Support NeoGAF

[akascream]

I was just thinking. I like AW, but why don't they have any kind of advancement in the game? There is no technology tree, and units can't be upgraded or 'equip' items or level up (like fire emblem).

Why don't they implement some kind of progression to the game mechanics? Don't they realize what a great game it could be? =(

 

[ToxicAdam]

KISS


It's a proven winning strategy.

 

[Zaptruder]

advancement via resources and capturing the appropriate bases.

I've never liked the idea of needing to build a on site research station in order to support x piece of technology... doesn't this shit just come shipped in crates? Are you telling me those research stations actually invent the super tech every time we deploy a base?

Needlessly arbitrary and just a hold back (that kinda design sense) from the very first RTS games.

 

[akascream]

advancement via resources and capturing the appropriate bases.

I've never liked the idea of needing to build a on site research station in order to support x piece of technology... doesn't this shit just come shipped in crates? Are you telling me those research stations actually invent the super tech every time we deploy a base?

Needlessly arbitrary and just a hold back (that kinda design sense) from the very first RTS games.

I like that kind of advancement, regardless of realism. However, the beauty of AW, at least for me, is in its simplicity. So I don't think there would have to be deep trees necessarily. But why can't I build an airport instead of starting with one or finding one in a map? Certainly it would seem realistic that I could build my own. So maybe a shallow building tree, and a couple of upgrades...some that can be manufactured at a building you build, maybe some can be found.

Wouldn't it be cool if your units could level up? Maybe level 3 is the max level, I'm not asking for a huge character development system. Just a slight advantage that would really reward good unit utilization. Maybe they could find a bit better of a machine gun if they explore an out of the way building (forcing several turns or use of an APC).

I do really like that capturing resources is a big part of the game, I just want a bit more. I also really like how offensive play is rewarded in AW...but perhaps there could be a new unit or two that excel at defensive maneuvering? They could suck at attacking, but really do well when attacked?

 

[Diomedeskun]

Leveling was in Super Famicom Wars. I would like to see some of the new units held back until later in the game, just to spice up later levels, but Advance Wars, especially part 2, is great about adding new situations with new demands for each unit as the game progresses.

 

[sammy]

KISS
It's a proven winning strategy.

I'd have to agree.

FireEmblem is awesome, the leveling up is great and extremely dynamic --- but you have to admit that it's a turn-based hack'n'slash ............

AdvanceWars is where the strategy is, and thus unit management remains simple.


They're both extremely awesome thought, where AW is simple FE is complex and the other way arround.

 

[akascream]

What's this KISS thing you guys are talking about? I'm a strategy game idiot.

 

[blackadde]

Keep It Simple, Stupid

 

[akascream]

WHO ARE YOU CALLING STUPID!


:.(

 

[mosaic]

i think it would be nice if units could level up to their next ups -- say infantry to mech unit, tank to m.tank, etc... and it sure could use a few more air/sea units, but i dont think i'd make it any more complicated than that.

 

[cubicle47b]

I like that kind of advancement, regardless of realism. However, the beauty of AW, at least for me, is in its simplicity. So I don't think there would have to be deep trees necessarily. But why can't I build an airport instead of starting with one or finding one in a map? Certainly it would seem realistic that I could build my own. So maybe a shallow building tree, and a couple of upgrades...some that can be manufactured at a building you build, maybe some can be found.

Wouldn't it be cool if your units could level up? Maybe level 3 is the max level, I'm not asking for a huge character development system. Just a slight advantage that would really reward good unit utilization. Maybe they could find a bit better of a machine gun if they explore an out of the way building (forcing several turns or use of an APC).

I do really like that capturing resources is a big part of the game, I just want a bit more. I also really like how offensive play is rewarded in AW...but perhaps there could be a new unit or two that excel at defensive maneuvering? They could suck at attacking, but really do well when attacked?

Why can't you build an airport? Because the game is about offense and every design decision stems from that (allowing you to build an airport means you're not fighting to get the airport in the center of the map). And also because city / factory / command center placement is an important part of the strategy. Building trees work against the balance of the game and distract from its offensive nature.

Advance Wars either needs to stay with its current design philosphy or ditch it completely and rethink the game from the ground up. What it doesn't need is for its basic design to be marred by elements that don't fit (I used to think Advance Wars needed unit experience like Military Madness because it was a cool feature in that game but I don't think it would fit with the current system - neither would zone of control).

 

[ChrisReid]

I'm pretty sure I've heard Advance Wars DS will have a couple dozen skills you unlock and accumulate as you play through the game (in addition and separate to CO powers).

Edit: Right at the Nintendo site.. http://www.nintendo.com/gamemini?gameid=634c263c-2554-4117-9c21-ee00cd721c11

Each time Commanding Officers win a battle, they gain experience – over time, they can learn new battle skills that increase their strengths or boost a unit’s abilities. There are more than 40 battle skills. Each of the COs has two separate special powers: a CO Power and a Super CO Power. These powers can freeze the battlefield, boost the attack range, rain bombs on enemies and much more.

 

[akascream]

Why can't you build an airport? Because the game is about offense and every design decision stems from that (allowing you to build an airport means you're not fighting to the airport in the center of the map). And also because city / factory / command center placement is an important part of the strategy. Building trees work against the balance of the game and distract from its offensive nature.

Advance Wars either needs to stay with its current design philosphy or ditch it completely and rethink the game from the ground up. What it doesn't need is for its basic design to be marred by elements that don't fit (I used to think Advance Wars needed unit experience like Military Madness but I don't think it would fit with the current system).

But if the game is only good in its current pure form, then why ever make any more of them?...especially since there is a map editor.

I do see your point about an offensive game, and I really do like how they reward that style of play. Couldn't there be some kind of unit progression that fit that mold? Leveling up wouldn't counter offensive design, and would reward intelligent use of units. Right now, if you hold the resources, your troops be damned, you can just keep sending new units.

I guess I just love to feel advancement, aside from the overall goal of an encounter. I'm not sure I really care what form it takes. I just like to build and have something to show for my efforts along the way.

Take a look at starcraft. The little unit powerups are awesome. Or warcraft where you level up (well your heros at least).

Each time Commanding Officers win a battle, they gain experience – over time, they can learn new battle skills that increase their strengths or boost a unit’s abilities. There are more than 40 battle skills. Each of the COs has two separate special powers: a CO Power and a Super CO Power. These powers can freeze the battlefield, boost the attack range, rain bombs on enemies and much more.

Oh cool. I was thinking more along the lines of unit enhancement, or building creation/trees. But CO progression is a start.

 

[cubicle47b]

Each time Commanding Officers win a battle, they gain experience – over time, they can learn new battle skills that increase their strengths or boost a unit’s abilities. There are more than 40 battle skills.

I think this is a bad decision. It essentially encourages gamers to use the same CO over and over again. Of course, I don't know the details so I can't judge it too harshly.

 

[cubicle47b]

But if the game is only good in its current pure form, then why ever make any more of them?...especially since there is a map editor.

You can add more elements to the game and keep the same design philosophy. AW2 was successful for the most part. Pipes, cannons, missiles, new units, new COs (although Hawke is just ridiculous). Add these to a new campaign that was longer and more varied and you had a winner.

I do see your point about an offensive game, and I really do like how they reward that style of play. Couldn't there be some kind of unit progression that fit that mold? Leveling up wouldn't counter offensive design, and would reward intelligent use of units. Right now, if you hold the resources, your troops be damned, you can just keep sending new units.

If you hold the resources you deserve them as you worked your ass off to get them (or your opponent is an idiot). Unit experience could make some units damn near unstoppable and allow you to easily hold territory defensively. Advance Wars doesn't have zone of control or a hex grid system to balance out unit experience (those elements don't work within the design) and therefore it's bad.

 

[akascream]

Leveling up wouldn't have to make units invincible, just make them slightly more powerful and give them a buffed up sprite. So in those situations where they are fighting something they are good at, in a situation where they would have left a single hp, maybe they take it out instead. Meantime, a unit they are weak against would still roll right over them.


And depending on the map, it's not all that hard to play a defensive game right now if you protect your indirect fire units and utilize your structures to heal your units. But I don't want to start arguing the finer points of the game, since I really don't have a ton of experience with it. I was just enjoying it last night and it hit me how neat it would be to have some unit advancement or something similar to hold my interest.

From the sound of it though, maybe it wouldn't work. It sounds like they took it out since the SNES version. How did character levels work in that game?

 

[Tsubaki]

akascream: You do know that leveling up and strategy are often mutually exclusive, don't you?

See http://forums.gaming-age.com/showpost.php?p=1435909&postcount=52

 

[akascream]

akascream: You do know that leveling up and strategy are often mutually exclusive, don't you?

See http://forums.gaming-age.com/showpost.php?p=1435909&postcount=52

What do you mean? You make a good point in that post, but the context is different here. If you had to make a compromise and spend resources on powering up units vs using more units to, for example, capture more buildings (money), there is a balance there.

Not only is the strategic aspect of the game intact, but you create new kinds of strategy. If there are sometimes upgrades in buildings, it would make sense to try and steer the combat to an area where you could reach those buildings first and get the powerup if there is one. Or you could end up wasting rounds moving a unit there to make it slightly more powerful.

So it's not as simple as grinding in an rpg where stats rule all. You wouldn't carry leveled up units from battle to battle, but start fresh every map and have to balance resources just like your opponent.

I'm curious how the SNES leveling worked and why they took it out of the series.

 

[cubicle47b]

It's rare that you play a defensive game in Advance Wars. Most of the time, you play defensive for a short time to preserve units or move them so you can make a big offensive push to capture the next factory, city, whatever. This works if your opponent makes a lot of dumb decisions or you have fairly equal amounts of cash flow and you can bleed him and build up in your current position..

If experience makes that little difference what's the point?


I mostly agree with Tsubaki.

 

[akascream]

If experience makes that little difference what's the point?

Well, if you had 2 or 3 of that powered up unit, it would start to add up. But the resources you had to spend could potentially be matched by your opponents units, depending on what he did with his money. I guess you could ask the same question about anything in a perfectly balanced game, why have this unit or that unit. To make things interesting. Simplicity is fine but the game wouldn't be very fun with only infantry, would it.

Mostly I guess it's just a psychological thing that keeps me interested in games heh. =P

 

[cubicle47b]

If you had to make a compromise and spend resources on powering up units vs using more units to, for example, capture more buildings (money), there is a balance there.

You already can do this by choosing certain CO's. They provide your strategic variation except they are (well, in most cases) balanced through testing by IS.

If there are sometimes upgrades in buildings, it would make sense to try and steer the combat to an area where you could reach those buildings first and get the powerup if there is one. Or you could end up wasting rounds moving a unit there to make it slightly more powerful.

You already get a large boost from captured buildings. You can use them for defense, restore units, build new units (the big one), and you get money from them. I just don't see this as being a good idea.


I just don't understand this need for upgrades. Your upgrade is your strategic thought. You don't need to have better equipment than your opponent if you can outthink them.

 

[akascream]

Actually the idea isn't just for strategic variation, but to add a progression to the game outside of resources, with the added bonus of strategic variation. People like building, getting powerups and leveling, and they are all tasks that can hold interest in the midst of larger resource goals.

I guess I don't see how the ideas are mutually exclusive.

 

[cubicle47b]

Well, if you had 2 or 3 of that powered up unit, it would start to add up. But the resources you had to spend could potentially be matched by your opponents units, depending on what he did with his money. I guess you could ask the same question about anything in a perfectly balanced game, why have this unit or that unit. To make things interesting. Simplicity is fine but the game wouldn't be very fun with only infantry, would it.

There's a huge difference between having unit variations and a minor unit experience system. One determines what you can use in the game (and how the other person decides to counter it), the other just changes the actual battles in minor ways.

 

[jarrod]

Ack, no! Keep dynamic progression out of Advance Wars. You've got Fire Emblem if you want that shit. *spits*

 

[akascream]

There's a huge difference between having unit variations and a minor unit experience system. One determines what you can use in the game (and how the other person decides to counter it), the other just changes the actual battles in minor ways.

I'm not just talking about an xp system, but weapon upgrades, and maybe even the ability to build buildings including reinforced structures (but with resource buildings there may not be a need).

With an xp system, you are just rewarded for better use of units. If you control the resources, whats to stop you from just mindlessly sending more units to the front line? You talk about outthinking your opponent, well xp is rewarding exactly that. If you can keep your units alive through more, or take the time to fall back and heal, you would eventually have a more powerful unit than if you just spent another 1/3k and scooted him off to the front lines.

 

[cubicle47b]

Actually the idea isn't just for strategic variation, but to add a progression to the game outside of resources, with the added bonus of strategic variation. People like building, getting powerups and leveling, and they are all tasks that can hold interest in the midst of larger resource goals.

We just want two different things. I won't compare Advance Wars to Chess but I want a game that is balanced and is "worthy" of me studying it to become a much better player. My progression is in the score I get at the end of every map and my ability to beat other players with roughly equal tools.

I'm sure you want a highly strategic game too but what I described above is not important to you.

 

[akascream]

Well, I guess jarrod has a point too, there is always fire emblem for that stuff (though the advancement in that game isn't as temporary). I certainly didn't want to ruffle any feathers and suggest something that might disrupt the game's balance. I was just playing and thought to myself how cool it would be if I could be working on other tasks as I work towards my final goal.

 

[Jared Goodwin]

With an xp system, you are just rewarded for better use of units. If you control the resources, whats to stop you from just mindlessly sending more units to the front line? You talk about outthinking your opponent, well xp is rewarding exactly that. If you can keep your units alive through more, or take the time to fall back and heal, you would eventually have a more powerful unit than if you just spent another 1/3k and scooted him off to the front lines.

Uh. Isn't controlling the resources the reward for outthinking your opponent?

Why is throwing waves of troops somehow a less intelligent tactic? One of the most difficult tasks in Advance Wars is intelligently choosing what units to sacrifice in order to end up with the greatest advantage.

Honestly, one of the best things about AW is its simplicity and purity. No sense having superficial systems that distract from that.

 

[akascream]

Uh. Isn't controlling the resources the reward for outthinking your opponent?

Why is throwing waves of troops somehow a less intelligent tactic? One of the most difficult tasks in Advance Wars is intelligently choosing what units to sacrifice in order to end up with the greatest advantage.

Honestly, one of the best things about AW is its simplicity and purity. No sense having superficial systems that distract from that.

Heh, might as well just have infantry units then, as anything more is superficial and distracting. Come on now! =P

 

[cubicle47b]

With an xp system, you are just rewarded for better use of units. If you control the resources, whats to stop you from just mindlessly sending more units to the front line? You talk about outthinking your opponent, well xp is rewarding exactly that. If you can keep your units alive through more, or take the time to fall back and heal, you would eventually have a more powerful unit than if you just spent another 1/3k and scooted him off to the front lines.

You control the resources through a better use of units and keep the focus on offense. I think with unit experience under the current AW system all you'd end up doing is extending already decided games. Combine unit experience, some narrow roads, and the typical 4 bases and a couple of factories around the command center and you can make the finish an agonizing experience while probably adding little to the action in the middle of the map (which is where the game is won and lost).

It's *really* hard to see where unit experience is going to make AW a better game.

 

[akascream]

Well, xp was only one of many suggestions. I guess I just don't find the game rewarding enough on it's own merits, it needs more carrots. Don't get me wrong, it's a fun game, but I wouldn't play it if it weren't portable. I guess that's why the GCN version has realtime action.

 

[cubicle47b]

Heh, might as well just have infantry units then, as anything more is superficial and distracting. Come on now! =P

There's an idea. If IS could get the strategy in Advance Wars up to the level of Go I'd be all for it.

We're looking for worthwhile improvements to the game design (for variation) and the idea of progression largely goes against balanced strategy which is fundamental.

 

[cubicle47b]

Well, xp was only one of many suggestions. I guess I just don't find the game rewarding enough on it's own merits, it needs more carrots. Don't get me wrong, it's a fun game, but I wouldn't play it if it weren't portable. I guess that's why the GCN version has realtime action.

Ah.

 

[akascream]

I simply don't see how progression halts strategy, just the opposite. Especially if there were unit enhancements that allowed you to move a couple spaces after an attack, or let a bomber do a fly by dropping and stop a space or two away from its target. There really are tons of options.

And what about buildings? Why not allow the building of different structures with some kind of construction tree? Balancing resources by deciding when to make investments, or building production factories closer to the front line are enhancements to strategic play.


I simply do not buy that simplicity == strategy. The more options that are available, and the more diverse the possibilities, the more elements you have to play your opponent. The simpler the game, the less options you have, and thus there is less to do.

To further your chess comparison...why play an advanced game like chess with all the different kinds of pieces and mathmatical combinations of movements and counter movements when you can play a game like checkers. Checkers is simpler, right?

Hell, even chess has character develpment when a pawn crosses the board! =P

 

[Kiriku]

I agree with you akascream. I think, if we're thinking the same thing.

I enjoy Advance Wars, but I find it too "simple" after a while. The depth is there on a level that I find enjoyable in limited quantities, something that would be better with more substance. I would enjoy it more if it had more variables and factors you could affect and change on your own, more variation and progression.

If I was to use an example, although a very extreme one, it would be X-Com: UFO Defense/UFO: Enemy Unknown. Fighting enemies is only one part of the game, but a very deep one with lots of options and variables on how to attack your enemies. Other strategical aspects of the game consist of building bases, shooting down alien ships, doing research, creating and choosing equipment for the missions and so on.

But with such additions and changes, I guess it wouldn't be Advance Wars in the end.

 

[cubicle47b]

The more options that are available, and the more diverse the possibilities, the more elements you have to play your opponent.

I agree, but they have to be *good* design elements and the game has to stay balanced. No one here is opposed to adding to Advance Wars. Most of us just think what you want to add sucks.

Chess is a simple game (you have 6 different units with different movement patters and a couple optional moves, an 8x8 grid, no upgrade paths or bases or experience or other options, a fairly limited number of opening and closing moves, just a very rich middle game) with an incredible amount of depth. Same with Go. Checkers is a simple game that's fairly shallow.

 

[The Guivre]

I don't really see the need for advancement on the CO or Unit level. Part of AW's great balance is that your powers are for the most part set in stone. For instance if you could pad Grit's weakness in direct combat he's no longer vulnerable to close combat. Which kind of throws the balance off. Though if it's an element present only in Single player I'd live with it, though carrying over such things to a multi-player setting makes things a bit trickier.

In my experience AW is more of a logistical puzzle than almost anything else. The speed and efficiency with which you obtain resources is a large part of the game. In terms of unit experience or upgrades, you might consider just using Kanbei. I'd say that unit upgrades are sort of built in with him, the units cost more but are noticeably more powerful. On the other end of the spectrum you can use Colin and get more but weaker units.

Base building really only encourages playing turtle, and that generally leads to a long and tedious multiplayer experience. The lack of a tech tree I'd argue is supplemented by the cost for more advanced units. And if you lose something like a NeoTank and you're playing as someone like Kanbei then you've lost quite a chunk of resources, so you have an incentive similar to unit experience in terms of unit loss.

I'd gladly buy another AW that didn't stray very far from the present formula. But CO experience would be fine for single player.