Originally posted by MachNix
Oldman731,
Sounds to me like we are in agreement.
I did not qualify “impacts” as positive or negative because it depends on what kind of player is judging the results. What I was referring to is that everyone can bring up their clipboards and see the state of the map. The people that are doing the capturing and the people doing the defending control the look of the map. And, most likely, those people are the War-Fighters. After all, the Gamers are off engaging in one-to-one combats that does not change the map. The Gamers don’t have any, or they say they don’t have any, loyalty to their countries so if a base should fall and a map reset, it should not negatively impact them in the least. If it does bother them that some “swarm” is taking a base somewhere and they feel powerless to do anything about it while flying solo, then they need to stop being a Gamer. Two Gamers winging together can really put the hurt on a “swarm.” Eight Gamers working together (Heaven forbid) could stop most “swarms” in their tracks. Of course they are now in danger of being called a “swarm” themselves and accused of ruining the game.
If the “swarm” is comprised of War-Fighters, it will tick them off at getting stopped. But since they enjoy the strategic elements of the game, they will be thinking; “How to we get past the Oldman and his seven war-fighting amigos?” For my squad we already have the answer – Viper215.
MachNix
I was quarreling with your notion that changing the look of the map, in itself, is the most important part of the game. For many of us it has nothing to do with the game, simply because our goals are different from those of the people who want to win the reset. I think you're correct in the sense that the War-Fighters, with their quest to change the look of the map, are the cause of our current problems and HTC's attempts to fix those problems. As you say, when the swarm arrives, the Gamers are faced with three unpleasant choices: be overwhelmed, leave the area, or change their own goals to match those of the War-Winners (by somehow instantly amassing an adequate defense force). This is what makes the current string of "don't force us to play your way" whines ironic. The War-Fighters have been forcing that choice on others all along. As I gather the story, when the swarms not only reached huge proportions, but also avoided fighting each other (even I have seen this), the fundamental combat aspect of the game was frustrated and changes were implemented.
As the expression goes, I really don't have a dog in this fight. There are many war games that offer far more challenge, as war games, than this one ever can (or should). The grand strategic war here is very basic, and I'm not sure that people should be congratulating themselves for being clever generals (or admirals, whatever), just because they've figured out that they can capture territory by employing overwhelming force or sneaking captures of undefended bases. The purpose of AH, for me, is what it has been for me in all multi-player air combat games, which is to engage in air combat. I think AH2 excels at this, at the same time as it encourages you to make new friends - no matter what side they fly for. Getting vulched and ganged - as happened "in the real war," and as propounded by some of the thoughtful AH strategists - has virtually nothing to do with air combat, and so, whenever possible, I avoid places where these thing occur.
- oldman (btw, what ever happened to Lazs - I tended to agree with him on this)
