Massive Assault Official Forum
   
It is currently Wed Sep 19, 2018 8:32 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 8:58 pm 
Offline
Sea Wolf
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 4:14 pm
Posts: 424
Karma: 10

Location: Michigan
If you really want to make things weird, why don't we just make transporter available? That way you could move units from any point on the map to any other point as long as you had a portal at both points. But seriously, it seems to me that the game has plenty of depth as it is and the stratigic element is almost limitless, so why try to make it even more complex?

_________________
Archers! But sir, will we not hit our own men? Yes, but we'll hit theirs too, and we have reserves!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 4:14 am 
Offline
Sea Wolf
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 6:46 am
Posts: 209
Karma: 8

Location: Australia
I have seen this argument played over and over again - usually by those that have played enough to know but not enough to know better (I am not excluded from that list - see previous posts).

I rarely use towers - (probably because I am more offensively focused) but have seen them used effectively.

As for pill boxed - they are excellent - just dont buy ALL pill boxed on a border - by 50% - especially on the edges - an you have increased you ability to kill a unit in a single turn by having more units shoot one target.

They all have their place.

To change the cost of a tower (say to $3) would could mean that every game ends in a whole series of towers over a map.... not sure

(as I said - I rarely buy them - because I think the good players know how to kill them quickly - but - rextrent has used them against me many times and stuffed up my attack plans -its all about the map geography - forrest, mountains - deserts etc.)

Play the top 20 and you will learn some neat tricks. (Morn has one special trick I promised never to mention again - all I can say is watch out :)

But all these discussion stimulate the imagination.

The game is fine as it is - its balanced - fun - and addictive.

If its not broken - dont mess with it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 8:16 am 
Offline
Sea Wolf
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 4:14 pm
Posts: 424
Karma: 10

Location: Michigan
You--Ravermister--offensively focused? Who would have thought that to be true :wink: Next you will try to tell us that the sky is blue and it is wet when it rains :wink:

_________________
Archers! But sir, will we not hit our own men? Yes, but we'll hit theirs too, and we have reserves!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 7:46 am 
Offline
Veteran
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 5:15 pm
Posts: 135
Karma: 8

Location: Bern
Usually I buy pillboxes when I know that I'm gonna lose this country. And like ravermeister I rarely use towers. They are too vulnerable and most of the time it's better to use other units instead.

@ravermeister: I doubt that I'm the only one who has performed it in this way. ;-)

The guys who designed that game are very good. They even have left room for a 3rd MAN. Have you realized that there is no land unit yet which can fire exactly over three hexes?

The only flaw in the system is the secret allies concept. It's very special and unique but if you got a bad layout and you play against a skilled player you're going to lose no matter what. But this is probably something for another thread.

_________________
Take your time, you will need it!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 9:58 am 
Offline
Sea Wolf
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 4:14 pm
Posts: 424
Karma: 10

Location: Michigan
Bad Layout? That is the only reason any of us lose--is it not? :wink:

_________________
Archers! But sir, will we not hit our own men? Yes, but we'll hit theirs too, and we have reserves!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 2:14 pm 
Offline
Veteran
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 5:15 pm
Posts: 135
Karma: 8

Location: Bern
@storm: Yeah, of course. Don't tell me that you have ever lost a game for some other reason. ;-)

_________________
Take your time, you will need it!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 11:39 pm 
Offline
Tough Nut
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 6:58 am
Posts: 34
Karma: 0

Location: Kansas , USA
Well I don't see anything wrong really with extending the use of units that already exist in the game, whats the diff if I can load battleships, destroyers etc. into a sea transport, the amphibian is both land and sea capable, and it's loadable into land and sea transports. The land transport already has a max of 8 points, but the sea transport can carry up to 24 points. Thats a big difference, so why not allow any weapon that can move into the mix, then both would be consistent with sea-24 land-12. Complex? sure why not?

_________________
That's what learning is, after all; not whether we lose the game, but how we lose and how we've changed because of it and what we take away from it that we never had before, to apply to other games. Losing, in a curious way, is winning.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 3:01 am 
Offline
Sea Wolf
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 6:46 am
Posts: 209
Karma: 8

Location: Australia
Balance

Showing up un-anounced with destroyers from halfway accross the map via a chain of 4 transports is just plain rude :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 10:24 am 
Offline
Sea Wolf
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 4:14 pm
Posts: 424
Karma: 10

Location: Michigan
Also, you can not load the toad into a land transport or onto a battle platform now because it has been deemed "too big". I think that same concept carries over to the sea units ie: how can you load a battleship into a unit that is smaller than the battleship. A very good part of this game is the balance between units--you know if you choose a toad you get 5 attack and 11 hit points but you trade the mobility you would have had if you had chosen a tank and bot for the same cost. With the tank and bot you gain mobility and 1 hit point but if one is destroyed you lose some attack. This type of balance provides both benefits and negatives for each unit chosen so they have to be chosen carefully and with thought. If you remove the negative from any choice you make, it diminishes the game--in my opinion.

_________________
Archers! But sir, will we not hit our own men? Yes, but we'll hit theirs too, and we have reserves!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 9:06 am 
Offline
Tough Nut
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 6:58 am
Posts: 34
Karma: 0

Location: Kansas , USA
I am just saying that there is a disparity between the land and sea transport, 8 points vs 24, that is unfair as well, a way to equal that out is to make the sea transport cost 4 instead of 2 . As far as I'm concerned, I'd like to see toad loadable in the land transport. As far as being too big? come on, this is fantasy anyway muahahahaha.

_________________
That's what learning is, after all; not whether we lose the game, but how we lose and how we've changed because of it and what we take away from it that we never had before, to apply to other games. Losing, in a curious way, is winning.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Karma functions powered by Karma MOD © 2007, 2009 m157y