Getting back to the original thread...
Good idea but not all good ideas are good for the game. I'm gonna "vote" nay and here's why:
1. ENY already acts as a balancer against momentum to a small degree. (Flame on) The game is also somewhat balanced in two other ways. The first is player density: When you have half the fields that another country has, you're getting a tiny "bonus" in how many players are upping per field on the front. Even significantly outnumbered, defense holds some significant advantages I won't get into here. (163s or cheap 262s anyone?) Also, there is always a third country in play. If even a few players on country C get together, they can effectively nip the rear end of country B as they attempt to steamroll the ever-consolidating country A. Hope you see where I'm going with this.
2. Should we have the game prevent a side from losing? Do we want the nanny state to extend to this sanctum of cerebral digital brutality we've come to know love and crave? Will the safety net turn into a hammock? If your idea of fun is a system which compensates for each and every inequality in numbers it would be easier to simply make the map static without capturable fields. Ingenuity and banding together in the face of poor odds is part of what makes the game good and varied one night to the next.
3. Coding difficulty. This is one of those things that could be difficult to implement and generate whines when 90% of the community just wants the Me-410 and Yak-3 to show up? (Thanks for the B-29 again
)
-Letalis
