| Welcome to The Rpg Spot. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Changing Advance Wars | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 15 2008, 07:43 PM (250 Views) | |
| Trippy Skippin Tomato | May 15 2008, 07:43 PM Post #1 |
|
TOTALLY SEXY GAMER DEMON GOLFER
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Advance Wars: Days of Ruin already changed the Advance Wars series, and almost entirely for the better. Nearly every change made to the classic Famicom Wars formula was for the sake of better game balance and to make the game more accessible to newcomers as well as to grizzled vets. However, I feel that they didn’t change quite enough. What follows is a list of some things I believe could make the next AW game even better. 1- Portable Fog of War. In Days of Ruin, we saw the introduction of the Flare Tank, a unit that isn’t very useful in combat(It’s only really effective against various forms of Infantry), but which provided an invaluable ability to handheld generals; namely, the ability to light up spaces on Fog of War infested maps without putting your own units at substantial risk. This new unit revolutionized the way one had to play in Fog of War, as you could no longer rely on the encroaching darkness to hide your units. As well, with Rain being altered to reduce unit vision ranges, the Flare Tank became invaluable on weather-changing maps as well, since having one on hand when the skies opened up could mean the difference between taking a strategic point and getting wiped out. However, there was one major problem with this unit. That is, if the current map uses neither Fog of War nor weather changes, the unit was essentially worthless. It became little more than an above-average infantry sweeper, and there were other units that were both better and cheaper for that purpose. But what if there was a unit that could SPREAD Fog on maps where there was none? I imagine a specialized infantry unit with Chaff Grenades that can block out radar signals to create Fog. The Fog would only last until the end of your opponent’s next turn, but it would both create another level of strategic play(Each player would have to constantly be on the lookout for enemy units that could suddenly become hidden), as well as provide a use for having Flare Tanks on non-specialized maps. Plus, the series’ ubiquitous “Intelligence Gathering” CO’s with the power to expand vision during their CO power would suddenly have a general purpose use beyond the previous absolutely nothing. (Picture of Lin's CO Power activation) Suddenly! Effectiveness! 2- Bridge Building. In previous games, rivers were impassable barriers that only Infantry and Air units would cross. Sea units were too big for the narrow channels, and anything on wheels or treads could simply never pass unless the map designer thoughtfully provided a bridge for crossing. But what if each player could produce a unit that could build a temporary bridge? I envision a specialized infantry unit(Possibly the same one that can fire Chaff Grendades? An “Engineer”, perhaps.) that comes equipped with a single set of supplies(Like the APC’s new airport/seaport building supplies, or the Carrier’s Seaplane supplies). The player would maneuver their Engineer into the river, and select the “build” command. Much like the APC, the unit would then “capture” the spot, and when 20 capture points had been obtained, a brand new temporary bridge would be standing, ready to ferry tanks and artillery across directly into enemy territory. Now of course, I could see this getting abused, so I think the bridges, as is implied by the “temporary” in their names, should be destructible. It would have HP like a Meteorite or Pipe Seam, and when it ran out, down the bridge would tumble. This would allow a defending player to eliminate quick accesses to his base, so that the attacking player wouldn’t be able to just waltz back in (or retreat) with impunity. And once again, a unit like this would add another layer or depth to the game’s strategy. That river alongside your base blocks tanks from coming in…but not always! However, the River should be the only “impassable” terrain to receive this treatment. I don’t feel that mountains should ever be passable except by infantry and air units; especially since Mountains have extra special features to them, like infantry being able to scout from them, etc. (Tanks on a bridge) 3- Fixes to existing units. Days of Ruin altered some of the series' long-standing units, and while many of the changes were for the better (cheaper, weaker Anti-Airs, for example), I think they still need a little fiddling to get just right. Currently, it’s nearly pointless to ever build a Medium Tank. Two regular tanks are only slightly more expensive, but worth many times more to an army than a single Medium Tank, and the War Tank is so much better for so little extra cost that it's better to save for a turn and buy that instead. I would suggest lowering the cost of the Medium Tank from $12000 to $11000. Sure, it’s only a $1000 difference, but that small change makes a huge difference in the cost-efficiency of the unit. I also feel that Infantry need to be moved back to their normal $1000 asking price. As far as I can see, raising the price to $1500 served nothing but to slow down the early game, and to make basic infantry even less appealing to build in the face of the new Bike Infantry. Bikes and Mechs should stay at $2500; that's a good price for those units. But basic Infantry needs to stay at $1000, because their effectiveness as a unit just isn’t worth that extra $500 in the long run. As for Air units, the only unit I feel needs fixing is the Bomber. Either make it cost $18000 or give it more defense. As it stands, Bombers are so fragile that they really aren’t worth building at their current cost. More often than not, you spend $20000 to make one, use it to destroy a $12000 unit, and then watch as it gets shot down by two $7000 Anti-Airs that take no damage themselves. It either needs to be cheaper to make it more competitively priced, or able to take a hit or two without going down. Sadly, even with those changes the Bomber won’t see much play because of the high cost, but it’d be a big step towards them being useful. Sea Units are a different problem entirely, and they get their own bullet point. 4- Better Sea Combat. Sea units are pretty useless in AW. While sea combat in and of itself is well balanced, the fact is that if the map doesn't entirely hinge on what's going on at sea, the units might as well not even be there. I would upgrade some of the current sea units’ abilities to make them more viable in land/air focused maps. First off, I would allow the Cruiser to not only store helicopters, but heal them as well. It would cost money as if the Helicopter was resting on an Airport, but having a mobile helicopter pad is only really useful with an added function like this. To counterbalance, I’d limit the ship to only being able to load one copter at a time. For a unit that is essentially useless by itself, an asking price of $28000 for the Carrier is ludicrous. The fact that it’s a mobile Seaplane factory is a noted concern, but it’s still not worth that exorbitant fee, especially given that you can sink the damn thing with a paper boat. I would lower the cost to $20000 even, and possibly raise the price of the Seaplanes to $16000, and reduce the Carrier’s supplies to 3, so that only 3 Seaplanes can be produced. They are pretty damn powerful, after all. As is the case with bombers, the unit will likely still go unplayed for the large part in competitive play, but this would be a big step towards seeing them played at all. The Battleship was fixed up pretty well in DoR, with being able to move and attack on the same turn, so that’s fine. Submarines have a huge range of vision, and with a new portable Fog of War their scouting services would be even more valuable. Landers aren't involved in combat, and the defense boost they got in DoR is more than enough change. You can't really do anything with transport units anyway. The Gunboat is much the same, it's perfectly balanced for it's price, and was pretty much the single thing in DoR that makes sea combat viable at all. I would also bring in another combat sea unit, to fall between the Gunboat and the Cruiser. As I said above, the Gunboat was one of the best inclusions in DoR, as it (along with the newly improved Battleship) was the first unit in the series to make sea combat viable. However, the large rift between the two bottom units (Gunboat costs $6000, Cruiser $16000) still leaves some room for growing. I think I would include a “Land Assault” ship, a direct fire boat that could travel on both seas and rivers, and attack both land units and sea units. A big issue with the current set of seafaring vessels is that none of them save the Battleship can fire on land units, but landlubber tanks can freely fire upon them. A small gunship that can float on rivers (and into the heat of the action) and fire back on those pesky beach-hogging tanks would be a very effective unit indeed. So as not to effect the already well-balanced existing sea units, the Gunship should be able to deal moderate damage to Landers and Gunboats, light damage to Carriers, and extremely light damage to Cruisers, Battleships, and Submarines. Hidden Subs, of course, would be untargetable. I would price such a unit at $10000 and make it about as strong as a normal tank with slightly buffed defenses. Adding together all of these changes, I think naval combat would be much more effective and viable. (Picture of a Riverboat in Vietnam) This kind of boat, but with canons. And lasers. Ok, maybe not lasers. 5- Changes to CO’s. I love the new CO Zone system, and I don’t think it needs to be changed one iota. I really think it balances the gameplay superbly, and makes the game more about effective use of units and placement of the CO, rather than just spamming whatever your CO does well (Grit’s unbeatable Artillery, Max’s tank spam, etc.). So I wouldn’t touch that. However, I feel the individual CO’s need some tweaking to make them just right. Now I know most of these CO's probably won't be seeing the light of day ever again, since DoR wrapped up it's story with a pretty bow, but any AW fan can tell you that if they stick to the CO Zone system we'll be seeing these ability shells again, and so here's how I would fix them. The following CO’s don’t need to be changed, since they’re balanced already: Brenner, Forsythe, Gage, Lin (The Engineer unit alone raises her from “meh” to “pretty good”), and Caulder (He’s a boss, he’s supposed to be broken). Will: I would boost his attack/defense inside the zone by an additional +1/+2 stars. Currently, the only boost he gets is that his direct-fire units in his zone are 130/110, which isn’t a very good boost, honestly. Raising that to 140/130 would make him much more viable in closed quarters, and granting that boost to all of his units during the CO Power day would be a very nice boost, along with his already great +2 move. Tasha: No, no, no. This just won’t do. She's by far the worst CO in the game, and she needs a major change. Cranking up air attack power and movement is just worthless, since air units are already powerful and have the best movement in the game. Adding to that is just pointless. I would give her powers more like Eagle in the older AW games. Give her a smaller boost to her planes in general, maybe 130/120, but give her the old “Lightning Strike” power of allowing her to move all her units again for a turn at severely reduced attack. I figure that lowering her units to 50/120 would be good enough. I think this would effectively keep with her “hothead attacker” theme, while also making her useful on maps that aren’t big-money air combat ones(Since the Lightning Strike would effect her land and sea units as well). (Picture of Eagle) Remember this guy, IS? Tasha needs to be more like him. Isabella: Isabella’s pretty powerful because she’s so versatile. 120/120 units in a big Co zone that get +2 range and move on her CO Power turn? She basically renders Forsythe and Will obsolete by herself. However, lowering her CO Zone range by 1 would fix the problem, I think. She keeps her immense CO Power, but her day-to-day power is gimped to compensate. Penny: Keep her zone and powers exactly the same, but make the weather effect cause by her CO Power only last two days instead of three. Three days is crippling for any opponent, and often leads to Penny going total offense for three turns and just getting power after power once she activates it the first time. Dropping it to three allows her to get a significant advantage over the enemy, but not so much of one that it just crushes all hope of victory. Tabitha: Simple, really. I’d lower her CO Power damage output from 8 to 4. Her universal unit power and defense on her CO Power day is already dominating(and extremely hard to get), the 8 HP damage bomb is just completely pointless overkill. Nothing else needs to be altered. (Picture of AW1 Sturm) Hey IS! Remember this guy? Remember how broken he was? Yeah, stop doing this. Waylon: Waylon has a similar problem as Tasha, mainly that he’s useless on maps that don’t have air units. However, since he actually has a decent CO Zone(unlike Tasha’s measly 1 square range) and the flat 110/110 boost that all units inside it receive, he’s workable(if still incredibly worthless) on non-air maps. But to make him really playable, he needs to diversify. I would completely alter his CO Power from cranking up his air unit’s defenses by 40%, to raising ALL of his units’ defenses by 30%. He still ends up with basically unkillable air units at 130/170, but his ground and sea units will also get a nice boost to 110/140. In addition, units inside his CO Zone can capture bases at 1.5 times the normal rate, like Sami in the old AW games. Since his attitude seems to be that throwing more disposable troops at a problem makes it go away, throwing more troops at a base makes it his faster. This also supports the idea that he’s incredibly greedy. Greyfield: Once more, a CO that’s only good on one type of map(sea maps). However, with his huge CO Zone and the flat 110/110 that all units get inside the zone anyway, he’s actually pretty decent on maps that aren’t totally at sea. However, he still needs a boost to make him equal to the others. I would make all his APC’s, Transports, and T. Copters able to move a space further. This makes him more versatile on maps where sea units aren’t prevalent, and keeps with his theme of “supply whore”. Those are the changes I would like to see implemented to the AW series, and the new DoR system specifically. A lot of these concerns may seem like small changes, but in the grand scope of things these little changes all add up to a pretty major shift in how the game would be played. And that would be just excellent. |
| |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Creative Writing · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
12:32 AM Jul 11
|
edge created by tiptopolive of IDS





![]](http://z4.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)



12:32 AM Jul 11