I think (at least for me ) the issue is that 20 guys in P-51s or P-38s can kill a base and basically avoid any interceptor on the way to the base. This creates poor gameplay IMO. But whatever is done is typically just compensated by more planes.
This! And the whole horde capture (for me at least) was anti climactic. It was intense for the few of us that contested them, but it was also frustrating and almost always hopeless. And on the side of the attackers I imagine it is quite anti clamactic also. I believe even the horde wishes for a struggle, one they can survive and win ofcourse, same as everyone else. But the struggle was rare because many potential defenders don't want to bail from an existing flight or they think it is like beating your face against a wall or they don't wish to give easy kills to the horde etc etc, being vulched repeatedly (trying to get 1 chance at a vulcher or maybe even a goon) takes a very stubborn and self immolating soul
. The failure of a struggle IMHO is that defenders do not up in consistant #s to contest the base. And under the present circumstances, nor should they. Even if they did manage to bring higher #s to bear the game would stagnate terribly as captures might never happen then! Missions have the real potential to create more struggle in one mission than any "purist" could find in an entire week, IF folks could be motivated thru "risk" and "reward" to defend.
A determined horde had all the advantages with little risk and little "anti climactic" reward.
The "little risk" acts like a magnet, attracting many folks to join, kind of like a herd, most folks like to be part of something and be together, some new, some vets etc.
Little reward: they get nothing other than some "country channel" WTGs and high 5s.
The defenders have "high risk" meaning the chance of them going to the tower against such odds are almost 100%
Little reward: there is no reward for the defender other than his own personal machismo and ego as a spoiler, there is no reason for the average player to risk defending when he knows in a couple hours a horde from his country will most likely take the base back in the same "little risk, little reward" fashion.
I think there needs to be some kind of reward structure that will encourage risk. Funny thing is the reward does not have to be the same for both attack or defense. Let me splain:
Rewards for a successful capture mission could be perk points.
Conversely, reward for a successful defense is preventing the attackers from getting the perks----SPOILER!
Now we have reward or "incentive", Lets talk "risk"
Risk for the initial base attack is the same, small but now there is a possible reward.
Risk for the defense is the same, High with the same reward--spoiler. How do we get the risk down to incentivize some spoilers?
My idea (as I've said in the past) is to have basically a "dead base timer". Meaning after the attackers get their 10 troops in the base goes in to "hibernation" for a certain amount of time with an absolute minimum of 10 minutes. During this time it is unusable to any country, it will rebuild itself normally but will not be usable in any sense. Even the ack will remain dormant until one of 3 things happen.
1 - The attackers can put more troops in to shorten the timer. The absolute minimum could not be shortened, but after that each troop entered could remove say 1 minute of time. So a mission timed at 30 minutes could be shortened to the minimum with 20 extra troops inserted.
2 - The defenders can counter by getting "double the amount of troops in the maproom to offset the attackers, upon which the base would immediately revert to the original owning country.
3 - The timer times out, at which time the attacking country would own it fully functional.
I believe this idea will lower the "risk" for the defenders cause they now would have a little time on their side, and could plan a response if they so choose.
This idea also raises the "risk" for the attackers, as they now would have to defend their "potential capture" or force it with greater vigor.
I think this idea creates risk and reward for both sides and incentivizes struggle, which I believe most folks want.
Maybe the "mission generator" could be altered to allow some control over "risk/reward". IE, If I started a mission maybe i could choose the timer which would directly relate to perk reward. So I could choose say 30 minute mission for say 60 perks for all joiners.
Anyway, I'm blathering on but I think there is a way to create the "struggle" that most folks enjoy and seek.
JUGgler
