Massive Assault

Number of players
Page 1 of 2

Author:  Quitch [ Sun Feb 22, 2004 5:52 am ]
Post subject:  Number of players

I downloaded the demo the other day, and enjoyed getting utterly whooped by the AI on Hard in World War mode (and the replays made it look so easy).

Is two players the maximum, even in multiplayer? I have to say, top of my wish list would be more players, and the ability to have alliances between them.

Oh, and OT. In Back & Forth the Phantom forces invade the right coastline, then seems to stop using its troops there... I was waiting for it to sweep across the top of the map. Why does it do this?

BTW, are the replays of the AI, or the developers?

Author:  Enforcer [ Sun Feb 22, 2004 9:55 am ]
Post subject: 

multiplayer is just 1v1, atm no-one can think of a workable way to have more people based on the current way of playing. I think the replays are AIs in the demo.

Author:  Vic [ Mon Feb 23, 2004 3:35 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Number of players

Quitch wrote:

BTW, are the replays of the AI, or the developers?

"Anubis Conquest" is a replay of Victor (me) against the A.I.

All the other replays in the final version are between live people

Author:  Quitch [ Tue Feb 24, 2004 5:03 pm ]
Post subject: 

Which ones the AI?

Author:  Maelstrom [ Tue Feb 24, 2004 5:05 pm ]
Post subject: 

Most likely the one that lost :D I know I wouldn't go around posting losses against the AI.... Besides, it would look bad for the head of the MA development to have lost against his own creation!

Author:  Quitch [ Tue Feb 24, 2004 5:06 pm ]
Post subject: 

Yeah, but I kinda want to know BEFORE the end... I'm sure I could guess, but it's interesting to know from the start :P

Author:  Darkshale [ Tue Feb 24, 2004 7:51 pm ]
Post subject: 

I would really like to see the ability to have more than one on one. After playing the demo i was hooked and couldnt wait to play a 2 vs AI or 3 person free for all. I was very disapointed when i found it was only a 1v1 multiplayer game. I am also disapointed in the lack of any lan play.

Author:  Conoran [ Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:04 pm ]
Post subject: 

Yeah, I think a third set of skins, to signify something like a neutral enclave or something? I dunno, you can rationalize it however you choose. But make it so you can have three people.

In a TBA I have found that after you get mroe then three people is seems to take FOREVER for your next turn to come around...

Author:  Kresh [ Sat Mar 27, 2004 11:57 am ]
Post subject: 

I believe it would be very intersting as well to have more than a 1-on-1 game type.. i have more than 1 friend that does war games and it would be nice to be able to enjoy a game together..

Author:  Tiger [ Sat Mar 27, 2004 4:28 pm ]
Post subject: 

Kresh wrote:
I believe it would be very intersting as well to have more than a 1-on-1 game type.. i have more than 1 friend that does war games and it would be nice to be able to enjoy a game together..

You could organize Clan. It is allow you to fight together and help each other by advice.

Author:  Guest [ Sat Mar 27, 2004 6:40 pm ]
Post subject: 

i dont get how more than 2 people wont work just let each person take their turn i dont see the difficulty. or is there something a lot more complex?

Author:  traj [ Sun Mar 28, 2004 3:04 am ]
Post subject: 

The only problem I could see is with assigning guerilla forces. It could be done with what I was calling a sympathy system. Basically every province would have a preference list indicating a "probable" and "possible" ally. If a province were invaded guerilla's would be controlled by its "probable" ally, unless it were invaded by the force listed as its probable ally, in which case it would side with the "possible" ally instead. This would of course be over-ridden by the secret ally declaration, if it were declared before it was invaded. It'd add a whole layer of depth to initial declaration, as you might want to declare allies that are unsympathetic to you, to avoid being forced to declare them after what could've been your guerillas were already used by some other side. coupled with each person being able to see the initial provinces declared (though not the forces inside) like someone else had suggested, I think it'd make the opening game far more interesting. I had played with a sympathy system not dissimilar to this in a home-brew risk-ish type game. It worked fairly well, but we didn't have any secret allies, and it was whole regions of the board that would join one side or the other, and it cluttered up the board horribly (though that last bit shouldn't pose a problem on a computer game).

Oh, on a totally unrelated note you'd also have to set the borders of the territories to do the little dotted thingie for disputed, but with multiple colors. Uhh I think this last bit makes sense only to me, but I'm too tired to fix it.

Author:  Maelstrom [ Sun Mar 28, 2004 9:26 am ]
Post subject: 

The multiplayer problem was discussed here as well:

Has anyone played a multiplayer game on a turn based game that you have to do the turns in order? Seems like you'd be waiting a very long time for each of your moves! Especially with people in different time zones online. Is it really worth it?

I would think that if they did come out with a multiplayer version you'd see people saying "ooooo, lookee!" and trying out a 4 player game. 4 months later, when they finally finished it, they'd never touch that option again :)

Author:  Enforcer [ Mon Mar 29, 2004 6:53 am ]
Post subject: 

the only way to play a turn based game with lots of people is to play it simultaneously, but that wuld just be a mess in this game, what makes this game so good is the way you can think about your move. The only way a 3+ player game would work is if everyon can sit down for an entire game in 1 go. But with games wiht more than 2 ppl, if you get all the people before you starting on one of your borders, you'll be lucky to have many units left by the time it got to your turn.

Author:  Strategos [ Mon Mar 29, 2004 7:24 am ]
Post subject: 

If a third side is created, it could be called neoRussia.
Russia at one point thought it should rule the world. So put them in.

Author:  Mrakobes [ Mon Apr 05, 2004 8:23 am ]
Post subject: 

Strategos wrote:
Russia at one point thought it should rule the world. .

total noncence and quite stupid one.this guy knows nothing about Russia and he ii even unable to see difference between USSR and Russia.

Author:  Quitch [ Mon Apr 05, 2004 9:45 am ]
Post subject: 

Read the topic "The enemy within" and it all makes sense :)

Hardly seems like a good argument to me, most countries have, at one time or another, attempted to form larger empires.

Author:  Strategos [ Mon Apr 05, 2004 1:28 pm ]
Post subject: 

So? What makes Mother Russia a bad third character. :roll:
Should we instead add a Neo-Germany or France? :evil:
We need more sides. :-?
Command and Conquer: Generals has a multiple sides ability, why shouldn't we. I think more people would buy it MA if it was added.

But Russia, being a world superpower, should continue in its path.
(Russia isn't as interested in world conquest anymore, but that may change someday.)
A Republic of China could be added. I don't think the U.S.A. should be added because I believe the F.N.U. represents the figure of the U.S.A.

Author:  Quitch [ Mon Apr 05, 2004 2:43 pm ]
Post subject: 

The USSR was a super power which after its decline became *struggles to remember* the CIS or some such. Russia is not a super power and never has been.

Author:  artmax [ Tue Apr 06, 2004 8:11 am ]
Post subject: 

Oh, really?

Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group