equally talented and equally distributed throughout the 3 countries, which is absolutely not the case...Zazen
Originally posted by Zazen13 If a country dedicates the bulk of their force to dominoe horde one base after another in succession they will likely lose 3 undefended bases to a smaller, yet more efficient application of force by the enemy elsewhere...This is basic economy of force military dogma, it is impractical and unwise to use 3 times the force required to accomplish an objective, especially in a linear game like AH (no one base is of greater intrinsic strategic value to another) when that means you stand to lose 3 bases to every one taken in doing so. If dominoe hording is successful in AH it is only because the defending team is not taking proper advantage of the enemy's foolish lack of efficient economy of force.Zazen
Originally posted by Zazen13 I am not disagreeing with you or mars that is is possible to take bases with a horde while denying the enemy a direct response. What I am saying is every country has roughly the same proportion of people filling all of those ancillary roles you described and exactly the same opportunity and 'free force' to do their own undefended base hording as an indirect response if they choose to do so. The fact is, if an enemy is devoting 30-50 of there 100-150 people to horde single bases in rapid succession, there must be by mathematical necessity, some very-large gaping holes in their base defense elsewhere. Wether the defending team has the collective prescence of mind to take advantage of the opportunities as they present themselves is another issue, but there is definately an opportunity for indirect responses to a team that is single-base hording. The defending team has an opportunity to make single base hording an 'un-economical' way to conduct the 'war'.Zazen
Originally posted by ChopSaw 20 mm cannon taking down a cv?! That’s 9,000 lbs worth of damage. Must take them a heck of a long time.Regarding solo dribbler’s; how effective could they be? Can they even take down one field by themselves? I’m willing to believe they can do the troops before they die, but the ordnance? And that’s only one field. Sounds like they’re wasting their time. Other fields can take up the slack while they do a small amount of damage to one field. By the time they’d be able to do that to two fields, the first would be ready to start popping up. Assuming they die in each attempt. You may know better than I on this, but it doesn’t sound like one Typhoon pilot could take down an entire front’s barracks. I don’t fly with guys that do that and I don’t do it myself, but heck, I can’t do that in bombers. Yes, I can make a fair impact, but not over an entire front. At least not for very long.Well some people are going to shift to the winning side. Just the way things are. Perhaps they aren’t the most effective of players, but it still gives the side with the greater numbers and edge. You guys have been winning most lately. It’ll change around again someday.
Originally posted by DoKGonZo Again ... there is a reason beyond numbers why Rooks started being more effective. The sudden shift in numbers is a by-product.
Originally posted by ChopSaw And that reason would be they're better players than the other two countries?
1 more post on the Evils of Numbers , Hordes , Barrels , Porking , Furballers , Pork -n- auger Dweebs , Perkies , resets , side switching , and general lameness and I would have made it to lala land. Oh well......
round #69,
Originally posted by SuperDud I can eat 12 donuts in 1 sitting:eek:
