Destroy each and every object on capture

[ccvi]

Wish: When a field is captured, destroy all objects, and reset the downtime of already destroyed objects to maximum. As an exception, ack is rebuilt on capture as it is today.

Why?

Human nature likes easy targets. This frequently causes two countries to fight the third. There's no bad intentions involved, its the simple fact that attacking a less defended target is easier. Once that mode is reached, it doesn't end easily. It requires a significant shift in numbers, long distances to the next field, no further fields to capture, or similar. Alternatively, massive porking efforts by the country being attacked.

Full destruction on capture adds an inconvenience to a continued push in a single direction. It suggests switching targets more frequently, and by that helps to reduce the duration of 2-on-1 situations.

[icepac]

That left behind M3 or C47

[ONTOS]

-1

[AKKuya]

+100000000000

Means more bombers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[pembquist]

I still want to see what happens to the realestate game if you just make object destruction permanent till map change with the exception of the hangers. It would be interesting to see if the velocity increased or if misery would cause mass logoff.

[Zoney]

ccvi

Your suggestion might lead to more jumping around.  If the captured field cannot be used then the capturing force would jump across the map to a different area.  So the fight that was in the specific area would simply disappear.

-1

[Zoney]

I still want to see what happens to the realestate game if you just make object destruction permanent till map change with the exception of the hangers. It would be interesting to see if the velocity increased or if misery would cause mass logoff.

I don't think CCVI said "permanent until the map change".  He said the maximum time allowable.

[Arlo]

As long as a base is connected to supply lines, it should rebuild. What I'd like to see are bases cut off from supply with no occupation (no players currently based there) go gray (neutral).

[ccvi]

Your suggestion might lead to more jumping around.  If the captured field cannot be used then the capturing force would jump across the map to a different area.  So the fight that was in the specific area would simply disappear.

That's the intended purpose. Currently, once two countries are in fight-the-third mode, that unfortunate mode continues for quite a while. Destruction of fields encourages switching, breaking that mode.

No permanent destruction - normal rebuild rules (of the country that captures the field) still apply.

Neutral fields sound like an interesting idea, too. However, since they would still require activity from the attacking party, the temporary neutral state wouldn't encourage switching to another area.

[bustr]

Or, you build the terrains differently like I do now and shorten airfield distances to the minimum of 19 miles to get everyone at each other faster.

Most of the problems with our current small numbers MA comes from airfields setup at distances for larger average population numbers like we had 10 years ago. Most of our current terrains are converted anachronisms from that age with airfields spaced to slow down hoards. Effectively creating dead areas between two airfields of 38-50 miles to find a fight will make people loose interest in playing the game. That is the worst anachronism of the last AH era to slow down hoards by placing airfields at 1.5 - 2 sectors apart. You don't see those terrains in rotation anymore setup with a large number of feilds in that spacing.

So far two MA terrains experimenting with airfield placement distances over the last year says the current community in general no longer sees flying half the night to a fight as a virtue. And the more barriers you place in their way to getting at a fight, the less interested they are in fighting or playing this game.

This request would work in the AvA in a two sided war scenario which most ideas like this come from two sided war games. AH is a three country Melee arena at it's heart with each field a micro war. If you can organize a group to agree with your ideas, you can express large scale war strategies across a front against one country to capture 20% of it's feilds. Most of the stalled fight problems are due to a lack of organization to express coordinated force like the large squads did 10 years ago. Using the force of game functions to force the community to play your way when the community is not asking Hitech for such a thing will not keep subscriptions. Over 15 years Hitech has been wished similar wishes like this and not implemented them.

Right now the MA is doing good to keep players interested in fighting even if all three countries are very disorganized most of the time. 10 years ago with a maximum of organization and missions going all the time, this idea would have had merit to slow down hoards and Hitech had variations of this theme wished for. Evolving the current generation of new terrains to reflect the current generation of players will get you better results in terms of overall community activity.

Why don't you gents build your utopias and let the MA community decide instead of playing the tell Hitech to wave his magic wand lottery? I can see a few ways to achieve this outcome but it will be one very boring terrain for today's generation of players. From observing how my terrains and the rest in rotation are utilized by the MA community over this last year, the current generation in the MA just wants to get at something to shoot in the shortest amount of time. Eventually they will get back to strategy, until then, they will not respond well to being forced to play any other way. When missions become popular again will be a key indicator the community has moved on from instant action.

Right now, why use a mission to steal a field when a single M3 can put an end to it with a button press and 65ft makes everyone in the mission sitting ducks if they aren't perfect for 1-2 sectors? This kind of a game function will require the same dedication to an organized initiative as do missions.