Massive Assault

Page 1 of 1

Author:  iTZKooPA [ Tue May 18, 2004 10:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Congratulations

Just wanted to let you guys know what a great job you are doing with MAN. Not only is it moderatley FREE, but its a great game for any fan of turn-based or reat time strategy fans. Not only that but the collection of people playing are actually helpful or considerate. I was a HUGE fan of Red Alert (worldwide ranked) Starcraft and more recentley Warcraft 3. I now divide my time evenly through MAN and Warcraft 3: TFT.
Also, should give for introducing me to the game, and you guys should thank me for getting 10 people to play so far. Now to just get them to pay...

Author:  The Fatherland[FIN] [ Thu May 27, 2004 9:00 pm ]
Post subject: 

I have to agree. ABSOLUTELY WONDERFUL JOB with the game ! :D
Great game ! Only improvement what I can think of are that the game lacks RIVERS ! :evil: You can't have a strategy game that LACKS RIVERS !!!! Why build amphibians ?? Because they can cross rivers ! and tanks can not. Also paratroops would be a significant strategic and realistic new add to the game. With paratroops you could capture key positions like airports, cities, bridges, roads in difficult or narrow terrain. Paratroops woulden't apply to the control of the province because (because in real life) they would be so low number of troops that it woulden't affect the control of the country. And because they are so low number of paratroops they would be hurt by indirect fire only by the scale of 1/3. So if 4 points of damage would be inflicted at them by a missile launcher and a bomber they would lose only 1 point of health. Direct assault on them would do normal damage of course. Their attack strenght should be one because even though they are elite/commando troops the low number of them wouldent inflict much damage. Their heath could be 3-4 and cost 3-4. You would need a bomber to drop them. Carriers could carry them without losing bomberspace. And back to rivers. The infantry of the game.. what was it called ?? ....Now I can't remember but they could cross river but would suffer double damage while in a river hex. Defensive positions could be placed to river lines like in real life. Maps with rivers would be only in maps that you get if you subscribe and give a even new reason why to subscribe. The same with paratroops.
Finaly to paratrooper deployment: Normaly they could be deployed by
the bomber in the bombers range ( at that turn the bomber coulden't bomb as it's job is deploying the paratoops). If you have a city/airport/carrier on the otherside of the enemy nation you could send the bomber to redeploy on the city/airport/carrier on the otherside and drop the paratroops on the way giving you a longer possible drop area. I would appreciate comments by game developers on these new strategic issues.

Plus the scoring/ranking system sucks. Even if you win the top player 20 times and lose 0 you woulden't be concidered the top player in the ranking system !!! :x The ranking system should be redone !

Author:  Maelstrom [ Fri May 28, 2004 2:36 am ]
Post subject: 

The Fatherland[FIN] wrote:
You can't have a strategy game that LACKS RIVERS !!!! Why build amphibians ?? Because they can cross rivers ! and tanks can not. Also paratroops would be a significant strategic and realistic new add to the game....

One thing that has made MA as popular and well reviewed as it has been is its elegent simplicity. The developers have done a good job in making the combat system as simple as possible so that we can focus on pure strategy and tactics. While these are interesting and inventive ideas, they may add to the complexity of a perfectly balanced game.

Of course creativity is good and keep the ideas coming, just understand that to keep the game balance, a lot of "that would be cool if..." features have to be left out.

The Fatherland[FIN] wrote:
Plus the scoring/ranking system sucks. Even if you win the top player 20 times and lose 0 you woulden't be concidered the top player in the ranking system !!! :x The ranking system should be redone !

The original scoring system follows the MA philosophy of simplicty, and is a good measure of experience, but doesn't do well in measuring skill. There is an alternative system you might be interested in, which is based on an advanced chess rating:

You might be interested in the current results ;)

Author:  Quitch [ Fri May 28, 2004 2:45 am ]
Post subject: 

Fatherland is quite the PL lover it seems :)

Ah, no wonder, he plays Emerald :)

Author:  Maelstrom [ Fri May 28, 2004 2:49 am ]
Post subject: 

And all on Emerald too.... totally undefeated record though, except for his first game against Tiger (who he promptly came back and defeated)

Author:  The Fatherland[FIN] [ Fri May 28, 2004 3:32 am ]
Post subject: 

Yes, and it was the first game I ever started in Massive Assault.. I tought hey, a Mentor (Tiger) to teach me how to play the game. Like schools have mentors. I diden't realize that it was the world champion and I would get a permanent mark on my profile for the defeat. The game was reeeeaaally long and when it ended I had already won many faster games and started understand the game strategies. The second game with Tiger was my (If I remember correctly) thierd started game in MAN and that I won. Now Im playing a new game with Tiger.

I knew I am a good player and the Massive Assault home page's ranking system diden't do me justice and diden't mesure who is the best player, only who is the most active, but seeing that Im rank 1 is an great honor. Still the result is in one map only and I do play mostly the bad guys.. so Rank #1 is a over statement.. But rank 1 on Emerald I do agree upon 8)

Author:  The Fatherland[FIN] [ Fri May 28, 2004 4:21 am ]
Post subject: 

Oh, and forgot: I don't think rivers would change the game balance. Only make a reason why build Amphibians compared to tanks in certain positions. And the game graphic of the little buggies (LAVs) is stupid. In tactical terms they are infantry. Slow, low fire power, but great in defending and in lines. Why not just have a graphic of a group of infantry ? Would make the game pretty and make the game seem more "Cool" and get nOObs to play longer and so get in to the game. If they continue playing to the point that they start understanding the game (and winning) they will continue playing. It's REALLY IMPORTANT that they reach that point. Let's face it. Noobies build so many Heavy Bots because Mechs look Cool. The more "cool" units, the more attraction for nOObs in the game. The "Cool marine infantry group's" attraction should not be undermined. And does anyone ever build destroyers ?? Waste of resources. And why isen't there submarines ? Submarines would be the games ONLY stealth unit. It's movements woulden't be seen. It would move 3. Have low hit point but relatively nice damage and range 1. Destroyers would be the only unit to see submarines from neighbor hexes. Destroyers movement would be 4 and battleships 3. The idea of the battleship being faster than a Amphibious Assault Vehicle, Destroyer and Carrier is LAUGHABLE!!! I have an idea that artillery, missile, bomber or long range naval fire woulden't do damage to a submarine. It could be dameged only by ships in the neighboring hex. And the destroyer would do double damege (2) when attacking a submarine. Plus a pacific map would be really intresting. Two mainlands on opposite sides of the map. Huge ocean with 2-3 turns distance by ship from island to island. Carriers would become really important as their bombing range would possibly be from side to side of a island. And the paratroopers strategic meaning for the game has to be said in this context again. But ofcourse these are only my toughts and the game developers deside, but think about it. Many maps ofcourse woulden't have rivers, submarines or paratroopers but if some people would like to play more hardcore strategy they should have the opportunity for it.

(I also have an idea that bombers would do only 1/2 or 1/3 damage when bombing units in forests, but I won't get in to it because I don't want to overflow you with development ideas. :( )

Author:  Guest [ Fri May 28, 2004 9:31 am ]
Post subject: 

I think one thing that only makes sense would that be units inside the cities would get an extra point of defense since they have more cover around them . What it would do is simply lower the amount of damage a unit would do to it by a point a turn (not from every unit) so if you attack with 2 small tanks it would only deal one damage, likewise if attacked with 4 you would do 3 damage.

Another thing was transports, I know a bunch of people think that this would just be a strategy but I don't think the things in them should die if it dies. They should take the damage dealt to the transport + 1 and then the player should be able to place them when his turn starts. It would make it easier to try and invade entrenched forces.

Lastly, a neutral territory that you capture after its revenue has been given up should still give you SOMETHING. The player gets $4 when you move in so if they get that and you finally take it over you should get $4 also. Otherwise its kind of pointless to go after neutral territories at the end of the game unless they have planes based there and you want to scare them away.

Author:  iTZKooPA [ Fri May 28, 2004 9:32 am ]
Post subject: 

bah forgot to login...

Author:  The Fatherland[FIN] [ Fri May 28, 2004 1:05 pm ]
Post subject: 

Developer please read. :D

That fortress point in cities is really good. The transport thing in my opinion is not. Intemnity or industrial rape from neutral countries isen't a bad idea, but it would make offensive tactics superior. In real life countries that have a conscript army (guerilla) are way more costly to invade than the income what can be gained from them in a short time. But the option of robbing a neutral country blind after invadind is good. But it in real life it makes a very looooong lasting hatred in the country and produces small amounts of guerilla for a looong time. Artillery fire, naval fire or bombing to cities also in real life create guerilla/hatred. For example Tsethenia creates rebels for a really long time. It skips many turns but then again creates guerilla that attacks without warning. Neutral Countries that are invaded but whose people not plundered don't create guerilla more than the innitial amount while the innitial invading happens. For example Holland in WW2. But the Russian provinces started creating guerillas as Germans plundered the provinces. Later history has shown that the Russians innitially show the Germans as liberators from communist dictatorship and diden't create guerilla. As we now know they started creating masses of guerilla after the Germans started plundering. Some countries in real life have a ability to create guerilla for a long time even if the occupation tries to be a good guy. For example the Arabs. They presume that they are going to be plundered even if you don't plunder them and they keep producing guerilla who ever the invader. History has shown this. Ofcourse if you really plunder a Arab country ( like Israel ) the Arab country produces masses of guerilla. Ethnic cleansing is the answer against long lasting guerilla raiding but it makes other countries hate/dislike you ( Serbia ). Ofcourse Serbia plundered several independency wanting nations before and attacked UN-troops. Then it was the last draw and intervention came. But for example Sudan who ethnic cleanses it's southern black/christian population isen't going to get a intervention because it hasen't done it repeatetly and the provinces are so poor that nobody cares.

Ethnic cleansing creates masses of guerilla while it happens but there after the population is assimilated replaced (for example Siberia, what is now totaly Russian populated. And wasen't before. Ofcourse the amount of guerilla created by ethnic cleansing is greatly affected by the revenue of the province and hatred increase toward you lowers as it happens far from other countries borders. Like in Siberia. 1700-1800 nobody cared in Europe what Russia was doing. And in Stalins times European populations were so pacifistic they diden't care.) Still If you have Artillery and bombing in to cities it creates guerilla even in the most pacifistic nations when it happens to them.

Also in my opinion in real life nations can use revenue to gain political agreements. For example Hitler gave Finland eguipment to gain friendship and to get a agreement that he could move his armies across Finnish soil and to attack Russia. Still he diden't use enough resources to get Finland to be his full ally. And wouldent have joined WW2 if Stalin woulden't have invaded Finland. And so gained a othervice neutral country as a enemy. Even then it created only enough hatred that Finnish guerillas conquered the neighbor provinces from Russia but diden't march as far as Leningrad even as they could have with no Russian resistance on the Karelian front.
These advanced diplomacy options would only be in larger maps or as a special option to be enabled (if wanted) at the beginning of the game.

And final development idea. 2-8 player multiplayer. It could be done. Free for all games and ally games ofcourse. Most people would but a max time limit 1day as turn would rotate from so many persons. And a map of Earth would be nice. And in it some larger / more powerful countries would be divided into provinces. Invading one province brings the whole nation to war, but affects only the provinces revenue production not the whole nations. And a option that you could chose in any map your starting nation(s). Intrested in anymore development ideas ? :D

Author:  Tiger [ Fri May 28, 2004 2:26 pm ]
Post subject: 

Hi, The Fatherland[FIN],

I think you don’t know Russian history and geography.
For example Tsethenia creates rebels for a really long time.

Chechnya is very special region and bad example. I haven’t time to say long history of relations between many populations of Northern Caucasia, but I’d like to say that main motive of war without end is money. Each year in Chechnya embezzle many hundreds of millions dollars (and don’t forget about Chechen oil), each time before new series of acts of terrorism, in the region get tens of millions dollars from Middle East. Many terrorist in the modern Chechnya are citizens of other countries and even don’t know the Chechen language.
Chechnya is good region for making money, but bad place for living.
for example Siberia, what is now totaly Russian populated

This region was joined to Russia at the XVI century (at least single really battle conflict was at this time).
This summer, as it was each year before, food from other regions will transport by barges to many regions of Siberia.
Climate is very difficult for living in spite of modern technologies.
What do you think, how many people could live in Siberia at the XVI century?
At the same time, until XXI century in the Siberia there are many national autonomic regions and republics with natural nations of this territory.

Author:  The Fatherland[FIN] [ Fri May 28, 2004 2:53 pm ]
Post subject: 

I woulden't undermine the Chechnyan peoples desire for independence out either. All attacks are aimed for the removal of Russian control/troops from the region. Not hitting on banks. Foreign fighters come from other regions to fight for Chechnyan liberation. Not to make money. They are like LAVs coming from a other enemy nation in MAN.

The reason why Finland started to fight for independence from Russian rule was the Panslavenisim. Ethnic cleansing of the time. We were smarter than the Chechnyans and started "fighting" (deployed our secret army+guerilla) for independence when Russia was weak from its fighting with the Germans at ww1 not banging our heads to a wall like the Chechnyans are doing now. Stalin mass killed Finnish people living in Russia and Siberian Finnish related tribes. Ofcourse he killed a lot of his own people who he diden't view as loyal, but still did a ethnic cleansing. And the Russians living in Siberia weren't there from the beginning of time. Many many native people have disappeared in Siberia and now Siberia is predominantly Russian. ( Except for the eastern part of Russia where Chinise are immigrating to and what is now predominantly Chinise.)

Author:  Tiger [ Fri May 28, 2004 3:09 pm ]
Post subject: 

The Fatherland[FIN] wrote:
I woulden't undermine the Chechnyan peoples desire for independence out either. All attacks are aimed for the removal of Russian control/troops from the region. Not hitting on banks. Foreign fighters come from other regions to fight for Chechnyan liberation. Not to make money. They are like LAVs coming from a other enemy nation in MAN.

Again I see that don't know situation. For example, did you hear about operation with false Chechnyan letter of advice?
Many Russian banks lost millions of dollars by using this criminal operation.
Did you hear about tens of hostages (including foreign citizen), who was taken by field commanders only for money and hundreds of slaves and it AT THE BEGINNING OF XXI CENTURY IN THE EUROPE (I hope you know, that geographical it's European region).

Author:  Guest [ Fri May 28, 2004 4:25 pm ]
Post subject: 

This wasn't supposed to be a lesson in Euro History!

Author:  The Fatherland[FIN] [ Fri May 28, 2004 7:30 pm ]
Post subject: 

Many could argue that if Chechnya gained independence. The fighting would stop. And the bank scandal would have been done even without the war in Chechnya. In Finland also banking fraud/scandals happen and there is no war here. It's hard for me to accept that the Chechnyan people would want peace, but be unable to stop the fighting. Still I have been wondering for a long time why Chechnya continues to fight back when a much wiser strategy would be to make peace and wait for a better oppertunity for independence. Maybe when Russia is fighting a major war or becomes weak. +The filming of brutal executions of Russian conscripts is dumb. They lose sympathy in foreing countries and get the Russian public opinion even harder against their people. And on a side note: How many Chechnyans work/live in Moscow and St.Peterburg ?

Author:  Tiger [ Sat May 29, 2004 6:07 am ]
Post subject: 

Still I have been wondering for a long time why Chechnya continues to fight back when a much wiser strategy would be to make peace and wait for a better oppertunity for independence. Maybe when Russia is fighting a major war or becomes weak.

I can write you previous developments and I hope you can understand me.
Russia have difficult relations with Chechnya during long period of history.
For example, first Chechen war was about 50 years in the XIX century. In this period, Ottoman Empire used Chechnya against Russian influence in the Transcaucasia.
In XIX century Georgia and Armenia request help from Russia (all this country had Orthodox Church as organized religion). If you heard about genocide of Armenian people by Turkey during WW I, that you can understand why it was very important for these nations.
During Second World War German Army was stopped near Chechnya, but in the SS there were special units of Chechens. Diversionary units deliver to the Red Army's rear. Our veterans remember that they more afraid shoots from back then German bullets. In the Second World War main oil fields of USSR were in the Caucasus and before large advance of 1944 part of Chechens was deport to the Kazakhstan. In the 50's year they were come back.

In the 1991 in Chechnya nationalists usurp of power. New Russian Leaders evacuate all units of army, but ALL weapons were abandoned:
~ 100 tanks and armoured troop-carrier,
~ 600 anti-tank units of weapon,
thousands of submachine guns and machine guns.

After several mistakes of politicians, Russian Army was moved into Chechnya "to establish constitutional government".
This war was during 1994-1996 and was finished after infamous peace treaty with separatists.

After second evacuation of Russian Army from Chechnya, for this region start very dark period.
Thousands of Chechens who have good relations with Russia were killed or to run at breakneck pace.
Almost all not-Chechens people should flee from Chechnya.
Just one example, some years ago (after the second war) Russian law-court judge several young Chechens.
They violate and killed more than ten Russian woman and old people who can't leave Chechnya (Russian people live in the Chechnya during several centuries and Chechens historically isn't original nation for this region too).
These criminals were not arrested until they killed Chechen. After start of the Second Chechen War they were free and only now they were arrested and convicted.
In Chechnya was not real power during some years of independence between wars. There were many criminal groups which ones robbed own people and other regions of Russia.
There were many slave-owners. Almost each week some people and soldiers from adjacent regions were grabbed by bands from Chechnya (they used prisoners as slaves and to hold them to ransom).
For example, group of Russian TV journalists, which ones were well-known after reports from Chechnya during first war favourable to separatists were prisoners of bandits during several months (after 1996).
Special representative of president of Russia was grabbed in the airport of capital of Chechnya. Later he died when he try escape.
Each month Russian government transferred pensions to old people in Chechnya, but this money were robbed.
In centre of capital of Chechnya people were killed after verdict of religious court.
Criminal groups built hundreds small oil-factories in Chechnya. Results of it was ecological catastrophe in the Chechnya and Dagestan (adjacent region of Russia).
In Chechnya were built tens of bases of Islamic terrorists from all of the world.
Did you hear about destiny of five engineers from Britain and New Zealand?
They work for company of cellular radiotelephone from Chechnya. They were grabbed and beheaded by one of the bands.

Before the Second Chechen War more than half people who lived in Chechnya in the 1991 were refugees and live in other region of Russia.
All attempts of Russian government to establish good relation with new Leader of Chechnya were unsuccessful, but the Second Chechen War wasn't started by Russia. Very odious Leader of Chechen terrorists (Basaev) and his friend Leader of Arabian terrorists (Hatab) started this war, when their bandits (more then 1000) invade in Dagestan (August,7, 1999).
Dagestan is one of national republics of Russia. There tens on nations in this republic and people are mainly Moslem.
They had very good relations with Chechens during first war, but after this invasion in Dagestan was started raise of militia and many people of
Dagestan fought and died together with Russian soldiers.
During about month large bands from Chechnya invade in different region of Dagestan.
August, 31, 1999 first explosion in Moscow.
September, 4, 1999 one of building in Buynaksk (city in Dagestan) was detonated. 64 people were killed.
September, 9, 1999 first of building in Moscow was detonated. 94 people were killed.
September, 13, 1999 second of building in Moscow was detonated. 118 people were killed.
September, 16, 1999 explosion in Volgodonsk (city in South Russia). 17 people were killed.
September, 30, 1999 Russian Army entered in Chechnya.

I'd like to say that main faults were did by politics from both sides, but results are tragedy for Russian and Chechen people and it isn't good item for discussion in game.
The Fatherland[FIN] wrote:
And on a side note: How many Chechnyans work/live in Moscow and St.Peterburg ?

It's interesting but in this two cities, Chechens more then in the all Chechen cities. There are banks and firms under control of Chechens.
There is delegate in parliament etc. The speaker of Russian parliament in 1991-1993 was Chechen (professor science of law).

Author:  The Fatherland[FIN] [ Sat May 29, 2004 6:46 pm ]
Post subject: 

I thought Dagestan was/is mainly Christian ? :oops:
I am (relatively :roll: ) well aware of the history of the region and very well aware of the close history of Chechnya. Chechnyans have way higher casualties than the Russians have. Plus Russia can punish the Chechnyan civilian population if it wishes and so I don't understand why Chechnya continues to fight for independence in a time were they can't achieve it. Chechnyans have a very high birth rate and the Russians have a declining population. That and the point that Russians don't stop the flow of Chechnyans to Russian rich cities where Chechnyans can take the job market because they agree to work for lower wages than Russians agree to and so gain money and wealth in Russia. I just wonder woulden't it be more wise for them to just stop the war in Chechnya and simply multiply in Russia and gain it's more and more of its wealth. And strike again when they (or muslims in general) are a higher percentage of the population and wealthier. Plus who knows in the future China might want it's share of East Siberian resources and Russia coulden't fight on two fronts and Chechnya could get it's independence easier because Russians woulden't want to anger their muslim population in the time of crisis with China. But ok this subject has gotten REALLY far from the topic "Congratulations" :)

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group