AWBW RAAAR

[Kireato]

The way the game is set up, you can't really use them as meatshields in the AW2 way because you just feed CO Zone to your opponent. But regardless. Arties come out as finishers - if you build them too early you don't have any momentum and the number of mechs need to be balanced with units that can hold an advance area such as Tanks/Copters/AA/Recon/Blah.

But the point is, the nature of the game will be very push oriented like DoR as opposed to more stallish like the older games.

I was pointing out that AWBW and DoR have roughly similar funding dedicated to the core units, similar number of soldier units built and the same core units distributed similarly.

As for your point, I'd say you've deluded yourself. I find plenty of reasons to disagree. But that's fine because as far as I'm concerned I'm only looking forward to the single player.

I'm not totally against an RPGish system done right, but usually when I think of TBS with RPG I get nightmares about Fire Emblem.

The only thing I find hateful about Fire Emblem is the RNG.

[Kireato]

And even if the funding contribution was identical

That's not what I meant.

You said:

Compare that to the 80-90% funding

As far as I understand you were saying that the funding that went into core units was from 80-90% of the total funding spent. And you also said that in DoR the distribution into the core units was:

Percentage of funding for core units is ~18%/11%/11%/11% for important core units

which is of course a lot less than the 80% number you claimed. The problem was that you hadn't even given a look at the numbers otherwise you would have noted that in AWBW the percentage of funding for core units is:

Take benbever's stats and you've got around 16% (artillery), 13% (tank), 13% (infantry) and 10 % (BCopter) in funding

So when I said that:

I was pointing out that AWBW and DoR have roughly similar funding dedicated to the core units,

I did not mean that infantry had the same funding percentage in awbw and dor, because they don't.

I don't even know why you calculate the number of infantries on the field back from their funding because you can just look at the stats: 15% of units built in DoR (recently, before it was more like 30% and overall it still is), 55% of units built in awbw.

Now obviously, there are different units in DoR with a modified damage chart and costs, and that changes things, but (and I'll quote myself because I've already said it all):

If you want to look at DoR's distribution in unit count (recent Gip) we've got:
Infantry 15%, Mech 23.5%, Bike 14%, Artillery 16%, Tank 8%, BCopter 6.5% which account for 83% of units built
And in AWBW (for benbever)
Infantry 53.5%, Mech 8.5%, Artillery 11%, Tank 8%, BCopter 5% which account for 86% of units built

And we notice some striking similarities between both games on the overall soldier count and what constitutes core units and their importance.

So no, I don't think the numbers are a lot more balanced and there are pretty much as many non core units built as before.

[donnyton]

Besides, what's wrong with a high core-unit ratio? As long as overt spamming of core units is no longer a viable strategy, it should be fine, no?

[Sven]

http://awbw.amarriner.com/game.php?games_id=127645

where is this variety you are so sure exists kireato?

these are the best players the game has to offer playing a game with three units.

god help us all.

[Kireato]

This miracle variety occurs on other maps, which have the right properties. Kinda repeating myself.

Example of a terribad map, notice that it has only been played on 10 times, unit variety is low:
http://awbw.amarriner.com/analysis.php?maps_id=39137 ( doesn't even have airports, a really awesome example, if you are trying to convince morons)

Example of maps on which you can have good games, notice that the percentage of infantry built is under 30%, crazy isn't it?
http://awbw.amarriner.com/analysis.php?maps_id=28826 (my previous example)
http://awbw.amarriner.com/analysis.php?maps_id=14555 (map on which I remember having epic games, notice the spread in unit use, oh the insanity! Sadly there are no good current games to show off just how awesome that map can get.)

Also, it might be good to take the overall player percentages with a grain of salt because there is no player that will not spam infantries in the early game and there are plenty of games which finish before the midgame thanks to the player matchup being uneven. (So yeah, on the good maps I showed, you still have to take into account the inflation of infantry count due to the games that finish early.)

But yeah, I actually played AWBW.

[Sven]

one the maps you chosen hasn't been played in ages and was simply used as an example of what "should" be played.

the others are implemented in the leagues which aren't exactly examples of fine and stellar play.

all i am asking of you kireato is to explain why the best players consistently have games amongst themselves which build up into these "moron convincers" as you so call them.

surprise, we played AWBW too, as well as DoR.

I know a better game when I see it.

[GipFace]

A few points to make in regards of my current AW4 metagame build stats:

1. Sea is now mostly avoided, thus bringing build percentages up for land and air. (Fighters are disproportionally high because I played Deep Defense for a long while) benbever's AWBW sea budget % is 11.1, which lowers his land/air budget % by quite a bit. However, this post isn't about budget %, so I'll leave that for now.
2. Volume % isn't as important as budget %, but volume % is an indicator of army composition and variety.
3. Teching in AW4 happens when one side needs a tactical edge that the core units can't offer. Unfortunately, this usually happens only when both players are at nearly equivalent skill level. My skill compared to other AW4 players is so large that I usually don't need to bother with too much tech. This increases my infantry and bike counts because I don't need to use as many vehicles. The skill disparity between good AWBW players is seemingly much smaller.
4. Unit count in AW4 is much lower. Both sides rarely go over 25 units on the map at any given point, since units tend to be destroyed more often.

Now let's take a look at the percentages that Kireato brought up. First, Kireato compared benbever's top 5 against my top 6. This is unfair, so we'll add in benbever's 6th unit:

benbever's AWBW top 6 distribution (vol %):
Infantry 53.7, Artillery 11.2, Mech 8.5, Tank 8.1, B-Copter 4.8, AntiAir 2.7 (~89% total)

My AW4 top 6 distribution (vol %):
Mech 23.5, Artillery 15.6, Infantry 14.9, Bike 14.1, Tank 7.7, B-Copter 6.7 (~82.5% total)

Benbever's infantry takes first spot by a huge margin, but at each of #2 to #6 slots, I have more units by vol % built than benbever. I also have less total vol %, which means I use more utility units. Kireato correctly pointed out that the volume of AWBW infantry became split into AW4 infantry/mech/bike, but failed to include benbever's mechs into the comparison. If we include that, then benbever's soldier vol % is 62.2 compared to my 52.5. This is a significant difference.

Therefore, it becomes plainly obvious that AW4 has much more variety than AWBW. The value of AW4 infantry worsens as the game progresses, while in AWBW, they only get better.

By the way, please play some AW4 when you have the time, thanks. ^_^

[Kireato]

@Sven

one the maps you chosen hasn't been played in ages and was simply used as an example of what "should" be played.

You wanted an example of the elusive variety I was referring to. I gave you one I remembered from when I was active. And honestly the fact it's old is irrelevant.

the others are implemented in the leagues which aren't exactly examples of fine and stellar play.

Hey, the example game had black mont blanc playing who is supposed to be pretty good and he used enough different units. At least, the map had airports.

all i am asking of you kireato is to explain why the best players consistently have games amongst themselves which build up into these "moron convincers" as you so call them.

How about you first show that they consistently have these games? On maps which allow variety and actually have airports for starters?

More than that, you seem to not understand what I've been saying. I think it's fine if only infantry, artillery and tanks are used (I said it before in the topic too). They're all that's needed for ranged, direct and capture play. I've only wanted to show that it does not always devolve in whatever myth you're all believing in. And your examples are incredibly skewed and dishonest, hence why I call them moron convincers. Not all games are like that.

But there are various reasons for which such games occur. Some maps divide the map too well and it's hard to penetrate the other side when the forces are equal as they often are. Then there's the CO's very bland day to day. The various mechanics which don't really give any incentives to attack (Worse offender being no move and shoot indirects). The fact that yeah there aren't a whole lot of essential units and many units which only become cost effective in specific situations.

surprise, we played AWBW too, as well as DoR.

I wasn't aware you had spent much time with either one of them.

I know a better game when I see it.

I don't believe I've said anything which would suggest the contrary. Seriously I never wanted to even comment on DoR, from the start I was only showing that there wasn't as much of a variety problem as whatever legend peopl have created on the matter. It's obvious DoR is a better game. Even when I worked the stats I only showed that the differences weren't as amazing as you people are hallucinating them to be!

@GipFace

Yeah, I went very roughly at it. I only explained in a recent post that infantry saw an inflated count thanks to games that end early on. And different awbw players have different budgets. I've never much played on sea maps so my sea budget was around 6%. And the good awbw players don't necessarily play against each other all the time, though I favoured those types of games a lot when I played. Unit count really depends on the map. Some maps build up units and then it's a pain, others are pretty fluid.

Now let's take a look at the percentages that Kireato brought up. First, Kireato compared benbever's top 5 against my top 6. This is unfair, so we'll add in benbever's 6th unit:

There's nothing fair to start with in comparing games with more and very different units. You're not making it fairer by adding a sixth unit.
I wanted to show how soldiers and the basic ranged, land direct and air direct units took a large share of the volume of units built in both games. The units I showcased had the same roles in their respective games.

but failed to include benbever's mechs into the comparison. If we include that, then benbever's soldier vol % is 62.2 compared to my 52.5. This is a significant difference.

No actually I took it into account. 10% truly is a lot, but I really wanted to show that soldier's share was massive and over 50% in both cases. Moreover, different players clock different values. I'm at 60% with 55% infantry and 5% mech. Kamuscha is at 58.8%. Also, I'm pretty sure benbever is a big fan of Sensei. I can't affirm spawned mechs and infantry are taken in account though.

Also, is it fair to consider their build history to date and not yours? Your total soldier count is much higher with that. And there's so much that can be said about the maps played on, the players played against and all that information is a massive unknown that that 10% difference? Yeah I decided it was irrelevant. Sloppy, but honestly it's already enough of a hack to compare different games, there really is no point considering it in much detail.

Oh yeah, also, notice those good examples I linked? The infantry count is way lower on them. 28% (and even on those maps I suspect inflation thanks to botched games, you can really tell it from the current games) and I didn't look at the mech count but I doubt it's very high. I don't know if you've ever tried to collect map specific data, but the overall data masks a lot of information on what really happens.

Therefore, it becomes plainly obvious that AW4 has much more variety than AWBW.

lol no
No seriously, it does have more variety, heck it has more units that aren't complete jokes, (lol piperunners) but I'll always lol when you say much more.

The value of AW4 infantry worsens as the game progresses, while in AWBW, they only get better.

Yay for throwing comments out there with no justification! It's not obvious to me what elements in your post permit such a conclusion.

By the way, please play some AW4 when you have the time, thanks. ^_^

Yeah, I was very turned off by the random play on annoying maps with one minute turns and having to turn off the encryption on my wireless network whenever I want to get online. Then having to set rendez-vous ( I'm gmt+1) and also I'm slow. I like to carefully consider stuff. It's fun and can only really be done when you don't have too much experience which I won't have. But it's not quite as fun for my opponent.

I might give it another try and contact you to see what's up with how these maps play, but I haven't played aw in so long and I've played so little dor I'm going to need to freshen up on mechanics, the damage chart. And by the way, your youtube account is closed. It would be nice having a look at those if I'm going to play you at some point. Also need the standard maps played on to ponder on before the games. Maybe in a month or two? If I can slip it in the stuff I do?

I am curious to check out the vast skill you've developped.

edit:
Oh and for what's it's worth, I'll apologize for the topic derailment.

[Xenesis]

I split this out, because yeah.

Also, is it fair to consider their build history to date and not yours? Your total soldier count is much higher with that. And there's so much that can be said about the maps played on, the players played against and all that information is a massive unknown that that 10% difference? Yeah I decided it was irrelevant. Sloppy, but honestly it's already enough of a hack to compare different games, there really is no point considering it in much detail.

The AW4 metagame changed a crapton about when Gip started taking his newer set of stats - in that everyone stopped trying to play it like AWBW and thus the unit composition altered drastically.

[Terragent]

I wasn't aware you had spent much time with either one of them.

I'm pretty sure that sven is the most experienced AWBW player on WWN by an order of magnitude. :/

[Kireato]

The AW4 metagame changed a crapton about when Gip started taking his newer set of stats - in that everyone stopped trying to play it like AWBW and thus the unit composition altered drastically.

Yes, the stats definitely show a drastic alteration.

I think it's more likely he stopped playing random and having botched battles in which plenty of soldiers and infantries were built comparatively to other units. But only GipFace knows under what conditions those stats were taken.

I'm pretty sure that sven is the most experienced AWBW player on WWN by an order of magnitude. :/

Well he's hard to track down, but:
I searched for Sven, but those accounts seem to have 0 games played.
I searched for ragingwarlord and that account had 8 games played.
I searched for bittman and that account had 25 games played.
Those are him, right? There are possibly more I've missed.

Then I searched for Terragent and that account had 41 games played.

I've honestly never heard much about Sven playing on AWBW and never assumed he did, so what makes you pretty sure?

[Sven]

search harder, internet detective.

[Gentleman of Dread]

Sven was the greatest AWBW player of all time.

[Kireato]

Detective badges are real cheap nowadays.

[Sven]

seriously though, i played at a time when you were obscure as fudge, popping in for a game every three months or something. i managed about 200 games on various alts over a period of six months and was probably one of the better players of the time. good enough to have people here defending me at any rate

[HPD]

hint: try gameguy146

[Sven]

i stopped that account after a hundred games

[HPD]

I know, but it's a start.

[Kireato]

Right, I totally forgot about gameguy.

good enough to have people here defending me at any rate

I'm attacking you with all my FURIOUS IGNORANCE OF YOUR FEATS.

Moreover, what Terragent quoted had been in a response to one of your posts and which you had already answered ("surprise we played awbw too"). I didn't care enough then to ask for some evidence. It's only Terragent coming back to insist that you've played, WITH STILL NO EVIDENCE TO THAT CLAIM, that got me to try and remember your usernames.

He's still wrong about the whole order of magnitude thing.

And I don't know about the era thing. I know I played falman, and gameshark. And I was quite aware of psychoticLOLENDGAME, because he plays a lot, so I might have played against him? I can't remember anyone else I guess.

[Terragent]

Oh, snap! My credibility is being called into question! With no evidence!

Sven was, without exception, at the forefront of the AW metagame. Well okay at one time he was the shy little guy who got beaten by me at savestate swap (actually I'm not even sure that I did beat him but w/e) but by the time AWBW hit the big time he was seriously involved with the best players of the game and playing regularly. He introduced inf spamming to WWN, he knew all the maps like the back of his hand, and he probably had a better idea of which players were hot and which were not than anybody else, period.

For ages, sven was like the pope of advance wars. Then gip came along and we found out jesus had arrived, so sven became a bit redundant, but like the pope he still has a cool hat so he still warrants some respect.

[Gentleman of Dread]

Don't forget Nobody!

[Kireato]

@Terragent

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evidence

Also, I gave the old boards' ladder a visit.
I shouldn't have.

[Xenesis]

@Terragent

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evidence

Um. What point are you trying to make?

[Kireato]

It's what missing from his post.

[Xenesis]

Uh.

You're the one questioning that Sven'd played at all.

[Terragent]

Kir, why are you being such a dick?

[Kireato]

You're the one questioning that Sven'd played at all.

I said I wasn't aware of it.

Kir, why are you being such a dick?

I blame the dictionary.

Lame jokes aside, I don't think I was being such a dick. It's normal to antagonize others in an argument but has anything I've said really been that gratuitous?

But hey, let's have a look at how your last post irritated me.

Oh, snap! My credibility is being called into question! With no evidence!

What of my own credibility? I've been on these boards for quite a while and should have observed pretty much as much as you have. You should know that. Yet I declare that I don't recollect anything and all you have to convince me that Sven was experienced was your own word? Which I should trust over my own? If you realized all of that, wouldn't you say that was quite obnoxious of you?

You then go on and on detailing more about how Sven was experienced. Some of it is inane, while the rest you clearly aren't even sure of. (And I really don't care to go any further on that) You haven't cared to provide an inkling of proof that any of it might be true. And I would say I had already made it clear in the topic that I would only trust that.

I'm only surprised you didn't end that post with a "Believe it!". It wouldn't have been out of place.

Also, this talk on Sven's experience is not exactly interesting for me or an important part of what I've said. Yet you had to focus on that, bring it up, and you've managed to make another post right after I thought closure had been brought to it. If it was intended (and I don't believe it was), it's truly magnificent trolling.

So yeah, it must have been real dickish of me to suggest that you come up with something convincing.

[GipFace]

Stop b!tching and play some AW4 PVP already so that your arguments have weight to them. I freely admit that I don't play AWBW, but I trust Sven's judgment on how it works. It's also a lot easier to observe high-level AWBW games than it is to see a high-level AW4 game. (You'd have to watch my stream for best results)

If you don't play, then you're just like Juigi and FHQ, and nothing you say matters. And yes, Sven has played AW4 PVP, so he is qualified to make statements about both games.

[Kireato]

The current argument is a petty dispute that had nothing to do with AW pvp in any shape or form, and the original argument had nothing to do with AW4 pvp to start with and when it did, I still didn't say anything that wasn't retardedly obvious from the stats you'd given. So I don't know what you're smoking exactly, but do share.

Now there was more stuff that was directed at you and in particular I was asking for some materials on AW4 pvp. Namely I'd like to know what maps you play on, what happened to your youtube account and where I can find some high level AW4 games to watch. So either get that to get me interested in wasting my time in AW4 pvp or get out because I have no need to try to interact with yet another person who somehow decides to direct an insulting reply to me without having read any of my posts.

[Xenesis]

...

Enough.

Kireato: Sven has played AWBW as much as any of us did back then. Anything beyond that doesn't matter at all. Stop trying to perpetuate this ridiculous argument.

If you want specifics for AW4 you can find:
a) Gip's damage chart for AW4 on the front page (nicely colour coded for effective matchups)
b) Any map that has an Airport and bases is pretty much game for AW4 play. Stuff with >3000G starting funds is usually better than the HQ + 2 bases setup too. In-game maps that are a good example are Burger Isle and Clown Island.
c) Gip closed his Youtube channel because he was being stalked by crazy animu fans. If you log on to the IRC you can just play Gip/Sneetch/Whoever. If you want some (older) videos, Deltaangelfire's channel has some videos.

And that's a wrap.