Originally posted by Vortex
CT can be fun...and it can't be too. But for the most part its the same thing as MA just on a much smaller scale, and with slightly different parameters. The furballers will furball, and the strategists will make and run missions. The surroundings are of course a lot different. Everyone invariably falls back to the play style they're happy with though, just as in MA. It can be a nice change of pace though.
...and as I like to remind folks, everyone is paying the same pennies for this game, so let em fly it in a manner they like. Ask ten people how the game should be played, and you'll get 10 different answers. Best bet imo is hook up with a group or squad that play and think similar to you. That way you've at least got a center point from which to work.
Cause there's no point trying to teach a pig to sing. You're wasting your time, and you'll just annoy the pig.
I understand your points. However, therein is the frustration. I've been wargaming since 1967. During my military service, I took great pride in waxing War College grads simply because of a greater depth of understanding of the relationship between goals and methodology. What I see here is a dogpack mentality, with no greater comprehension of methodology than the dogs display. No, I don't expect a change as long as players prefer to be drones.
The fact remains, however, that even with the limited resources available, it is not a major challenge to defeat a disorganized enemy. I could write a volume on what's wrong and how to fix it. I could write a detailed methodology describing exactly how this can be accomplished. Yet, I have no motivation to do so. simply because it would largely fall upon deaf ears. I also realize that this situation bothers me because I'm the type who would want to create organization where chaos exists. That may not be possible, but it can be managed. Here's my solution:
Attrition. Currently, there is no attrition whatsoever. Someone gets shot down and they return minutes later in the same aircraft. This puts the numerically smaller force at a serious disadvantage. So, what can be done about that?
Simple, really. If you get shot down, you cannot return with the same aircraft for that calendar day. You must select a different aircraft. Get whacked ten times in high performance aircraft, and you will find yourself choosing from what remains. This will quickly limit the amount of "uber" fighters in the main arena. It will also motivate individuals as well as whole forces, to consider how they spend their resources. Keep the general structure of the perk system in place as well, although it may require some adjustment. Misuse those resources and your team faces the possibility of fighting off attacks using Hurricanes instead of Spitfires and La-7s.
Lose your SpitIX, and you're forced into the SpitV if you wish to continue flying Spitfires. And so on.
To make this work on a team scale, each team should be allocated a limited number of aircraft, reset every six hours. This would force the teams to husband resources and would self-enforcing to an extent. This should be a tier system that would allow for unlimited access to lesser performing aircraft.
The gangbangers can still do their thing, albeit with inferior aircraft should they so desire to continue. Moreover, this would cause players and their chosen leaders to reconsider mindless goals that will only serve to cause a faster reset. I also have a preliminary concept of a leadership structure that would allow any player his or her chance to run the show with rewards for getting it right and penalties for screwing the pooch. I'll post it after I work out the details further. I would also greatly enhance the perk rewards for kills scored as part of an organized mission. Furthermore, you can only rise in the command structure through participation in organized missions.
I'll post more as I work out details.
My regards,
Widewing
