Eliminate zone bases...

[Zoney]

Not just a bump, but an additional argument to my cause.
The already described paradoxial and non-combat promoting zone base effect also leads to more, very unfortunate actions.

Knights had taken a Bish zone base, which retreated far away and into Me 163 territory, thus being largely safe from bombing. Nothing new so far... but:
Some Knights jumped to Bish side and first took the Bish zone base back (moving the strats back to the front) and then captured a Knight zone base (of course unopposed), triggering Knight strat retreat. Both with the clear and obvious intention of hurting the side they are flying on as much as possible. And there is nothing any Bishop could do about


(Image removed from quote.)
(I removed the names, as this is not about the specific people, but the gameplay issue. Start your own thread if you want to 'call somebody out' and keep this one 'clean' pls.)

That's almost the same as if you could kill friendly town buildings and would switch sides to take advantage of it.
So I plead again: Please removed this flawed gameplay mechanism.

This is why we can't have nice things.

[waystin2]

Not just a bump, but an additional argument to my cause.
The already described paradoxial and non-combat promoting zone base effect also leads to more, very unfortunate actions.

Knights had taken a Bish zone base, which retreated far away and into Me 163 territory, thus being largely safe from bombing. Nothing new so far... but:
Some Knights jumped to Bish side and first took the Bish zone base back (moving the strats back to the front) and then captured a Knight zone base (of course unopposed), triggering Knight strat retreat. Both with the clear and obvious intention of hurting the side they are flying on as much as possible. And there is nothing any Bishop could do about


(Image removed from quote.)
(I removed the names, as this is not about the specific people, but the gameplay issue. Start your own thread if you want to 'call somebody out' and keep this one 'clean' pls.)

That's almost the same as if you could kill friendly town buildings and would switch sides to take advantage of it.
So I plead again: Please removed this flawed gameplay mechanism.

Losers...

[caldera]

Not just a bump, but an additional argument to my cause.
The already described paradoxial and non-combat promoting zone base effect also leads to more, very unfortunate actions.

Knights had taken a Bish zone base, which retreated far away and into Me 163 territory, thus being largely safe from bombing. Nothing new so far... but:
Some Knights jumped to Bish side and first took the Bish zone base back (moving the strats back to the front) and then captured a Knight zone base (of course unopposed), triggering Knight strat retreat. Both with the clear and obvious intention of hurting the side they are flying on as much as possible. And there is nothing any Bishop could do about


(Image removed from quote.)
(I removed the names, as this is not about the specific people, but the gameplay issue. Start your own thread if you want to 'call somebody out' and keep this one 'clean' pls.)

That's almost the same as if you could kill friendly town buildings and would switch sides to take advantage of it.
So I plead again: Please removed this flawed gameplay mechanism.

No reason to eliminate the names if they "played by the rules" as they claimed.  Total dbaggery (that they gloated over) and they should get a complimentary week off from the game. 
Kind of like when people would switch sides to get CVs intentionally sunk.  If the Nits hadn't steamrolled deep into Bishie territory, they wouldn't have screwed themselves in the first place.

I don't care who wins the war or who has the most bases, but object to allowing blatant griefing like this.
Nothing wrong with switching sides (except that it takes a 12 hour commitment) but switchers who switch only to grief (and brag to everyone about it) should be given a time out.

If HTC sees nothing wrong with their behavior, then no reason not to bring light to it.  They were quite proud of themselves, after all.

[Lusche]

No reason to eliminate the names if they "played by the rules" as they claimed. 

It detracts from the original point of this thread, which is about this paradoxical mechanism that triggers this actions in the first place. A critically important base that side A doesn't want to take and side B doesn't want to defend - that's where all the problems start, the actions described above are just the tip of the iceberg.

[RotBaron]

Agreed, the zone system is annoying.

But switching sides to take zones back or to acquire other teams zones is wrong? Maybe it's good for the game, maybe it's their way of playing, maybe they are tired of Knights getting horded by real estate moguls, tired of losing every 99/100 maps, tired of endlessly logging on to find there is no fight because the other sides have 30% of their bases,  I wonder how many unearned perks are generated on the other sides, maybe they're tired of that, no? To each all the tools they are provided with. How is this any different than a guy who was just fighting next to me, then he shows up 5 mins later (with a recon advantage too) on the other side.?

It's actually rather funny what happened. It should happen more often. It did exactly what they intended it to do, you see that correct? Isn't it all about whizzin in your/their Wheaties?

[Lusche]

Isn't it all about whizzin in your/their Wheaties?

It's about whizzin in the red guys Wheaties. Combat game, you know. Not whizzing your own team (and yes, if you go Bish, that's your team), not avoiding combat "Don't take it! "Don't defend it!". Red guys attacking my base - I can defend against that, I can fight. Combat.
Red guys becoming green to HURT yours, while you can not fight them is pathetic.
A gameplay mechanism in a combat game which doesn't create battles but prevents them (you don't actually FIGHT over zone bases) is a fail.

[drmoo]

at least i started a post snail resonped 2 means i have a point

[icepac]

So they switched sides and that's all they accomplished?

If I ever went as far as to switch sides to influence strats to move, you can be sure I will make sure a CV is parked right next to where they end up moving or that 10 tanks are waiting for the strats to come to them.

[guncrasher]

It's about whizzin in the red guys Wheaties. Combat game, you know. Not whizzing your own team (and yes, if you go Bish, that's your team), not avoiding combat "Don't take it! "Don't defend it!". Red guys attacking my base - I can defend against that, I can fight. Combat.
Red guys becoming green to HURT yours, while you can not fight them is pathetic.
A gameplay mechanism in a combat game which doesn't create battles but prevents them (you don't actually FIGHT over zone bases) is a fail.

lusche, please explain again what was done wrong and which rule was violated?  was it dweebish?  you bet.  but not anymore than hiding cv's, or pushing to get close to the strats just to milk run it.

sometimes to help your country you switch and be just as dweebish as the other team.


semp

[Wiley]

lusche, please explain again what was done wrong and which rule was violated?  was it dweebish?  you bet.  but not anymore than hiding cv's, or pushing to get close to the strats just to milk run it.

sometimes to help your country you switch and be just as dweebish as the other team.


semp

So by the same logic you'd be totally cool with people switching sides and intentionally trying to get you to killshoot yourself off them as you were dogfighting one of their buddies.   

100% agree with the Snail, zone bases are bad for the game.

Wiley.

[icepac]

Leave them at the back........I hit them more often when they are retreated anyway and there's usually mountains between the nearby bases and the strats which often complicates resupplying the strats.

If you want your strats to stay up, defend them.

[LCADolby]

I still prefer the old strat/ZB system.

[caldera]

I still prefer the old strat/ZB system.

How about a combination of old and new?  Four strat complexes the size of the current single, only each one comprised of four of the same factory type and having them all close to the front.  Bigger and more numerous targets, far away from the Me163 base, which should be reserved for HQ defense only.  Add in a frequently changing wind layer over 25k to discourage milk running, 300+ mph B-17s at 35k.

And trains, rail yards and merchant ship convoys, while your at it HTC.  Get a move on, then. 

[XxDaSTaRxx]

I personally am at a half/half standpoint for this. Pros: Zone bases help a country to regenerate strats if they have been hit.... The whole point of zone bases is to protect strats when they are most vulnerable. Without zone bases strats would be too open to attack. What if they [the enemy] takes a base only a few sectors away? Heavy fighters and bombers will ruin the strats. That would require a lot of the team to go into defensive mode and up to defend strats, leaving us open to attack elsewhere on the battlefield. Cons: Yeah, they do prevent combat. Yes, they can be abused to keep strats from raids.

Pros I can think of: 3

Cons I can think of: 2

60% for zone bases, 40% against  

[Wiley]

I personally am at a half/half standpoint for this. Pros: Zone bases help a country to regenerate strats if they have been hit.... The whole point of zone bases is to protect strats when they are most vulnerable.

Which is completely negated if the zone base is not taken.

Without zone bases strats would be too open to attack. What if they [the enemy] takes a base only a few sectors away? Heavy fighters and bombers will ruin the strats.

Happens now as long as they don't take the zone base.

That would require a lot of the team to go into defensive mode and up to defend strats, leaving us open to attack elsewhere on the battlefield. Cons: Yeah, they do prevent combat. Yes, they can be abused to keep strats from raids.

Pros I can think of: 3

Cons I can think of: 2

75% for zone bases, 25% against  

Er... 60/40, technically. 

Wiley.