changed my post. Just wanted to add, that I don't think most furballers furball, because they want to have air combat. It is not wastefull. Using that term implies that we are not playing the game as you see fit. We do it for the fight, and it is fun, which is what a game should be. We look for the fight, because we want combat. I don't see why both camps can't co-exist. I'd like to see an arena where If one base is under attack, the solution is to go to another base where no one is and too busy elsewhere.
If The US was invaded by Canada, would we just let them take New England, while we take Quebec? To me, this is the issue with base taking. It is now at the point where it is mostly just a race to see who can capture the most bases...it doesn't all that much matter which ones you lose. If a mission fails, there are plenty of other bases that you can go to. There is no urgency, no reason not to. As someone who prefers air combat, as oppossed to flying to a base and dropping a hangar the game becomes somewhat diluted. If people are just going in mass to bases that are empty, on all sides, then where are the consistent big battles? One would like to see more fights between bases, not fights that are generated from failed base capture/vulch fest, in which the other team simply disappears because the target base is to difficult to capture. If bases are to promote air/ground combat then to me at least, it seems a mechanism that encourages people to fight over a particular base would be a good thing. The game seems to lose a bit of flavor (again to me) when a field which is good enough to have a large mission go and take, should be important enough to want to defend and continue on the attack if capture fails. I think it would add even more of a pride factor to squads when their best tactic/sepcialty isn't the fact that no one is there/knows a base is under attack. All it really says, is that when you have a large advantage and no one to fight, you can take the base.
