Changing player behavior is impossible. The only thing you can do is create a game that caters to as many people as possible. IMO HTC falls short of this. While the war machines are incredible along with the flight model, the game using these war machines is too simple. Take horde to base, take base, move on to next ad nauseum. All this does is stack combat on top of a base which, well, isn't combat. As result you are forced to take off from an adjacent base to defend said base. As soon as the base is captured though, all the defense is magically up, therefore defense of that captured base is not warranted, so the attackers can go elsewhere, leaving the defenders with nothing to shoot. I find it incredibly ridiculous that I find myself sitting in the tower looking at a giant horde one base over and I decide NOT to take a plane over there because I know they will have the base captured soon and all landed and gone. That is absurd.
Do I blame the attackers for this whack a mole style of game play? Honestly, not so much. They are trying to win the war in an efficient manner within the confines of the game. That's how they have fun. I don't think you can blame them for that.
Do I blame the mechanics of the game itself for the shortcomings of game play? Heck yes I do. I've posted my idea(s) in the appropriate forum how to address this issue, which is at the core of the way of the game functions. But since my ideas go upon deaf ears I see no reason to rehash them.
The strategy itself of AH needs a major overhaul and is at the core issue of all the bickering and shabby game play.
This game blossoms when similar forces are battling one another at a stalemate away from bases, bombers and tanks battle one another for a base. After a while a team wins that territory and the fight rages somewhere else. This seems to be as rare as a lunar eclipse though.
