Ok heres the problem as i see it...
We have players of all types playing in AH and there are those that want to just match 2 opposing sides and fight with their fighters(see AKnimitz post) and those that want bombers and captures etc
Well in order to satisfy both types why dont we create a scoring system to allow both to participate but not to interfere too much with each other by making stategic targets much more part of the game?
We could make it so that rebuild times were very long maybe as much as 4x as long and make the strat targets(ie factories) part of the objectives/score to win a map.
Captures should be extremely difficult if you ask me.none of this drop 10 troops on a town and its yours.It should require 3 or more drops.
Take the britain/channel/france map: it didnt allow captures and as a result it made little sense to bomb anything apart from fuel at any enemy base.It agrovate those that just wanted to fly in fighters of historic matches and dogfight and spoiled those players enjoyment.
What if we made strategic tartgets the priority for bombers? If we scored the war on % of damage to a countries factories as well as their loss of aircraft .
To actually capture a base in france by the british would be next to impossible in RL so in CT it should be a rare occourance but for the 'games' sake it should be possible.
The more damage to a countries industries the slower the rebuild times and/or the less equiptment available.Bombing a base will still be possible of course but it should score less or cause less permenant damage.Im not sure if rebuild times on airbases and strat targets can be set differently though.
what we would have is bomber pilots trying to damage factories.Fighter pilots out for a quick fight will be able to fight other fighters or maybe try to stop the bombers to help the weekly score.Some really hardcore strat guys might organise what would need to be a large and/or coordinated attack to actually capture a base.
Perhaps its possible to set the arena so that in order for a base to become 'capturable' the rail system nearby has to be TOTALLY destroyed?
It would mean the quick thrill fighter types need not worry too much about defending from capture UNLESS he sees a coordinated attack.The strat/mission planner types would have a REAL challenge at last with strikes finaly requiring joint or coordinated strikes to more than one target.
Lone bombers can fly and actually add to their countries score (even if they avoid fighting)
Bomber groups will GENERALLY not flatten bases as they will be of little scoring value and (if its possible) will rebuild much quicker than a City or rail station etc.
So a country could be deemed a winner for a week if it has caused more total damage to another countries infrastructure AS WELL AS the amount of enemy fighters/bombers destroyed etc.
I really feel that the more we make the CT a thinking mans version of the MA the more pilots will use it.
Theres nothing worse than that moment you enter the MA and think 'hmmm what shall i do?' and realise youve done it all before and can now do it with ease.
Well lets give those pilots something harder and more taxing eh?
If it doesnt work then fair enough i'll shut up but you gotta admit we NEED something more in CT than the MA style of game with, what most newbies who enter CT think is, a smaller choice in planes.(DONT get me wrong, I love the real match ups of LW vs VVS or RAF etc)
Btw i applied to be a CM and I would be willing to try to learn how this map set up stuff is done, but as a mere pilot i can only state what I feel is missing.Sorry if it is perceived as a complaint as its not intended to be AT ALL.Im trying like you CM types to help make CT work (honestly
)