Spurred by a few of the recent "I'm not Happy" threads that have been posted, I got to thinking about means of game play that might work for both the "Win the Warz" and the "This is FIGHTER COMBAT ONLY" types of play.
In the interests of brevity, I am not going to go into all the pros and cons of either style (we all have our own opinions on that anyway); nor and I advocating any style of play over the other. I admit that it is my OPINION that the combat for me accomplishes some goal. Yesterday, I posted using the analogy of moving a football down field toward the endzone. As I thought more about that, I came up with a new possible idea and decided to toss it out here for review/suggestions/refinement. If we can come to some type of consensus on it maybe HTC would be interested in considering it..... so here it goes....
How about considering a "Win the Warz" style of game play like our childhood game of "Capture the Flag" rather than the complete take over of 90% of the enemy fields. Put each team's HQ at a point behind their bases. Each side then has equal opportunity to push into enemy territory toward the opposing HQ (what path they take is up to them) On reaching enemy HQ, they must fight to take it and when taken, Warz is Wonz and map resets, rotates-whatever.
Here's what I think (emphasis on think) about it... I suspect that it would increase the number of resets and keep the maps rotating more quickly which keeps them from getting stale. It creates an obvious 'offensive front' to which defenders can see and be in place to defend. Sides can open op more than one front and try reaching the HQ from different paths. Attempting to push into enemy territory would then have meaning, and clearly certain bases would become more vital.
This would increase the combat over those bases. This makes the 'combat types' happy. Should you choose to focus your spearhead on a single point, then you leave your flanks open to counterattack and while you are flying west, you could be getting jumped from north and south bases (as an example). The closer you get to enemy HQ, the more intense the fighting will be to defend it.
In fact, in accordance with this style of play, we could even increase the overall number of bases on the map and put them much closer together to make more steps to reach the HQ. But this will dramatically increase the ability of all sides to attack and defend. It would spearhead attacks to generate great furballs and individual fights which would then increase the need for bombers (gives them something to do - taking out towns and hangers).
I also think that this still provides an option and ability to "Win the Warz" by the side getting beat back or ganged. That losing side may chose to open a "battle of the bulge" and concentrate resources at another point and try to push toward an enemy HQ... their attackers would then have to consider letting up the 'offensive' to protect their own HQ.
I really believe (correctly or incorrectly) that this style of play would make all types of players happy and would increase the strategy aspect of the game. As it stands the game is a blunt force hammer to take all the opposing bases and the side with the numberz most often winz the battles and the warz. A "capture the flag" style would focus more on one or two defensible fronts -- numbers will still help, but they aren't the end all beat all.. the concentrated fighting will be.
So, that is my idea, what do you all think? Do you see other pros and cons to this potential style change? and is it something we think we would like?
forum now open to the floor .......
