Is there a way to add uncertainty to firing ?


The Massive Assault Demo is great. The graphics are very sharp for a strategy game.

The way the firing sequence unfolds feels humdrum. Units always hit and they always do the predetermined amount of damage.
I am sure many people enjoy that aspect of the game. For me, the gameplay is too chess-like. My preference is to have uncertainty. This could mean units sometimes miss and sometimes they do more or less damage than normal.

Uncertainty challenges a Commander to alter his strategy when the perfect plan falls apart.
Conversely, a Commander must decide to change plans when the opponent presents an unexpected opportunity.

Can this be changed - - Either in the Demo or Full Version ?

Thanks for your time.

Dig

Well, MA has uncertanity - in world wars. This uncertanity is large enough to have a dramatic impact on your strategy because you don't know where are yout opponent's allies.

We thought about fire uncertanity, but haven't found a solution to do both things: maintain uncertanity and implement "Undo" + "Rewind" features. These 2 buttons save lot's of save/load cycles to any player.

The other problem is multiplayer - we don't want people to do thier turns several times to get the best random outcome.

Adding fire uncertanity is too much of a change for a game after it's release. It was set at design time to go without it so there is no any.

Thanks for the information.

I understand how that feature would cause issues.

If you do a major update, please consider adding that as an option for Single Player.

Dig

Of course, we've been thinking about the uncertaitanity factor long time ago and we came to the conlcusing that it would be absolutely unappropriate for Massive Assault's concept. The people would be saving and loading all the time or using UNDO and REWIND all the time.
Needless to say that it would make the multiplayer games absolutely impossible.

Yes, we know that the majority of the turn-based games do have that random factor... but one of the key ideas of Massive Assault was that it doens't look like other games. It offers a number of fresh concepts not following other game's ideas. Many of the current players admitt that MA should be accepted as it is now, and any untested changes may seriously damage the game's balance.

I'm one of those players . If you look at some of my old posts, you'll see that. I think it is because of what MA is, it is a game that has broken the molds of Turn Based Strategies and Real Time Strategies in many ways, and it takes some time to get used to. But somehow they did something right. There is just something about Massive Assault that clicks in the minds of just about all people that play it, and its hard to put a finger on why. The more I talked about some of the features that I thought were lacking because they were in so many other games, the more I realized it was those very design decisions that made this my favorite strategy game of all time.

The whole idea of randomness has been taken out from the tactical portion of the game, unit to unit combat. Somehow it drives you to whole new levels of strategy. When you look at a layout on your turn, you know exactly what each of your enemy units can do, and because of that you can focus on the deeper, and more fun levels of strategy that really get your mind going.

Of course there can be improvement to this game. Keep looking for ways it could be better, but just remember that most of the time you'll prolly come around and thank the developers for certain aspects of the game when you reallize how intelligent they are . Thats another neat thing, the Developers do listen to the players, and have agreed to many of the improvements, so keep sharing your concerns.