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

Making custom world war maps?
http://www.massiveassault.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=680		 Page 2 of 2
Author:  justme [ Thu Apr 22, 2004 12:15 am ]
Post subject:  Re: map editor
quote]

What, you only know how to play in open fields or something?[/quote]

hey three seven if you are happy with move and shoot games good luck to you.......you could try some of the sid meier games or the ssi stuff.....but be careful your brain may melt down after a couple of turns

cheers :)
Author:  Three Seven [ Thu Apr 22, 2004 9:12 am ]
Post subject: 
No, those would be the games for you, since you seem to have a problem with things that limit tactical movement, which is why I asked you if you can only battle in open fields.

Quote:
...there are many limitations to movement and firing and they severely restrict the tactical element of the game


Did you get some tanks stuck in a forest and watch them get cut down by mortars? You have problems with rockets firing over mountains? What?
Author:  Artanis [ Thu Apr 22, 2004 10:56 am ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
...there are many limitations to movement and firing and they severely restrict the tactical element of the game

Those restrictions are where a lot of the tactical element comes from!


If I'm being attacked through a forest, I know that I can (relatively) safely get a Rocket Launcher to take potshots with instead of having to buy LAVs.

If the enemy is massing on the other side of a 2-wide border, I know that I can plug it up with cannon fodder while moving my real forces against another front.

If I've invaded an enemy and forests make the road through them the only way for a guerilla transport to kill my Bombers, I know I can safely stick a Tank on the road instead of having to garrison my capital.

If I hold Jorent on New Paradise, I know that my Bombers can pelt the enemy's Battleships with impunity because he needs a Naval Transport to get to me.

If the enemy invades a country that has a 1-wide, 4-deep canyon that ends in a dead end, then he'll have one hell of a time killing a Death Turret placed at the back end of it.


Just remember that the "tactical element" of the game is the struggle to both use and circumvent those obstacles, NOT seeing how many painful hurty things you can cram into one country in a single turn.

If you still don't believe me, go play a game on Emerald and compare whether you'd rather defend Predel or Gornaya or play on Antarcticus and tell me whether you'd rather try to hold Nova Polska or Pantherburg. Or better yet, go play the "Airbase" training scenario and concentrate on just how many options that desert gives you.
Author:  justme [ Thu Apr 22, 2004 6:34 pm ]
Post subject: 
Don't get me wrong I think the people at massive assault have done a great job, I have been eagerly anticipating a strategy game with excellent graphics.....they have got the excellent graphics side of things done really well, but the game itself is so so predictable.....the units on both sides are exactly the same....only the graphics change so there is no "flavour" to either army.....the tactics mentioned above you can figure out after about 3 or 4 games....I don't really see the tactical element in looking for a bottleneck then defending it. There is no random factor as there is in combat. The AI is primitive at best, but that is no fault of the MA people, its extremely difficult to come up with an AI that can handle the fluidity of battle, although the later steel panthers games come very close. Because of the move and fire system, you can't use hit and run tactics, there is no option to repair units etc etc etc....the list goes on and on. I'm sure that future versions of MA will begin to incorporate some of these ideas, anyway enough ranting from me, i'm not going to be able to convince anyone that doesn't want to be.
:wink:
oh, and three seven you shouldn't try and hide ignorance behind arrogance.
Author:  Artanis [ Thu Apr 22, 2004 7:25 pm ]
Post subject: 
justme wrote:
.....the tactics mentioned above you can figure out after about 3 or 4 games

Even IF this were true (which I am not conceding), you're NOT going to be using just one tactic at a time. Like my Jorent example: what about when, in addition to the bombers and Firestorms, there's two friendly Battleships and three Destroyers on one side of the enemy fleet and a Transport fully loaded with Amphibians on the other, the enemy has a Naval transport full of mechs 2 turns away, your forces are fighting a losing battle over a vital coastline just a half-dozen hexes behind your ships, the enemy has just built a Pteronest, filled it with Pteroplanes, and is moving to flank your fleet, and the enemy has just disclosed an SA and spread Bio-Ts across the border of your only nearby source of reinforcements...plus whatever's happening on the OTHER TWO AND A HALF CONTINENTS? Try learning how to deal with THAT in 3 or 4 games.


justme wrote:
....I don't really see the tactical element in looking for a bottleneck then defending it.

Let's see...you manuver your troops in such a way that it furthers your own goals, in this case by impeding the enemy's. That sounds tactical to me.


justme wrote:
There is no random factor as there is in combat.

I beg to differ


justme wrote:
The AI is primitive at best

The AI in Massive Assault is some of the best that I have ever seen. Not X-Com, not Star Wars Rebellion, and not even the mighty StarCraft can match its ability to kick a human's ass.
Author:  Guest [ Thu Apr 22, 2004 10:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Dang!
Rats! We've degenerated into a flame war. I was really hoping for either some serious brainstorming that might just turn the designers on to avenues they hadn't thought of, or a "how-to" on designing new maps.
Author:  Artanis [ Thu Apr 22, 2004 11:32 pm ]
Post subject: 
:(
Author:  Quitch [ Fri Apr 23, 2004 9:21 am ]
Post subject: 
The fact that you even dared to lower the mighty AI of X-Com to lowly Starcraft levels is reason enough to kill you.
Author:  Deestan [ Fri Apr 23, 2004 9:48 am ]
Post subject: 
Quitch wrote:
The fact that you even dared to lower the mighty AI of X-Com to lowly Starcraft levels is reason enough to kill you.

Are you talking about the first X-Com game here? The game where my soldier in a flying suit who was ordered to walk around a bush decided it was better to fly straight up, fly a half-circle around the bush and then land on the other side? :D
Author:  Quitch [ Fri Apr 23, 2004 10:45 am ]
Post subject: 
Which just goes to show how crap Starcraft AI is.
Author:  Artanis [ Fri Apr 23, 2004 2:55 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quitch wrote:
The fact that you even dared to lower the mighty AI of X-Com to lowly Starcraft levels is reason enough to kill you.

StarCraft is a very popular game, more recent than X-Com, and made by Blizzard, which is why I used it.
Author:  Quitch [ Sat Apr 24, 2004 5:18 am ]
Post subject: 
Yes, but its AI is crap.
Author:  LtLars [ Sat May 08, 2004 12:51 pm ]
Post subject: 
Artanis wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
This is OK though, because it is hardwired in human nature to dismiss what is bad, and gravitate towards the good. Those maps that are good will become more popular, which in turn encourages their designer's to produce even more good quality maps, bad map designers will be shunned and fade into obscurity (the same way a true free market economy works)!

Sadly, my experience on BNet implies the opposite: high quality, well thought-out maps by skilled and dedicated designers get overrun by crap like "SPERM WARS v. 1.4.5.3.1.2!!!!111!!!!!11!!!" (actual map name). :cry:


Look at the CnC community... never seen such brilliant maps before....
Page 2 of 2 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/