Stopping the two front war when there should be three fronts.

[phatzo]

Did that Macchi ever come down and fight last night?

that sounds like me AFK for a beer and a smoke.

[guncrasher]

Tell me Guppy isn't drinking the "attackers must be responsible for the defense as well" Kool-Aid

You guys know what a sector counter is don't you?

no my point is why should your beloved leader and you come here complaining about numbers, while you guys do everything to avoid a fight.  there's more than enough airplanes from high eny to low eny that will bomb any undefended base the way you guys like it.  it looks like hypocrisy to me.


semp

[Rob52240]

no my point is why should your beloved leader and you come here complaining about numbers, while you guys do everything to avoid a fight.  there's more than enough airplanes from high eny to low eny that will bomb any undefended base the way you guys like it.  it looks like hypocrisy to me.


semp

More incorrect assumptions.

[wil3ur]

More incorrect assumptions.

Quite right!  They don't avoid the fight... they shut it down so people are forced to join their missions.     

[matt]

It's becoming more and more common to see one nation having to compete against three.

Historically speaking, ENY has been the standard regulator of high end tools available to a given country or countries that outnumber another. When numbers are below one hundred on all sides ENY seems to work just fine. But when all sides are well over one hundred ENY starts to put the blinders on, especially when it concerns where the fighting is actually happening.

For example, let's say that Nation A might have 210 players on. Nation B has 184 and Nation C has 140. These numbers are very realistic lately and yet this will trigger an ENY of below 10, for sure, and maybe even below 5. Now, this might be sustainable, at least concerning balance, provided that all three nations are engaged with one another. But this is not always the case.

The Trinity map is notorious for two front fighting for several reasons that are obvious. For this discussion, there's no reason that Nation C should be fighting A and B with such few numbers. Nation C's 140 people end up roughly 70 players per front while taking on Nation A's 210 and Nation B's 184. This equals a 3-1 advantaqe for the most populated side which is probably still upping 262's and any other high end aircraft. Better than a 2-1 advantage exists for Nation B and these numbers or circumstances really don't fall into any definition of balance that I've ever heard of.

Some serious thought needs to go into fixing this kind of periodic lopsidedness that's pretty common, especially during the peak times of roughly 7p to 11p CT and pretty much all weekend long.

Could the sensitivity of ENY not be modified in order to address high populations better than right now? Presently it's essentially non-existent. I'm no fan of ENY in general but imbalanced three nation battle probably requires.

Better yet, a front based ENY would be the better solution. In other words, if one nation wants to dog pile another then they'll have to do it in early war aircraft. In this case, simply attacking the other enemy who's numbers compare to yours puts you back in the tools you want.

The latter seems like a stretch but the former seems the easiest. Nonetheless, circumstances like the photos included need to stop. There's just no reason for it. No nation should be fighting more than two-thirds of the population.

dalllas71

     

4 fronts

[phatzo]

4 fronts

I don't know if you ever played warbirds with four teams but that was ultimate crappy and as has been mentioned before, no one would want to be Queens.

[BowHTR]

@ semp and Guppy:

If we attack defended bases, people complain that we are killing a good fight.
If we attack undefended bases, people complain that we are scared to fight.

We have sector counters which serve as you warning that we are going to a base. Wether it is defended or not, we don't care. The other country should notice the counter and up to defend. Its not our fault that they don't.

A lot of times we switch fronts because we start getting attacked from the other front. Therefore we go to defend that front. Its not running from the fight, its going to defend a base from getting taken.

All in all, quit your whining about how we play. If we take undefended bases, its cause you failed to defend them. Our squad NEVER plans NOE missions therefore you should always see us coming. The only time you will see a few of us NOE is when a few of our guys join the spur of the moment, unplanned chewie missions.

[Vinkman]

It's becoming more and more common to see one nation having to compete against three.

Historically speaking, ENY has been the standard regulator of high end tools available to a given country or countries that outnumber another. When numbers are below one hundred on all sides ENY seems to work just fine. But when all sides are well over one hundred ENY starts to put the blinders on, especially when it concerns where the fighting is actually happening.

For example, let's say that Nation A might have 210 players on. Nation B has 184 and Nation C has 140. These numbers are very realistic lately and yet this will trigger an ENY of below 10, for sure, and maybe even below 5. Now, this might be sustainable, at least concerning balance, provided that all three nations are engaged with one another. But this is not always the case.

The Trinity map is notorious for two front fighting for several reasons that are obvious. For this discussion, there's no reason that Nation C should be fighting A and B with such few numbers. Nation C's 140 people end up roughly 70 players per front while taking on Nation A's 210 and Nation B's 184. This equals a 3-1 advantaqe for the most populated side which is probably still upping 262's and any other high end aircraft. Better than a 2-1 advantage exists for Nation B and these numbers or circumstances really don't fall into any definition of balance that I've ever heard of.

.....dalllas71
   

My question is why do you want to prolong a war? Why have ENY at all. No individual likes being throttled by ENY. It's been stated a ba-jillion times on the boards.

Prolonging a lopsided war, on a crappy map that no one likes, by forcing players into planes they don't want to fly is a tripple fail.

There's a saying in Michigan. "If you don't like the weather, just wait a minute."

Same goes for the AH MA. It won't always be an even fight. But that doesn't require a software solution that forces an even outcome. 

[Guppy35]

@ semp and Guppy:

If we attack defended bases, people complain that we are killing a good fight.
If we attack undefended bases, people complain that we are scared to fight.

We have sector counters which serve as you warning that we are going to a base. Wether it is defended or not, we don't care. The other country should notice the counter and up to defend. Its not our fault that they don't.

A lot of times we switch fronts because we start getting attacked from the other front. Therefore we go to defend that front. Its not running from the fight, its going to defend a base from getting taken.

All in all, quit your whining about how we play. If we take undefended bases, its cause you failed to defend them. Our squad NEVER plans NOE missions therefore you should always see us coming. The only time you will see a few of us NOE is when a few of our guys join the spur of the moment, unplanned chewie missions.

And I still haven't gotten an answer, just an evasion excuse.

OK let me ask it clearly.

You've proven you can take an undefended base a thousand times.  What's the thrill?  Why in a game where you have the advantage of being able to fly against other people, would you prefer to attack where they aren't?
I'm trying to imagine Eisenhower saying to the troops before D-Day.  The Germans are in France so we are going to attack Spain and hope they notice and come over to Spain eventually.

[VonMessa]

And I still haven't gotten an answer, just an evasion excuse.

OK let me ask it clearly.

You've proven you can take an undefended base a thousand times.  What's the thrill?  Why in a game where you have the advantage of being able to fly against other people, would you prefer to attack where they aren't?
I'm trying to imagine Eisenhower saying to the troops before D-Day.  The Germans are in France so we are going to attack Spain and hope they notice and come over to Spain eventually.

                          

[321BAR]

I'm trying to imagine Eisenhower saying to the troops before D-Day.  The Germans are in France so we are going to attack Spain and hope they notice and come over to Spain eventually.

theres uhh... a problem with this

Calais was meant to pull away most of the enemy from normandy... and it kinda worked. Normandy was the weakest place in the german defense and best place to gain foothold.

2: some of the Devils Pilots like to fight. some...

3: why does it matter? they play their way we play ours.

[BowHTR]

And I still haven't gotten an answer, just an evasion excuse.

OK let me ask it clearly.

You've proven you can take an undefended base a thousand times.  What's the thrill?  Why in a game where you have the advantage of being able to fly against other people, would you prefer to attack where they aren't?
I'm trying to imagine Eisenhower saying to the troops before D-Day.  The Germans are in France so we are going to attack Spain and hope they notice and come over to Spain eventually.

why does it matter what the thrill is? why does it matter what kind of base we take? Why does it matter if it is defended? Either way we get judged for how we enjoy playing the game.

[Guppy35]

theres uhh... a problem with this

Calais was meant to pull away most of the enemy from normandy... and it kinda worked. Normandy was the weakest place in the german defense and best place to gain foothold.

2: some of the Devils Pilots like to fight. some...

3: why does it matter? they play their way we play ours.

In our case there is no risk of really dying outside of wife ack or heart attack from sitting too long.  Tell the guys on Omaha that Normandy was weak.

In the end it is their dime, so how they play is up to them. I am just trying to understand it.

[Rino]

     A couple of nights ago there was a pretty good GV fight going on up in the mountains.  It was one of those fields where you had
 to climb to 15K to even get to it.  The bad guys <think it was Bish> were running nuisance raiders to try to kill the radar and
supplies.
     Three knights were airborne when a P-47 vHorde tried to kill the fight from the south.  At least a dozen or so came over in the
first wave.  I think one actually made more than one pass.  Shuffler killed over half of them by himself    He got 7 on that sortie
and 6 on the next.  After sortie 2 the fight disappeared, so I guess Shuff won that fight    

[Delirium]

All in all, quit your whining about how we play. If we take undefended bases, its cause you failed to defend them. Our squad NEVER plans NOE missions therefore you should always see us coming. The only time you will see a few of us NOE is when a few of our guys join the spur of the moment, unplanned chewie missions.

If you guys fought in the skies of Aces High half as much as you do on the forums (or via PM in vDallas's case), the game would be better off.

Play however you want, it is your time and money each month spent in a game. However, in doing so it will continue to propagate the notion your entire squad is a bunch of nancy lemmings.