Post by: Shecky on July 11, 2007, 03:34:03 PM
Next release is officially titled "Advance Wars: Days of Ruin" and releases January 21, 2008 in North America.
Word is that the game will feature online play and asset trades (maps) with voice chat. The game play has been streamlined to promote quicker play, so CO powers are less pronounced. The game overall is redone story and art wise, although the basic functions and play mechanics remain the same. Stylus and D-pad control options are available.
IGN Hands-On
Intel that I can muster from what we have so far:
Units seem to have rankings I, II, Ace... likely as a result of surviving enough battles (similar to Age of Empires and other games). The result of the ranking will likely be a slight stat boost.
New terrain "types" such as scorched earth, as well as terrain "skins"
The flaming/scorched earth may actually be a result of the new flame tanks
KDR: Looks like most the tanks are back save the NEO Tank, but quite frankly I'm glad to see that go.
Units:
Infantry
Mechs
Motorbike Infantry
APCs
Recon
Light Tanks
Heavy Tanks
Mega Tanks
Flare Tanks - Capable of visibly exposing a large 6x6 area in Fog of War (unknown if it lights area for everyone)
Anti-Tank Units - Capable of heavily damaging tanks via indirect fire, also has machine guns for direct counter fire
Anti-Air
G-G Rockets
G-A Missiles
Artillery
Carriers
Cruisers
Submarines
Battleships
Landers
Gunboats - Can fire on ships and carry one ground unit.
Bombers
Fighters
Transport Copters
Attack Copters
Duster - Air units that can fire on both air and ground units.
Scramble Fighters - Produced by carriers, same properties as dusters
Assets:
HQ
Cities
Bases
Naval Ports
Airports
Towers?
Radars?
Silos
Older info follows:
Thanks to Vudu for the find. New rumors suggests the above title was playable at Micromania Games Show 2007 in Paris. I'll suppose if this is true, we may see more coverage from the major news outlets soon. Art style is supposedly updated - likely to take advantage of the hardware. I never battle with animation on so I'm curious how the map style looks more than anything. I wouldn't trust any news about story or cast from a floor demo.
Original Post:
Thanks to Bill for the Official Nintendo Europe source
Advance Wars 2 (Nintendo) Q4 2007
Post by: Chozo Ghost on July 11, 2007, 04:44:20 PM
Other than that, what else would they add to improve over the first DS iteration?
Post by: Shecky on July 11, 2007, 04:56:28 PM
Post by: S-U-P-E-R on July 11, 2007, 06:11:23 PM
Post by: Mario on July 11, 2007, 08:15:13 PM
Post by: Shecky on July 14, 2007, 03:29:40 AM
(or many of the others offline...)So bring it on S-U-P-E-R, Mario....
I was thinking of a way to bridge the earlier advance wars games. However my biggest forseen problem that I couldn't work around was inherent to the game itself. Mainly what to do when one guy drops in a 3 or 4 player match... and no way to suspend a game (as that's a deal breaker for most cases). So I gave up on trying to bridge DS/DS local play.
So what's the best way to play Advance Wars Online?
1) The "early game" seem the most important to me... trying to manage building plus capturing of assets is better than just starting with an army and fighting. However, the former option takes much longer to play out and both are valid play styles so .... keep existing play types and custom maps for online.
2) Implement a disruption tolerant (and not DTN!
) game mechanic for these matches. Such that a turn can be entered and stored for when the opponent logs in (where he can then do the same). Sure the game would continue over days, but why not... it's turn based, it can handle that. To start a match, your both present so you can get most of the capturing and quick, early turns out of the way early. The stored turn need to be played out exactly as inputed for the opponent (exact path) since it may be critical in fog of war. For example, you opponent moves in a path that crosses your field of view in fog of war. So you don't see where he started or where he stopped, but you do a) ID the unit and b) get a general idea of it's possible location. This is where I was getting at with suspended matches, so the idea is you could have multiple of these to handle a day against different opponents. That alone could take an hour of time, and you haven't even received an opponents move!If your opponent logs on simultaneously you could of course make several moves and continue "live" play.
3) Have optional forced surrender terms that can be set by the host of the match. Not sure what would be effective, but the goal would be to try and prevent stalling from someone who has "lost". (Basically the options allow you to control the heuristics for what is considered "lost")
Thoughts?
Post by: WuTangTurtle on July 14, 2007, 11:06:09 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Shecky
I am king of "dark" tactics... just ask WuTang or thatguy
So bring it on S-U-P-E-R, Mario....
First off, I believe my "dark" tactic against you was better. You selfdestructed in a doubles match to force a draw, I had my Lopunny use endure while my Golem used explosion. Me = 1, Shecky = 0
Second, if Wifi play is to be done they need to shorten matches. Here are my ideas:
Match Types:
1. Blitzkrieg Match: Basically setup for a 15, 30, or 45 turn match where the victor would win by total damage if not won in a regular fashion.
2. Liberation: A Co Op Challenge to save a city in a limited set of rounds (turns).
Rules:
1. Turns are timed (1min, 2min, or 5min caps).
2. Turn time IQ: Based on how many possible things you have to do, the timer is adjusted. For example you have 1 unit and only 1 factory, the timer would then only give you 30 seconds to finish your turn.
3. Leaving a game or disconnecting is an automatic loss.
Post by: that Baby guy on July 14, 2007, 11:43:16 AM
Post by: Artimus on July 14, 2007, 01:15:24 PM
Post by: Shecky on July 14, 2007, 05:51:53 PM
And WuTang.... a 45 round match would take several hours!
Post by: Artimus on July 15, 2007, 12:28:53 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Shecky
I actually can't stand the touch screen controls. As long as you have the choice....
And WuTang.... a 45 round match would take several hours!
That's why I said intuitive touch screen controls. Just slapping them onto an old system doesn't do any good. You need an interface that's designed for them.
And if they have the same graphics...ew. How many times are they going to remake Advance Wars? Do something fresh with the series!
Post by: Shecky on July 15, 2007, 02:44:58 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: ArtimusQuote
Originally posted by: Shecky
I actually can't stand the touch screen controls. As long as you have the choice....
And WuTang.... a 45 round match would take several hours!
That's why I said intuitive touch screen controls. Just slapping them onto an old system doesn't do any good. You need an interface that's designed for them.
And if they have the same graphics...ew. How many times are they going to remake Advance Wars? Do something fresh with the series!
Well the touch screen controls made sense before, they just were slower to me than using the normal layout plus I'd often pick the wrong location/command b/c things were a bit small. They could fix picking location by zooming in on the unit you tap (so that its range takes up the whole screen). The zooming is something they could do if they brush up the visuals. Then fade to HUGE buttons for the action commands (Fight, stay, capture, etc). Problem is that wouldn't work to well for D-pad setup as the time zooming and producing buttons would slow input down.
Ideally, the game should force you to pick in an input option in the options menu and make changes to the UI to accommodate, none of this on the fly stuff.
Part of me want to play the Advance Wars we've had for the past 3 games against other humans though.... I've been deprived of that. So I guess if they kept the same assets and put it online, I'd actually be OK with that.
If that realtime combat mode is the only thing we get online, and the assets are the same, I will not buy the game out of spite - even though I've likely put over a months worth of time into the series thus far.
Post by: Artimus on July 15, 2007, 08:41:06 AM
Post by: Mikintosh on July 15, 2007, 09:59:59 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Artimus
AW should be stylus only. It should be fast and exact. There's no excuse for anything else.
Yeah, except the stylus controls were in AW
S and they weren't exact, which is why I personally never used them. I personally think the original GBA controls work the best, but they should keep the stylus controls in for those who want to use them. But if they made it stylus-only...I'd be pretty sad inside.
Post by: jakeOSX on July 16, 2007, 07:25:36 AM
as for the online, i suspect something like civ's 'play by email' system would work well. otherwise the boards would have to be, dare i say, even smaller... i mean a small board, two players it was still a two hour game where we quit out of need, rather than the game was finished. there could be a 'save' but then that would bring in friend codes i suspect.
i'd like to see being able to 'post' your homemade boards for download via wifi. that would be cool. downloadable missions as well. i mean, isn't the only bad part about this game is that it ends?
Post by: Artimus on July 16, 2007, 10:03:17 AM
Post by: UltimatePartyBear on July 16, 2007, 10:09:52 AM
Post by: WuTangTurtle on July 18, 2007, 03:10:18 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: PartyBear
On the other hand, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Improved stylus controls would be fine, but why dump the tried and true button controls?
Traditional controls aren't broken, yet we have the Wii now don't we?
However I agree stylus controls for AW doesn't seem like a good possibility. If everything wasn't so small maybe things would work better.
Post by: Shecky on September 29, 2007, 11:07:15 AM
Post by: Shecky on September 29, 2007, 11:15:12 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Shecky
Well the touch screen controls made sense before, they just were slower to me than using the normal layout plus I'd often pick the wrong location/command b/c things were a bit small. They could fix picking location by zooming in on the unit you tap (so that its range takes up the whole screen). The zooming is something they could do if they brush up the visuals. Then fade to HUGE buttons for the action commands (Fight, stay, capture, etc). Problem is that wouldn't work to well for D-pad setup as the time zooming and producing buttons would slow input down.
Ideally, the game should force you to pick in an input option in the options menu and make changes to the UI to accommodate, none of this on the fly stuff.
Part of me want to play the Advance Wars we've had for the past 3 games against other humans though.... I've been deprived of that. So I guess if they kept the same assets and put it online, I'd actually be OK with that.
Oh, and I'm guessing the new style is so they can actually do the zooming thing I mentioned before.
Post by: Bill Aurion on September 30, 2007, 10:09:21 AM
As much as I will miss the old characters, I am digging these character designs...
Post by: Mashiro on September 30, 2007, 10:54:51 AM
Post by: Arbok on September 30, 2007, 12:09:23 PM
Post by: NWR_insanolord on October 11, 2007, 10:40:01 AM
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6180807.html
Post by: Kairon on October 11, 2007, 10:49:36 AM
Post by: Terranigma Freak on October 11, 2007, 11:00:28 AM
Post by: NWR_insanolord on October 11, 2007, 11:03:27 AM
Post by: Arbok on October 11, 2007, 10:21:12 PM
Oh yeah, and this game looks so awesome:
Post by: KDR_11k on October 11, 2007, 11:03:35 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Arbok
Then we shall fight in the shade!
Post by: vudu on October 12, 2007, 07:08:43 AM
Post by: Mario on October 15, 2007, 02:00:32 PM
Post by: Shecky on October 15, 2007, 02:46:02 PM
Nm, I see IGN has an article... that's likely it.
Post by: jakeOSX on October 16, 2007, 12:43:35 AM
S game and then a full up command and conquer type 'real' game and both would have sold (at least to this guy)
Post by: Shecky on October 16, 2007, 12:54:02 AM
1) Finally updating assets... sure I would have bought it had they just reused sprites again, but they would have been knocked in reviews and by some for it.
2) Means to strip "features" like over the top CO powers. If CO powers are more subdued then the focus of the match becomes more of a tactical one as you just can't rely on your power to bail you out.
3) Means of just "keeping it fresh", both for the dev team and for the folks that eventually play it.
Post by: KDR_11k on October 16, 2007, 03:27:34 AM
BTW, anyone play World in conflict? That has a unit selection that seems straight out of AW.
Post by: UltimatePartyBear on October 16, 2007, 04:27:12 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
BTW, anyone play World in conflict? That has a unit selection that seems straight out of AW.
It's Amazon's Deal of the Day, and it's sorely tempting me (even though the deal merely brings the price down from "you must be kidding" to "acceptable").
Post by: Shecky on October 16, 2007, 03:41:10 PM
Units seem to have rankings I, II, Ace... likely as a result of surviving enough battles (similar to Age of Empires and other games). The result of the ranking will likely be a slight stat boost.
New terrain "types" such as scorched earth, as well as terrain "skins"
KDR: Looks like most the tanks are back save the NEO Tank, but quite frankly I'm glad to see that go.
Also gone are middle torsos
Units:
Infantry
Mechs
Motorbike Infantry
APCs
Recon
Light Tanks
Heavy Tanks
Mega Tanks
Anti-Air
G-G Rockets
G-A Missiles
Artillery
Carriers
Cruisers
Submarines
Battleships
Landers
Bombers
Fighters
Transport Copters
Attack Copters
Assets:
HQ
Cities
Bases
Naval Ports
Airports
Towers?
Radars?
Silos
Post by: KDR_11k on October 17, 2007, 05:29:41 AM
Party Bear: It's worth it.
Post by: UltimatePartyBear on October 17, 2007, 06:12:58 AM
It looks to me like they're simply renaming the medium tank to heavy tank. I like the motorcycles, but it seems like they won't be significantly different from recons, which already have limited uses.
Post by: Kairon on October 17, 2007, 06:22:40 AM
Post by: vudu on October 17, 2007, 06:57:21 AM
QuoteIf by limited you mean can totally annihilate infantry then I'm inclined to agree with you.
Originally posted by: PartyBear
I like the motorcycles, but it seems like they won't be significantly different from recons, which already have limited uses.
So what do the new motorcycle units do? (i.e. what do they offer that current units don't already?)
Post by: UltimatePartyBear on October 17, 2007, 07:53:41 AM
In a more complicated game, I might think that motorcycles could move better on unpaved surfaces than recons, but in AW, it's the wheels vs. tracks vs. legs that determine that, and motorcycles have wheels. I doubt they'll change that feature. My best guess is that the motorcycles are cheaper than recons and have lower defense, which would be quite weak, so I'm hoping that recons have better armor this time around.
Post by: vudu on October 17, 2007, 07:56:51 AM
Post by: Shecky on October 17, 2007, 09:30:52 AM
Recons cannot
Big enough for me.
Recons are also a huge asset in fog of war and that's the best way to be playing these maps most of the time anyways. The bike infantry will likely not be able to scale mountains (thus no +3 vision boost), etc, etc.
Subtleties abound.
Post by: Amodaus1 on October 17, 2007, 06:02:22 PM
Post by: KDR_11k on October 17, 2007, 11:39:45 PM
Post by: Shecky on October 18, 2007, 01:37:20 AM
Inftry (Infantry)
Bzka (Mechs)
Tire A (Tires Group A)
Tire B (Tires Group B)
Tank (Threads Likely)
Air (Airplanes and Copters)
Ship (Naval Units)
Trpt (Transport Units like the Lander/APC/T-copter)
I'll note the now two grouping of tires (don't remember that) and the separate grouping for transport vehicles. The Tires A and B is likely where they could bin Recons/Motorcycles in a different group than say missiles.
In other words recons (essentially jeeps) might be able to make it though forests a little better now... here's hoping.
Extra note: Cities list a G * N * A for Recovery with "G" Highlighted. Obviously they stand for recovery of ground, naval, and air units. However the use of a reference may mean that there are properties that can recover multiple types.
Edit: I just found a shot that lists the motorbikes as "Tire B" and with a "Infantry" type meaning they can capture bases. Recons are listed as "Tire A" and "Vehicles" ... so maybe no go on that forest thing
Post by: KDR_11k on October 18, 2007, 07:11:44 AM
I wish they'd balance basic infantry as it's in World in Conflict (standard infantry can attack any target, not very effectively but still capable of killing a heli or two and AT squads just rape tanks if they can get some good cover).
Post by: UltimatePartyBear on October 18, 2007, 08:00:12 AM
I'm not sure what to think of motorcycle infantry. I assume that means they can move a lot farther than regular infantry, which will speed up capturing. That just seems like something that could change the game drastically.
Post by: vudu on October 18, 2007, 08:13:10 AM
Post by: Shecky on October 18, 2007, 11:42:37 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
There's no way the transport heli and the transport ship can have the same moveclass as the APC.
I'm not sure what the deal is with the transport class.... in the past the APC was threads ("tank") the chopper was air and the lander was ship.
Quote
Originally posted by: PartyBear
I agree that infantry units need tweaking. The bazookas in AW have always seemed too weak to me. I also wouldn't mind seeing infantry get more defense against big guns, as if they had dug in, to add another wrinkle to the strategy.
I'm not sure what to think of motorcycle infantry. I assume that means they can move a lot farther than regular infantry, which will speed up capturing. That just seems like something that could change the game drastically.
They're fine against normal tanks. It was with the introduction of the heavy tanks that make them seem slightly weak. They would just need a slight boost to compensate. I don't mind if it takes 4 platoons to sink the heaviest tank. If you build a single Mech that shouldn't be your "Army" you would be expected to build multiple, especially at the price.
Post by: UltimatePartyBear on October 18, 2007, 01:00:51 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Shecky
They're fine against normal tanks. It was with the introduction of the heavy tanks that make them seem slightly weak. They would just need a slight boost to compensate. I don't mind if it takes 4 platoons to sink the heaviest tank. If you build a single Mech that shouldn't be your "Army" you would be expected to build multiple, especially at the price.
The problem is that they take so much damage from return fire that they quickly lose what effectiveness they have. Their movement is so low that you normally can't send many of them against the same target on the same turn, so the barely damaged heavy tank finishes them off on the following turn. The only reason they're better than light tanks in theory is that you can make them in greater numbers, but their short movement range nullifies most of that advantage. Although unless I'm mistaken, I think their bazookas are actually a bit stronger than the light tanks' guns.
Something else that might work is a tank destroyer unit. In the real world, there are lightly-armored vehicles with big, tank-killing guns on them. They're light, cheap, and can't stand up to much punishment. In AW terms, I picture what would basically be a recon with a missile launcher mounted on it instead of a machine gun. The idea is for it to be highly vulnerable (especially to infantry, since it can't attack them) in exchange for great enough firepower to deal with heavy tanks fairly cheaply. It gives infantry another job to do (mechs would simply tear these things to shreds) during the late game, and keeps the winning strategy from turning into "Spam Neo Tanks."
Post by: Shecky on October 18, 2007, 02:15:53 PM
Post by: KDR_11k on October 18, 2007, 09:55:03 PM
Problem with swarming mechs is that you can only make one per turn and the micro gets annoying after a while since you can't give a long-term movement target and have to move each unit by hand.
Tank destroyers aren't used these days but ATGMs mounted on lighter vehicles, especially IFVs (armored troop carrier and combat vehicle), are common. They have low ammo but can do a lot of damage in a surprise attack. I'm not sure they can hurt an MBT in an open battle (i.e. when the MBT has time to turn towards the lighter vehicle) though. Real ATGM-carriers have machineguns as their main weapon but IRL vehicle MGs (or all MGs) aren't very effective when the infantry has cover, they can only hit well when the target is in the open but they can be used to pin infantry in their cover while allowing another infantry group to flank the enemy.
IIRC the light tank does 50% or so damage to an MBT, mechs only 25%. I wouldn't mind mechs being buffed and made more expensive, controlling loads of units in AW is just a PITA.
Post by: UltimatePartyBear on October 19, 2007, 04:57:52 AM
Post by: Chozo Ghost on October 19, 2007, 06:06:58 PM
Post by: Chozo Ghost on October 19, 2007, 06:10:55 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: vuduQuoteIf by limited you mean can totally annihilate infantry then I'm inclined to agree with you.
Originally posted by: PartyBear
I like the motorcycles, but it seems like they won't be significantly different from recons, which already have limited uses.
So what do the new motorcycle units do? (i.e. what do they offer that current units don't already?)
I would guess they offer much greater mobility than an infantry unit, and unlike a recon unit they could probably also capture cities. Maybe they could also dismount and move into mountains or something... So I would guess they are similar to a loaded APC in most respects, but maybe cheaper.
Post by: Amodaus1 on October 20, 2007, 10:32:56 AM
What i think there needs to be is more infantry classes. maybe weak AA infantry, or a spy/sabatoge unit, maybe a demolition unit.
And about the tank killer, if they do make one, then what becomes of the ranged units? I think they'll lose a lot of effectiveness. Big tanks should only be fought with bigger tanks, or air, or range, at least from a balancing perspective. However, i didn't like the neo or mega tank editions, i think heavy tank and regular was all that was needed from the tank class.
Post by: Chozo Ghost on October 20, 2007, 05:49:30 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Amodaus1
Party Bear i think the infantry (and by infantry i mean mechs) is acctually quite good for their cost, at 3000 a pop you can make 2 mechs that would cost 1000 less than a tank, and would win 2v1 against that tank every time, even if the tank struck one of the units first. On top of that, mechs can get the mountain defense bonus, which is insane for them. They are also valid vs AA guns, 2 mechs is 2K cheaper than an AA, though they don't give you any air defense. Mechs are meant for base capture, rugged terrain movement (nothing impedes those 2 movement points they get, although 2 movement is pathetic, BUT its only pathetic for reinfocing an area, in the thick of combat in an urban/forest/ or mountainous area its enough) and light vehicular/ small tank/ and infantry combat. They can also be used for squating on a barracks/airpot/naval yard or suprise capture, but normal infantry are more effective for that.
What i think there needs to be is more infantry classes. maybe weak AA infantry, or a spy/sabatoge unit, maybe a demolition unit.
And about the tank killer, if they do make one, then what becomes of the ranged units? I think they'll lose a lot of effectiveness. Big tanks should only be fought with bigger tanks, or air, or range, at least from a balancing perspective. However, i didn't like the neo or mega tank editions, i think heavy tank and regular was all that was needed from the tank class.
Yeah, I agree there should be more infantry units. The game has many vehicular units, but just 2 infantry. They could include a parachuting infantry, but maybe they could just do that with standard infantry by requiring it to be standing on an airport or loaded into a plane or something. I could also see there being an elite infantry unit that would be extremely expensive, but also extremely powerful.
As for the tank destroyer, wouldn't that be a direct combat unit? Artillery still has its purpose, because a tank destroyer would have to get close to the tank, and it would also not be very effective against infantry at all.
Post by: Kairon on October 20, 2007, 07:15:51 PM
You heard it here first.
Post by: KDR_11k on October 20, 2007, 10:41:11 PM
The impressions list a flamer tank, can't think of a useful role for that. Sure, killing infantry but anything kills infantry.
Post by: Shecky on October 21, 2007, 02:51:56 AM
Post by: mottsc on October 21, 2007, 03:57:02 AM
Post by: Chozo Ghost on October 21, 2007, 04:22:51 AM
Post by: Amodaus1 on October 21, 2007, 05:19:48 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
Mortar infantry. Like weak arty but can move like infantry.
The impressions list a flamer tank, can't think of a useful role for that. Sure, killing infantry but anything kills infantry.
I like the mortar infantry idea, as for tank killer, there is already a direct combat tank killer its either a bigger tank or a bomber
Post by: KDR_11k on October 22, 2007, 06:55:16 AM
I'd prefer WiC's napalm strike over a flametank.
Post by: vudu on October 22, 2007, 07:10:06 AM
QuoteYes, but only I can prevent them.
Originally posted by: Chozo Ghost
Even cavemen can start forest fires.
Post by: Shecky on October 22, 2007, 02:19:58 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
Just using bigger tanks to kill tanks leads to "lulz bigga tanx!" spam.
If your opponent can afford to purchase that many large tanks there's nothing wrong with that.... and there are more than enough units that can attack a tank.
Post by: Chozo Ghost on October 22, 2007, 11:05:16 PM
You know, I didn't think it made much sense at first but I can see it now. The flamethrower units can destroy the defensive bonus units get when stationed in forests, and perhaps in mountains too. That forest isn't much good to you when it is burning all around you...
Post by: 18 Days on October 24, 2007, 04:44:22 AM
QuoteIt's called the Combat Helicopter
A tank killer would win
Quote
I could also see there being an elite infantry unit that would be extremely expensive, but also extremely powerful.
Sniper. Indirect fire infantry that more or less OHKOs other infantry and little else. Extra vision in fog or war or faster movement in forests would be cool too.
Post by: UltimatePartyBear on October 24, 2007, 05:36:25 AM
Post by: Chozo Ghost on October 24, 2007, 07:57:25 PM
So while snipers are used in combat, I don't think you have units of them, though I could be wrong on that... I think they just serve as a part of an infantry unit rather than a separate thing. I'm pretty sure the same is true of Mortar rounds. There aren't special mortar infantry units, but mortars are portable weapons that infantry units are likely to possess.
But then again, Advance Wars takes place in a fantasy universe so there's no real point in nitpicking any of it.
Post by: Shecky on October 25, 2007, 02:49:12 PM
)
Post by: Shecky on January 05, 2008, 06:46:24 AM
Sounds like you can revisit any past campaign missions which is a first for the hand held series, and of course the war room is back as well.
Sounds like fog of war may always be in effect for the campaign mode as well (and assuming enemies are at least as smart and fair as they were in the first DS version, that shouldn't be a problem)
Edit: Also added anti-tank units to the list of ground forces in the main post, as well as info on the two new air units.
Post by: Kairon on January 05, 2008, 11:19:44 AM
Anyways, I'll convince my younger bro to buy this.
Post by: Chozo Ghost on January 05, 2008, 04:50:29 PM
This was essentially how it was in Panzer Tactics. You had a commando unit which could assassinate leaders, and if they were successful the unit's morale would plummet and make the unit easier to attack with your regular units.
Post by: Shecky on January 05, 2008, 05:13:41 PM
For example if there were a grit like character in the game... that the indirect fire range increase would only affect units that are in the CO's immediate surrounding (say a 6x6 cross)
CO powers still exist too... so it'll be interesting to see how they pan out.
Post by: Arbok on January 07, 2008, 05:17:28 PM
Will make for a rather interesting introduction when I get my hands on it, and I do plan to purchase it day one. Hopefully it lives up to at least a speck of the glory that the first Advance Wars did when I was introduced to the series.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on January 07, 2008, 05:42:41 PM
Post by: Chozo Ghost on January 07, 2008, 10:46:13 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Shecky
A unit can be loaded with the CO at the HQ. If that unit is destroyed the CO returns to HQ. That unit automatically assumes the highest level (Ace) and all units within range fall effect to the CO's ability. Ace units aren't invincible, so if you want to take out the CO, just take out that unit.
For example if there were a grit like character in the game... that the indirect fire range increase would only affect units that are in the CO's immediate surrounding (say a 6x6 cross)
CO powers still exist too... so it'll be interesting to see how they pan out.
I wish they made it so you could permanently remove COs from the game by assassinating them.
Post by: Shecky on January 08, 2008, 12:14:34 AM
EDIT: Air Unit Costs updated
20000, Fighter
20000, Bomber
13000, Duster
9000, B-Copter
5000, T-Copter
Bomber becomes a little cheaper and on par with fighters (about time!)
Ground Unit Costs Updated
1500, Infantry
2500, Bike
2500, Mech
4000, Recon
5000, Flare
7000, Anti-Air
7000, Tank
12000, Md Tank
16000, War Tank
6000, Artillery
11000, Anti-Tank
15000, Rockets
12000, Missiles
5000, Rig (APC?)
Post by: Shecky on January 08, 2008, 03:36:25 PM
An indirect attacker that can counter-attack when under direct fire.
Vehicle of Tire class B
Gas 50, Ammo 6
Move 4, Vis 2
Indirect (1-3)
Cannon: Heavily damages Infantry and Vehicles. Does minor damage to helecopters.
Vulnerable to bombers.
Gunboat
Naval Unit that can carry one foot soldier and attack other naval units.
Ship in the Transport class
Gas 99, Ammo 1
Move 7, Vis 2
Direct (1)
Anti-Ship Missiles: Does minor damage to ships and subs.
Vulnerable to helicopters, cruisers?, (unknown)?
Fodder to bombers, subs, dusters, missiles, artillery, battleships
Duster
A somewhat powerful plane that can attack both ground and air units.
Air unit
Gas 99, Ammo 9
Move 8, Vis 4
Direct (1)
Machine Gun: Heavily damages helicopters. Does minor damage to infantry, vehicles, and air units.
Vulnerable to jets, anti-air cannons.
Fodder to cruisers, anti-air missiles.
Post by: Shecky on January 08, 2008, 03:54:22 PM
A strong tank with better attack and defense than std tanks.
Vehicle of type Tank (Threads?)
Gas 50, Ammo 5
Move 5, Vis 2
Direct (1)
Hvy Tank Gun: Heavily damages Vehicles.
Machine Guns: Heavily damages Infantry. Does minor damage to helicopters, ships, and subs
Vulnerable to War Tanks.
Fodder to Bombers.
CO: Greyfield
Blue Army
CO Effect:
Boost attack (x1) and defense (x4) of naval units, seaplanes, copters
Zone of Effect is 3
CO Power:
"Supply Chain"
Refills Fuel, Ammo, and Materials? for all units.
Cruiser
Naval unit that is strong against air units and submarines. Can transport two helicopter units.
Ship
Gas 99, Ammo 9
Move 6, Vis 5
Direct (1)
Anti-Ship Missiles/Torps: Heavily damages submarines. Does minor damage to other naval units.
Anti-Air Gun: Heavily damages air units.
Post by: UltimatePartyBear on January 09, 2008, 04:06:52 AM
Post by: Shecky on January 09, 2008, 04:26:06 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: PartyBear
Where are you getting this information from?
IGN has some new screens and videos. The screens produced the info for the units and CO. The Nintendo "Treehouse" videos show off the Duster air unit and Motorcycle ground unit, and in those videos they show the cost for all air/ground units.
Post by: Chozo Ghost on January 10, 2008, 12:23:56 AM
Post by: Shecky on January 10, 2008, 02:18:26 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Chozo Ghost
What are the costs of naval units? Anyone know?
Unfortunately, that won't likely be known until launch. Unless they release a video for the new naval unit. Most hands on impressions were from early campaign missions that don't have naval units available... and none of the screen shots released show pricing info.
Note that infantry went up.... to 1500 from 1000. Subtle differences elsewhere as well (ie: anti-air)... of course I played Advance Wars 2 most recently and don't remember the cost of units in the DS version off hand ... but I think they were near equivalent.
Post by: Chozo Ghost on January 15, 2008, 11:07:16 AM
Post by: Shecky on January 15, 2008, 12:22:54 PM
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on January 21, 2008, 04:31:33 AM
oR and here they are:pros
"
-Infantry costing more and mechs & bikes costing less greatly reduces the "Inf. spam" technique.
-The entire sea game has been completely revamped and barely even resembles previous AW titles (in a good way). Sea battles are more
than just Rock Paper Scissors now.
-The Md. Tank TRULY being a medium tank and the addition of the War Tank spices up the mid-match ramp-up quite a bit. Do you build a Md. Tank this turn, or a War Tank next turn?
-Fog of War is actually a lot more fun this time around thanks to the Radar buildings (iluminates five square when you cap one), the Flare unit, more terrain that provides cover, etc. I used to hate Fog of War, and in DoR I've found myself really liking it.
-CO's being ON the battlefield is a bigger addition than you might think - they turn the tide of a battle, but it's a risk vs. reward thing. Do you send your powerful CO unit into the fray, or do you hang him back a bit, but still close enough that nearby units get the area of influence boost? Another GREAT strategic addition.
-Lots of other little things like Landers getting a price drop, sea units passing under bridges, etc. It seems like IntSys took a close look at balance for the first time since AW1, and it really does make the strategy just "feel" better. It's fantastic."
Cons:
"-No War Room
-No Hard Campaign
-No Battle Maps/unlockables
-No Survival Modes (they weren't great, but were still a nice change of pace)
-No tags/rankings, besides on the medals screen (which doesn't count)
-Less CO's (I know the CO's have been de-emphasized, which is a good thing and helps the game strategically, but they still could have had more of them with unique influences)."
Post by: vudu on January 21, 2008, 06:05:17 AM
What the Hell is this crap? That truly stinks. I probably logged at least 50 hours in the War Room in Dual Strike.
Does anyone know if the CPU still cheats in Fog of War missions?
Post by: S-U-P-E-R on January 21, 2008, 07:38:02 AM
Post by: Shecky on January 21, 2008, 10:14:20 AM
And I know they mention plenty of playable missions, which are not all campaign. So I don't buy the lack of a "War Room"... I think that's an error by the impressionist.
So, um... where the heck did you get a copy from SUPER? EB says that it hits stores Tuesday (Tommorrow at noon). I'll go buy it sooner if I can.
Post by: S-U-P-E-R on January 21, 2008, 02:22:29 PM
This game has rad music and some cute animechans :3
Post by: Khushrenada on January 21, 2008, 03:43:27 PM
Post by: KDR_11k on January 21, 2008, 09:41:41 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Lord_die_seis
-The Md. Tank TRULY being a medium tank and the addition of the War Tank spices up the mid-match ramp-up quite a bit. Do you build a Md. Tank this turn, or a War Tank next turn?
In the German translation of AW1 the medium tank was called a main battle tank which IMO was more fitting, the light-medium-heavy tank idea was abolished after WW2 when it turned out that the idea of a cruiser tank sucked and one tank size fits all (and the "lol bigga tank" thing in AW2 and DS was kinda dumb since more size doesn't add anything except more antitank firepower which the things really don't need). Reminds me, I haven't tried a modern day mobile gun + gunships doctrine in AW yet, it worked great in World in Conflict...
Post by: Shecky on January 22, 2008, 04:39:49 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: vudu
No War Room?
What the Hell is this crap? That truly stinks. I probably logged at least 50 hours in the War Room in Dual Strike.
Does anyone know if the CPU still cheats in Fog of War missions?
Alright, I got it yesterday night from a undisclosed source. Everyone should have it today.
There's a war room... It's just called "Free Play" now. It has the classic maps in there too, plus a bunch of new ones.
I have a bit of beef with the save system. I'm not sure if you can save and quit. I can play a match, save... and then load an earlier point in that same match. However, I don't see a way to save and quit so that I can leave the current map and then return to it later. (Previous games had a "New" or "Continue" mentality that you could apply to a vs or war room map. I don't see it here, but I haven't looked closely. If it's omitted, then that very unfortunate. I'll just close the lid, as a makeshift hack. However, that won't fix if I want to play a multiday (real life) match against a co-worker, while continuing some single player missions.
Post by: oohhboy on January 22, 2008, 12:01:56 PM
The Light, medium, heavy tank doctrine somewhat still exist today due to the fact that IFVs now days essentially have the firepower of a MBT sans some of the amour and ammo therefore taking on the role of light tank.
While the Neo tank was an odd one due to the fact that you were paying mostly for the increased mobility. The Mega tank wasn't ideal for attack because of it's low mobility and ammo limits. It was great that you could use it as a mobile fortress and a great tank trap against the AI. They also expensive to run since every time it was damaged it would cost you a couple Gs to repair.
Post by: Chozo Ghost on January 22, 2008, 02:32:07 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Shecky Alright, I got it yesterday night from a undisclosed source.
Piracy! Why else would you not reveal your source?
I'm not ashamed to admit I purchased my copy of the game at Wal-mart.
Post by: Shecky on January 22, 2008, 07:43:26 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Chozo GhostQuote
Originally posted by: Shecky Alright, I got it yesterday night from a undisclosed source.
Piracy! Why else would you not reveal your source?
I'm not ashamed to admit I purchased my copy of the game at Wal-mart.
Actually I was more just jokingly mocking SUPER. I picked it up on Tuesday.
Save system works... you just have to quick save and then power off or soft reset. If you select "Quit" from the menu, the quick save goes away. I find that odd really.
Post by: Chozo Ghost on January 22, 2008, 07:59:27 PM
Post by: NeoThunder on January 22, 2008, 08:34:52 PM
Post by: Chozo Ghost on January 23, 2008, 01:21:43 AM
Post by: NeoThunder on January 25, 2008, 07:53:31 AM
Post by: bosshogx on January 25, 2008, 08:44:01 AM
Post by: Chozo Ghost on January 25, 2008, 02:35:20 PM
What I meant about more violent/mature than the past, is death is actually acknowledged in this and actually quite common. In Dual Strike, I don't think anyone actually died (or at least was acknowledged as dying), but in this one it happens all the time. With cities in ruins, you know millions or billions of people have died even before the game starts. So that's what I was talking about. There is no blood or gore, really, but there is death.
Post by: NeoThunder on January 26, 2008, 01:38:29 PM
Post by: Shecky on January 27, 2008, 12:37:45 PM
The first I must have lost connection, cause it said I lost (IIRC)... that was launch day. It was a larger match.
I've played 3 more matches today.
Match 2 was on a VERY tiny snowy grid (10x10) and that match actually finished as I won by routing the opponent.
Match 3 was on a large grid with lots of trees pre-deployed and raining FOW. The opponent disconnected before we even started.
Match 4 was on a large grid with a LOT of units (like 30+) for the opponent, but little bases. Opposite for me, lots of bases, no units. However I was guaranteed to win b/c the opponent made a bonehead move at the outset, not protecting his only factory and I plugged it with a unit he couldn't destroy (had no units capable of attacking it). I guess that bored him 'cause he dropped shortly after I did that.
I wish you could pick/vote maps...
Edit 1:
Match 5: Finished a map for the second time to a guy called Nintend.... took the set number of day... I won by decision (however that works)
Edit 2:
Match 6: Just beat Nintend again... poor guy I bet it's SUPER... Same map as the first I played (large sea with islands, except rain this time). He stuck it out though, to bad there's no way to add him as a friend.
So far I'm 3-0, 1 drop, 2 wins by forfeit
Post by: KDR_11k on January 28, 2008, 02:26:47 AM
Post by: bosshogx on January 28, 2008, 03:34:23 PM
Post by: Shecky on January 29, 2008, 12:29:57 AM
Post by: Shecky on January 29, 2008, 12:39:14 AM
Post by: NeoThunder on January 29, 2008, 07:29:06 AM
also, why didn't they also just make it so you connect to wi-fi connection and then do whatever you want, everytime you want to do something different, you have to disconnect then reconnect.
Post by: bosshogx on January 31, 2008, 03:02:51 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Shecky
My code is here
Ok, I added you. I've got two maps completed and I plan on posting them soon. One map is from the AW/AW2/AWDS days that still translates over to Days of Ruin. The other map is the same one only with the extra 10 squares added for fun w/o ruining the balance of the original. I still need some people to play the new map with me to help balance and tweak it to perfection. PM me if you wanna play.
Post by: NeoThunder on January 31, 2008, 10:54:11 AM
Post by: Shecky on January 31, 2008, 12:01:33 PM
It's on a 20x20 grid though so it was too big to post online. I made a smaller version to submit, and it seems to have garnered a 5 rating when I checked just now, woohoo!
Looks like you can rate a map you download after you clear it... I guess it sends your rating back the next time you connect. You can only rate a map once, or so they say.
Post by: Shecky on January 31, 2008, 04:32:51 PM
Post by: Chozo Ghost on February 01, 2008, 09:53:34 AM
Post by: bosshogx on February 01, 2008, 05:26:59 AM
Post by: Amodaus1 on February 03, 2008, 05:29:19 PM
That and i hate when you get predeploy maps....
But other than that, i think its the best advance wars yet, if you love the multiplayer aspect which i do. However, if you just liked to play the comp on Dual strike, and power level your COs, beware that all of that is gone. Its much more focused now on competitive play. If you loved the old stuff, i'd say to wait it out until the next days of ruin, where they will bring in a more robust single player.
And tabithia is is no fun to play against when there are no airports or seaports... Man i wish they would let you pick the maps and conditions! That would make the game a perfect 10.
To the above comment, yeah its definitly shorter. I heard people complain about the difficulty making it longer, but i remember AW: DS being harder and longer. I expect a 3rd AW before the DS passes on, and I bet it'll have better single player, and more COs. The real question is, will it NOT have random wifi.
Post by: Chozo Ghost on February 04, 2008, 02:15:41 AM
We could really use an AW game for the Wii. I think on the Wii the MP aspects would be much better.
Post by: bosshogx on February 09, 2008, 01:48:14 PM
Khush officially had the "Best War Tank" ever. It was down to 1 hp and it took 3 hits before it finally went down. First was a 1hp Rocket, to no avail. Then, a 2hp War Tank of my own. Only after it didn't die did I realize my tank had no ammo left. *sigh* Finally, I have to roll in a 3hp Medium Tank to finish the job. I ended up getting pelted by Rockets for all my troubles. Ah well. Good game anyway.
Post by: Chozo Ghost on February 09, 2008, 02:18:14 PM
Post by: bosshogx on February 09, 2008, 02:43:15 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Chozo Ghost
Those 1 and 2 hp units are good to use as a sacrifice to draw the enemy's fire and/or buy you time. You can usually evacuate them and let them heal, but when they're so low in strength its probably more cost effective to just build a new one (although I've never really checked up on that to be sure). Sometimes they hold out longer than you expect and maybe even defeat another low hp unit before finally succumbing, so that's cool.
True that. To me, if a unit gets under 4 or so hp, it becomes a meat shield for the rest of the units, especially capturing infantry and indirects. The only exception to that would probably be my CO unit or an Anti-Tank. Both units are to valuable to sacrifice, unless of course it can net me an extra city or clog a choke point for an extra turn or two.
Post by: Chozo Ghost on February 09, 2008, 03:25:17 PM
You can also merge units, but I almost never do that, because frankly it is much better to spam the enemy with a bunch of 1 hp units than have 1 full strength unit that will just get crushed by a war tank anyway. Spamming him with weak units keeps his war tank from getting to your rockets or your infantry as it captures one of his cities... bwaahahahaha! I'm quite a master of the weak unit spam attacks. Another cool thing about it is it causes him to use up ammo too, so if his tanks lose all their ammo fighting your weak units then they become easy pickings. When the happens, a light tank can harass the crap out of a war tank and as long as the WT has no ammo then the light tank is in no danger.
Post by: KDR_11k on February 09, 2008, 09:20:57 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Chozo Ghost
Those 1 and 2 hp units are good to use as a sacrifice to draw the enemy's fire and/or buy you time. You can usually evacuate them and let them heal, but when they're so low in strength its probably more cost effective to just build a new one (although I've never really checked up on that to be sure). Sometimes they hold out longer than you expect and maybe even defeat another low hp unit before finally succumbing, so that's cool.
I dunno about AWDC but in AW1 repairing cost just as much as building new, i.e. every 10% HP cost 10% of the unit's cost.
Also sometimes I wished I could see both digits of the HP value, not just the tens.
Post by: bosshogx on February 16, 2008, 08:20:58 PM
*Warning: Long winded post to follow*
Speaking of CO's, how come they still can't get them all balanced properly? This is the 4th game in the series and you would think it would have happened by now. Don't get me wrong, the game is far more balanced than it's ever been before, but some of the CO's just needed to be tweaked a bit more. Namely Will, Waylon, Lin, Tasha, and Gage.
Will and Gage are both practically useless because of Isabella. She has both of their abilities for her CO power and a CO zone that is basically a wash with what the other two offer. They should have changed the other two to be more powerful in what the do, direct attacks for Will/indirect for Gage, or changed her all together.
Lin's power of vision is a non-factor on maps without fog of war. They should have given her Sonja's powers from AWDS to reduce her opponents terrain defense and the "Counter Break" first strike during her CO power. That would have made her useful on maps with or without fog.
Waylon and Tasha are meant to be the offense/defense of the air. The problem is that the two things that Tasha is good at, increasing air attack and move range, are the very things that air units don't need. They can already move further than all ground units and they all strike hard, except for the Duster. I mean really, does a Bomber need to go from 90% damage to 140%? What's the point? 100% is dead no matter how you slice it. Maybe they could have given her units the ability to cloak for two turns or make her air units able to fire indirectly like a Battleship. Something, anything better than what she got.
On the other hand, Waylon's CO power causes his units to gain over 200% to their defense, something air units desperately need. Watch in amazement as your Bombers, Copters, Dusters, and Fighters pummel the enemy on one turn and take next to no damage on your opponents turn. No really, I've attacked the CPU with a Bomber destroying a unit, then on his turn he wheeled up a Anti Air only to do 20% damage. The counter attack alone did 50% of his life. His power is almost as good as Eagles double strike ability. Oh yeah, did I mention his CO zone is 2 squares, while Tasha's is only 1? So, his units not only have better defense than hers, but they get it over a larger area. They could have switched that around or made her CO zone larger.
Anyways, the game is out already and there is nothing left to be done, so I'll stop complaining. I just wonder why things like this slip through the cracks. People are playtesting these games, right? There were only 12 CO's to focus on, 11 if you remove Caulder from the mix. This may be the most balanced AW to date, but with just a bit more tweaking, it would have been perfect. Oh well, maybe next game.
Post by: Chozo Ghost on February 17, 2008, 11:20:00 AM
In experienced hands, the CO means almost nothing, as a good player can beat a better CO if he knows what he is doing. Even with Lin on an unfogged map you can still win against Isabella if you're good at what you do.
Post by: KDR_11k on February 17, 2008, 01:52:20 PM
That's true that some of them are unbalanced, but why should that really matter? If they suck then you just don't use them. :P Isabella is better than Will and Gage for a very important reason: she is a clone who has superhuman powers. It would make no sense if her powers were balanced with everyone elses'. So again, some are worse than others, but that's how commanders are in real life as well.In a multiplayer game that is NOT an excuse. If there's a choice that's always better than another then everyone will use it. Of course you can beat a player who has better equipment if you are better than him but at equal skill levels you get creamed if you have worse stuff than the enemy.
In experienced hands, the CO means almost nothing, as a good player can beat a better CO if he knows what he is doing. Even with Lin on an unfogged map you can still win against Isabella if you're good at what you do.
Post by: Chozo Ghost on February 17, 2008, 02:04:45 PM
n a multiplayer game that is NOT an excuse. If there's a choice that's always better than another then everyone will use it. Of course you can beat a player who has better equipment if you are better than him but at equal skill levels you get creamed if you have worse stuff than the enemy.
That is true; but you can see who the other player is choosing at the CO selection screen and you can respond accordingly. Or if he is a friend you know, then you both can agree on the details beforehand.
Post by: Shecky on February 17, 2008, 05:00:29 PM
Also, half the time I don't even use the powers... it's better off to get whatever boost to offense/defense in an increased zone.
I think Gage needed a 3/1 star ratio, but he's not bad as is. The thing with those boosts is that weakened units can still cause a good amount of damage. (Recon doing 20% to a tank) Those added perks don't show up on the damage helper by the way, at least I didn't notice them. For instance in the case I described earlier the recon listed 5% as the damage to deal.
Waylon really is Eagle with his defense boost. Nothing will be able to touch planes... not even missiles which will hardly scratch them. So his air units essentially get a freebie turn. There is a huge trial map that forces you to put that to use.
Tabitha and Caulder are the ones that stick out as cheap.
That all said, I do think Isabella's set is the most versatile when you don't know the conditions, which is why I use her online.
Post by: Chozo Ghost on February 18, 2008, 06:26:49 AM
Wouldn't it have been funny if they included some joke COs in the game just for fun? I'm thinking of Dr. Morris and that Mayor guy. As for Dr. Morris, I guess he wouldn't be too bad if his power was healing or something of that nature, but the mayor would be terrible in every way but he'd be a good choice for people who wanted to play with a handicapped CO just for a challenge. And "The Beast" guy who you defeat early on, why wasn't he a CO?
Post by: bosshogx on February 19, 2008, 10:23:06 PM
The way I see it now is that most people online are going to play Isabella, Waylon (if airports are involved), or Tabitha. The thing is that people who know how to handle Tabitha are going to have a field day against her, as she has no CO range to increase her CO bar. Once she gets it going though, she is a handful and a half to deal with.
At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter. The best way to play this game is with a friend to avoid all of the random online mode garbage anyway. So, who's down for a game? Chozo? Shecky? KDR? Get me some friends codes!
Post by: KDR_11k on February 20, 2008, 12:08:31 AM
Post by: Shecky on February 20, 2008, 03:26:09 AM
Outside of Caulder, if they had just toned down Waylon's CO power, boosted Tabitha's power/zone, and changed Isabella's power to something else completely, the game would have been a whole lot better.
The way I see it now is that most people online are going to play Isabella, Waylon (if airports are involved), or Tabitha. The thing is that people who know how to handle Tabitha are going to have a field day against her, as she has no CO range to increase her CO bar. Once she gets it going though, she is a handful and a half to deal with.
At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter. The best way to play this game is with a friend to avoid all of the random online mode garbage anyway. So, who's down for a game? Chozo? Shecky? KDR? Get me some friends codes!
Wait, you want to make Tabitha stronger?? She's overpowered as it is. Also, for online battles you don't know what the conditions are going to be, that's why Isabella or Forthsite are good choices.
Post by: bosshogx on February 21, 2008, 07:29:08 PM
Wait, you want to make Tabitha stronger?? She's overpowered as it is. Also, for online battles you don't know what the conditions are going to be, that's why Isabella or Forthsite are good choices.
Oops! I meant Tasha not Tabitha. My bad. I don't think that Tabitha is overpowered though. Her unit in and of itself is, getting a total of 180% strength/180% defense, but her CO zone is 0. Therefore, she has to stick her neck out and fight on her own to increase her power/range. She also has the natural weakness of her unit to overcome. To maximize her usefulness, she really needs to be in a direct attacking unit as indirect units require a lot more set up. If you concentrate units on taking her out the moment she hits the field, you shouldn't have much to worry about. Let her get her CO zone maxed and you may as well surrender to her units superior firepower.
Of course, that's just me talking from my own personal experiences. As time goes on people will think about new strategies and CO's will go up and down the tiers. For online battles, I totally agree with Isabella and Forsythe as general "all purpose" CO choices. I think that Brenner is a good choice as well, as you can never have enough extra defense and a 3-5 square CO zone.
PM me and we can set up a game or two. I gotta get my AW fix man.
Post by: blazecon0 on March 26, 2008, 03:39:55 PM
