The game play

[lunatic1]

smaller maps for lower player count times.  Numbers reevaluation at map reset ( if more people, next map larger ) and every hour ( if less then 50% players map is designed for - then reset to smaller map )...

my 2 cents.

you do know that when a map changes it kicks people off, you have to relog back to the game, or like a few people go to the WWI arena for awhile.. theres no way the game computer can know how many people are going to log back on. it could be 50 or 100 or just 30.

and how is this suppose to happen, so we get logged back in and the map is say  Bowlma and there are only 30 players, so what the computer Auto resets to a smaller map, what happens when it is a map better suited to 30 people and 60 people log back in, does it auto reset again?
it could do that all day you would never get to play.

[lunatic1]

2 country war fixes this.

Hitech already said more than once there will not be a 2 country war system

[lunatic1]

Fine, rolling plane set.

HiTech also said more than once NO R.P.S.

[lunatic1]

I agree... it works for every other war game out there, why couldn't it work here??

Naturally the numbers would even out on both sides, because in AH there isn't an advantage on one country as opposed to the other, where in other games sometimes the other side may have better equipment that will skew the numbers... Here in AH that's not so.

If the numbers don't even out, then auto balance the sides.

It couldn't hurt to test a 2 country war for an hour, a day, a week... If it doesn't work out, you can always switch it back.

Hitech already tried a 2 sided war long ago and said it wouldn't work

[lunatic1]

Have to disagree with your thoughts on good and bad game play.  Running supplies requires the opposing force to think out their strategy.  One could as part of the base taking strategy organize attacks on Troops at supporting fields and take those out alone with VH to cut off re-supply.  Unfortunately we don’t so much need to change the game play as much as we need to change the game players.  The lone wolf mind set is not very helpful, and I think it has become the prevalent mind set of the game. 
True the game has always had lone wolfs but I don’t think they were the majority of numbers on at any time.  But with the very low numbers of today.  They stand out.  Attempting to get an organized mission aloft is next to impossible,  Asking people to actually carry a bomb and attempt to attack a predetermined target is impossible.  It appears to me that team work,  loyalty, and commitment are foreign concepts to many of today’s players. 
Yesterday my wingman and I flew in the special events,  we were walk on, split up and assigned to different squads what we noticed and discussed later on at our weekly 113th Saturday night Squad night,  was the lack of a welcome, thanks for joining , wing up with so and so, here’s the plan and introduction to the full squad.  What I experienced was not good for player retention.  Even though I asked questions both on VOX and in text, I received no guidance,  was not assigned to a wingman. I was told one thing, everyone is on their own,  and during the dog fight heard very little chatter and not one check six, other than the one’s I issued.

I'm sorry travler, you must have been on Knights/Axis-the allies are a lot friendlier

I flew in that scenario for the last 3 weeks on the Allies side we are friendly and communicative

[Traveler]

Yep, looks like it, someone dropped the ball somewhere or you may have missed a room/local Vox  or text maybe.... this is not the norm though

<S>

TC

I understand and as I remember it, when my squad flew in the FSO’s  things were very different way back then.  Different time, different people and that’s kind of my point.  After an FSO had someone commented about not feeing welcome in our squad or not getting briefed on the mission.  I don’t think our first reaction would have been, “ want film for proof?”.  Like I said, different time, different people.

[lutrel]

I still have a great time when ever I find the time to log on; which has lately only been a few times a week, but still a great time.

[lunatic1]

This is why this :

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,387548.0.html

caters to every type of player.

no it don't.
and HiTech said no.

Quit it.

[Krupinski]

Hitech already tried a 2 sided war long ago and said it wouldn't work

Exactly, long ago... when numbers and fights were probably much more balanced than what you see today.

 "Long ago" has nothing in common with today's gameplay.

[Kanth]

I think the trouble with a two sided war is that if you get pinned, there is no relief.

How many folks will want to login to like 10 guys fighting on one side desperately against the 150 that joined the other side to get the perks.

Really it will ruin game play until it's reset.

[Krupinski]

I don't know why you guys think the numbers are going to be so dramatic as 1 vs 50, it simply isn't going to happen as long as both sides have the same resources....

Also, that's the beauty of AH's open world maps, if you're getting swarmed in one area, counter-attack in another.

[Kanth]

that was just me saying that.  And yes I did exaggerate, but I do feel it will be very unbalanced for a longer period of time than it is balanced, with only two sides playing.  When everyone will want to feel like they at least have a chance.

I wonder if there is an example of this working where the players can switch sides at any time.
That they self level to keep the game play alive. I'm doubtful though.

[TequilaChaser]

I understand and as I remember it, when my squad flew in the FSO’s  things were very different way back then.  Different time, different people and that’s kind of my point.  After an FSO had someone commented about not feeing welcome in our squad or not getting briefed on the mission.  I don’t think our first reaction would have been, “ want film for proof?”.  Like I said, different time, different people.

Well Traveler, I hate message boards, because just typing text, like "want film for proof?", can be misleading or misunderstood

I was offering my films for all 3 Frames of the Scenario, because I have saw the exact opposite of what I originally quoted of you posting above....

reading it as I typed it seemed fine

reading it as you typed it, is like I was snapping at you, unintentionally.... I apologize for that. At the same time I do not like to see post like that from someone who has been her since the beginning, when they know the proper place a post like that should go... Hence my Response, I'm sure you can see it my way also

<S>

TC

[nugetx]

I think the trouble with a two sided war is that if you get pinned, there is no relief.

and 3 sides is only a illusionary relief,  because the 3rd side players that would be on one of other sides, are clubbing together the other side or doing something else somewhere elsewhere while the one side still gets clubbed.

So it's better to have 2 sides, because if you are getting clubbed, you still can attack an undefended area, while with 3 sides there is a high chance you will then get attacked by 3rd horde.

[nugetx]

oops double post