I have owned the game for about two weeks now and have been playing it quite a bit in single player mode, mostly going through the scenarios and attempting one World War. The following is a list of my observations, both likes and dislikes.

Pros (my opinion only):

Bug Free!
Pretty maps and units
Great animations (especially the bombing runs)
Turn Based
Slick interface
Simple to learn and play

Cons (my opinion only):

Only two sides with the exact same units (just different pics/animations)
The text is poorly written, should have been run by a proofreader.
Terrain has no effect on combat other than movement restriction
No fog of war

I really do enjoy the game and have been playing it pretty much exclusively over the last couple of weeks. There is definitely some deep gameplay to be had here, but I can see where this game probably shines more when playing a human opponent...something I haven't had the pleasure of trying yet. However, there are things I wish had been included that would make it more enjoyable to me.

Wishes:

Terrain that affects firing range and line of sight.
Air Units/Anti-aircraft
Different types of units for each side....or additional sides. (this is probably my biggest complaint as there is absolutely no strategic difference to which side you play)
Subs

I understand the design decisions that went into the game. The fact that there is no fog of war and both sides are the same makes it much more like chess than anything else; which is not really a bad thing. I also know the developers have gone on record as saying that they didn't want to remake M.A.X., but darn it...I wish they had. There are so many similarities between the two games, yet they are vastly different in scope and design. I STILL have M.A.X. on my harddrive. (Please, somebody, anybody...remake this game. lol)

Anyway, I also like the fact that the games are limited in length based on the production limits of the cities. The concept of secret allies and guerilla forces is pretty cool and seems to work well within the game. I enjoy it and will continue to play it.

P.S. I hope the developers continue to release new content, whether it be additional scenarios, new maps, new units, or even a completey different side to play (as long as it's balanced).

just a pair of notes
terrain affects fire ranges - i think this makes not sense
units armed with direct-fire weapons (LAVs,tanks etc) already have minimum range of 1 hex - means they fire at what they target visually. on other side...indirect fire units like battleship or rocket laucher fire at target OVER all kinds of obstacles - so how do you think terrain affects strike range of modern cruise missile or MLRS salvo? no effect
and - i dont want to see any kind of fog of war in this game.For you info - it's SF after all and you can imagine there are enough spy-sattelites in orbit and they watch everything what moves on planet.
And in general i agree - adding more units will be interesting idea but the game is already nice as it is

I think you make a valid point about Terrain not necessarily being able to affect firing range.

However, I don't think just because it's a Sci-Fi theme that it means you automatically don't have fog of war. Sure there could be satellites orbiting the planet, but I would also think there might be well-developed counter-measures to that as well. For me it would add another layer of depth to the game. I liked the fact that in M.A.X. you might have a unit like a Missle Launcher that could shoot halfway across the screen, but it's sensor range was horribly limited, so you had to get ground units in closer to the enemy to spot them.

Once again, not trying to compare the two games because I know they are apples and oranges, just suggesting things that I would enjoy seeing included in a future game.

I do think MA is pretty solid as it is.

The main reason why we cut out fog of war was "rewind/undo" feature.

But it's not imposible - we can calculate visibility at the start of a turn and it won't be affected by your actions during a turn. The main problem here is confusion...we had enough of it due to some rare used concepts.

Skykeeper:

I can definitely see where Fog of War and the Rewind/Undo button would be at odds with one another.

Do you think any of the concepts that were left on the cutting room floor will make it into a future patch of the game? It would be interesting to know what some of those concepts were.

Are there plans to add new units and maps?

2 chromatik
listen man...modern electronic warfare is a VERY comple and difficult thing...including lots of things
- satellites
-surface radar stations
-AirborneWarningAndControlSystem aircrafts
-Electronic warfare\jamming aircrafts
-a lot of other high-tec stuff
and i actually think that it is not possible to realistically model how that all works in in game like MA...and if we can not model it realistically lets just leave this game it abstract as it is.

Mrakobes:

I haven't asked anyone to change anything. I merely pointed out things I would like to see in a game. Unfortunately, I'm not in the position to be a game designer so I have to let others pick and choose what they will and won't put into a game.

I don't recall at any point saying that I wanted them to model every aspect of modern or futuristic warfare. I just like the idea of sensors and having to spot units. It's something that M.A.X. did very well, and that was a very abstract game too.

Do I enjoy the game as it is? Yes. Do I have a wishlist just like everybody else in the world for what they want to see in a game? Yes.

And I enjoy the aspect of getting a new game and discussing the ideas that went into it. Why were some things put in and other things left out? What drives certain design decisions? And of course the "what if they had done this?" aspect is fun too.

Thank you for all your kind words you said in your post...

I have one comment:
we deliberately avoided thos usual-for-wargames terrain combat numbers modifiers, because it would significantly interfere with that on-the-fly combat calculation process. You know, we wanted the players to confidentially make their movement/combats fast without looking into those tables and clicking for those pop-ups with numerous unit parameters. And we thought that we've balanced this process quite right.
Any other additions like entrenchment, veteran units, terrain effects, etc. would add more complexity and result in lowered dynamizm. At least that's what we believe.



Sure...

Vic:

I pretty much figured that was probably the case. And honestly, I wouldn't have wanted something as complicated as all that. One of the appealing aspects of MA is it's simple learning curve and ease of play. (which is not to say the game is easy)

I'm having a blast with the game.

It's nice to have a good beer and pretzels game. Especially at this time of year. If one wants complexity including FOW etc there are plenty of games that supply all that you might want, I have played and enjoyed most of them.

I doubt I will play this for more then a month or two but it looks to be great fun. Just looking forward to the patch to finally appear (hopefully by Christmas Eve) so the mouse problem will be fixed.

I'm not sure why the rewind option is in this game, though I can't resist using it sometimes. It makes me feel like a cheat - I would rather it was not there - but maybe after a few beers it will be a good feature

this game reminds me of a game called MAX & MAX 2

i really liked those games except they had all kinds of bugs including milti wouldnt work. (MAX 2)

Max 2 played exactly the same way except there were more units (ie mine layers/fighters/air trans/infiltratorsand more), fog of war and you had the ability to upgrade your units in what ever area you thought would help you. ie def / range / firepower /movement you wanted. the game had a rock/ paper/ sissors theme. also in MAX you could save your fire and use it as opp fire during opponents turn, made the game real interesting, that facet is not here at all. also what i noticed here is once you get the guy fallin back he is done no way to counter .



as is now game is limited by lack of units/ no fog of war/ no opp fire and no upgrades
my games with the demo seem to fall into a pattern of somewhat grinding it out. also what ever player starts with a 2 to 1 in any area just start over because its a lost cause trying to fight it out.

i do like the game , just seems to come up short of what MAX did in terms of ways to counter an opponet .. true the game runs great and bugs are not the issue. but the lack of a hill blocking your los (terrain has no affect on firing) and the lack of upgrading or have a variety of units makes tactics pretty simplistic and tidious after a while.

also i have a pet peave with alot of these games i see nowadays in terms of graphics. ill take great 2d graphics anyday over fair 3d graphics. although TA did a very good job with there graphics , the ones in this game are what i call fair.

for what its worth

Krecs rating

gameplay 8/10 with a few adjustments could be a solid 9-9.5
stabilty 10/10 single player demo played great with no bugs at all
have not tried multi

graphics 7.5/10 while 3d they just dont grab me, true the
animation on the rocket launchers is cool
otherwise ill take a great 2d icon. the
terrain graphics are a little bettter.
into/tutorial 10/10 first calss one of the best ive ever seen

pros:
easy / fun to play
bug free, solid design

cons:
fair icons
limited units
no upgrades

overall i would recommend this game based on the fun and bugfree gameplay. although i cant help but think ......more options , more units,
fog of war

Hi! I understand what you mean, but I disagree.

The designers say they had a purpose in limiting complexity, and I can see why this is true. They also purposefully eliminated chance (except for Allies distribution).

The reason is that, in this game, you can (theoretically) plan far ahead. This is best be seen in Multiplayer -50:50 wins is only between players that are really equal, otherwise better player nearly always wins.

With fog of war/chance/additional complexity, you wouldnґt be able to think into the future so far, and the game would lose its distinct characteristic. You couldnґt any more aspire to become one of the Massive Assault geniuses who think 5 turns ahead.

I guarantee you, when playing against Tiger, the complexity of MA will feel overwhelming.

Yes. Play tiger. I already feel overwhelmed ... (only 4 turns in!)

Boomer