Author Topic: 4 Country War, a suggestion (again) (Read 581 times)

Furious · « **on:** February 21, 2002, 05:05:05 PM »

Originally posed in September, but thought we could discuss it agian.

Change from 3 countries to 4 with two countries being allied on a rotating and random basis.

rough map example #1:

B R
K P

Bish and Pawns are alligned
Knits and Rooks are alligned

after reset:

K B
R P

Knits and Pawns are alligned
Rooks and Bish are alligned

The amount of reset perks points would be tied to the health of your ally at time of reset. Ally would recieve some percentage of reset points.

Change side switching to make it more restrictive, time or perk wise, to change to country that is winning the war and less restrictive to change to country that is losing the war.

You can't capture an ally's base for your team, but you can take it back for them. Also, you would be able to safely land at an allied base, but not refuel/rearm.

Seems to me this would prevent alot of the gang-banging as you would have an ally to help you. All four teams would be competing for the reset, but you have to keep you ally healthy as you fight for the win.

F.

Thrawn · « **Reply #1 on:** February 21, 2002, 05:09:58 PM »

nm Misread your post.

NUTTZ · « **Reply #2 on:** February 21, 2002, 05:16:29 PM »

Not to rain on your parade,but...

If two teams are allied, isn't that a 2 sided war?

If you can reclaim a feild for your allied, how would you EVER win a reset?
Best you could hope for is a tie with your allied. Well not really a tie, but I can see where the backstabbing would come into play, and WTF would you want to help your allied regain fields if your trying to beat them to the punch?

IMO i think this would further split the community, I can really see no advantage this would give over the current setup. ( unless your trying to push HiTech further into Coding HELL)

NUTTZ

Raubvogel · « **Reply #3 on:** February 21, 2002, 05:18:34 PM »

I like it. It would be nice to work with some other squads/players from other countries instead of fighting them all the time. And with the rotation, you'd get a chance to fly with everyone sooner or later. I think the 4th country should be the Queens though...plenty of squads who would fit right in.

skernsk · « **Reply #4 on:** February 21, 2002, 05:25:41 PM »

I have never played any other online sims before. Didn't other games try the multiple country approach?

If so how did it work?

Furious · « **Reply #5 on:** February 21, 2002, 05:27:36 PM »

Nuttz,

Quote

If two teams are allied, isn't that a 2 sided war?

Not really, Each team is still attacking and being attacked by two other countries. A country could choose not help their ally or the enemies could make cooperation impossible. Lotta variations possible, but not truly a two sided war.

Quote

If you can reclaim a feild for your allied, how would you EVER win a reset?

Theoretically, if there were 20 fields total, Your team could have 15 (wins war), your ally 1 (reset), enemy one 3 (took ally's last base) and enemy two 2.

In this situation the Winner would get little to no perks for reset. Gotta keep the ally healthy.

Quote

WTF would you want to help your allied regain fields if your trying to beat them to the punch?

The healthier your ally is a reset gives both you and the your allies more perks. Also, if an enemy country is winning and your ally was 2 bases left, your team can capture your allies territory for them to help prevent the reset.

It helps by providing whichever team is in the bucket with an ally, a team to help them have a chance.

F.

Vruth · « **Reply #6 on:** February 21, 2002, 05:30:12 PM »

Four country is actually a fantastic idea. Countries could pick on one country and by leaving the same victory rules in place, it would make strategy a lot more interesting.

But as for names, maybe Kings or Pawns would be better for a fourth country name - don't want players developing a complex...

---------------

http://www.13thtas.com
vruth@13thtas.com
Dem's fighten words!

Hooligan · « **Reply #7 on:** February 21, 2002, 07:19:58 PM »

My experience flying in 4 country or 2 country systems (and this proposal is really for 2 countries since it has 2 pairs of allies fighting each other) was that is sucked compared to 3 countries.

This will worsen the problems it proposes to solve. In a 3 country system if A and B are picking on C then eventually they have to run into each other as C compresses.

In a 2 country system if A outnumbers B then A is just destined to live with fighting against superior numbers. This happens to a lesser extent in a 3 country system but the system is somewhat self correcting. It just happens a lot worse with only 2 sides. With 4 sides you often get big A picking on little B while big C picks on little D. The 2 big countries satisy themselves with pounding a small neighbor and never expend any effort against each other. It is not self correcting like a 3-country system.

Hooligan

Dingy · « **Reply #8 on:** February 21, 2002, 09:08:57 PM »

That could be one of the best ideas I've read on the boards. I like that you can get to fly with players from other countries without having to change countries.

Another suggestion to this might be that if one country is undermanned, after reset, they get paired with the country that is overmanned.

-Ding

Furious · « **Reply #9 on:** February 22, 2002, 10:22:05 AM »

Quote

4 sides you often get big A picking on little B while big C picks on little D.

ahhh, but Hooli in this case big C starts attacking Big A to take the pressure of little B because they are allied and it is in big C's best interest to keep little B healthy.

Every country gets a friend.

F.

Kratzer · « **Reply #10 on:** February 22, 2002, 11:51:51 AM »

I like it.

Hooligan · « **Reply #11 on:** February 22, 2002, 12:15:23 PM »

Furious:

From my observations of the MA, most people don't care if their country wins of loses. So I really doubt that a significant number of players will come to the aid of their ally. In the current MA setup when Knights are pounding Rooks and about to reset, then it is in Bish's "best interest" to come to the Rook's aid and prevent the reset, and not "lose". But if this ever happens I have never seen it. I don't expect it will happen in your scheme either.

Quote

4 sides you often get big A picking on little B while big C picks on little D.

You think C will attack A. But it is just as likely that C and A are allied as that C and B are allied.

You will always have the problem of the 2 big countries being allied. There is no guarantee that the 2 sides of the alliance will be balanced any more that there is a guarantee in the current MA that all 3 countries will have roughly equal numbers. Think how much worse the gang-banging will be when one team outnumbers the other team. However in the 3 country system, the 2 big guys do end up running into each other at some point because there is nowhere else to go.

If most players cared about winning or losing the war the current 3 sided system would work very well at solving the problems you want to solve. If people cared and knights had 30 bases, Bish 20 and Rook 15, then Bish and Rook would immediately turn on Knights until the balance was restored. But they don't. And in your scheme they won't either. Did you ever see the effects of the 4 country system in Warbirds? It sure doesn't seem like it. I played it with 4 MA type countries and with 2 pairs of allied countries and the gang-banging in both setups made the AH MA look like perfection in terms of balance.

Most player's have their own agenda. They might only have 30 minutes to play and they just want to shoot something down before they log. If observing the MA teaches us anything, it teaches us that most players don't give a crap about "the war" and don't care if their country wins or loses. I don't care about this and I don't think anybody in my squad cares about it either. And you can't make player's care. We all do this for fun. HTC might be able to make the strat more fun and that will cause more interest in the "war" but I've never seen any system capture the interest of any but a small minority of players. And you can't penalize players for not caring. The play it for fun, and if you try to coerce them into some style then it is no longer fun and they just log off (or switch from WB to AH).

Hooligan

Furious · « **Reply #12 on:** February 22, 2002, 12:34:21 PM »

Good points all Hooligan, except one.

I disagree with you that only a small percentage of any team care whether their side wins or losses. While it may be true that you and your squad doesn't care, when it comes down to those last 2-3 bases the fighting (from my obseravations) is the fiercest and most fun.

If you have ever listened in to the lil' generals on the knits side you would know that ALOT of folks very much care about winning.

...anyway, its an idea that would take the pressure of teams with chronically low numbers. Each country is prosecuting a 3-way war and if one team is being beat down, then at least it has a "big brother" to help protect it.

F.

Apar · « **Reply #13 on:** February 22, 2002, 12:41:09 PM »

Quote

I have never played any other online sims before. Didn't other games try the multiple country approach

Yes FA had a 5 country setup (i don't know how it is now). I liked it when I played FA (2 years ago). It also had a more eleborated strat system (more AI).

Anyway, I like Furious idea, why not give it a try.

Apache · « **Reply #14 on:** February 22, 2002, 12:42:25 PM »

Aside from the fact we're squaddies, I'm with hooli on this one. WB had the 4 country thing. It didn't work nearly as well as 3 country.

It usually came down to a 2v1. The 2 being the heavies beating on 1 little guy. The other was of no help because they were so far away from the little guy, clear across the map and were no threat to the big guys anyway because they had just gotten beaten up by 'em.