Ahh! Sounds like meat for another good discussion! Haven't had one of those in a while *cracks knuckles*
- The game seems a bit unstable. Occasionally I lose my mouse pointer and have to save the game. Sometimes the game just exits with no warning. In Hot Seat mode, the units seem to stop drawing. Those are all bugs, of course. I'm a software developer and I know that bugs happen...
One reason the game is unstable is that the developers have had troubles with their original publisher, and because of that weren't able to patch the game very easily. MAN solved many of the problems, but MA:PR will completely eliminate them I'm sure.
- It would be nice if each side had some truly unique units.
This will definately be happening with what we've learned of the units in MA:PR. PL will be getting some new heavy units that have multiple attacks each, furthering their general strategy of overpowering their opponents. FNU will get some more versatile units that are higher tech but not as durable. In addition to that, there will be whole new units for each side such as AA shields, helicopters, and other varieties of towers.
- More factions and more than two players in multiplayer would be good (but players would have to be really good at getting their turns done or games would take months to play).
There are many traits MA has that would make multiplayer games very difficult:
1) This game is designed around an in-order turn system (as opposed to simultaneous). This cannot be changed without making this an entirely different game. As designed, this game is completely deterministic... (you as a software guy will know what I mean, but for others: when you do an action, you know exactly what the result will be, there is no randomness). If units are moved simultaneously it would break how it works, as by moving to a location, when an enemy moved there simultaneously it would no longer be deterministic.
2) Because of 1, any game with more than 2 players could take an eternity to go through. People would have to do their turns in order, so you would have to wait for each of the others to do their turns before you can do another. This follows standard tabletop rules.
3) What to do when players drop? When they do, it would ruin the balance of the remainder of the game. With 4 players, and months to complete, the likelihood of one of these players disappearing is very high.
4) How would you work guerrilla forces? Right now its obvious who they belong to, but its not so obvious in a multiple player situation. This as admitadly is a smaller problem compared to the others, as there have been valid proposed fixes for it, but it would definately change the game.
This question has been discussed a few times previously, here are a couple topics:http://massiveassault.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=530http://massiveassault.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=253
There is a certain epic scale that games with more players have, that MA definately lacks. for this reason the clan wars were formed, and have developed a long ways. Take a look at my signature links for more information on our latest set of wars, which add a whole new level of diplomacy, strategy, and camaraderie to this already great game.
- Some economic developement would be good...Maybe allowing players to divert some resources to "growing" their economys. Also it should be possible to attack enemy economic resources to reduce enemy resouce output (of course, invading an enemy territory does this).
It would definately be interesting if it could be balanced well, but I think it would take away from what this game does.
This game has found a near perfect formula as far as playability goes: Economics drive this wargame as you take and defend territory, and the unit choice makes for endless combinations of how you can wage war. Do you want to slow the enemy? Divert them? Destroy their fighting ability? You have to make these choices at each of your fronts. Though the game is simple, with only a few units and a watered down economic system, the strategic and tactical decisions are infinate. On top of that, with the Secret Ally system this game is one of the most replayable games I've ever played. Each game is completely different.
I believe the reason this game does this so well is that it is simple at its root level, but designed to allow many choices that affect multiple tiers of strategy. Any additional complexity at the lower levels would make the strategic complexity unbearable (In my opinion of course