two sides

[Lazerr]

Or how about the Muppets vs everybody else!  With the lineup the Muppets have it would probably be a balanced fight

 

[Swoop]

Well last night Rooks were watching grass grow as there was NO action.  

Thats funny cos when I logged in last night there were 70 rooks, 45 bish and 45 knights and rooks were steam rolling over bishland.....until they got ENY limited to 10 PP and us bish were able to fight the hoard off and push back.  

[LCADolby]

Swoop, what you mean is; the Rook horde died off so the Bish horde took over.

And the knights were to busy getting it on with women to care about real estate capture. 

[Bruv119]

pffft it's always swings and roundabouts. 

One minute your being the horde the next horded.

It doesn't really bother me because if there isn't a fight I usually go start one.   The only time I want to swap is when the map is really cheesy and the teams on the other side of the map are having all the fun/action.

[CAV]

Imagine all the "good players or experienced, anti horde" ones on one side and all the lesser experienced, new and base takers on the other.

This was done back in the days of Air Warrior for some event..... Furballer vs. Base Takers.

The win the wars types bombed the furballers  off the map. The thing is "win the war types" don't care about killing planes, they think about  taking away your ability to fly them.

CAVALRY

[JimmyD3]

This was done back in the days of Air Warrior for some event..... Furballer vs. Base Takers.

The win the wars types bombed the furballers  off the map. The thing is "win the war types" don't care about killing planes, they think about  taking away your ability to fly them.

CAVALRY

And that gentlemen is the best explanation I've seen!   Cav!!!

[Mister Fork]

I think a two sided war is a great idea.  Having a single foe could allow a better focus of efforts.

[Stampf]

I think a two sided war is a great idea.  Having a single foe could allow a better focus of efforts.

Amen.  Give it try for a month.

[wpeters]

Amen.  Give it try for a month.

-1

[Chilli]

This was done back in the days of Air Warrior for some event..... Furballer vs. Base Takers.

The win the wars types bombed the furballers  off the map. The thing is "win the war types" don't care about killing planes, they think about  taking away your ability to fly them.

CAVALRY

I don't see any difference in what is going on now (remove the labels and insert any of a number).  The action for a third side at times is non existent, either resulting in dissatisfied customers, or very patient customers. 

Remember the decision to go away from the split arenas (thank goodness for that)?  There is a similar situation brought about by possibly numbers not supporting the amount of freedom each map allows for 3 countries 24 hours a day.

I think a two sided war is a great idea.  Having a single foe could allow a better focus of efforts.

We have the ability to stop and save a win the war status.  We have a number of maps available for Special Events, Axis versus Allies, and others deemed "too small" for Main Arena action. 

Why not:

• Choose an off peak time (one that would take up only a very few hours during the worst of the low #s time period).
• Shut down Late War arena and save current war status (mid war and early war not affected).
• Run a newly designed Axis and Allies arena (two sided but totally MA style minus the ability to fly "any" ride).
• Initiate one of a number of current "special arena maps" that have never seen in the MA.
  
• <<<Suspend all side changing rules >>>

  How many wishes  granted at one time?   All one has to do is stay up long enough, or get up extra early to participate    Otherwise the time frame is so small, none of the main group of players would notice the change at all.

[Tinkles]

I think having two sides instead of three would be detrimental to the game. If any of you guys have played any of the 'modern' FPS games like call of duty, then you know what I'm talking about.  Players would switch sides, so a normal 10 v 10 would be a lopsided 15 v 5 or worse.  Having the third side there is the 'imperfect equalizer'. I think my old idea of limiting the bases you can take off from at later hours would potentially be easier than changing the sides from three to two at later hours.

Had to so some searching but here is the link.

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,354404.0.html

I think your idea chilli was a good one too.

 

[Chilli]

I think having two sides instead of three would be detrimental to the game. If any of you guys have played any of the 'modern' FPS games like call of duty, then you know what I'm talking about.  Players would switch sides, so a normal 10 v 10 would be a lopsided 15 v 5 or worse.  Having the third side there is the 'imperfect equalizer'. I think my old idea of limiting the bases you can take off from at later hours would potentially be easier than changing the sides from three to two at later hours.

Had to so some searching but here is the link.

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,354404.0.html

I think your idea chilli was a good one too.

 

•Choose an off peak time (one that would take up only a very few hours during the worst of the low #s time period).
•Shut down Late War arena and save current war status (mid war and early war not affected).
•Run a newly designed Axis and Allies arena (two sided but totally MA style minus the ability to fly "any" ride).
•Initiate one of a number of current "special arena maps" that have never seen in the MA.
•<<<Suspend all side changing rules >>>
•<<<Added Fixed>>>  Break the Perk system, either no perks awarded for lopsided advantage or none at all (as well as toss ENY).

[Swoop]

Swoop, what you mean is; the Rook horde died off so the Bish horde took over.

Nope.  I mean the rooks were ENY limited. 

[shoresroad]

I think a two sided war is a great idea.  Having a single foe could allow a better focus of efforts.

+1