Massive Assault Official Forum
   
It is currently Thu Sep 20, 2018 4:50 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: ...isnґt a real strategic game...
PostPosted: Sat Nov 29, 2003 5:09 pm 
Oh man, there really a lot of "bugs" and missing features in this one, i had hoped to find at least a second Warzone2100 or (better) a better M.A.X. (just 1 not 2), but was a little bit disapointed about this game.
It smiles on me with a very fine Graphik and a easy Gameplay, but the AI (...that what donґt take any prisioners...) is very easy to handle. In some Maps just 2-3 Bombers (it seems that the great AI isnґt able to handle Bomber-Attacks in anyway), in other u get a draw cause missing any real moves of it.
There is no real ressource-handling, no ability to get on other isles, no Unit-Upgrades, there isnґt shown the reaching of weapons and at least all weapons have just 1 shot per round... :evil:
And, most important, no Defence-Mode and the missing aibility defend from Bombers.
It is just a better strategic comic for those, who donґt want to think about a move more than 15 seconds ... :roll: ... and thereґs no need to do so, because it is easy to win by "try and error" with the Undo-Button.
Just the graphik is a little bit better than RIMґs one, but i wonґt give this game the title "Strategic-Game", just Strategic-Shooter... :o

Sorry, but iґve told, iґm a little bit disapointed about the missing features...

Greetz,
ipu :(

P.S.: and iґm sorry about my poor english, iґm writing from germany ;-)


Top
  
 
 Post subject: ...forgotten to ask...
PostPosted: Sat Nov 29, 2003 5:15 pm 
Sorry, but iґve forgotten to ask how it was able to get with a third-classic game first-class reviews and awards...
It was very expensive to get these ones ?
No one with a real strategic background will give this tilte more than 60% i think, there a better titles with a much cheaper quotes on market...
But it just seems to me, maybe... :oops:

Greetz, Ipu


Top
  
 
 Post subject: ROFL
PostPosted: Sat Nov 29, 2003 7:00 pm 
Offline
P.L. Marshal
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2003 11:14 am
Posts: 1065
Karma: 0
i am sorry Ipu but your post looks like raving :D
1)you should understand that the main fun of this game are two-player online battle.AI is only for giving you some basic tutoring about what units do.And btw there is not may turn-based games with super-AI
and btw...before you start talking about AI - have you won at least one campaign?
2) what exactly do you mean "np real resourse handling"
3) and again what do you mean "defence mode"
4) "no ability to get on other isles" LOL .In large maps nearly all the strategy is about undertaking naval invasions onto other isles.May be you speak about AI not handling naval invasions but again AI is primarily for training.
5) "there isnґt shown the reaching of weapons" thats just ROFL.Man have you even looked at this game? :D Dont you see red circles around units- that's - weapon range.
6) one shot per round - yes it is how that was supposed to be.What's the problem? This is strategy game not squad-level tactical simulator.Units represent a whole divisions not single tanks or mortars.Ok if you looked for another MAX - this game not contains MAX economic part (really boring and tedious resourse gathering).This game is another scope and is more abstract. This game contains also the political part - disclosure of secret allies(which becomes really tricky in multiplayer).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 30, 2003 1:37 am 
Offline
Sea Wolf

Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 325
Karma: 0

Location: USA
AI SHOULD use transports, i was playing my first game in a long time with SkyKeeper and he just creamed me with the transports. Against AI i just thought it was a waste of money.

And in defense mode he means like they will attack when an enimy unite gets to an area. Like in C&C but that is more of an RTS thing then TBS.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 30, 2003 4:00 am 
@ Makrobes:

Look at MAX 1, Battle Isle 4, Incubation, ..., ...

Then you know why iґm missing strategic parts in this game. Tactical parts are in it, but the depht of the strategic part is very low...
You have in MA "just" move and fire...no ressources, no building and no infrastructure (really important parts of a successful strategy) have to be guarded or builded.
And because of this research and upgrades are senseless...but strategic really important.

itґs a pity...but MAґs gamedepth offers nothing of this parts...

Ok, So long,
Ipu


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Nov 30, 2003 8:20 am 
Offline
Developer

Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 277
Karma: 0

Location: Wargaming.Net
Ipu
Quote:
You have in MA "just" move and fire...no ressources, no building and no infrastructure (really important parts of a successful strategy) have to be guarded or builded.


You can look at MA as on game with new level of strategy abstraction:
1) Buldings. What Buildings are doing in stratgey games? Units and Bonuses. MA has a countries (territories). They produce units too. So in both cases we have the same result.
2) Infrastructure. What is this? In the strategy games usually it is complex of Buildings and Roads based on some territory advanatges. Good Infrastructure allows you to reinforce and regroup you army quick. In MA you can capture countries and capitals, build a special units (transports). This allows you to create strategy advatages on some front line and win the battle.

Better to say that MA is a pure strategy game.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: and again LOL
PostPosted: Sun Nov 30, 2003 8:25 am 
Offline
P.L. Marshal
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2003 11:14 am
Posts: 1065
Karma: 0
i pointed to a pair of really stupid notes in his first post (he even not understood how to go on other isles and see range circles) and seems he has nothing to say.Instead he keep comparing MA with games which have nothing in common.Battle Isle 4 really suxxx.I would not compare that pitiful excuse for a game with previous Battle Isle series or MA.
Incubation - it was a squad level tactical simulator where you control single persons - completely another situation.and lol where you see building in Incubation.
He keeps calling "strategy" the purely economical elements like building and resourses management. Building and resourses are not parts of ANY strategy - most wargames do not have any building or any kind of economy in them. (seen panzer general for example - very good wargame without any building).Commanding general on battlefield usualy not have to care about how much oil or metal are being produced.Presence of economy\resources doesn't make most RTS more clever - rather making them really stupid "lets mine alot of tiberium and produce alot of tanks and send them on enemy".
And btw - there aren't any resource management and building in chess,
Will you say the chess lack strategical depth?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ...forgotten to ask...
PostPosted: Mon Dec 01, 2003 6:39 am 
Offline
Developer

Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 338
Karma: 0

Location: Wargaming.net
Ipu wrote:
Sorry, but iґve forgotten to ask how it was able to get with a third-classic game first-class reviews and awards...
It was very expensive to get these ones ?

/quote]


As a person who was involved in public relations activities of MA, I can answer this question, Ipu:
It was not too expenive - we spent 0 (zero) dollars, 0 (zero) Euros, 0 (zero) British pounds...

We've just sent out the game's copies to those reviewers.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 01, 2003 7:22 am 
Offline
Developer

Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 338
Karma: 0

Location: Wargaming.net
Ipu wrote:
@ Makrobes:

Look at MAX 1, Battle Isle 4, Incubation, ..., ...

Then you know why iґm missing strategic parts in this game. Tactical parts are in it, but the depht of the strategic part is very low...

/quote]


Dear Ipu:

It seems that by some reason you didn't play World Wars mode. At least, according to what you are saying, you played only some single-plyayers scenarios, or maybe even "Training" skirmishing missions - they all were intended for teaching the basics of the game's tactics.

In fact, even among those scenarios there are some really difficult scenarios requiring tremendous depth in both tactics and strategy, like:
Battle Hammer
Under Pressue
Tripple Penetration

plus the Campaigns - some steps of the campaigns are quite challenging.

And the World Wars - did you try plaing at least one World War on let's say Antarcticus planet?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 01, 2003 7:55 am 
Offline
Developer

Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 338
Karma: 0

Location: Wargaming.net
Ipu wrote:
Look at MAX 1, Battle Isle 4, Incubation, ..., ...

Then you know why iґm missing strategic parts in this game. Tactical parts are in it, but the depht of the strategic part is very low...
You have in MA "just" move and fire...no ressources, no building and no infrastructure (really important parts of a successful strategy) have to be guarded or builded.
And because of this research and upgrades are senseless...but strategic really important.

itґs a pity...but MAґs gamedepth offers nothing of this parts...
./quote]


Dear Ipu.

Let me tell you this: do you know why MA doesn't have buildings or resource gathering? - Just because we didn't plan them, we didn't want them to be in and we didn't put them in. If we wanted to make another MAX or Battle Isle, we would somehow acquire the license, etc. called our game MAX-3 or Battle Isle 5 and would implement those features typical for MAX or BI.

The key point of Massive Assault is that we deliberately did NOT want to COPY any of the existing game systems - neither turn-based nor RTS. Massive Assault's concept and "mechanics" are unique, and they propose OTHER ways of performing your strategic skills (different from factory building or strawberry collecting).

The key point of Massive Assault's strategy is the World War and concept of "Secret Allies" accompanies with Guerrillas, Indemnity, Revenue collection, Revenue interruption. OK, MA doesn't have factories with those chemines and tanks moving out of the doors. Instead Massive Assault has territories (marked by borders), which you are supposed to defend in order to get the resources. In fact, it is much more challenging to plan your defense disposition while you are defending the whole territory, rather than placing a dozen of Tanks or Guard Towers around the factory.

In Massive Assault you are also supposed to guard and capture the cities.

In MA you operate not with those "popcorn" worn-out concepts like builidng a "Research Center" and getting a new "upgraded" unit. Currently, there are enough units in MA to make you think hard - the right unit's selection and combination matters. You usually can't win by buying Heavy Bots only - you will definitely need a good deal of variety to overcome the enemy.

Anyway, I could spend hours sitting and writing about the depth of Massive Assault. I just suggest you to play a couple of World Wars on Antarcticus planet against A.I. and then play a couple of battles against live opponents in Multiplayers. I guarantee you will see the difference.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Any open positions? Hehe
PostPosted: Sat Dec 13, 2003 3:04 am 
The developers have obviously put a great deal of effort into making this game unique. Its got enough of the tried and true wargaming principles to have a solid base (apparently not enough for some people, however), and yet it has just a few twists on the norm to make it a whole new battleground.

That's a huge deal when you look at the games today and which ones have made the most money. The market is flooded by Half-life and Command and Conquer clones - Sure, games that come out in those genres have unique things to them, but none of them drift far from their trend-setters. They just make a couple changes here and there or add a movie license to the mix.

To see the developers of Massive Assault breaking free of this cycle is a breath of fresh air. There is some inginuety left in the gaming industry! Kudos to you!

So where do I apply for a job? C++ programmer with gaming experience :P


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 13, 2003 2:40 pm 
Offline
Developer

Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2002 7:00 pm
Posts: 338
Karma: 0

Location: Wargaming.net
To: Maelstrom.

Thank you for your kind words!

As for the internet play, you may challenge our official mentors:
"kitten" or "lola".

They will give you a good deal of teaching. You know, the battles against live opponents are always different.

And if you would like an "obusive" game, then "Tiger" is the right person to challenge... :-)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 15, 2003 8:14 am 
Offline
Sea Wolf
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2003 3:06 am
Posts: 1338
Karma: 1

Location: USA
Vic wrote:
Quote:
And if you would like an "obusive" game, then "Tiger" is the right person to challenge...


Heh, I hear you there. I'm in a game with Mr. Transport myself.

I thought I had learned a thing or two from the Hard scenarios... apparently there is plenty more to learn. Thats why I love this game! I'm going to have to go back and read Sun Tzu's Ancient Art of War again...[/quote]


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 19, 2003 1:21 pm 
heh, if you want an idea how to play this game, see 'warhammer 40,000'

from what ive read about this game, its warhammer 40k all over, but only 2 races and on computers, now go to games workshop (the people that make warhammer 40,000, which is a table-top wargame for those that dont know) and try to tell them warhammer 40k isnt strategy LOL!

the game sounds very interesting, im still unsure as to weather to get it, im not 100% certain on what ive read about multiplayer, but im certainly looking into it :) (tho first i need to get the demo to run, lol)


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Lol
PostPosted: Fri Dec 19, 2003 2:25 pm 
Hi,

In Warhammer 40k (TableTop) you have to select your strategy before you are start playing, after your selection you have to buying and maybe upgading your troops or characters. All without any knowing of the enemies features your opponent is playing. And then youґve to deploy them according to the rules and your tactics.

It seems that MA is missing anything like that, you have to play the troops like and where they come (all troops are fixed by the game without any modifiable features) and couldnґt deploy them in first round.

So iґve to agree with Ipu (of course, iґm german too :wink: ) that there are not so many strategic features in this game, it seems to be more tactical than strategical.

But why not, it seems to be a great one...

Weґre just missing a real LAN-feature (in a local-area-network without any internet bindings and more than 2 players in 1 game as opponents.

Pums

--
Anyone want to buy an orkarmy, old and new ones, round about 8.-10.000pts. ? I have to sell it cause iґm having in future not enough time to play anymore :(


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Lol
PostPosted: Fri Dec 19, 2003 3:20 pm 
Offline
Sea Wolf
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2003 3:06 am
Posts: 1338
Karma: 1

Location: USA
Pums wrote:
Weґre just missing a real LAN-feature (in a i]local-area-network[/i] without any internet bindings and more than 2 players in 1 game as opponents.


You're missing the point of massive assault. It doesn't run the same as any other game I know of in this aspect. It is purely a 1 on 1 game so a standard definition of a LAN doesn't apply here. If you're looking for a cookie cutter game, this isn't where to look. If you're looking for a game that redefines a genre and has an entirely new depth and feature set not found elsewhere, then you'll absolutely love this game.

Yes, the interface is simple. But you don't need to have a complex game with millions of combinations to make a good strategic game. Why is chess so popular? Why are people still learning new strategies? MA is along the same lines. Relatively straightforward and simple, but with a depth that defies understanding


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 19, 2003 3:26 pm 
i ment the basic princople of unit deployment and strategic movment and choices like that are what it has in common with warhammer 40k...

and just because a game has a lot of unit upgrade choices doesnt mean its strategic, look at chess, thats got bugger all 'unit upgrades' yet thats one of the most well known strategy and tactics game around. A good game needs to find a balance between choice and simplicity, if its too simple, with too few choices to be made, its dull and boring to play, if it has too many then it becomes overly complicated and frustrating to lern. Personly i found warhammer 40k to have a few too many options and rules, no-one seems to know all the rules, and even a small time player like myself has been known to discover a skill use 'tactic' that the rule makers overlooked (my 'tactic' was so effective and basicly broken that they banned the use of the particular skill on that particular unit after i used it in a large scale battle in a games workshop store LOL!)

MA seems like it will be a nice balance, tho im still unsure as i am only basing this on what ive heard and read about it, i have yet to get the demo to work O.o


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Dec 19, 2003 4:41 pm 
Offline
Levy

Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 4:38 pm
Posts: 2
Karma: 0

Location: England
the Guest above was me, koiju, heh, sorry about that.... registerd now, shouldnt happen again :)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Karma functions powered by Karma MOD © 2007, 2009 m157y