Two countries

[Ack-Ack]

2 sided war isn't working for WB. 

[Vraciu]

2 sided war isn't working for WB.

And three-sided war isn't working for AH.   

We are marching the same path WBs did, just a few years later and with three sides instead of two.    Identical path.   

At least AH has effectively defeated its equivalent competiton so it has that going for it.

[Ack-Ack]

And three-sided war isn't working for AH.   

And your proof is?  Lower numbers in AH aren't a result of having 3 countries.

3 sides does work with small numbers.  For example, in AW4W (Air Warrior for Windows or later known as Air Warrior Classic) a game before your time, had arenas with a 150 limit (later increased to 200) and 3 sides didn't have a negative impact.

However, arenas with only 2 countries (Axis and Allies and Korea) did suffer with only two countries and those were to of the lowest populated arenas because the teams would be lopsided.  And as a side note, a rolling plane set also helped kill the Axis and Allies arena in AW.

[The Fugitive]

How obvious does it have to be?

See my prior question.   The answer is readily apparent in the name of the arena ALONE.

The name of the arena is Axis vs Allies, however it has been years since it was strictly "Axis vs Allies" planes. And years before that it was called CT (Combat Theater maybe?), maybe they should go back to that so it is a bit more descriptive.

Be that as it may, it has already been established that AvA arena does have 38 vs spit or any other combo you would like. So I ask again, why wouldnt it be the same as the Melee arena as a 2 sided war?

[Zoney]

Lately, the Rooks have had low numbers so the fight for me as a Knight is most likely to occur with Bish because their numbers are closer to the Knights numbers.  If there was just 2 sides, there would be absolutely no third option, the option that seems to work for me.

The Owner, Manager, Designer, and Coader of Aces High has said numerous times that 3 sides work better than 2 sides.  I'm thinking I'm going to go with his opinion rather than the opinion of a player who's vast experience is playing WarBirds and Aces High.

[The Fugitive]

Lately, the Rooks have had low numbers so the fight for me as a Knight is most likely to occur with Bish because their numbers are closer to the Knights numbers.  If there was just 2 sides, there would be absolutely no third option, the option that seems to work for me.

The Owner, Manager, Designer, and Coader of Aces High has said numerous times that 3 sides work better than 2 sides.  I'm thinking I'm going to go with his opinion rather than the opinion of a player who's vast experience is playing WarBirds and Aces High.

You should mention that "The Owner, Manager, Designer, and Coader of Aces High" also did Warbirds and left when someone started making stupid decisions.   

[CAV]

2-sided MA would expedite the demise of AH.

Maybe not... But I Liked the WW2 MA & rollin plane sets.

"The Owner, Manager, Designer, and Coader of Aces High"

His leadership has got us a MA with less than 200 players... He NO LONGER GETS A PASS in my book.

Cav

[Vraciu]

And your proof is?  Lower numbers in AH aren't a result of having 3 countries.

And YOUR proof is?  Lower numbers in WBs aren't the result of having TWO countries.

However, arenas with only 2 countries (Axis and Allies and Korea) did suffer with only two countries and those were to of the lowest populated arenas because the teams would be lopsided.  And as a side note, a rolling plane set also helped kill the Axis and Allies arena in AW.

WBs never had this problem.  People sideswitched for balance.

Here we have two vs one or stagnant fronts--or even no front at all for one country at times.  Two sides will up the clash ratio for all involved more consistently.   

AVA suffers because of its settings.   Also, people want to be free to fly any plane they want, not just Axis or Allied.   (Edit In: If this has changed then change the arena name.)

[Vraciu]

The name of the arena is Axis vs Allies, however it has been years since it was strictly "Axis vs Allies" planes. And years before that it was called CT (Combat Theater maybe?), maybe they should go back to that so it is a bit more descriptive.

Be that as it may, it has already been established that AvA arena does have 38 vs spit or any other combo you would like. So I ask again, why wouldnt it be the same as the Melee arena as a 2 sided war?

Then call it Two Team Main if it isn't an AVA.   And put the icons in.   Mimic the Main Arena.   Until then it is not equivalent.

[DH367th]

Just keep beating the dead horse do your arms not get tired?

[ROC]

And three-sided war isn't working for AH.   

We are marching the same path WBs did, just a few years later and with three sides instead of two.    Identical path.   

At least AH has effectively defeated its equivalent competiton so it has that going for it.

Hmm.  Three sided war isn't working, marching the same path as WBs did but 3 sides instead of two, so it's not working but defeated it's competition.....

So, it's working?


Two sided war always has the ability to have one side dominate.  3 sided war one side can dominate but it exposes it's flank to a 3rd party, which can capitalize on that exposure and negate any territorial gains. You can't have the game play it the way you want it played, and you cannot balance it unless you dictate side balancing, so you must have a method to allow the dominant party to have it's exposed borders attacked forcing a defense.  If the 1st countries exposed border isn't defended, the 3rd country will capture fields as fast, or faster, than the 1st country which will cause them to weaken and fall, allowing the 2nd, the once weakened country, to counter.

This condition is impossible with a 2 country side.  Just because the Players don't take advantage of this does not mean the system is a failure. 

2 sided war works in Structured Events, with objectives, focused plans, focused missions, and aggressive guidance from a dedicated command staff.  This will never occur in the Mains.  A 2 sided front allows for unrestricted domination by one side, a 3rd country removes the "unrestricted" element.  Now, arguing that 2 sides can gang up, or one side is too low number to effect change, that's subjective and player issues to solve, nothing at all that can be coded out of the game.

As for the AvA not being melee, I get what you are saying, it's an Axis Vs Allies arena compared to the open, free for all Melee arena in the Mains.  But that has nothing to do with the 2v3 side discussion.

[Vraciu]

Just keep beating the dead horse do your arms not get tired?

This is a *discussion* board.   There is no horse beating on my end.     

[Vraciu]

Hmm.  Three sided war isn't working, marching the same path as WBs did but 3 sides instead of two, so it's not working but defeated it's competition.....

So, it's working?

If you consider this working...

Some disagree.  (Reference CAV's post above.)

Two sided war always has the ability to have one side dominate.  3 sided war one side can dominate but it exposes it's flank to a 3rd party, which can capitalize on that exposure and negate any territorial gains.

The numbers oftentimes do not support that.   It ends up being boring for a lot of players because the battle is all the way across the map between the other two teams or the opposite extreme: 2 on one GB.

As for the AvA not being melee, I get what you are saying, it's an Axis Vs Allies arena compared to the open, free for all Melee arena in the Mains.

I think proper labeling would help.  I have only been in AVA once in part because of how it is labeled (my perception of the planeset there is apparently wrong).

  But that has nothing to do with the 2v3 side discussion.

I'm not the one that brought it up.   

[bustr]

The numbers oftentimes do not support that.   It ends up being boring for a lot of players because the battle is all the way across the map between the other two teams or the opposite extreme: 2 on one GB.

First, the 2 on 1 gang bang is regrettable but passes. We have all been on the receiving end and delivering end of that condition. The second condition though does create unhappy customers who might log instead of change sides to get at the fight even if the side change time was "0".

Does anyone really think Hitech will suddenly scrap the arena code and roll out a two side MA without a long term testing arena for that condition? Any of you members of a hidden testing forum for the two sided MA initiative like during the AH3 closed alpha testing period? That one went on for about 12 months, then 12 months of open alpha\beta, I was there from start to finish.

Otherwise the second condition is more important because it has happened frequently. Though I'm suspecting the change to the ndisles center island is an experiment towards alleviating the condition. Ever noticed Hitech does not make large scale overt changes out of the blue just to see if it will make anything better just for the forum complaint brigade? I doubt he can afford to jack around his customers just to make points with the forum complaint brigade.

If you use search on many of the topics you disagree with Hitech's way of doing things, you will get a good idea of what his ongoing philosophy for implementing this game is. You would answer most of your questions\complaints visa search. It will also give you an insight on how to present arguments for changes to Hitech versus picking oblique fights with him. Sadly short of his stated very expensive adult beverage "bribe", there are no insights to motivating changes in his mind faster than he has always implemented "his" changes all of these years.

[rvflyer]

2 sided war isn't working for WB.

LOL +1