wow!
I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but this thread (and all identical threads throughout the years) amazes me. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Although I suppose it's kind of a comfort to know the playerbase is still griping about the same crap as 2000, as 2001, 2, 3 etc... makes me feel all warm and fuzzy that I can hop back in after a huge hiatus and find things still in the same general order.
As for those of you with complaints regarding how others fly (hordes, maps, timid fighters, etc)... get over it. They have always been and they will always be... so shut up and fly. 
Yes they have ALWAYS been here, but they are much more numerous now. In the old days you could get 2,3, 4 flights in a row with nothing but good fun fights, then get a HOer, or runner. Today it is the opposite. 3,4,5 flights in a row you get HOed, or ganged, or stuck chasing a runners, then the next flight you get a fun fight with someone. It's kinda like golf now, you get that one got fight/shot that makes you come back again, and again.
That's why you see threads like this just get fluffed off.... oh, that again. The issue is it is getting much more noticeable. Old days we would have a bunch of squads get together and plan a bunch of missions and try to run the map... RSO's maybe
don't remember what they were called, but basically it was a horde more often than not. They would invite the other teams to try and stop them. Today the Bish horde runs from mid afternoon ET to around supper, then the ROOK horde takes over as the Bish have to log for bed. Knits get there horde running now and then as well, but the Bish and Rook ones you can almost set your clock to.
The same goes for the HOs and gangs. Old days many would stay out of a 3 on 1, now you have an extra 5 joining in to make it 8 on 1. Sure we had all this stuff in the old days, just not so much of it.
Since you raised the issue... and I might be qualified to make a comment...
Six to ten people would be completely unworkable. It's hard enough to find two people who agree on game-play issues and after all, that's the first thing isn't it. Three might work, two is more likely, but if anyone bails, then the original project concept dies. If I were to pick, then the perfect team would be two people. It would include an artist to create textures for both water and land, and to paint the terrain with those textures. The art work is as important as the layout of the terrain and it's the only customizing allowed in MA terrains. Partner number two would be responsible for the elevations, placing the bases and all the mundane issues in building the terrain. That would be a pretty equal division of labor, but agreement on game-play would be the most likely thing to destroy the partnership, so that would be their first hurdle.
I would think more along the lines of a team. One coach (creative genius) in charge and the rest of the team that does what it's told, no creative input any place. One leader everyone else just put in the hours needed to put it together. If it works out the next map is lead by a different creative genius and the rest of the workers just do what they are told. Kind of like an assembly line for map making. Personally I would know how to "design" a map to make it a good playing map, but I can paint a bit, and maybe learn how to build elevations. Not sure if it's possible but say have 4 guys each take a quarter of a map and build the elevations for it. The one guy copy and pastes all the pieces together to make the one big map.
