Rook tendencies for anti-logic

[KONG1]

This whole discussion presumes a shared goal of “win the war”. The strategy of the “win the war” game is mind numbingly simple. If players aren’t behaving according to your version of “correct”, it is not that they can’t figure out what to do. It is that they have different goals. They may have the goal. “looking for a reasonable fight”, “looking for a furball”, “looking for someplace I can hover over the airport waiting to pounce”, “ “need to find some bombers to shoot at”, “need to find GVs to fight”, etc.

In short, you need to change your complaint from “they aren’t employing the correct strategy” to “they don’t want the correct thing”. The correct thing, of course, being that which you want.

[DaPup]

I  get it just fine Slap, you said that Shifty was right (There's no less strategy then there was before) when he doesn't even seem to be talking about splitting up the map. He seems to be making a comment about the change in strategy from new arenas to old so when you say he is right I fail to see where...... do you get it?

[SlapShot]

Originally posted by DaPup
I  get it just fine Slap, you said that Shifty was right (There's no less strategy then there was before) when he doesn't even seem to be talking about splitting up the map. He seems to be making a comment about the change in strategy from new arenas to old so when you say he is right I fail to see where...... do you get it?

There is no less strategy than before ... in any of the arenas from what I can tell.

If you are referring to "player strategy" then it's all on them.

If it is a change in the internal structure of the game that changed the strategy ... please tell us what you believe HT did to effect that with the recent changes.

[DaPup]

Limiting the number of players per arena plus having the multiple areans now will fracture some squads. Some squads will not be able to get there squad together and fly a mission the way that they would like to.

Some squads have too many players for sure but if one squad of 30 shows up in early war it will skew everything going on in there. To say that strategy won't change when there are limits now on eny, planes, player caps and arenas is funny to me.

[jamesdeanoo7]

Its a game without end....Who cares who has what base...just pick something you like to fight with and enjoy yourself. None of this makes any difference anyway.When you take a base are you going to resupply it and sit there defending it???? This is a game of  battles... one side will always be outnumbered ...it just makes it more interesting lol

[Atoon]

1) I dont think it has anything to do with the new structure, its was stupid before, and its stupid now.

2) I dont see how dividing 2 countries can help you win the war, even if they wanted to fight each other- they cant so they MUST fight you.

3) If winning the war is so important, wouldnt taking the outside bases & allowing the other 2 enemy the opportunity to fight be more logical? I know they dont often choose to fight each other, but at least give them the opportunity.

[Atoon]

Originally posted by KONG1
This whole discussion presumes a shared goal of “win the war”. The strategy of the “win the war” game is mind numbingly simple. If players aren’t behaving according to your version of “correct”, it is not that they can’t figure out what to do. It is that they have different goals. They may have the goal. “looking for a reasonable fight”, “looking for a furball”, “looking for someplace I can hover over the airport waiting to pounce”, “ “need to find some bombers to shoot at”, “need to find GVs to fight”, etc.

In short, you need to change your complaint from “they aren’t employing the correct strategy” to “they don’t want the correct thing”. The correct thing, of course, being that which you want.

Perhaps in your view, but what good is your view? you can't tell a question from a complaint in the first place-

 I dont want anyone to fight any certain way nor did I ask for such. Also I did not ever claim this was to "win the war" please read carefully before making false accusations w/ no fact whatsoever.

I was simply tryin to ask how dividing the 2 opposing countries can have any positive affect. The example I provided was just that- an example.

I myself enjoy most aspects of the game, I fly fiters w/ moderate skill, I buff fairly well & I don't have much interest in GVs whatsoever. It seems logical to me that when im in the mood to furball, if I can find a way to furball & perhaps help the base capture in a logical manner, that would be ideal, as well as helpful to both the game and my fellow countrymen. Its also pretty easy to do-


Its also seems fairly obvious to me, that in order for 1 country to obtain bases in a way that effectively cuts the 2 opposing countries from each other, that both furballers & base capture players would have to work together to do so.

I guess I've always been the logical sort, that must be why this puzzles me. Still no one has explained why they do it, or what could be gained. Been several wize cracks(big surprise), an unfounded dig that I'm "complaining"  & "trying to get people to play "my way",  and a few who take this opportunity to blame the new structure(its been happening way before structure change), but not one that can justify the logic.

I should know better than to look for logic or answers in here:rofl

[hubsonfire]

Would this happen to be anywhere near A44 on Mindanao?

[detch01]

Originally posted by Reynolds
Naw, I got a better one for you.

Rooks have like.. 4.5/9 of the bases, Knights have 3/9, and the Bish have like none. They have one zone base left though. What do the knights do? THEY ATTACK THE FRIGGIN ROOKS!!! We had a CV moving in, we troops AT the zone base, we just needed a few more people, but NO! The retards wanted to hit the ROOKS!!! WTF?!? Plus, nowadays, no one cares about friendly carriers, so why have them?!? Knights need to learn some tactics...

Obviously they (knights) didn't want the reset. Perhaps they wanted to win the reset for themselves instead of letting rooks win it and get the perks. Maybe they didn't want the terrain reset so worked to avoid an end-of-war situation. Maybe the just wanted to furball in a massive way and the biggest fights going were against rooks. Or maybe they just wanted to see someone whine about tactics/strategy on the bbs




asw

[Reynolds]

Originally posted by detch01
Obviously they (knights) didn't want the reset. Perhaps they wanted to win the reset for themselves instead of letting rooks win it and get the perks. Maybe they didn't want the terrain reset so worked to avoid an end-of-war situation. Maybe the just wanted to furball in a massive way and the biggest fights going were against rooks. Or maybe they just wanted to see someone whine about tactics/strategy on the bbs




asw

You missunderstand. There were enough bish bases left we would have won the reset. The rooks were stuck at another base, while we were free to steamrole them. I was counting, I checked. We would have won. Not the Rooks.

[Atoon]

yall are BOTH confused, this has NOTHING to do with any reset---


Just wondering what the logic could be, behind dividing the other 2 countries so they cannot fight each other. Thats it.

[bj229r]

Originally posted by Atoon
So we have this game with 3 countries at war, why is it Rooks insist on dividing the knits & bish? more often than I care to count I have logged on & seen that the rooks have taken most if not all fields between the bish & knits. What could possibley be gained from this strategy?

A few rooks tried to take an outside the middle base, and we came very close to doing so, but the knits were able to switch to defense as they had available resources due to the fact they were only fighting 1 front. They had only 1 front because rooks had separated them from the bish. Meanwhile the bish & the knits BOTH held bases on the outside edges that were originally Rook bases.

This scenario happens often & I just can't comprehend why.... whats the logic?

Pthh, we did that before

(before new arrangement, that is)

[KONG1]

Originally posted by Atoon
I've always been the logical sort, that must be why this puzzles me.

Maybe it puzzles you because you’ve always been sort of logical.

[detch01]

Originally posted by Atoon
yall are BOTH confused, this has NOTHING to do with any reset---

A reading comprehension course would likely help.

Just wondering what the logic could be, behind dividing the other 2 countries so they cannot fight each other. Thats it.

There doesn't necessarily have to be any premeditation (and therefore a logical intent) behind it at all. It just is what it is.


asw

[Atoon]

Originally posted by detch01
A reading comprehension course would likely help.


 
There doesn't necessarily have to be any premeditation (and therefore a logical intent) behind it at all. It just is what it is.


asw

LOL- My reading comprehension is great, I made the post- it has nothing to do with any reset. In fact most of the time 1 country drives a wedge between the other 2, they lose.


However, your second bit of text seems spot on.