How to fix the zero fight country???

[Zimme83]

WRONG! On all points Zimmie.  Let's start with a hint of whine from you that strats can no longer be flattened by a single person.  Add the most insane thing repeated numerous times over and over with no facts to back it up:  zero defense of strats..... a flat out red heron (in reality meaning that the single bomber pilot didn't feel he got enough attention as he pounded his chest).

So wrong about team effort in bombing strats.  That is a solitary endeavor without any concern for either country, only points and bragging rights.

The arguement that strats should be easy to flatten and stay flat so that towns stay down for capture, is SO the exclamation point of what is wrong with retaining combat players. With that argument why not start towns with 180 minute downtimes?  Capiche? In any case, running a ton of supplies to a town to avoid capture DOES ZERO to create AIR COMBAT.

Lol, if there is anyone that is wrong its you. I, unlike what you is assuming, dont like the way it was in AH2 were a set of B-17:s could wipe out 70% of a factory. I want to see that all strats are concentrated at the city like it was and that the city is located at the center of the country. Having the strats at the front line is not a good idea.

I do think that killing the strats should be an important part in order to take bases. If you dont kill the strats then you have to accept that the towns are easily resupplied. But adding even 30 min to the DT by killing the strats makes a big difference.  At that point people usually stop their efforts to resup the town.

[JunkyII]

Lol, if there is anyone that is wrong its you. I, unlike what you is assuming, dont like the way it was in AH2 were a set of B-17:s could wipe out 70% of a factory. I want to see that all strats are concentrated at the city like it was and that the city is located at the center of the country. Having the strats at the front line is not a good idea.

I do think that killing the strats should be an important part in order to take bases. If you dont kill the strats then you have to accept that the towns are easily resupplied. But adding even 30 min to the DT by killing the strats makes a big difference.  At that point people usually stop their efforts to resup the town.

The bolded part leads to lack of combat

[Zimme83]

No. It leads to a less one dimensional game. -  Lack of players leads to lack of combat...

[DmonSlyr]

I don't think the towns should be easily supplied. It should cost a great deal of perkies to repair certain structures more quickly. Furthermore, shouldn't you have to repair the strats before repairing the bases? There is a correlation of strats going down to make the natural repair longer, so shouldn't the repair of the strats allow for the rebuilding of bases more quickly or at a less perk value?  If the strats are down, the cost/perks to fix them should be much higher. This will encourage more emphasis on defending strats and bases. Maybe you would see more combat action this way by pushing the emphasis on defending these strong points, instead of so many racing to easily rebuild the town. 

Strats, tanking, and repairing really aren't my strong suit. This is the boring part of the game to me, but I'm not knocking how anyone wants to play. I'm sure my opinion is the same as many other fighter guys who have actually left. I choose to stay cause I still love the game. I just want more fighter action to be present and to be focused on, because that is truely what will bring more players to the game. New players need and crave quick fun action, and I think focusing on the fighter action again will yield the results we've all been looking for.

[caldera]

Stuff like this seems to happen a lot:



One team steamrolling another side, while ignoring the third side.


Since the win teh warz requirements mandate acquiring 20% of each country's territory, a minor addition to prevent large imbalances could be applied:  Disable base captures against any country that has lost 10% more than the third country. 

Sorry for that explanation.   I'll try again:

Suppose bish have 10% nits and 0% rooks.  They must first capture a rook base before capturing an additional nit base, to keep from having more than a 10% imbalance.  That would prevent the kind of thing I saw this weekend: one country had over 50% of another country, yet was nowhere close to winning.  It's always more about steamrolling.

[scott66]

Town resupply has been an issue since before numbers were low...2012??? Yea game was falling off but we could still see 400+ in the MA.
Yes I thought the strats themselves were fine (didn't understand the change in their down time honestly). Im saying towns need to be harder to resupply because it's a fact it's easier to resupply a town then to take one down....and not just a bit harder the spread is enormous...a nerf to timing is all it is.

actually I think I agree back to 30 min on strats and maybe 5 min on town?

[JunkyII]

No. It leads to a less one dimensional game. -  Lack of players leads to lack of combat...

Why did the players leave??? Not saying they all left to a lack of combat but I know a lot personally that left because of it.

[Shuffler]

Stuff like this seems to happen a lot:



One team steamrolling another side, while ignoring the third side.


Since the win teh warz requirements mandate acquiring 20% of each country's territory, a minor addition to prevent large imbalances could be applied:  Disable base captures against any country that has lost 10% more than the third country. 

Sorry for that explanation.   I'll try again:

Suppose bish have 10% nits and 0% rooks.  They must first capture a rook base before capturing an additional nit base, to keep from having more than a 10% imbalance.  That would prevent the kind of thing I saw this weekend: one country had over 50% of another country, yet was nowhere close to winning.  It's always more about steamrolling.

If I see that developing I change to a fighting side with the least numbers. If you do not like to fight then switch to knights in that case.

[JunkyII]

Oh and leave the one dimensional comments at the door...makes you look like a clown like icepac...

Speaking of which icepac I thought you agreed to stop coming at me like that after our DA fight in TU2s??? Guess I got to keep beating you up for knowing nothing.

[SirNuke]

one dimensional? The only dimension right now is to run supps to the town if anything happens. Back In the day we had to fly fighters in order to protect town until the white flag was off. we had big fights with the attackers throwing every jabo they have to capture the field. Nowadays it feels like that hiting a field with 2K + 6 rockets is totally useless. It is also useless to fly defense when M3's can neteur any attack so easily.

I feared that AHIII would be only graphics, no gameplay additions (woot directional radar!!!), and I was right

the AH1 ruleset was better adapted for the kind of numbers we have. Screw ever buggy formations, screw 88's, screw large towns, screw town ressups, screw large maps.

[popeye]

How about making three close fields - like the center island of NDISLES - uncapturable (and give them unkillable hangars and radar).  Those that want quick fights can stay there and ignore the hordes capturing fields around them, but still be aware of the "war" in case they decide to join the effort.

[JunkyII]

one dimensional? The only dimension right now is to run supps to the town if anything happens. Back In the day we had to fly fighters in order to protect town until the white flag was off. we had big fights with the attackers throwing every jabo they have to capture the field. Nowadays it feels like that hiting a field with 2K + 6 rockets is totally useless. It is also useless to fly defense when M3's can neteur any attack so easily.

I feared that AHIII would be only graphics, no gameplay additions (woot directional radar!!!), and I was right

the AH1 ruleset was better adapted for the kind of numbers we have. Screw ever buggy formations, screw 88's, screw large towns, screw town ressups, screw large maps.

I tend to agree that it is heavily favoring the war instead of the combat for who wins the war.