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

Phantom challenges...
http://www.massiveassault.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=1938		 Page 2 of 2
Author:  Pitor [ Wed Feb 09, 2005 6:54 pm ]
Post subject: 
I agree with WarchrisMA about the importance of the size of the map (and more especially about the total number of countries on the map).

For a low number of countries, red has clearly a very big advantage while this advantage tends to lower more and more as the number of countries increase. This become clear when you look what is the situation for both
minimum number of countries (i.e. : 4) and maximum number (i.e. : an infinity) (I speak of the theoretical limits, not the practical one :wink: ) ).

For the lower limit (i.e. 4 countries), as each player must reveal 2 allies in the begining, all the countries are revealed in the first turn and so each player know exactly where are the position of all the ennemies countries. In this situation, playing the first (i.e. playing PL) is decisive and so, for opponents of similar skill, it will almost always be the red player who'll win as he'll strike first.
For the higher limit (i.e. an infinity), this has no impact at all because 2 countries is nothing compared to an infinity :lol:

Personnally, that's why I prefer playing big maps (at least when I play green :wink: )
Author:  Dave [ Sun Feb 13, 2005 8:36 pm ]
Post subject: 
Brashen wrote:
As I've stated many times before(and gotten all kinds of kickback), the game could be made much more pure if the Secret Allies concept were an option instead of being forced.

If both sides could see the opponents SA's, it would reduce the element of chance significantly. In these cases it might also be helpful to set up maps with balanced SA placements as opposed to being random.

Just my 2 cents,
Brashen


An ally wouldn't be very secret if you knew where it was now, would it?

I like how if I know the enemy still has an SA somewhere that I'll need to garrison countries which I am unsure of. I also like how the enemy needs to be on their toes if I have an SA I am waiting to unleash at the most devastating moment.

SAs add an element of chance to the game, sure, and can be a decisive factor, but the fact remains that a great player will make the best of every given situation, adapt, and usually come out on top when facing a less skilled opponent.
Author:  Donut [ Sun Feb 13, 2005 9:24 pm ]
Post subject: 
The only element of chance is what SAs you start with.

From then on its pure strategy.
Author:  Maelstrom [ Sun Feb 13, 2005 10:17 pm ]
Post subject: 
Well, I agree to a point with Brashen. Theres something to be said about having a game that is Pure strategy with no randomness to it. It would be better though, IMO, that these game types would be multiplayer scenarios, that have been tested for balance. Theoretically, it would be a perfect test of skill, if it was well balanced enough. It would be more like Chess, where all the pieces are known ahead of time but the approaches taken could be infinite and varied.

The thing that makes the SA concept so nice is the replayability though. No game is Ever alike. Even if the same SA setup is used, the game won't play out the same as the players choose different approaches, and don't know where the enemy may disclose next. This makes for infinate strategic situations, giving the depth of strategy that may surpass what Chess has to offer.
Author:  Brashen [ Sun Feb 27, 2005 2:33 pm ]
Post subject: 
Dave wrote:
Brashen wrote:
As I've stated many times before(and gotten all kinds of kickback), the game could be made much more pure if the Secret Allies concept were an option instead of being forced.

If both sides could see the opponents SA's, it would reduce the element of chance significantly. In these cases it might also be helpful to set up maps with balanced SA placements as opposed to being random.

Just my 2 cents,
Brashen


An ally wouldn't be very secret if you knew where it was now, would it?

I like how if I know the enemy still has an SA somewhere that I'll need to garrison countries which I am unsure of. I also like how the enemy needs to be on their toes if I have an SA I am waiting to unleash at the most devastating moment.

SAs add an element of chance to the game, sure, and can be a decisive factor, but the fact remains that a great player will make the best of every given situation, adapt, and usually come out on top when facing a less skilled opponent.


First, I asked that SA's be optional. Did you actually read my post or just hear something you disagreed with and automatically jump to a conclusion?

Second.. isn't the idea of a strategy game to pit yourself against someone of close to equal skill? Isn't that where the best games spring from? Oops... sorry... I forgot some people prefer to play against inferior players. Something to do with their egos I guess.
Author:  Three Seven [ Sun Feb 27, 2005 5:47 pm ]
Post subject: 
Well said. I can't stand playing someone worse than me, I need a challenge or I lose interest quickly. With MAN here, I've found a nice group of players who are about my skill level and we get some awesome games going.
Page 2 of 2 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/