Author Topic: How about 4 countries instead of 2  (Read 559 times)

Offline Fishu

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3789
How about 4 countries instead of 2
« on: March 12, 2001, 10:57:00 PM »
Everyone talks about 2 countries... why not to take 4 countries into consideration?

For 4 countries, theres alot of good examples...
One is WarBirds, I don't have that bad memories of 4 country war than of 2 or 3 country wars.

In Dawn of Aces beta, I saw 2-country war first time as default in MA, in there all the people were fightning in the middle (can you imagine 40 vs 40 people within narrow 25 mile area?)
..but when DoA went to 3-country, oh that was horrible.

I don't know what this new hype of 3 country war is, but it sure feels boring to me compared to those memories of 4 countries.
(yes, they did complain back then too, but not this hard)

Best thing with 4 countries is that there will be always that fourth in some corner who then attacks on either of the two who are ganging on the one, if they arent having 1 on 1 war.

With 3 countries, worse thing is that theres usually always that one side being banged by two sides.
This is usually because many people will just go fight there wheres the biggest fight.

Now when we look at 2 countries, we'll come into this same problem with 3 countries; people will go into that biggest fight and leave some minor fights in the flanks, which arent even necessarily protected.
Long line of defence would make it have one big fight somewhere and many or some small 'commando' raids elsewhere.
Small 'commando' raids are more likely against no defenders or just one or two defenders... you know what I mean.


So, personally I would vote for 4 countries.

*fixes yet another typo caused by sleepiness*

[This message has been edited by Fishu (edited 03-12-2001).]

Offline Saintaw

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6692
      • My blog
How about 4 countries instead of 2
« Reply #1 on: March 13, 2001, 01:44:00 AM »
Ahhhhhm, but Fishu, how are we gonna call them ? "the Queens", "the Peons" ?  


------------------
MASS/SAW
 
click  HERE for info on III./JG 5 Eismeer

When I was younger I hated going to weddings.
It seemed that all of my aunts and the grandmotherly types used to  come up to me, poking me in the ribs and cackling, telling me, "You're next."
They stopped that stuff after I started doing the same thing to them at funerals.


[This message has been edited by Saintaw (edited 03-13-2001).]
Saw
Dirty, nasty furriner.

Offline Mitsu

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2763
      • Himitsu no blog (Mitsu's secret blog - written by Japanese)
How about 4 countries instead of 2
« Reply #2 on: March 13, 2001, 04:23:00 AM »
Pawn or Queen would be nice!  

Offline Mitsu

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2763
      • Himitsu no blog (Mitsu's secret blog - written by Japanese)
How about 4 countries instead of 2
« Reply #3 on: March 13, 2001, 04:26:00 AM »
hehe...All RAF squadrons will move to Queen Country.  

Offline Vermillion

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4012
How about 4 countries instead of 2
« Reply #4 on: March 13, 2001, 06:22:00 AM »
Nah, tried that in Warbirds. Its as bad as a two country setup.

What happens is that the two largest teams, end up in a non declared truce, and they refuse to fight (I know it happens already sometimes) but then they each pile onto the smaller team nearby.

What you end up with is two seperate "two sided" wars.

------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure

Offline Fishu

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3789
How about 4 countries instead of 2
« Reply #5 on: March 13, 2001, 07:01:00 AM »
 
Quote
Originally posted by Vermillion:
Nah, tried that in Warbirds. Its as bad as a two country setup.

What happens is that the two largest teams, end up in a non declared truce, and they refuse to fight (I know it happens already sometimes) but then they each pile onto the smaller team nearby.

What you end up with is two seperate "two sided" wars.


Theres always that fourth one far from the ganged counry - who will naturally fight on either one of the ganging parties.
Currently in 3-country system theres nobody kicking up the gangers.

Offline Vermillion

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4012
How about 4 countries instead of 2
« Reply #6 on: March 13, 2001, 09:11:00 AM »
Fishu, you misunderstand me. There is no "fourth" country that is not engaged in combat.

Example:

Country A = 80 players
Country B = 50 players
Country C = 72 players
Country D = 35 players

Country A fights Country B, ignores C & D
Country C fights Country D, ignores A & B

It just ends up as two seperate "two sided" wars within the same arena.

This is exactly how it was done in Warbirds for years.

------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure

Offline Dingy

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 71
      • http://www.33rd.org
How about 4 countries instead of 2
« Reply #7 on: March 13, 2001, 09:17:00 AM »
Leave the current 3 country setup only award bonus perkies to the underdog and penalize the country perkies if they outnumber a third of the arena population.  

Can ya tell I LOVE this idea?

-Ding

Offline Mox

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 193
How about 4 countries instead of 2
« Reply #8 on: March 13, 2001, 09:23:00 AM »
 
Quote
Originally posted by Dingy:
Leave the current 3 country setup only award bonus perkies to the underdog and penalize the country perkies if they outnumber a third of the arena population.  

Can ya tell I LOVE this idea?

-Ding

I like the idea Dingy.  The only problem that I see is some players "might" purposly try to be on the underdog as to increase their score.  Any thoughts?

Maybe it would all even out.  We wont know unless it's tried.  

Mox

Offline Apache

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1419
How about 4 countries instead of 2
« Reply #9 on: March 13, 2001, 09:24:00 AM »
To go along with the points multiplier, would it make sense to make the fields more difficult to capture? Not wanting to steal someone else's thunder because it was posted somewhere earlier, but they suggested adding revetments, more hangars, etc. Sounded like a good idea to me. Instead of rolling thru base after base, you have to work for it. Right now, and I think most will agree, capturing a field ain't all that hard to do.

[This message has been edited by Apache (edited 03-13-2001).]

Offline Dingy

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 71
      • http://www.33rd.org
How about 4 countries instead of 2
« Reply #10 on: March 13, 2001, 09:40:00 AM »
 
Quote
Originally posted by Mox:
I like the idea Dingy.  The only problem that I see is some players "might" purposly try to be on the underdog as to increase their score.  Any thoughts?

Im not sure I understand.  If they move from an overpopulated country to an underpopulated country, they are evening out the numbers.  I may be an unfrozen caveman pilot but as I understand number theory, people cannot move to another country and make it smaller  

Remember the goal....to get players to move from larger numbers to smaller numbers...net result....even numbers.  

-Ding


Offline Dingy

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 71
      • http://www.33rd.org
How about 4 countries instead of 2
« Reply #11 on: March 13, 2001, 09:44:00 AM »
 
Quote
Originally posted by Apache:
To go along with the points multiplier, would it make sense to make the fields more difficult to capture?

Nah, I dont think we want to mess with this since given even numbers, taking a base requires numbers and organization.  I dont have a problem with the difficulty taking a base...I do have a problem with arena imbalances  

-Ding

Offline Apache

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1419
How about 4 countries instead of 2
« Reply #12 on: March 13, 2001, 09:47:00 AM »
Yeh, good point. If we fix the imbalance and make numbers more even, what difference does it make how difficult a capture is. Arena balance would help field defense. I agree.

I like the points thing. Good idea.

Offline Tac

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4085
How about 4 countries instead of 2
« Reply #13 on: March 13, 2001, 10:01:00 AM »
How about another twist to it then?

Lets say the arena had an even 60 airfields (counting fleets).


Let any squad of 5 members or more take control of ONE airfield, becoming a "country". This could be an airfield or a fleet+port.

Those who are squadless could request to join said squad's country without actually enlisting with the squad. A "enlist for this campaign" dot command would do this nicely. This would also help a lot in squad recruitment.

Have HT load 2 dozen "icon choices" so the squad can choose its icon.

The point/strat of the game? It would go like this:

1) Remove HQ/Factories and the likes.
2) Add herds of wild sheep that roam the countryside. 2 herds of sheep per 1 airfield/port, 1 herd per vehicle base.
3) A country can ONLY capture an airfield if it has captured 2 sheep herds (or 1 sheep her for vbases)
4) Sheep are captured by killing the AI M16's that herd them and then dropping goons on the sheep herd. Once the sheep are captured they begin to move to your nearest airfield at 15 mph.

5) The country that at the end of an 8 hour period has more sheep wins perkies!

Addendum: AHland gene-neers have succesfully created a new breed of sheep, whose wool floats very well, have special webbed feet that allow them to paddle at the same time they dont break the water tension, which makes them be able to walk over water at pt-boat speeds! Sadly, these sheep escaped from containment and are now running around Lake Uterus. As a final effort to capture these fine sheep, naval engineers have finally adapted the C-47 to be able to take off and land in carriers.

How about it? At least the gangbangs will be for something thats has moral grounds! SAVE THE SHEEP!

           


sky_bax

  • Guest
How about 4 countries instead of 2
« Reply #14 on: March 13, 2001, 10:07:00 AM »
Its not the arena set up, never was and never will be.

It the players.

Doesnt matter what type of arena you have.