You could always wish list that they be limited to being the un-capturable fields near the HQ.
The river and village attached to the airfield would make a good town2 object offering like we have three GV base type objects. The question you should ask about frame rates is: if the airfield was a separate object, would players have the same FPS hit flying around in it's ack?
How many of you have similar FPS hits flying in the ack while furballing low over strats? Your FPS hits may be due to a density of building objects coupled with a density of ack.
If a greater number of the super large airfield were placed on terrains forcing them to be needed to win the war, that fact would force players to discover the quickest way to capture them. Just like we have become experts at the 1x1 mile town object attached to the normal three airfields. As of now, the super large airfields on maps are an irritating curiosity to be avoided as capture targets if possible.
So this post may be more important as a player feedback from real MA combat testing to the effectiveness of a new base object for creating combat and fun. It appears unless forced to capture it, the base requires more effort than the average players are willing to expend to over come it's size and complexity. The few times I've been in fights over one, it is extremely chaotic on either side of the fight and very few players have any clue what other players are trying to describe in terms of the local terrain. Even though there is a bridge just back of the map room for an M3 to sneak in if the attackers had enough experience attacking and suppressing the setup.
It would have been perfect for the days when NOE hoards ruled the arena to have a large scale conflict against a field that could hold it's own against a hoard. It is like one of the normal large airfields was placed on a strat along with a map room.
