Winning the Map

[DREDger]

Yes, another post about winning teh war....

I wonder if the 40% necessary for country win might be too stringent for these large maps, which are predominant as of late.

Seems they are stalemate maps to me. 

Any opinions?

[Soulyss]

Yes, but it would come across as snarky and sarcastic so I'll just keep my mouth shut.

[infowars]

I think two sides should every now and then get together to wipe out the other...  I mean at least to just change the map.  Multiple fronts so far apart make very difficult to build momentum.  Considering if you kill only one troop that the mission fails.  On that note.  I think the goon should carry 11 or 12 troops.

[macerxgp]

Solution; Bring two goons.

[ghi]

I agree,
10-15% would make the game more  challenging, dynamic and less players complaining about same boring map stalled for weeks.

[Getback]

I think two sides should every now and then get together to wipe out the other...  I mean at least to just change the map.  Multiple fronts so far apart make very difficult to build momentum.  Considering if you kill only one troop that the mission fails.  On that note.  I think the goon should carry 11 or 12 troops.

They're already doing that. 

[Race]

     If you made the percentage low you defeat the purpose of nearly 75% of all bases. Only the ones with 1-2 sectors of the battle lines will be used. Any farther back and youll just have an arena reset. My issue is that it seems like you either have too large of map or too small of one. Something in between the 512 mile map and the 256 would be a little better in my opinion. Its feast or famine now. Either you have alot of cons or your fighting over a lone spit. Granted there are exceptions but this has been my view of things. I dont know if its even possible to change something like that but its worth a shot if it were.

Race

[Raptor]

Capture the HQ to win the war

[Race]

How about HQ town/city percentage down to zero? You would seem some massive bomber raids then!

Race

[Latrobe]

The problem I see with this is if it was reduced to 10%-15% to win, then the small maps you would only need to capture 2-3 bases to win. If you just need to capture/destroy the HQ, then you might see a mass wave just fly straight to the HQ from the begining of the war to win it in under 5 minutes (bigger maps it would take longer). Maybe if we combine the two, like you have to capture 30% of the enemy bases and reduce strats and HQ below 20% to win.

I don't know, I'm just thinking out loud..

[Delirium]

Better yet, lets do away with base captures altogether.

[Dantoo]

Since it's been at 40% there has been no reason to attack.  If there is no reason to attack there is no reason to defend.  No reason to fight.

The old system of crush one country to extinction sucked.  The new system is better but with goals set so high it may as well not exist.  On the bright side, instead of playing, I get plenty of time to reorganise my sock drawer now.

[Lusche]

Since it's been at 40% there has been no reason to attack.  If there is no reason to attack there is no reason to defend.  No reason to fight.

To me it seems people are still capturing bases, winning territory, fighting the enemy... 

[Shuffler]

You can have all the bases but 1. It's all I need to fight from.

You can win the war if you like... and collect your perks.

I'll go get more perks in one flight. Funny thing is I never use them.

[Wingnutt]

what about have it also to where if one country falls below a certain % the map is reset.. with the country with the most % getting the win..

that way you could avoid the situations we see where Country A and B have 3/4 of the map and country C is down to next to nothing, so everyone on country C logs and goes to the other arena and ENY goes bananas for the other countries (or at least one of them)