It's funny, but I was actually contemplating this the other day when searching for a fight that wasn't us vulching a base, or our base being vulched.
It occurred to me that this is really the only game I've ever played that truly doesn't have an underlying "goal." I mean, sure, the "goal" is to win the war, but the community has bashed that concept into the ground so hard that you are seemingly a bad, bad person if you try to win the war. I understand that the game is about combat, but isn't combat based around the idea of making forward progress towards a goal? I mean, why fight if there is nothing to fight for?
Some of the most fun I've ever had in this game is in large base-rolling missions (as dweeby as it may be) with a group a guys that you build comradery with. It starts a little awkward and almost too serious, but as it goes on people start laughing and ultimately having a great time, and new relationships build from it. I remember back when I was new and used to play a lot, I would have people on country flying near me spontaneously say, "Hey! Sector! What's up man?" all because of a previous mission and the fun we had. It really did help make the game dynamic and fun.
I do agree that the current gameplay style has gotten stale and outdated. It no longer really offers an incentive to fight for a particular target or hit the strats because you are apparently the "fun police" if you do so.
I have a couple of ideas that I'm curious to see comments on (not necessarily a package deal, just a general offering of ideas):
1) Base taking: I wonder if perhaps the age old "path of least resistance" in AH could be fixed by designing the bases on each country to only be taken in a certain order (could have several different paths per side). Now I know this removes some of the sandbox elements, but if you think about it, you'd kill several birds with one stone.
-People would be forced to fight if they wanted to take a base, since the enemy knows which bases could come next.
-Would create an environment where teamwork would be crucial to the success of the team as a whole. If there is an uncoordinated attack on a base, the defense will probably prevail.
-Would hugely emphasize the use of tactics to limit the enemy's ability to defend or attack effectively (just because you can't take a base, doesn't mean you can't attack it!). Destroy supplies at nearby bases to limit the base's "regenerative abilities," knock out ord to keep them from counter-attacking, etc.
2) Base point value: Different bases are worth different values. This would work similar to ENY; if a country is getting the snot pounded out of them and have fewer bases than the other teams, then their bases are worth less points. There would then be a base point value that the country would have to achieve in order to win the war. This will keep that one poor country from getting pummeled while the other two ignore each other. The point value could also have to do with base size and location in some way as well.
3) Remove the ability to take down hangers completely. I think the fact that you can remove a base's ability to defend it's self completely is a bit lame, and detrimental to game play. Perhaps instead of fighter hangers removing the ability to use fighters, how bout destroyed hangers raise the ENY of available fighters at that particular base. So say you bomb down one hanger, ENY for fighters at that base goes up to 10, 2; 15, all 3; 20, etc. Lets make those people fight HARD to take that base, this will make base takes much more meaningful.
I'm exhausted, so I'm going to wrap this up. But yeah, my $0.02.
