/can be ignored without harm

Couldnґt sleep last night, and made a few additional units, none of which are necessary. In fact I *tried* to make them not too useful, so at least they possibly wouldnґt upset the balance. Anyways, here are my prototypes:

*****LAND*****

*LIGHT TANK*

1 Fire
1 Range
4 Move
4 Hits
2 $

/possibly forces opponent to better protect his MLs
/could be useful sometimes for recruitment blocking
/could be useful to plug a gap if in a hurry

*ASSAULT TANK*

4 Fire
1 Range
1 Move
6 Hits
4 $

/powerful, yet very inefficient

*MINES AND OBSTACLES*

0 Fire
0 Range
0 Moves
6 Hits
2 $

/doesnґt do any damage, but more resistent than LAV
/possibly sometimes able to annoy opponent

*FORTRESS*

3 Fire
4 Range
0 Moves
12 Hits
6 $

/for the seriously anal-retentive

*****SEA*****

*CRUISER*

2 Fire
3 Range
4 Moves
5 Hits
3 $

/Battleships for the poor
/relatively cost-efficient, yet mediocre

*SUB*

2 Fire
2 Range
2 Moves
3 Hits
2 $

edit: -CAN NOT ATTACK LAND UNITS-

/may force protection of Transports
/slow and fragile, but a cheap threat to Transports and Amphibs

*****AIR*****

*HEAVY BOMBER*

2 Fire
8 Range
16 Moves
7$
-CAN NOT LAND ON CARRIER, ONLY ON CITY-

/long-range firepower at an insane price

*****AIR/LAND*****

*HELICOPTER*

2 Fire
1 Range
6 Moves
4 Hits
4 $
-OCCUPIES TERRAIN LIKE LAND UNIT-
-MOVES OVER TERRAIN/UNITS LIKE PLANE-
-CAN NOT BE TRANSPORTED, BUT *CAN* LAND ON CARRIER-

/unpredictable

i like the light tank idea.

the subs need more htipoints (4 at least, one battle ship coudl take it out).

the heavy bomober is nice i think 6 is more appropriate (2x that of an airplane).

My thoughts on these unit suggestions:

I understand these are just food for thought, so don't think I'm trying to bash on anyone, just giving my thoughts:

Light tank:
I like this idea. I think that sounds like a balanced unit. My first thought was it was too long reaching, but the fact that it does very little damage makes it useful.

Assault tank:
As it is, this tank is not very usefull. Impressive, but not better to buy then either the Heavy Bot or Rocket Launcher. It would be too susceptible to artillery fire, and as you learn if you ever try to use your heavy bots on the front line, too weak to hold up long. I think it still may be balaced if you give it a 2 move instead. It would still have a reach less then the heavy bot, but would be an enticing purchace because of the damage it does. Of course, the fact that you could load those beasties on land transports would make them Wayyy powerful. You could load and unload them on the same turn with 2 move. With that in mind, maybe they shouldn't be aloud to enter a transport, or better yet, take up two slots. If they couldn't load on transports at all, that would severely cripple them on water maps.

Mines, obstacles:
Not too bad. I don't see why someone would buy one of those instead of two LAVs though. Any way to make them slightly more useful to make them more enticing? Maybe make them a mini-tower and give them 2 damage? Or would that make them too tough? I don't think so myself... They would have only one hitpoint more than a tank, but no move at all.
Maybe if there was a minelayer unit to go along with it, so they could be picked up and moved... (take away the damage in that case).

Fortresses:
Sounds descent to me. I'd hate to see one of those pop up as a guerrilla unit in a forest... At least with their price, you wouldn't be finding two of those in one place too often.

Cruiser:
Sounds good to me. Well balanced as well. I don't know if you'd be finding too many Destroyers being made any more. For 1$, you get +1 range, +1 damage, +1move. Maybe knock down one or two of those abilities.

Sub:
I don't think that they would be useful at all. With their move, how are they a threat to transports and amphibs? Now they could be cool if they could be invisible until someone gets within two or three range of it. They would have to be visible when they are built, but are hidden until they show up ready to torpedo a hapless transport. That might add some fun.

Heavy Bomber:
I'll have to think about that... The fact that you could put three of those on a city would make them Naaaassty. Of course, that would cost 21$.
Hehe, each of those would be as expensive as an aircraft carrier themselves.

Helicopter:
Way too powerful for their price. 6 moves unaffected by terrain? Ugh! Maybe make them 3 moves. They still would act like they had 6 moves over desert or forest. And another thing: An airplane bombing a helicopter would be a pretty funny animation .

One more idea:
How about a helicopter transport as an addtional unit?

Move: 4 (as a helicopter, unaffected by terrain)
Fire: 0
Range : N/A
Hits: 4
Cost: 3$

Can load one unit inside.

That could make for some pretty fun sneak invasions over mountainous terrain. I'm not quite sure of the balance of this unit, maybe it should be more expensive

Subs is intentional: you would have to use them in packs -they are very cheap!

6 *is* the attack range of an airplane. Heavys would have +2 range (+4 when changing base).

I didnґt feel bashed at all. I found your comments generally positive.

About Heavy Tanks: I didnґt want to make them too attractive. Generally, I always tried to err on the side of weakness. The units are just meant as a (hypothetical) supplement that is never really needed, but could be possibly put to use now or then.

Cruiser: Yes, on the attack they would be better than a Destroyer. But they have the same Hitpoints, so for a screen you would still be better off with Ds.

Subs: Intentionally weak and slow. They would have to lurk in waters where you know the enemy wants to go. BUT note they are the most firepower-efficient naval units -2$ => 2 firepower. If you take the low cost into account, they arenґt really that bad.

Helis: You could be right they are too powerful. Otoh, they cost as much as an ML, do less damage, and are nearly as easy to kill. If you compare them with ML, they seem about equal.

Transport Helis: Certainly an interesting idea. Might be too easy to block recruitment though, by shuttling LAVs all over the place.

Nah what this game really needs is some sort of fighter plane to take out enemy aircraft. It should kill an aircraft in 1 hit and have about +2 move over bombers (since it needs to be able to reach enemy cities from friendly cities.) $3 would be about right, really the biggest balancing feature of fighters is it means 1 less bomber in that city. So having even 1 in a city means you wouldnt have enough bombers to kill enemy artillery in 1 turn, however it would mean you could kill an enemy bomber and then they would have at most 2 bombers left and could no longer kill your artillery. Sounds balanced to me.

One problem I see with that is that this fighter unit would serve a single purpose, a very rock-paper-scissors approach. So far, people have found multiple uses for just about every unit (see the Tips & Tricks forum).

Second, how would you defend your bombers then? The only thing I can think of is to allow fighters to take out other fighters. But then whoever has the first fighter in the region will win the air war. The other person would have to build or fly in two fighters to have a chance, since the first could destroy one fighter per round. Doesn't sound like it has a lot of strategic application to it.

I'm not saying I don't like the idea of adding more meat to the air war, I just don't see how they could be implemented without unbalancing the game or taking away some of the strategic elements of the game that make it so great.

Of course, my idea of strategy might be different from others. I don't consider that there is a lot of strategy to a game like Age of Empires 2, where there is a very specific unit pecking order. Whoever ammasses the right kind of force in those games might have a serious advantage if their units happen to be the bane of what another player likes to use.

i agree with maelstrom. fighters are not realyl that usefull that way. maybe if they were independant of citirs and could be shot down by both air and land units.

I agree with Maelstrom, too. I think Fighters would be difficult to integrate into the current system.

I dont think it would be unfair. True as long as one player has the first fighter in the region he has an advantage but as long as he does he can only have 2 bombers which is a serious disadvantage as i was saying above. You could also use an aircraft carrier to move in range and get first strike with fighters. Either way i reckon bombers are seriously unbalanced at the moment because they are practically impossible to destroy, if you move near their city they can just pull them back. I mean its turn based, its not like they can get in your city by surprise.

The only other options are a an anti-air missle but it would have to have a huge range to be useful or perhaps an anti-air turret but again it would have to have a huge range to reach other cities and not be totally vunerable along borders. Or finally some sort of mobile fighters, free-flying is a bit too powerful which means you need some sort of land carrier like the APC specifically for planes, but that would be kinda single purposed unless it could handle bombers as well.

Here's another possibility for anti-air... How about a AA unit that has a limited range (2? 3?) that strikes at the first plane that flies over each round? One of those could be used to protect your artillery.

As far as planes being unbalanced, that is a seperate discussion. They cost 3$ for something that can only do 1 damage each turn. To take out artillery in one shot you need three of them, a hefty price. And they are already limited because of that 3 per city limit. If someone buys too many planes, they will find that only a few of them can be brought to bear each round. And even more than any other unit, they need ground support to have any effect. They can't stop an enemy advance alone (althought they can keep the artillery away).

Of course I'm not saying they aren't useful, just saying that they do have severe limits. Maybe they are still too powerful, the fact being that if you buy one, it will probably last to the end of the game. I think the post about "planes and carriers" in the tips and tricks forum goes over this pretty well.

Well theres one major problem with the AA gun you describe and thats why i left it out of my list and that is it would have to fire when its not on its turn, which is something this game engine probably doesnt support, but even if it did the attacking player could just undo his move and get his plane back. Also you would have to consider does it fire once, or once for every unit that flies into its range, also you'd need a way for planes to be able to fly around it which would require waypoints. Just seems alot more complex and harder to implement than fighters.

For me the bombers are more of a controlling factor, not a weapon of destruction. A sort of ICBM. They rearely fire at expensive units, but do prevent them from being used.

And I think a solution to this problem should be of a "controlling" type.

I too feel the game lacks something to counter the planes. Even though they cant stop a full march, they can destroy enough units to hurt without any ground support given their range. Admitaly I have only played the demo. I do however see the problems you mentioned about turns and AA guns. So ..

How about some type of AA camaflage? or even possible an AA stealthed light tank or something. Even modern day "smart" bombs need accurate targeting data, as do the fighters. I wont even propose the mechanics of this but put the idea out there.

But the Planes are really not that strong. I doubt that anything is needed to make them even weaker.

As a more general response: These very discussions are probably why some games have 100s of unit types. Fighters to fight off bombers, helicopters, AA turrets, AA vehicles, land carriers, etc etc, and all that just to flesh out the air war.

I think that one of the greatest strengths of Massive Assault is that it is so straightforward. So while all of this is great for discussion, I hope the devs stick to the proven formula.

I think whatever they ultimately decide to do, theyґll test it well, and it will work out fine.

Well, of course we are thingking about the new units... including those different for each nation...

And I think that after we add new units, we'll also include the option to play those World Wars either:
a) with CLASSIC unit set - the one you can see now, maybe with one or two really missing ones

b) with new units added

With such developer support this game is starting to look more attractive, new units, map/scenario editor might buy it after all. If it's actually available in any local shops.

Sounds all extremely exciting!!