Massive Assault
http://www.massiveassaultnetwork.com/forum/

What would you like to see?
http://www.massiveassaultnetwork.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=2233		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Daledvm [ Wed Mar 16, 2005 10:09 am ]
Post subject:  What would you like to see?
Firstly I would like to thank the programmers for a job well done! I really love the game. The strategic depth is incredible as is the replayability. My friends are on the way to the stores to snap it up as well. :lol:

I know a patch is on the way to fix a few issues but, as the game progresses I would like a few more game options available. I thought I would open a thread where players wishes might come true. So to all you Domination players out there what would you like added?

1) Firstly I would like to have the same options in MP as I do in SP in World War mode. (i.e. option to change number of secret countries and number of turns countries produce income) I doubt this would be hard to impliment so I hope it will be coming soon. :wink:

2) An option to have more than 2 players in the game. A three or four way battle would be so cool and team options as well. OH the joy!!! :o

3) Make it possible to handicap 1 player in MP so I can play against a weaker opponent and let them have a chance. Perhaps let them have extra secret allies just like the computer gets on harder levels. :-?

4) Although it is not similar to the other ideas... I would like a defensive game mode where units debarking from transports do not get to fire in the same turn. Transport units would then be used for rapidly transporting units long distances and not a way to uberspeed up offensive tactics. this would also make invasions much harder and likely require naval support. The transports might need an armor tweak upwards if this was employed. This may even a be a mod-able type of thing but I thought I would mention it. 8)

5) Fighter units that can be based on carriers or in cities that make a 1 or 2 space barrier to bombers similar to anti-air truck. :D

That's all for now what do you all think?
Author:  Enforcer [ Wed Mar 16, 2005 11:42 am ]
Post subject: 
1) would be nice but i'd rather see completely new game types (eg assault multiplayer)

2) That's everyones wish (there's about a hundred threads on it somewhere on these forums) but atm no-ones come up with a way for it work work without changing the game too much.

3) would be good.

4) dont like this idea, as without transport tactics u'd just get very long drawn out border fights, think games take long enough alrdy wihtout drawing them out more.

5) donno
Author:  ecpjak [ Fri Mar 18, 2005 7:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Additional Features
I started turn based war games with Apple II+ and SSI - Israeli Confilct and 1985 and while they were primative they had some great features that have disappeared.

1. Setting ambushes by selecting "trigger" points that if an enemy moved onto caused preselcted units to attack (especially artillery types!).

2. Some units should be stackable on a cell (Attack copter and ground unit) - just makes sense.

3. Selecting Attack or Defensive posture for a unit - Defensive added HIT POINTS to that unit.

4. FOG of WAR

5. Movement / Fire / Movement - select units like TANKS, Attack Copters with enough movement points should be able to move in or fire then move away appropriate remaining move points.

This game is riddled with BUGS but is still the closest to the good old days of top notch turn based games and these additions would make it the ultimate turn based game ever!!

Hope someone at DreamCatcher agrees :)

JAK
Author:  Quitch [ Sat Mar 19, 2005 7:01 am ]
Post subject: 
Fog of War is massively abusable in a game that works the way this one does,
Author:  ecpjak [ Sat Mar 19, 2005 7:58 am ]
Post subject:  FOG
I agree with Internet gaming it should be disabled but I never play internet games and it would work just fine ;)
Author:  Mrakobes [ Sat Mar 19, 2005 9:10 am ]
Post subject: 
2 Daledvm

1) in theory i agree but how you offer to send challenges if your opponent not agree to play with number of allies or number of income turns you specified? it will require to make new design of challenge window.
2)Nonsense.It is completely impossible to make within current MA concept.And it was explained on forum dozen times.Think yourself why.
3) you can make it even in current MA - if you play a weak player just dont disclose one or two of your secret allies...you dont have to disclose them all just play with half force...same you can ask more powerful player to make a handicap...and to make it in-game i will require new design of challenge window too.
4) i think this is bad idea this will cancel some very interesting tactical possibilities we have not.
5) what for? you already have anti-air unit...why make more?

2 ecpjak

all your ideas make sence..in completely another game than MA
so - no comments
Author:  UllerPSU [ Sat Mar 19, 2005 10:15 am ]
Post subject: 
Quitch wrote:
Fog of War is massively abusable in a game that works the way this one does,


Traditional FoW would be abusable because you could move units around to see where the enemy is, then reload the game (or just rewind your moves) and replay your turn based on that new found knowledge. But what if FoW worked like this:

Each unit has a sensor range equal to it's movement rate + 1 or their firing range, whichever is greater. That way, every unit can "see" as far as it can move plus one space. Air units can see out to their attack range. Naval units can only see their firing range onto land (but have a normal sensor range for sea hexes).

Cities can "see" everything in their territory. All the enemy units you can see are determined at the beginning of your turn. It is impossible to uncover more enemy units until your next turn. That's not a problem because all units have sensor ranges that extend past their potential movement/firing area. So you can see all the enemy units that you could potentiall engage or could otherwise interfere with your movement. All you can't see are units in the enemy's rear areas.

There are problems with this. It turns transports into long range sensor unit for instance. But it would certainly add a level of depth to the game and it is unabusable unless you hack the game file.

As for other stuff I'd like to see in a future version (I've said this before): A map editor, make it possible to mod the behavior and look of units and release that capability to the user community.

Another thing I'd very much like to see is strategic weapons: Ways to interdict enemy resource production. Strategic bombing that can reduce the number of turns revenue is produced in a territory, sabotage that temporarily supresses production in a territory, weapons of mass destruction that can totatly destroy a city and all its production. Then, of course, you need units to counter these: fighter/interceptors to protect against strategic bombings, counter-insurgency units to defend against sabotage, anti-missile shields to protect against nukes or whatever....

Again...it adds more depth to the game. Since this game bills itself as a "World War" game...world wars are more about strategic weapons than tactical ones. I'd imagine in the future that would be more true.
Author:  max3r [ Tue Mar 22, 2005 5:33 am ]
Post subject:  additions
the only thing i want right now is the button to select all ready bombers in fort/carrier simultaneously

you can click the button before any bombing, getting all planes selected
or you can attack with one or two planes and then click button to select remaining
it will greatly reduce bombing time

and it would be really cool to see how all your bombers get to enemy and annihilate him in single flight
Author:  Daledvm [ Wed Mar 23, 2005 9:11 am ]
Post subject: 
2Mrakobes

1) I don't care if they have to make an entirely different lobby for MP gaming you should have these options in any game you are paying monthly for! Hell most games I play for free have 10 times the MP otions this game has.

2) Nonsense? You are simply wrong. I can think of several ways to make 3, 4, or even 5 way battles fair in this game. Here's one of the easy ideas: have you ever heard of teams? It may be cumbersome to play with more players and many would opt not to play this way but it is an OPTION. More OPTIONS appeal to more people. More players and more games sold.

I am sorry that I never played MA and started playing this series with Domination. I have not read those old forums and frankly I will not now. I suppose by your point of view the game should just stay the same and not evolve to get any better. It is this type of thinking that dooms games to the discount shelf in a few short weeks. This game needs improving if it wants to appeal to more people. Heck it was just released and the forum is DEAD... I will continue to throw ideas out there and hope that maybe they get incorporated to make for a more complex, fun, and challenging game.

3) This is a great idea (thank you) do you know if the opposing player does or does not get the indemnity money from the country if you do not disclose it?

4) You are awfully critical? I guess you think this game is perfect as it is? I offered this as an option not to change all of the gameplay. Why don't you try to be more openminded. As it is in this game range is everything!!! and putting units on transports and making rapid movements is the best way to destroy enemy units. I personally do not like these tactics. You do but hey if you like it the way it is then you wouldn't have to play with this option. Many games offer a Turtle option where defenses are tougher and makes for a longer game. Once again appealing to more different types of people hence more games sold!

5) the currrent anti-air unit works on land and can move around the landscape. This would be a unit that could only base in cities or aircraft carriers thus also taking up one of the bomber slots. It would give anti-air capabilities at sea and I think it is distinctly different from the anti-air vehicle.

I just wish you would have some constructive things to say to improve the game or atleast offer some proof that others ideas are misplaced instead of dismissing them out of fact.
Author:  Enforcer [ Wed Mar 23, 2005 9:28 am ]
Post subject: 
2) If you have a good way it could work then please post it, the main problem is the fact that whoever moves last will be lucky if he/she has any units left by their turn. Also atm games usualy take 2 weeks per player on a small map, so with 3 players u're looking at 6 weeks for a game. 4, 8 weeks u get the idea. And alot of players wouldn't be willing to wait that long for their turn. Simultaneous turns have been thought of, but they would change the game too much as the whole idea behind ma is that you know exactly where the enemy is on ur turn, and try todo the ebst you can with it rather than having any unknowns. Anyway ideas, are always good.

3) no the opponent doens't get the idemenity if you don't disclose it. Alot of mentors only use 3 sa's in training games and it's helps well (they usually still win easily due to most mistakes happening in the 1st couple of turns)

1/4/5) More game options would be great I agree with you there (was hoping that Domination would feature different game types or at least different game options compared to MAN but sadly it wasn't to be)
Author:  Daledvm [ Wed Mar 23, 2005 9:30 am ]
Post subject: 
UllerPSU I like your fog of war ideas. It would make for a much more challenging game. First off you could take away the rewind button in MP. Then people could not move and redo the move and thus cheat. It would drastically change the game and probably would need rebalancing altogether. You could also give each unit its own unique sight range thus making each unit even more unique and possibly have more uses or weaknesses.

I like the idea of stacking air and land units as well. This could help to break stalemates on certain fronts. I think this would help the most on the offensive. The penalty could be that an attack on that hex hits both units stacked there.

I know that Fog of War is not possible with the current game as it would make too many drastic changes but if they even make a future sequel?
Author:  Enforcer [ Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:59 am ]
Post subject: 
fog of war would change the game too much, even if u take away the undo button (one of the main concepts behind man) you could still quit the game then restart the turn with your new found knowledge.
Author:  Tiger [ Wed Mar 23, 2005 12:04 pm ]
Post subject: 
Daledvm wrote:
2) Nonsense? You are simply wrong. I can think of several ways to make 3, 4, or even 5 way battles fair in this game. Here's one of the easy ideas: have you ever heard of teams? It may be cumbersome to play with more players and many would opt not to play this way but it is an OPTION. More OPTIONS appeal to more people. More players and more games sold.


We play team battles already about year. Please, read about Clan wars.
Several players in one battle will delay game.
Author:  Quitch [ Wed Mar 23, 2005 6:16 pm ]
Post subject: 
But that is their choice. And what about LAN and AI games? Everyone should stop thinking online is the be all and end all of MA gaming.
Author:  Daledvm [ Thu Mar 24, 2005 9:28 am ]
Post subject: 
Yes Quitch that is what I was going to mention. A lot of players play on LAN's with friends. That is how I usually play.

Games with several players would take a long time but if teams could move simultaneously? Some people do not mind the wait for a goood multiplayer battle. Games with more players/teams would have to be played on the larger maps for balance and so you wouldn't get wiped out before your turn came up. The players that go later in the turn could each get bonus starting forces. A couple more points of initial forces the later in the turn that you go. This could be implemented easily if there were some options for different gameplay.

Once again I know this is not possible for this version of the game I just hope future installments may take some of the ideas and offer more options to the gameplay. 8)
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/