3 Country War (a suggestion)

[Furious]

Change from 3 countries to 4 with two countries being allied on a rotating basis.

rough map example #1:

B R
K P

Bish and Pawns are alligned
Knits and Rooks are alligned

after reset:

K B
R P

Knits and Pawns are alligned
Rooks and Bish are alligned


The amount of reset perks points would be tied to the health of your ally at time of reset.  Ally would recieve some percentage of reset points.

Change side switching to make it more restrictive, time or perk wise, to change to country that is winning the war and less restrictive to change to country that is losing the war.

Seems to me this would prevent alot of the gang-banging as you would have an ally to help you.  All four teams would be competing for the reset, but you have to keep you ally healthy as you fight for the win.


F.


EDIT:  Just wanted to add that you can't capture an ally's base for your team, but you can take it back for them.  Also, you would be able to safely land at an allied base, but not refuel/rearm.

[ 09-25-2001: Message edited by: Furious ]

[skernsk]

I like the idea.  It allows countries to fly with different folks without squads rotating and porking numbers.

[Wotan]

punt great idea

i had thought making the other country the queens............

Dunno how that would of went over though

[skernsk]

Heh..I'd rather be a Pon than a queen.

[Wotan]

you can be a pRon queen if ya like.......

the studio would go broke tring to sell it but hey go for it...........

[MANDOBLE]

Furious, not a bad idea but it has some serious flaws:

1 - What happens when an ally lose all his bases? reset even when the other ally may be winning the war?
2 - What happens if most of the allies are concentrated into allied country A? Free hunt and base capture at allied country B for the enemy?
3 - What happens when allied country A has no contact with enemy due expansion of alliend country B?

3 side war has demostrated to have serious flaws also. We, at rookland, have been hunted by hordes of knights and bish for weeks. It was common to see 65 bish, 50 knights and 30 or less rooks.

IMO, the key to have an equilibrium is not in the number of countries but in the number of players per country.

For example, triggering a rule when any country has more than 20 players: no one can log into a country that exceeds by 25% or more the number of players of the less populated country.

This way, with a country having 40 players, the other two cant have more than 50 each one. With a rule like this we may have even a successful 2 sided arena.

[Furious]

Mandoble,

In reply-

 

1 - What happens when an ally lose all his bases? reset even when the other ally may be winning the war?

If the knits are at 0 bases and their allies the pawns have the most bases at reset, the pawns are the winners. However, the reset perks would be very low in this instance.  The idea is to keep your ally healthy AND win the war.

 

2 - What happens if most of the allies are concentrated into allied country A? Free hunt and base capture at allied country B for the enemy?

Again, the idea would be to protect your ally from this type of attack.

 

3 - What happens when allied country A has no contact with enemy due expansion of alliend country B?

I think this would not be an issue with well thought-out maps.

As to the idea of forcing players to a certain country, I am a knit and as such have mild contempt for the rooks and outright loathing of the bish, in no way do I want to be forced to fight for a country not of my choosing.

<S>
F.

[Exile]

wow ... excellent idea!

[AKSWulfe]

If this idea is to lessen the effect of numbers advantages it won't.

Thing is, there will always be a side or sides with more people.

Do you know of any war that was equal in terms of numbers? Do you know of any game that does not impose a max number of players per country that is equal in terms of numbers?
-SW

[iceydee]

MANDOBLE:
1 - What happens when an ally lose all his bases? reset even when the other ally may be winning the war?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think allies should be able to share bases. Then we would never have that problem...  

[whirl]

its a terrible idea--might as well just make 2 countries.  Its cutthroat people--you mean to tell me none of ya have ever played cutthroat??  if anything goto 5 countries, but the 2 or 4 country scenario is boring, way boring.  doesn't leave a person a choice of which front they'd like to fight on.

[Trell]

20 countries!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[BOOT]

Ive never seen a two front battle that worked in a flight sim...  You think numbers are lop sided with 3 countries...  With only 2 you would always see one side with a huge advantage...  Unfortunately many players simply want to fly with air superiority...
Personally I enjoy seeing us get our backs to the wall and then fighting our way out... It creates a much higher level of communication and cooperation among the players that stick it out...

Just sayin....

BOOT

[popeye]

To help balance sides, scale the defensive AI with numbers.  When a country has more than 50 (?) players, it starts losing some AI, and players have to man the ack.

[Hammerhead]

Personally I think it would be a lot more realistic and even more fun if one countrty could only fly a particular combination of planes.

Country A= American
Country B= British+Japenese
Country C= German+Russian

Or some other or random combination. Then we can use planes with their respective advantages or disadvantages as it was in the real world. I dont think a P-51D ever had a dogfight with an F4U-1C      

Jus my 1.5 cents