Massive Assault

Modifications/Features/Sequel Ideas
Page 1 of 1

Author:  Trilandian [ Tue Jul 26, 2005 11:20 am ]
Post subject:  Modifications/Features/Sequel Ideas

As much as I love this game there are some things I'd really like to see changed either now or in the sequel (if one ever comes out).
1. Disband - I'd like to see a "Disband" option. Like the "Automatic Undo" in the recruitment phase, you could click on a unit in a territory under your control and remove it from the game, this would solve the problem that pillboxes/bunkers create.
2. Superweapons - Each side should have a unique structure that functions as a superweapon. It would be immobile and cost a shitload of money but it would have a range on the entire map. I think the PL should have a Hypnotransmitter that charges every several turns and can convert any enemy unit. The FNU should have a giant cannon that has an effect similar to the green devil.
3. Strategic fund transfer - there should be an option at the end of the recruiting phase to transfer credits from a friendly country to its neighbor to use the next turn, it could help small territories block enemys from larger territories and collect money for expensive units.
4. Scenario/Campaign editor - I spoke to Wargaming about this and they said a map editor would be too complicated, but surely there could be a scenario/campaign editor. You coud use one of the already existing maps and place forces on them, create triggerable scenes and compose objectives. You could put these scenarios together to create a campaign and give the scenarios/campaigns for your friends to solve. (And by the way, there's some mention of planets in the campaigns like Bizzaria and New paradise that don't feature in the map collection, why?)
5. Higher diversity - I think there should be more unique units on each side (if not all units). That way you could really make differing strategies for each side.
6. Resistances/Weaknesses - I think units should be resistant to some damage types and weak against others. E.G - Ships should be resistant to bullets and cannon fire but weak against torpedos (read unit ideas).
7. Another side (Sequel only) - I think there should be another playable side. Three sides would bring a WHOLE NEW DIMENSION to the game. Maybe the new side should be aliens who want to take over the new worlds, and in the sequel campaign the FNU and the PL would put their differences aside and work together to stop the aliens.

I'd like to hear some of your ideas too.

I also have some ideas for new units.
Planes - The FNU should have a heavy bomber with less range and more damage, and the PL should have a fighter that can shoot down enemy planes that are based on nearby cities.
Ships - I know it's been suggested before but I really think the submarine should be invisible and fire torpedos from under water, and to counter that the PL should have a special ship that detects it.
Land - The PL should a kamikaze truck that causes damage to all the units around it when it's triggered to explode, it should be fast but have like 1 armor. The FNU should have a heavy tank with more armor and firepower.

Author:  Mrakobes [ Wed Jul 27, 2005 11:35 am ]
Post subject: 

very good suggestions....hopefully they will be used in game-design of next MA title (probably 2-3 years till that though)

Author:  puet [ Fri Aug 05, 2005 2:46 pm ]
Post subject: 

Nice comments. Some great ideas; but letґs begin with the easiest part:
I would like to see a patch right now with a panel options in the Lan and hot seat mode (similar to the one found in the world wars in the single player version) that let me select the number of countries involved in a hot seat game or lan mode and the starting faction (always starts the red one!!) and the number of turns for each player.
The problem is that I always end the bigger maps withot disclosing all my allies. If there was less allies (and the situation of both players were good enought, they could expand and create a real strategic war ignoring the starting situation on the map.
In the way the maps looks now there are too much countries per side for my taste.
And: anyone else interested in importing they career profile to the lan or hot seat modalities?? (or being able to construct one playin on lan or hot seat???
Thatґs my opinion, and: yes!, it would be great to create or transform maps like any good game on the world now. We need more options and more maps. (the options panel iґd mentioned need to be very easy to patch, and itґs a real shame that it doesnґt exist yet; it is the easiest way to add variety to the game).
Thatґs it.

Author:  Rextrent [ Sat Aug 27, 2005 11:44 am ]
Post subject: 

i love that quick disband idea.....I've had to rewind whole games, oboy....

If Massive Assault is making another game....PLEASE consider using a WWII scenario, like Germans invading Russia......Stalingrad.....D-Day.....Pacific island invasions.....
That would be so easy for you to do!!!.....the units just need to be re-designed....and how beautiful that would be!

Author:  Placid [ Sat Aug 27, 2005 12:43 pm ]
Post subject: 

Keep Massive Assault Focused on Gameplay, not Realism

There are already a ton of games based on historic situations. I like Massive Assault because it sacrifices realism and historical accuracy for the sake of gameplay. The reason I play Massive Assault right now is because it is designed to have some of the best gameplay I've ever experienced. That's quite an accomplishment!

Of course, there are improvements to be made.

The Main Thing: Mod-ability

Making the next Massive Assault more mod-able should still be the #1 priority. There's no better move could make than producing the tools to get the community producing maps, scenarios, new units, etc. for them and thereby extending the life of the game for years to come.

Units: Diverse or Symmetrical?

Although I wouldn't be opposed to seeing more diverse units for each side, I'd also like to see the *option* to to play with symmetrical units. I understand that some people enjoy the units unique to one side. But in Domination, many folks including myself maintain that the unique units were not balanced (ironically, in favor of PL again). I’d at least like the option of playing a game where both sides have access to all units, even if there is another mode of play where certain units are unique to a particular side.

Broken Games Should be a Thing of the Past

Also, it would be nice if a future Massive Assault had no more frustrating broken games. When great games become “broken” often after hours and hours have been poured into them, people aren’t happy. And why do games ever “break” anyway? I’m not a programmer, so it is quite likely that this situation is more complicated than I understand. Still, it seems that in a turn-based game, “broken games” should be obsolete. If a replay can remember a simple list of scripted moves and play through a game to bring it up to a certain point without “breaking,” why can’t the actual games themselves simply remember all moves that have happened before with the particular country distribution? If this info is stored in any reasonable way, it seems like it should never be “lost.”

Turn Sequence

The turn sequence also needs to be made consistent. Domination made progress in the right direction lessening the PL advantage, but PL still gets extra first turn privileges. The first turn should be just like any other turn, which means PL can only disclose one country (since previous phases are not applicable), then likewise FNU discloses one country. Then in turn #2 PL has a combat phase, recruitment phase, and the opportunity to disclose another country. Then FNU. Etc. Note even if the turn sequence is made consistent in this way, which is the fairest option available, there is still a slight advantage to PL, because PL has the first opportunity to attack, and, if the PL player understands MA strategy and makes a wise disclosure, the fact FNU can see and react to it will not be a disadvantage.

Author:  Rextrent [ Sat Aug 27, 2005 3:01 pm ]
Post subject: 

amen to that "broken game" comment....!......that has happened to me, sometimes seemingly when I am winning, that the game goes kablooey, and fixing means a draw, which means a waste of time and effort....thankfully it hasn't happened too often....and i wonder if it has to do with the players' pc's.....does it seem that against certain players it never breaks?...that is a question, not factoid....have we paid attention to the circumstances?.....
I don't get the beef with isn't a favorite with the masses....of course, reality tv is popular, what does that tell ya......?
Massive Assault is THE ONLY WARGAME of its kind....there areNOT "plenty of anything"s out there.....
What doesn't make sense is a "world" where every contiguous piece of land adjoins a warring nation.....totally fantasyland....FUN nontheless....
The scenario has nothing to do with playability, which is THE thing....the reason there are so many ideas for game changes/options....maybe Dreamcatcher (or whoever) can make enuff of these games to really get it RIGHT!...and take some advice from the people who are playing the hell out of it...... :o

Author:  Placid [ Sat Aug 27, 2005 3:26 pm ]
Post subject: 

Just to clarify, I agree that Massive Assault/Domination has gameplay unlike any other wargame. I was just pointing out that there are hundreds and hundreds of other wargames that try to be extremely realistic, portraying actual historic periods or conflicts, but almost always at the expense of gameplay and with an over-emphasis on economic management (which Massive Assault has brilliantly "stylized" so we can concentrate on the war part).

Sure, if created another game like Massive Assault just with units from a different, specific period, that would most likely be quite fun. I would just want the same focus on gameplay, even if that means the units' abilities, maps, etc. would be historically inaccurate. So what we're talking about is basically an aesthetic change plus new combinations of units. And that's the sort of thing this community would probably have already produced if there were editors available for the current games!

Author:  Rextrent [ Sat Aug 27, 2005 8:42 pm ]
Post subject: 

More clarification:
If by wargame you mean the "real- time" game that is everywhere, well, that is a different thing....i don't consider those basis for a wargame is the Avalon Hill model....and being as such, Massive Assault is the ONLY wargame I have found.....and it was a real mind-blower to see that such a thing existed....the Avalon Hill wargame was not a pc game, but a real ...."table" boardgame where you sit in the same room with another person and move the pieces with your hands, roll the dice, argue about the rules, curse and that's what I am talking about.....and I find real-time to be a complete drag....must be my age....for example: the ATARI release of Axis and Allies was a complete disappointment and waste of my moolah! far, no one has released an Axis and Allies to compare with the real boardgame version.....natch! :wink:
Wish you would have considered my other questions and observations regarding broken I crazy?

Author:  Placid [ Sat Aug 27, 2005 9:08 pm ]
Post subject: 

No, I'm referring to turn-based war games, modeled after table top war games. Look at the huge lists of such computer games on, for example. The overwhelming majority of these games are trying to be historically accurate and are subject to the criticisms cited above.

I'm not a big fan of RTS games either; even though they sometimes do require interesting strategies, being the best at them always comes down to having the ability to click the mouse really fast in order to precisely micro-manage large numbers of units at once and/or hours of "building" units. I'll stick with the "think-based" strategy of MA, and looking forward to see how the devs will continue to improve this excellent concept. :-)

I'm not sure if there are patterns concerning games "breaking." Maybe the devs can shed some light on this issue. Again, I'm a simple game player, not a programmer, but I can't understand why this would be such a persistent problem.

Author:  Rextrent [ Sat Aug 27, 2005 9:53 pm ]
Post subject: 

i will fly to eagerly....hoping to find decent games!....thanks for the info!.....
The investment of time and money into realtime games is a real baffler to me....anal retentive exercises for masochistic schizos...ha...just kidding...kind of... :wink:

Author:  Rextrent [ Mon Aug 29, 2005 8:48 am ]
Post subject: 

That grognard thing is not of interest to me....too narrow-focused and not my idea of a good time...
I am not asking for a historical recreation to that extent....i just think the units could be based on real historical features....Tigers or Panthers and T-34's would be very well as the 88mm.....
I think it would be very nice, not restrictive like those Grognard games or others like them.....there were lots of encounters in the Russian Campaign with tons of units on both battle-sites would be very easy to well as the playability of a free-for-all melee, like we have in MAN.....blah! :o

Author:  Rextrent [ Sun May 07, 2006 1:30 pm ]
Post subject: 

Placid wrote:
I'm not sure if there are patterns concerning games "breaking." Maybe the devs can shed some light on this issue. Again, I'm a simple game player, not a programmer, but I can't understand why this would be such a persistent problem.

I just replaced my crowded hard drive and in doing I downloaded a "Purchased" Windows XP.
The PC I originally purchased had Windows on it and I never had to purchase it(as such). So I could get no free support and Most Important I think there were problems w/my WIndows which were preinstalled.
I am hoping to have fewer crashes in every case now.
Usually I get what I pay for.
As this had been my first PC, I made lots dumb mistakes like downloading every free thing that came along and much wild searching and experimenting, relying on Restore Function to make things better.
This will not happen again, and I expect a brighter future!

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