Author Topic: Stopping the two front war when there should be three fronts.  (Read 2062 times)

Offline phatzo

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3734
      • No Crying
Re: Stopping the two front war when there should be three fronts.
« Reply #15 on: February 15, 2012, 11:34:19 PM »
Did that Macchi ever come down and fight last night?
that sounds like me AFK for a beer and a smoke.
No thank you Turkish, I'm sweet enough.

Offline guncrasher

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17423
Re: Stopping the two front war when there should be three fronts.
« Reply #16 on: February 15, 2012, 11:52:34 PM »
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
you dont want me to ho, dont point your plane at me.

Offline Rob52240

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3770
      • My AH Films
Re: Stopping the two front war when there should be three fronts.
« Reply #17 on: February 16, 2012, 12:18:06 AM »
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.
If I had a gun with 3 bullets and I was locked in a room with Bin Laden, Hitler, Saddam and Zipp...  I would shoot Zipp 3 times.

Offline wil3ur

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1990
Re: Stopping the two front war when there should be three fronts.
« Reply #18 on: February 16, 2012, 12:24:56 AM »
More incorrect assumptions.

Quite right!  They don't avoid the fight... they shut it down so people are forced to join their missions.     :bolt:
"look at me I am making a derogatory remark to the OP"


Offline matt

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1136
Re: Stopping the two front war when there should be three fronts.
« Reply #19 on: February 16, 2012, 12:49:09 AM »
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

Offline phatzo

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3734
      • No Crying
Re: Stopping the two front war when there should be three fronts.
« Reply #20 on: February 16, 2012, 01:23:42 AM »
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.
No thank you Turkish, I'm sweet enough.

Offline BowHTR

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
Re: Stopping the two front war when there should be three fronts.
« Reply #21 on: February 16, 2012, 07:17:02 AM »
@ 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.
AH Supporter Since Tour 35

Offline Vinkman

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2884
Re: Stopping the two front war when there should be three fronts.
« Reply #22 on: February 16, 2012, 07:58:19 AM »
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.  :salute
Who is John Galt?

Offline Guppy35

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 20387
Re: Stopping the two front war when there should be three fronts.
« Reply #23 on: February 16, 2012, 09:40:06 AM »
@ 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.
Dan/CorkyJr
8th FS "Headhunters

Offline VonMessa

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11922
Re: Stopping the two front war when there should be three fronts.
« Reply #24 on: February 16, 2012, 09:47:16 AM »
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.

 :rofl        :rofl                  :aok
Braümeister und Schmutziger Hund von JG11


We are all here because we are not all there.

Offline 321BAR

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6140
Re: Stopping the two front war when there should be three fronts.
« Reply #25 on: February 16, 2012, 10:15:45 AM »
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 :uhoh

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. :aok
I am in need of a new epic quote
Happy Jack's Go Buggy

Offline BowHTR

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
Re: Stopping the two front war when there should be three fronts.
« Reply #26 on: February 16, 2012, 11:12:33 AM »
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.
AH Supporter Since Tour 35

Offline Guppy35

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 20387
Re: Stopping the two front war when there should be three fronts.
« Reply #27 on: February 16, 2012, 11:22:36 AM »
theres uhh... a problem with this :uhoh

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. :aok

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. :aok
Dan/CorkyJr
8th FS "Headhunters

Offline Rino

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8495
Re: Stopping the two front war when there should be three fronts.
« Reply #28 on: February 16, 2012, 11:41:48 AM »
     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  :D  He got 7 on that sortie
and 6 on the next.  After sortie 2 the fight disappeared, so I guess Shuff won that fight  :rofl  
80th FS Headhunters
PHAN
Proud veteran of the Cola Wars

Offline Delirium

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7276
Re: Stopping the two front war when there should be three fronts.
« Reply #29 on: February 16, 2012, 11:50:52 AM »
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.
Delirium
80th "Headhunters"
Retired AH Trainer (but still teach the P38 selectively)

I found an air leak in my inflatable sheep and plugged the hole! Honest!