There really needs to be a new game or a remake

  • Topic Archived
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. Advance Wars: Days of Ruin
  3. There really needs to be a new game or a remake

User Info: Lazy_Narumi

Lazy_Narumi
2 years ago#1
If a remake:

-Have more Co's. The Beast, Cyrus, Davis, whoever.
-More maps
-Graphics, whatever doesn't matter

If a new game
-Cartoon or realistic I don't care
-Balanced Co's as in Four, Four, Four, Four. Not Four, two, three, one or whatever
-Same difficulty of hard
-New and old maps
Part of the Xrd Board's Church of Illyria. Playing: GGxrd, PQ, Legend of mana. Mains: Ky Kiske/Sin, Ken/Teddie, and Robin.

User Info: BlanketPI

BlanketPI
2 years ago#2
I don't really see the need to make each category have the same number of COs. I mean Advance Wars: Duel Strike had something like 6-4-4-4-8, which should be fine for all of this, and this game's 4-3-2-3 isn't all that bad. I can see wanting each to have at least 3, but it isn't like the factions are particularly important, aside from who is fighting whom in story. (which is to say, Greyfield and Waylon may have been a bit overused, because the NRA was the opponent for quite a while)

What I would personally like to see is a more relevant and balanced navy. My personal idea (though I doubt its effectiveness) would be to:
-Add in cruise missiles which would be akin to Black Bombs, though presumably weaker (perhaps down to Missile Silo strength?) and have them only produced by a naval unit, perhaps to replace or go along side with Seaplanes.
-Add anti-naval planes, designed specifically for destroying naval units, even including Cruisers and Submarines. They would sort of be the Dusters of the sea, as a cheaper alternative to Bombers (probably slightly more effective, too) when up against naval units. Unlike Bombers, they would be able to destroy Cruisers most of the way, so the victor between the two depends on which strikes first. They would also have the ability to strike adjacent Submarines, even when they have dived.
-Add a Piperunner-type naval unit, which goes along the coast, rather than along Pipes. They could sort of replace the Battleship's role in this game of running along coasts, with the Battleships acting more like Rockets, like in past games. (I really don't like the Battleship's effective range of 10, just because it makes naval warfare even more linear, something it already has too much of. Once someone has Battleships, they just need Cruisers for protection from Submarines)

I'm sure that more would have to be done, as the navy has to have flexibility closer to land than to air.... Maybe something weaker than a Submarine, but stronger than a Gunboat? The 20000 cost of a Submarine hurts their ability to act like Tanks, but are rather, Md Tanks or even War Tanks. Then again, that might make the Submarine a whole lot less useful....

I would also like to see more inventive CO Zone effects, like reduced terrain costs for Tire A, reduced fuel costs (like Eagle), a CO Zone that cancels out the opponents' CO Zone or weakens the opponents' units.... Oh, and I think Stealths could be brought back if handled properly.... The Duster already makes Stealths weaker, because they don't cost nearly as much as Fighters, but they could still do enough damage that Stealths couldn't roam free. Perhaps Dusters and Stealths could do roughly the same damage to each other. (maybe like Infantry versus Mechs)

(Oh boy, a short response turned into an essay, again! ...I really didn't try to avoid it this time, though.)
Sorry, can't talk; switching feet!

User Info: Xenesis Xenon

Xenesis Xenon
2 years ago#3
BlanketPI posted...
What I would personally like to see is a more relevant and balanced navy.


Fundamentally, I don't think we will see a fully realised and balanced navy. There's a whole bunch of problems with it in the basic form, notably that the interaction between land and sea is incredibly weak (e.g. it barely happens outside of Battleships and Rockets), there's generally no reason to hold the sea outside of doughnut or archipelago style maps and that there's a dearth of terrain in the Naval area, so it basically plays out like an inferior version of the land war.

As it is, the Land and Land + Air gameplay works amazingly well and has plenty of layers of nuance and strategy. The Naval play doesn't work.

The more I try playing around with it to 'fix' it, the more I almost want to go towards the Starcraft style approach - include them as fun toys in the campaign and whatnot, but serious vs gameplay disregards them entirely. Which is essentially what happened anyway.
www.warsworldnews.com - Wars World News - The most chilled AW community on the web.

User Info: BlanketPI

BlanketPI
2 years ago#4
Xenesis Xenon posted...
Fundamentally, I don't think we will see a fully realised and balanced navy. There's a whole bunch of problems with it in the basic form, notably that the interaction between land and sea is incredibly weak (e.g. it barely happens outside of Battleships and Rockets), there's generally no reason to hold the sea outside of doughnut or archipelago style maps and that there's a dearth of terrain in the Naval area, so it basically plays out like an inferior version of the land war.

I was hoping to reduce this problem with Black Bombs being produced by Carriers (or something similar), since those are a whole lot more potent than Seaplanes. Going in the other direction, anti-naval airplanes would give an additional option, which does its job better than the Bomber due to price and vs. Cruisers. (while they aren't land units, they do have the feature of not being naval units) In both directions would be the littoral ship, which would be easier to attack with land units, (it has to stay close to land) and can similarly fire at land units, which I would imagine would really be its job. I doubt that these are sufficient additions/changes, but they might be a good start.

As it is, the Land and Land + Air gameplay works amazingly well and has plenty of layers of nuance and strategy.
That I would agree with. It just seems a shame to omit something which still has significant potential.... (Navy + Air has plenty of strategy and nuances, as well, albeit it, less)
Sorry, can't talk; switching feet!

User Info: Starbound2013

Starbound2013
2 years ago#5
Every morning I wake up, kneel on the ground facing toward Japan, and pray in the name of Reggie Fils-Aime the prophet of nintendo, that they will make a real advanced wars sequel. My prayers have not been heard. I must sacrifice more amiibos in the name of the mighty Iwata.
AC:NL: 5413 - 0144 - 2904
PSN: thund3rkatg6

User Info: Lazy_Narumi

Lazy_Narumi
2 years ago#6
BlanketPI posted...
I don't really see the need to make each category have the same number of COs. I mean Advance Wars: Duel Strike had something like 6-4-4-4-8, which should be fine for all of this, and this game's 4-3-2-3 isn't all that bad. I can see wanting each to have at least 3, but it isn't like the factions are particularly important, aside from who is fighting whom in story. (which is to say, Greyfield and Waylon may have been a bit overused, because the NRA was the opponent for quite a while)

What I would personally like to see is a more relevant and balanced navy. My personal idea (though I doubt its effectiveness) would be to:
-Add in cruise missiles which would be akin to Black Bombs, though presumably weaker (perhaps down to Missile Silo strength?) and have them only produced by a naval unit, perhaps to replace or go along side with Seaplanes.
-Add anti-naval planes, designed specifically for destroying naval units, even including Cruisers and Submarines. They would sort of be the Dusters of the sea, as a cheaper alternative to Bombers (probably slightly more effective, too) when up against naval units. Unlike Bombers, they would be able to destroy Cruisers most of the way, so the victor between the two depends on which strikes first. They would also have the ability to strike adjacent Submarines, even when they have dived.
-Add a Piperunner-type naval unit, which goes along the coast, rather than along Pipes. They could sort of replace the Battleship's role in this game of running along coasts, with the Battleships acting more like Rockets, like in past games. (I really don't like the Battleship's effective range of 10, just because it makes naval warfare even more linear, something it already has too much of. Once someone has Battleships, they just need Cruisers for protection from Submarines)

I'm sure that more would have to be done, as the navy has to have flexibility closer to land than to air.... Maybe something weaker than a Submarine, but stronger than a Gunboat? The 20000 cost of a Submarine hurts their ability to act like Tanks, but are rather, Md Tanks or even War Tanks. Then again, that might make the Submarine a whole lot less useful....

I would also like to see more inventive CO Zone effects, like reduced terrain costs for Tire A, reduced fuel costs (like Eagle), a CO Zone that cancels out the opponents' CO Zone or weakens the opponents' units.... Oh, and I think Stealths could be brought back if handled properly.... The Duster already makes Stealths weaker, because they don't cost nearly as much as Fighters, but they could still do enough damage that Stealths couldn't roam free. Perhaps Dusters and Stealths could do roughly the same damage to each other. (maybe like Infantry versus Mechs)

(Oh boy, a short response turned into an essay, again! ...I really didn't try to avoid it this time, though.)


Well when I mean more Co's I also mean more balance Co powers. We already have a Navy guy and two sky people but nobody like Sami and nobody really like Hawke. If they added The Beast, Cyrus, Davis and maybe a few new crafts/balanced Navy then I wouldn't even mind. I was just disappointed that I can only pick M Bison Navy dude and Waylon but I have a ton of options for IDS and a ton for the Wolves.
Part of the Xrd Board's Church of Illyria. Playing: GGxrd, PQ, Legend of mana. Mains: Ky Kiske/Sin, Ken/Teddie, and Robin.

User Info: GipFace

GipFace
2 years ago#7
- The navy needs to go, at least for pvp play. It hasn't worked for four games. But this is a problem: remove it and casuals will be mad because the navy is gone. As Xenesis said, it's best as a campaign toy, but it will never work for pvp.

- More units aren't needed. The game has 26 units and that's enough. Mothball the navy and focus on a few more land and air units. What should be done is make some of the lesser-used units viable, such as the flare and missiles. Give missiles a little peashooter or something, anything that would make it useful against other land units...

- A strong story and characterization like this one. Sure, it could've been a bit deeper where both sides were shades of gray, but AW4's campaign story was much better than "herp derp Black Hole wants to take over the world again!" AW4's best strength in the campaign was characterization. The only weak character was Gage. But maybe he was a homage to Grit: Grit in Wars World never turned out to be anything more than a laid-back sharpshooter. There was dialogue that he used to be with Orange Star, but nothing else came from that.

- There is an alarming trend where pvp games can't succeed unless the character select screen contains a bucketful of characters. AW probably should do this, but that would affect the story...

- The CO zone concept was awesome because it punishes you for playing poorly. In the Wars World games, if you play poorly, at least you got a CO power out of it. In AW4, someone can crush you with two CO powers before you even got one. Casuals couldn't get on board with this, which is why most casual gaming sites think AW4 is inferior.

- Don't bring back Wars World. Seriously, they had their time in the sun. It's sad how casual gaming sites keep dumping on AW4 and want Wars World back. (http://www.techtimes.com/articles/28261/20150123/reboot-this-advance-wars.htm) All the Wars World nations are on friendly terms by the end of AW3, and Black Hole has worn out its welcome.

User Info: Lazy_Narumi

Lazy_Narumi
2 years ago#8
I think the Navy needs to be reworked rather than go. I have no problem with it in PVP (well in the past.)

My issue was that some people had the same damn CO power and the game seemed lacking rather than complete. We didn't need three people with defense up. Caluder's ability, while cheap, was original. I didn't like how three people had the same CO power ability but different specials. They could of changed that around completely as homage to the old games.

I mean we have:

Gage-shooter
Two sky people
One Navy
One cheap healing CO ability
Three defense only abilities
One FoW ability
Random Weather
Power up max
Jake/Max/Jess without the downfalls
No mech/bike/etc. special CO

They could of I don't know made Waylon have his Co power work with certain flying units or M Bison be good with Battleships. Or something.

I don't even want old Wars World. I would be happy with this being rebooted with more characters, more maps, and better graphics.
Part of the Xrd Board's Church of Illyria. Playing: GGxrd, PQ, Legend of mana. Mains: Ky Kiske/Sin, Ken/Teddie, and Robin.
  1. Boards
  2. Advance Wars: Days of Ruin
  3. There really needs to be a new game or a remake

Report Message

Terms of Use Violations:

Etiquette Issues:

Notes (optional; required for "Other"):
Add user to Ignore List after reporting

Topic Sticky

You are not allowed to request a sticky.

  • Topic Archived
More topics from this board...
Best CO Unit(s) for every COSgt_Brown1310/8 5:33PM