Uh-oh... I've got an idea.. again!

[Lusche]

And some COAD such that terrain can shadow holes in the dar

If we had true terrain shadows for radar, we could even let the NOE alt down at 65 feet. An ambitious  mission planner could then try to find a route that is not exposing his forces to enemy dar, which could be almost impossible for island bases, but difficult yet possible for bases further inland, in broken terrain.

[Shuffler]

Sorry I didn't read the full OP post.

What if we just had maps shaped like the wednesday babe.... would folks get bored then???   

[Vinkman]

My basic idea:

1. Maps are up for 2 weeks at most, then they are rotated out. This is to prevent continuous stale situations and to get players totally bored if there's a map up they totally dislike.

2. And another strategic victory level, so that we have two:
Crushing Victory: The old one. capture 40% of both countries. Get 25 perks per category. Will be very difficult to pull of. Players can be "proud"... if they care
Marginal Victory: When the arena resets, determine a winner. Chesspiece with the most bases or points (see my "advanced" idea below) is declared to have won. Get 10 perks per category. Much easier, but smaller carrot.

Advantage: War winners have a reachable goal , but overall nothing much changes for everyone else. No need to downtune base captures or anything else. A Crushing Victory will be the ultimate, but very challenging & rare goal.
If you do not care about the war, there will be almost no difference, except for a possible creation of more prolonged fights over more "important" targets.

Thie only thing that would have to be worked out is what determines what side you're on for the perk points. This could promote people switching sides to the the winning side for the purpose of cashing in on perkies. You would need to address that.

[Lusche]

Thie only thing that would have to be worked out is what determines what side you're on for the perk points. This could promote people switching sides to the the winning side for the purpose of cashing in on perkies. You would need to address that.

There would be no change necessary in this regard, as we already have the rule that you do not get any war perks if you were part of the winning team for less than 12 hours.

[Vinkman]

There would be no change necessary in this regard, as we already have the rule that you do not get any war perks if you were part of the winning team for less than 12 hours.

Hmmm. Do you think 12 hours in enough? If one side starts to get momentum, then may folks might switch to that side to cash in, rather than fight in a losing effort. This incentive could force many lopsided contests with folks switching early to the side with an edge, and then it becoming a tidal wave. 

Do you think a modification to the rules determining side are in order? Perhaps a is a side has a sertain lead based on your point system, folks who switch to it don't qualify for perk points. I think some modification will be necessary. but I like the idea.

[Lusche]

Hmmm. Do you think 12 hours in enough? If one side starts to get momentum

Yes I do. Because you absolutely can't predict what happens over a time as long as this. No side is able to sustain any momentum for such a long time in AH.

[Patches1]

I like Luche's idea and I'd like to add an additional thought that may put to rest some of the heartburn about one country getting "Hoarded".

What if the outnumbered Country was able to hold the other two off until the end of the "war"? Couldn't that be considered a fight to a Draw and be worth at least...say 15 perks per category? Fighting to a draw doesn't win the "war", but I think it may be an incentive to keep fighting when outnumbered.

It's just a thought that needs developing if anyone thinks it worthy.

[Vinkman]

Yes I do. Because you absolutely can't predict what happens over a time as long as this. No side is able to sustain any momentum for such a long time in AH.

This is true under the current rules, but you are introducing a new dynamic with perks for winning. The purpose of which is to change folks behavior to wanting to win and get the points. But I would say to your point, that it is worth implementing and watching behavior to see what happens. Switching probelms could be easily corrected a number of ways, so perhaps it's not required to guess what the problems will be up-front, but react to what happens after.

[Martyn]

I like Lushe's idea. 
One vote from me!

[Lusche]

This is true under the current rules, but you are introducing a new dynamic with perks for winning. The purpose of which is to change folks behavior to wanting to win and get the points.

I do not see any new dynamic in this. We already have perks awarded for a won war. It's just that with the recent changes in town layouts and arena setup, the chance to actually win the war  (particularly in the peak arenas) has been greatly reduced. That's one reason why I propose an additional victory level, which is easier to achive and being awarded with much less perks than a classic victory.(Second reason is the reintroduction of regular manual map resets to prevent the game from getting stale over extended periods)