HQ +City destroyed=> War lost, game over

[ghi]

HQ destroyed=>30min radar down without resup option

HQ+City destroyed(90%)=> War lost , game over

imop,would encourage the strategic organized bombing and the tactic gaming for map reset/win war: map reset with 40% today,makes game boring with same maps stalled   for weeks.

[lyric1]

HQ destroyed=>30min radar down without resup option

HQ+City destroyed(90%)=> War lost , game over

imop,would encourage the strategic organized bombing and the tactic gaming for map reset/win war: map reset with 40% today,makes game boring with same maps stalled   for weeks.

Interesting thought how ever I could see you living in a me163 for a long time if this was to happen. It would change the entire style of game play.

[Lusche]

HQ+City destroyed(90%)=> War lost , game over

Horrible idea. First, it degrades gameplay by reducing it to a single tactic/attack: One giant raid.
Second, we would be back to the bad old times where it was not that much that one country did win the war but one country lost it. We will see both "big" countrys again constantly dogpile on the smaller one, as it had been before the "get bases from both opponents to win" change (which has maybe been the single best change for gameplay I've seen).
It's almost impossible for that one country to defend city & HQ against constant assult by the two other teams.

[Spikes]

What would determine who won it? Whoever killed the HQ/city first? What if (not saying it would) 2 sides made a plan that 1 attacks city and 1 the HQ...would the side that killed the HQ get the win?

[Spikes]

Horrible idea. First, it degrades gameplay by reducing it to a single tactic/attack: One giant raid.
Second, we would be back to the bad old times where it was not that much that one country did win the war but one country lost it. We will see both "big" countrys again constantly dogpile on the smaller one, as it had been before the "get bases from both opponents to win" change (which has maybe been the single best change for gameplay I've seen).
It's almost impossible for that one country to defend city & HQ against constant assult by the two other teams.

Maybe you had to have X amount of bases from that side and X amount of bases from the side you're not attacking for it to take affect?

[Lusche]

Maybe you had to have X amount of bases from that side and X amount of bases from the side you're not attacking for it to take affect?

Wouldn't it be the same like the one we already have, just with an additional condition? I don't think that's what GHI had in mind...

He wants to change maps faster than it's now the case, but with reintroduction of the bad old "2 on 1 and war is over" it's not an improvement.

[BaldEagl]

Bad idea. 

One country with overwhelming numbers would steamroll map after map in rapid succession.  Personally, I like to settle in and play for a while, not have every other sortie ended by some hoard winning the map.

Plus, what would be the point in field captures?  strat attacks?  It seems to me you'de be taking all strategy out of the game and replacing it with one big GHI mission.

[E25280]

HQ destroyed=>30min radar down without resup option

I do agree with this part.  Make the HQ meaningful in some way.  With the resupply option, there is very little to be concerned with when someone says a raid is inbound.

[Spikes]

Wouldn't it be the same like the one we already have, just with an additional condition? I don't think that's what GHI had in mind...

He wants to change maps faster than it's now the case, but with reintroduction of the bad old "2 on 1 and war is over" it's not an improvement.

Point taken.

[ghi]

  Attacking and defending  HQ used to be the best fun in this game, but i would like to see them more often,  fighting vs massive high alt raids,   and the way HQ damage/downtime is set up now  makes no sense to atack it:
What for we have a "City" and  HQ if they have don't have any influence on game?!
What for we have soo many bombers with formation option if are never used for their strategic historical role,Just bombing airfields and CVs? that's gamey.
 The % of enemy captured bases can stay main map reset/win war way, but i see this as a shortcut to "V", like in chess, you can lose with all the toys on the table, just kill the king => checkmate, why to kill all poor pions?

[zoozoo]

ghi sure loves massive hoardes =)

[ghi]

ghi sure loves massive hoardes =)

They call it : " ww2 massive multiplayer online game",   and  it taste better if more are involved in fight.

[DoNKeY]

Hmm, would definitely change the game a lot!  And 163's would be life haha.  I don't know if it would change for the good or for worse though.

donkey

[Saxman]

Remove the 163 from the game and sure, go for it.

[SD67]

Remove the 163 from the game and sure, go for it.

What and lose all those tasty perks from killing them suckers?