Massive Assault Official Forum
   
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 9:09 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Minor suggestion or 2
PostPosted: Tue May 04, 2004 5:09 am 
key mapping:
it would be really nice if the players had the option of choosing there own keyboard shortcuts
i personally play on a laptop and the none standard keyboard realy doen't make the current short cuts intuitive

Unit:
on the whole i'm happy with the units but peronaly i think the LAV and equiv. have to many bad point and are unrealistic my suggestion is that you put the movement up to 3 that way to have a cheap fast unit that has some use other than as a mobile wall


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 04, 2004 6:20 am 
Offline
Sea Wolf
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2004 1:26 pm
Posts: 821
Karma: 0
Unit balance is one of the places where I think MA is pretty much perfect. I dread it ever being touched.

_________________
"Massive Assault is a game for those, who like to think. In this game random factor exists without doubt, but it doesn't play a decisive role." - Tiger


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Minor suggestion or 2
PostPosted: Tue May 04, 2004 7:23 am 
Offline
Veteran
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2004 6:11 pm
Posts: 143
Karma: 0

Location: Bergen, Norway
Anonymous wrote:
on the whole i'm happy with the units but peronaly i think the LAV and equiv. have to many bad point and are unrealistic my suggestion is that you put the movement up to 3 that way to have a cheap fast unit that has some use other than as a mobile wall


It sounds like you're not using transports enough. They greatly increase the value of a LAV.

I once played against a newbie player who loved rocket launchers above all else. I beat him with an army consisting almost entirely of LAVs and transports.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 04, 2004 9:04 am 
Offline
P.L. Marshal
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2003 11:14 am
Posts: 1065
Karma: 0
well actually...the situation is following
LAV and smallfoots actually represent nothing more but an infantry troops.
not cars or vehicles of any kind but a fooltsoldier.
you can see - LAV's play exactly the same role which infantry plays in all strategy games
look - the have - cheap price.slow.low firepower.large amounts.
purpose - making a defensive line and holding the enemy.
this all is very typical features of common infantry.and i usually look at it this way - it is some future infantry troops
of course if we look at them LAVs as some kind of combat vehicles (like US "hammer" of BRDM) - they look kinda stupid since such vehicles usually have huge speed and move twice faster than tanks.but if we look at them as infantry they fit perfectly.

The question is - why the developers decided to draw a picture of little car instead of infantry?most probably because they wanted this game to be fit for a little children.they made it this way so there is no blood in game and we never see a human dying
i think this is a bit crazy...why deceive youself we all know this game about war and death and destruction...if they want no blood why they just not draw some sort of robot or cyborg instead of human fotsoldier...so - no idea.

offer to make some kind of "buggy" unit with same combat stats as LAV but speed of 3 or 4 - this does make sense but such unit should cost 2 $ at least...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 10, 2004 9:19 am 
Offline
Conscript

Joined: Tue May 04, 2004 4:59 am
Posts: 17
Karma: 0
i was the guest above, not sure how i managed to post as guest concidering i was logged in.

Mrakobes wrote:
well actually...the situation is following
LAV and smallfoots actually represent nothing more but an infantry troops.
not cars or vehicles of any kind but a fooltsoldier.
you can see - LAV's play exactly the same role which infantry plays in all strategy games
look - the have - cheap price.slow.low firepower.large amounts.
purpose - making a defensive line and holding the enemy.
this all is very typical features of common infantry.and i usually look at it this way - it is some future infantry troops
of course if we look at them LAVs as some kind of combat vehicles (like US "hammer" of BRDM) - they look kinda stupid since such vehicles usually have huge speed and move twice faster than tanks.but if we look at them as infantry they fit perfectly.

The question is - why the developers decided to draw a picture of little car instead of infantry?most probably because they wanted this game to be fit for a little children.they made it this way so there is no blood in game and we never see a human dying
i think this is a bit crazy...why deceive youself we all know this game about war and death and destruction...if they want no blood why they just not draw some sort of robot or cyborg instead of human fotsoldier...so - no idea.

offer to make some kind of "buggy" unit with same combat stats as LAV but speed of 3 or 4 - this does make sense but such unit should cost 2 $ at least...


i was talking realism not what other game do, if infantry was like the lav you'd be talking about 100 troops with a single weapon between them. though i will admit it never occured to me to use transports with lavs (i'll have to try it). The reasons modern military's still use infantry and arn't purely armoured isn't because infantry are cheap but because there are things that a armoued unit can't do ie navigate dense foilage, move stealily and that with rpg's & other heavy weapons are quite capable of destroying armoured units

so to represent infantry the lav would need to be invisible on some terrain except to other lav's and that they had twice the fire power, half the health and be the only unit capable of moving though trees.
the best game i've seen for creating realistic infantry is a little known game called Liberation Day published by I-Magic.
i'd say that the LAV is more like a humvee armed with a machine gun and a broken engine

anyhow getting back on topic if what you say about using transports and lavs is right then my idea is proberbly mute anyway but the keymapping would still be nice

_________________
Would a jury of computer programers convict someone of killing Bill Gates?

Answers on a letter bomb to bill gates


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 10, 2004 12:27 pm 
Offline
Veteran
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2004 6:11 pm
Posts: 143
Karma: 0

Location: Bergen, Norway
In that case I think they should rather replace the unit sprite with a "Turtle Tank" or something similar than changing the stats. We'll still be needing cheap blocking fodder, so if the LAV's stats change they'll have to put in another unit anyways.

Unit invisibility has been left out of the game (I believe this is a conscious effort).

Note: I don't want anything changed, I'm just airing my views on how I think an eventual change should be. 8)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 10, 2004 12:48 pm 
Offline
P.L. Marshal
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2003 11:14 am
Posts: 1065
Karma: 0
2 hellsweapon
i was not pretending that LAV do ever represent infantry realistically
MA is VERY unrealistic game and devs dont care about realism
i was speaking not about tactics but about grand-strategy - the LAV play same role as infantry divisions in WW2 - making long devensive lines and holding enemy
this was not about how LAV statistics fit for infantry (cuz that dont matter at MA's level of abstraction)
also that dont matter how many people those units represent - but sertainly these are not single vehicles but probably brigades or divisions


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 14, 2004 10:14 am 
Offline
Conscript

Joined: Tue May 04, 2004 4:59 am
Posts: 17
Karma: 0
Mrakobes wrote:
2 hellsweapon
i was not pretending that LAV do ever represent infantry realistically
MA is VERY unrealistic game and devs dont care about realism
i was speaking not about tactics but about grand-strategy - the LAV play same role as infantry divisions in WW2 - making long devensive lines and holding enemy
this was not about how LAV statistics fit for infantry (cuz that dont matter at MA's level of abstraction)
also that dont matter how many people those units represent - but sertainly these are not single vehicles but probably brigades or divisions

your senario seem to fit better with mid WW1 and the pike formation of the 1600's, in the late WW1 and all ww2 it wasn't that infantry were blockers it was that armour was a smasher, the problem was that infantry v infantry both with simalar weapons and fixed well entrenched posistions was more likely to be a stalemate, armour was used to break the stalemate the same as engish archers did in the 100 year wars with france, even in the modern era if a tank goes up agianst infantry in close turrain (ie streets, woods etc) without infantry support, there's a good chance the tank is dead, what the tank does though is absorb fire and break fixed position so infantry can mop up, hence the term combined arms.

what the LAV is isn't infantry but as i said a mobile wall, like the british tank in use at the start of WW2 the matilda (slow, Heavily armoured, but woefully under gunned), though i will conceed that realism wasn't the right word but i can't think of the right one

Any how this is now a mute point as the suggestion i made has aready bin done you just need the help of a

_________________
Would a jury of computer programers convict someone of killing Bill Gates?

Answers on a letter bomb to bill gates


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 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