Advance Wars: Project

Discussion of complete and in-progress major AW Hacks or Projects - challenge hacks, War Room map packs, Online Advance Wars sims.

Moderator: Terragent

User avatar
Xenesis
Tri-Star CO
Tri-Star CO
Rank: Hydrocarbon Inspector
3DS Code: 2535-4646-7163
Location: 0x020232DD

Re: Advance Wars: Project

Post by Xenesis » Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:09 am

thefalman wrote:Huh, I just noticed the 'Rebuild' stat for units. Wonder what that's all about?
You'll have to wait for the next update for that one I think :)
RadioShadow wrote:How big will the rom be? I'm guessing you expanded the rom to be 16MB?
As much as I need, really. Doubt it will get that big, but you never know.
IST wrote:Even the worst individual needs to discover the joys of a chicken statue that is also a pregnant blonde housewife.

User avatar
donnytondesterkste
Rank: Platinum Dragon
Location: In your dreams

Re: Advance Wars: Project

Post by donnytondesterkste » Mon Jul 19, 2010 12:32 pm

ThunderWalker wrote:True. And in campaign it doesn't really matter... heck, sometimes broken CO's are much better for campaign purposers (AW2 Kanbei in Duty & Honor, AW2 Sturm, and Caulder). However, this is definately not a good idea when facing other humans... considering there is still no perfectly balanced AW available. AWDoR comes close, AW2 2.1 balance hack comes close as well, but in the end both didn't really succeed despite getting close (both have more or less the same difference between the weakest and strongest CO's if Caulder is left out).
Just have tiered battle rules like Pokemon does.
"I'd sig that, but no room. >_>" -Blame Game

User avatar
Terragent
Rank: Cussing Aussie
Location: Adelaide, Australia

Re: Advance Wars: Project

Post by Terragent » Mon Jul 19, 2010 2:35 pm

In designing the COs, we've decided to focus on theming and - more than anything - making them fun to play with. Balance is a secondary concern. To be honest, I'm a fan of the Marvel vs Capcom approach of "everyone's broken!" in games.

On top of that, we're trying to make the game mechanics themselves feel a little different from other entries in the series. This is more than just a balance-and-CCO hack: this is an attempt to create an essentially new game. So it's not going to be AW5, and it's definitely not going to be Game Boy Wars 4.

So stay tuned. Xen's got a lot more to reveal.

Xen

Re: Advance Wars: Project

Post by Xen » Mon Jul 19, 2010 2:39 pm

And some of it will scare the hell out of you lot :)

User avatar
Sniffit II
Rank: TWANG
Location: The Kitchen (of mild peril)

Re: Advance Wars: Project

Post by Sniffit II » Mon Jul 19, 2010 6:24 pm

W00T Nightmare fuel COs!!! >_>

Looking forward to it.
i don't know what a bishop ninja is but if it can still move diagonal without being seen it's got my vote - Pkdragon

FEAR ME, FEAR THE FIRE THAT BURNS IN MY BALLS, VERIDIAN FOREST! - Dragonite

Vote Sniffit for Space Dictator.

User avatar
donnytondesterkste
Rank: Platinum Dragon
Location: In your dreams

Re: Advance Wars: Project

Post by donnytondesterkste » Tue Jul 20, 2010 12:22 am

Terragent wrote:In designing the COs, we've decided to focus on theming and - more than anything - making them fun to play with. Balance is a secondary concern. To be honest, I'm a fan of the Marvel vs Capcom approach of "everyone's broken!" in games.

On top of that, we're trying to make the game mechanics themselves feel a little different from other entries in the series. This is more than just a balance-and-CCO hack: this is an attempt to create an essentially new game. So it's not going to be AW5, and it's definitely not going to be Game Boy Wars 4.

So stay tuned. Xen's got a lot more to reveal.
So then, does that hint at a new campaign/war room? :)
If you want to put custom maps into the package I'd be happy to provide.
"I'd sig that, but no room. >_>" -Blame Game

User avatar
Xenesis
Tri-Star CO
Tri-Star CO
Rank: Hydrocarbon Inspector
3DS Code: 2535-4646-7163
Location: 0x020232DD

Re: Advance Wars: Project

Post by Xenesis » Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:01 am

Not just a new Campaign/War room ;)

And it'll be all custom maps by the end of it, but it'll wait until a few more details are hammered down.
IST wrote:Even the worst individual needs to discover the joys of a chicken statue that is also a pregnant blonde housewife.

User avatar
Xenesis
Tri-Star CO
Tri-Star CO
Rank: Hydrocarbon Inspector
3DS Code: 2535-4646-7163
Location: 0x020232DD

Re: Advance Wars: Project

Post by Xenesis » Wed Jul 21, 2010 12:31 pm

IST wrote:Even the worst individual needs to discover the joys of a chicken statue that is also a pregnant blonde housewife.

newperson

Re: Advance Wars: Project

Post by newperson » Wed Jul 21, 2010 2:57 pm

It's an interesting concept to stop unit spamming (like that of Mechs), but it doesn't seem to make much sense. Mass production of anything should result in to cheaper units (if there would be any price changes at all). Though with your ammo reduction, it's probably not even worth Mech spamming now.

Why not just have a day to day fuel cost (or increase the one already in existence) for the most popularly spammed units? You could even have infantry and mechs starve (i.e. die) when they reach 0 rations, just like planes.

Blackbird

Re: Advance Wars: Project

Post by Blackbird » Wed Jul 21, 2010 3:21 pm

From a pure gameplay standpoint, I like this idea a lot, because it makes unit production more interesting. More thought has to be put in to determine cost-effective matchups, and a more balanced array of units is encouraged. One other possible solution is to decrease the total unit cap. If you can only field a small number of units, then each individual unit becomes more important and stronger units begin to outweigh weaker ones.

Let me know when you get closer to the conclusion of the project. I might be coerced to make sprites for the CO portraits if you're really gung-ho about it.

User avatar
Xenesis
Tri-Star CO
Tri-Star CO
Rank: Hydrocarbon Inspector
3DS Code: 2535-4646-7163
Location: 0x020232DD

Re: Advance Wars: Project

Post by Xenesis » Wed Jul 21, 2010 4:17 pm

newperson wrote:It's an interesting concept to stop unit spamming (like that of Mechs), but it doesn't seem to make much sense. Mass production of anything should result in to cheaper units (if there would be any price changes at all). Though with your ammo reduction, it's probably not even worth Mech spamming now.
Might be true of manufactured items, but what about the people you're training to use them? :P
Why not just have a day to day fuel cost (or increase the one already in existence) for the most popularly spammed units? You could even have infantry and mechs starve (i.e. die) when they reach 0 rations, just like planes.
Not really that useful - units like mechs are always well supplied due to the fact they like to capture things. And thus get resupplied. This is more about curbing the number of units that get onto the field in the first place rather than increasing the rate they get removed from it.
Blackbird wrote:One other possible solution is to decrease the total unit cap.
Well, that wouldn't be particularly hard but it feels like an arbitrary solution. For the GBA AW games it is more a memory space limitation than anything else.
Let me know when you get closer to the conclusion of the project. I might be coerced to make sprites for the CO portraits if you're really gung-ho about it.
I'll keep that in mind :)
IST wrote:Even the worst individual needs to discover the joys of a chicken statue that is also a pregnant blonde housewife.

User avatar
Kireato

Re: Advance Wars: Project

Post by Kireato » Wed Jul 21, 2010 6:27 pm

Eew.

I don't mind the mechanic of increasing costs of units for every unit that's already deployed. However, this way of handling it is quite ugly, while making it much more annoying to figure out what mix of units you can buy at any time or in the future. Not fun.

Consider, for instance, how the power bar information is partially concealed, only displaying certain, pretty, increments of change.

A way of keeping it simple is to fix increases at 500G and tweak the number of units deployed that would bump the unit's cost.

But that's just my taste.
Might be true of manufactured items, but what about the people you're training to use them?
...
Well, that wouldn't be particularly hard but it feels like an arbitrary solution.
I disagree.

It would be very easy to explain that COs do not have the capacity to give orders to more than a certain number of units and cap the total unit count. You could even go further and assign attention values to units and attention capacities to COs. Or say that a particular CO is comfortable directing a large number of tanks but can't handle the deployment of infantries and then have a number for each unit that tells how many times it can be deployed and that can be modified per CO.
Image
"Hey, it's the Kir. Wee." - Linkman 145
"I can't help myself sometimes... :cry:" -Help Topic Guest

User avatar
Xenesis
Tri-Star CO
Tri-Star CO
Rank: Hydrocarbon Inspector
3DS Code: 2535-4646-7163
Location: 0x020232DD

Re: Advance Wars: Project

Post by Xenesis » Wed Jul 21, 2010 7:03 pm

I don't mind the mechanic of increasing costs of units for every unit that's already deployed. However, this way of handling it is quite ugly, while making it much more annoying to figure out what mix of units you can buy at any time or in the future. Not fun.
In playing with it myself, I'm finding it reasonably straightforward as it's done on a per-unit basis. Getting more mechs (I think I had 35 in the last screenshot there) didn't raise the price of any other units....the tank's cost went up by one notch because I had a tank - gives rise to: "I've got a ton of mechs, I probably won't be able to afford more. However, I only have two tanks - another one will still be cheap." The cost rises are all linear too.
Consider, for instance, how the power bar information is partially concealed, only displaying certain, pretty, increments of change.
Actually, that's one thing I intend to do something about in the same manner I did the defence bar thing.
It would be very easy to explain that COs do not have the capacity to give orders to more than a certain number of units and cap the total unit count. You could even go further and assign attention values to units and attention capacities to COs. Or say that a particular CO is comfortable directing a large number of tanks but can't handle the deployment of infantries and then have a number for each unit that tells how many times it can be deployed and that can be modified per CO.
That'd be a completely different system (and could be workable) but it'd be rather....complicated to code from scratch.
IST wrote:Even the worst individual needs to discover the joys of a chicken statue that is also a pregnant blonde housewife.

User avatar
Kireato

Re: Advance Wars: Project

Post by Kireato » Thu Jul 22, 2010 4:24 am

"I've got a ton of mechs, I probably won't be able to afford more. However, I only have two tanks - another one will still be cheap."
The fact that you've chosen to describe your deployment plan this vaguely is the problem.

Before you could go "I've got 13k now, I can buy 7k + 6K of goods now or with an income of 7K I can get 1K + 3K now and 16K next turn." (And repairs annoy most players.)

With that system, the units that you lose on the front affect your deployment strategy and while you'll be reworking on the fly the most efficient build you'll be looking at numbers like 7910G current funds and costs of 5350G for a unit.
Actually, that's one thing I intend to do something about in the same manner I did the defence bar thing.
I'm not quite sure what you'll do but the bars in the statistics pane are similar to the power bar in that change is only discernable in increments. For instance, one can hardly tell the difference between a boost of 15% and 10% ( and it's fine because nothing in between is ever used. That and the statistics pane is not exactly the most viewed window in the game). Unless you decide to display the number that represents exactly how filled the power bar is, it'll stay vague.
Image
"Hey, it's the Kir. Wee." - Linkman 145
"I can't help myself sometimes... :cry:" -Help Topic Guest

Blackbird

Re: Advance Wars: Project

Post by Blackbird » Thu Jul 22, 2010 6:27 am

I'd say playtest it. It seems straightforward enough to me. For every Mech you buy, cost increases linearly by 100 funds, so you can easily predict how much future Mechs will cost. It will be equally predictable for other units, even if the math might not be as pretty.

One of the virtues of Advance Wars is that it is extremely simple and easy to understand for the most part. Beginners grasp the basic concept immediately, but it takes a while to master the metagame (learning how to decoy effectively and the like). This addition trades slightly more complexity for balance. As you go forward, I'd weigh carefully the benefits of increasing balance against reducing the accessibility of the mod by making it more complicated.

Personally, this looks like a good change to me, but it's just something to keep in mind.

User avatar
donnytondesterkste
Rank: Platinum Dragon
Location: In your dreams

Re: Advance Wars: Project

Post by donnytondesterkste » Thu Jul 22, 2010 7:23 am

Wouldn't it be easier to charge a maintenance cost out of your income? Like, 400g per unit, or 100g x units^2? This would make it easy for players to predict the cost of stuff, since they only need to do a unit count and wouldn't have to worry about changing unit prices. It would also encourage lower unit counts WITHOUT arbitrary numeric limitations on number of units--it's silly to say that on a huge map with vast properties the unit limit should be the same as on a tiny map. This way larger maps could afford larger armies, but on smaller maps you wouldn't be able to spam without depleting your money.
"I'd sig that, but no room. >_>" -Blame Game

User avatar
Kireato

Re: Advance Wars: Project

Post by Kireato » Thu Jul 22, 2010 7:45 am

I'm back because I remembered what I wanted to ask.

Powers. Do they still fill from based on a unit's HP cost? It was mentioned that repairs used base cost, so I guess powers too?
Image
"Hey, it's the Kir. Wee." - Linkman 145
"I can't help myself sometimes... :cry:" -Help Topic Guest

User avatar
Xenesis
Tri-Star CO
Tri-Star CO
Rank: Hydrocarbon Inspector
3DS Code: 2535-4646-7163
Location: 0x020232DD

Re: Advance Wars: Project

Post by Xenesis » Thu Jul 22, 2010 8:57 am

donnyton wrote:Wouldn't it be easier to charge a maintenance cost out of your income? Like, 400g per unit, or 100g x units^2? This would make it easy for players to predict the cost of stuff, since they only need to do a unit count and wouldn't have to worry about changing unit prices. It would also encourage lower unit counts WITHOUT arbitrary numeric limitations on number of units--it's silly to say that on a huge map with vast properties the unit limit should be the same as on a tiny map. This way larger maps could afford larger armies, but on smaller maps you wouldn't be able to spam without depleting your money.
Amusingly, that's something that I playtested a while back. I still have the functional code in (switched off, of course), but I personally found it tricky to play with - it doesn't present the information up front and a unit costs you for it's production long after you've built it and made economy a lot more complicated to manage.
Kireato wrote:The fact that you've chosen to describe your deployment plan this vaguely is the problem.
The essential brass tacks of this function is thus: A diminishing return on identical units. As you build more of the same unit it gets less cost-effective.
Before you could go "I've got 13k now, I can buy 7k + 6K of goods now or with an income of 7K I can get 1K + 3K now and 16K next turn." (And repairs annoy most players.)
And you can still do that, as the price of one unit doesn't affect the price of another.
With that system, the units that you lose on the front affect your deployment strategy and while you'll be reworking on the fly the most efficient build you'll be looking at numbers like 7910G current funds and costs of 5350G for a unit.
I'll probably end up rounding out the numbers some to make the mental arithmetic a bit easier...most of the values are placeholderish in terms of that. And besides, it isn't like those numbers are much uglier than anything Kanbei/Colin/Sasha/Hachi ever had to deal with.
Unless you decide to display the number that represents exactly how filled the power bar is, it'll stay vague.
Yes. It'll be important.
Powers. Do they still fill from based on a unit's HP cost? It was mentioned that repairs used base cost, so I guess powers too?
It's been rejiggered completely, but it's simpler.
Blackbird wrote:As you go forward, I'd weigh carefully the benefits of increasing balance against reducing the accessibility of the mod by making it more complicated.
Yeah. Definitely. I've already tried and scrapped a few slightly more esoteric ideas because I thought 'nah too complicated'.
IST wrote:Even the worst individual needs to discover the joys of a chicken statue that is also a pregnant blonde housewife.

User avatar
Kireato

Re: Advance Wars: Project

Post by Kireato » Thu Jul 22, 2010 9:49 am

And you can still do that, as the price of one unit doesn't affect the price of another.
Actually, I got that before you even pointed it out the first time.
I was always only talking about preferring simple calculations.
And besides, it isn't like those numbers are much uglier than anything Kanbei/Colin/Sasha/Hachi ever had to deal with.
Sasha was the classiest money CO. She had pretty numbers.
For Kanbei, Colin and Hachi, you needed to get used to different key values of funding and combination of units to buy. I'm thankful they were banned.
With rebuild, the key values depend on your current army composition. It's the uglies several times worse.
Image
"Hey, it's the Kir. Wee." - Linkman 145
"I can't help myself sometimes... :cry:" -Help Topic Guest

User avatar
donnytondesterkste
Rank: Platinum Dragon
Location: In your dreams

Re: Advance Wars: Project

Post by donnytondesterkste » Thu Jul 22, 2010 11:07 am

Xenesis wrote:
donnyton wrote:Wouldn't it be easier to charge a maintenance cost out of your income? Like, 400g per unit, or 100g x units^2? This would make it easy for players to predict the cost of stuff, since they only need to do a unit count and wouldn't have to worry about changing unit prices. It would also encourage lower unit counts WITHOUT arbitrary numeric limitations on number of units--it's silly to say that on a huge map with vast properties the unit limit should be the same as on a tiny map. This way larger maps could afford larger armies, but on smaller maps you wouldn't be able to spam without depleting your money.
Amusingly, that's something that I playtested a while back. I still have the functional code in (switched off, of course), but I personally found it tricky to play with - it doesn't present the information up front and a unit costs you for it's production long after you've built it and made economy a lot more complicated to manage.
I believe all of this can be solved with a right mathematical formula for the maintenance cost--the ones I gave were just examples, and would probably break the game. I'd say get some vets to playtest different formulas (whether it's x units, units^2, units^3, or whatever) and figure out what is the most fair. An appropriate cost growth curve would accomplish two fundamentals: promoting low unit counts and penalize unit spam WITHOUT taking so much income that it would hinder development and expansion. The rising individual unit cost just makes the game too complex--AW's simplicity is what made it great in the first place, and imposed unit limits would be silly since they would affect COs and maps very unevenly. Colin, for example, needs heavy numbers, as do big maps.
"I'd sig that, but no room. >_>" -Blame Game

User avatar
Xenesis
Tri-Star CO
Tri-Star CO
Rank: Hydrocarbon Inspector
3DS Code: 2535-4646-7163
Location: 0x020232DD

Re: Advance Wars: Project

Post by Xenesis » Thu Jul 22, 2010 11:31 am

Well, the big problem with maintenance costs is that there's a lot of work in telling the player what the heck is going on. You'd need to add a lot of information to the GUI that would explicitly state where they're losing this money from and unless it's some percentage of their income (which produces far uglier numbers) you'll get a lot of situations where people are flat out consuming huge gobs of their income.

The other thing is that if you've got an upkeep cost of say, 100G per unit that pair of infantry you bought at the start of the game will have cost you over 3000G by day 15 - which isn't unlikely considering that you are always keeping some capturers alive. Basically, an upkeep system means that units diminish in value the longer they stay alive. Which considering how disposable units were in AW1/2/DS it isn't something that I really wanted to encourage.

I'll come out and say that the system that is in works better in practice than it sounds on paper (I do agree that it sounds...complicated on paper.)
Kireato wrote:Actually, I got that before you even pointed it out the first time.
I was always only talking about preferring simple calculations.
Oh, is that all? <_<

I am bad at mental maths so I am sure by the endpoint I will attempted to have simplified the numbers as much as possible. But do be aware I fully intend to make people who love min/maxing slightly uncomfortable.
IST wrote:Even the worst individual needs to discover the joys of a chicken statue that is also a pregnant blonde housewife.

newperson

Re: Advance Wars: Project

Post by newperson » Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:15 pm

Blackbird wrote:I'd say playtest it. It seems straightforward enough to me. For every Mech you buy, cost increases linearly by 100 funds, so you can easily predict how much future Mechs will cost. It will be equally predictable for other units, even if the math might not be as pretty.

One of the virtues of Advance Wars is that it is extremely simple and easy to understand for the most part. Beginners grasp the basic concept immediately, but it takes a while to master the metagame (learning how to decoy effectively and the like). This addition trades slightly more complexity for balance. As you go forward, I'd weigh carefully the benefits of increasing balance against reducing the accessibility of the mod by making it more complicated.

Personally, this looks like a good change to me, but it's just something to keep in mind.
But to be honest, I don't think your average player would be looking for this hack. I'm willing to bet most of us playing would be people who visit forums like this (and are likely fairly skilled in our play and would likely preview the hack's features before patching it), so I doubt an extra feature would bother most of hack's audience (at least initially). You should first release a beta with minimal explanations (just a number on the unit production page would be fine) and add in the explanations later for the final version.
As for the metagame, it's by far the best feature for truly learning how to win at AW, but it also revealed some of the most obvious balance problems of AW (especially AW2 and AWDS). Xen's balance hack did a good job with the COs, but I think we need to tackle the units themselves as well. Artillery/rockets, infantry/mechs, and AAs are used far more than the heaviest units (large tanks, navies, and planes) because they're more cost effective.

That being said, I'd still think an upkeep cost (money seems better than fuel, though) is a better idea. As others have noted, it scales to map size and stops people from overproducing (and thus overpowering) simply because they have secured an advantage in numbers (because the costs are continuously incurred rather than only at the point of production). AW could use more of a concept of over-extension in forces and supplies (whereas right now, it's fairly linear: more units than opponent + equal caliber units + equal funding + equal terrain advantage + equal skill = win). Plus, you can use this to introduce hidden costs to help balance the game (as in artillery, infantry, tanks, AAs, and mechs have higher % of base cost upkeep than other units) so that people who try to go for what were previously the most "efficient" units might suddenly find themselves lower than expected on funds. Admittedly, this does encourage a throwaway/rebuild attitude (but this is endemic in all turn-based and real time strategy war games where you can produce units) and doesn't as strongly reinforce the need for a "balanced" army (when compared to the rebuild cost idea, but that should come from redoing all the units, and not just economic controls).
Well, the big problem with maintenance costs is that there's a lot of work in telling the player what the heck is going on. You'd need to add a lot of information to the GUI that would explicitly state where they're losing this money from and unless it's some percentage of their income (which produces far uglier numbers) you'll get a lot of situations where people are flat out consuming huge gobs of their income.
Can't you just replace the rebuild number with daily upkeep cost, stated as a percent of the unit's production cost?

User avatar
Xenesis
Tri-Star CO
Tri-Star CO
Rank: Hydrocarbon Inspector
3DS Code: 2535-4646-7163
Location: 0x020232DD

Re: Advance Wars: Project

Post by Xenesis » Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:58 pm

Days of Ruin actually has a pretty heavy 'overextend and you're punished' aspect just due to the fundamental changes in CO/Power/Unit mechanics. The only difference being that the punishment relies on the other player to capitalise on it instead of the economics because players can build some form of forward momentum. Watching good players like Gipface play, he tears people up when they overextend despite his mediocre capturing (or so he proclaims). AW1/2 has that particular problem of numbers = win simply because it's such a defensive game - it is hard to push forward because the game design discourages this at every step (especially the CO Power charging being highly defensive).

And I'd rather avoid too much in the way of 'hidden' details. I don't like magical black boxes that take in some piece of data and spit out something else.

And yeah, I do want more than anything to make a broader spectrum of units viable. This system is very much a 'second layer' of balance - something that is there to keep counter-units affordable and to weaken the 'power of numbers' effect.
Can't you just replace the rebuild number with daily upkeep cost, stated as a percent of the unit's production cost?
Sure, but then you'd have to find ways to easily demonstrate to players how much funding they're losing, show them that they're actually losing it in the first place and allow them to manage it.
IST wrote:Even the worst individual needs to discover the joys of a chicken statue that is also a pregnant blonde housewife.

User avatar
Terragent
Rank: Cussing Aussie
Location: Adelaide, Australia

Re: Advance Wars: Project

Post by Terragent » Thu Jul 22, 2010 4:00 pm

But if the upkeep is an absolute value, rather than a proportion of the player's income, then you can get ridiculous situations where players are losing money day-to-day. While you could argue that yes that is realistic, it's not in the spirit of Advance Wars and most importantly it isn't fun. Players should be free to throw huge armies around willy-nilly if they so desire, the rebuild is simply there to encourage variety within an army.

User avatar
Xenesis
Tri-Star CO
Tri-Star CO
Rank: Hydrocarbon Inspector
3DS Code: 2535-4646-7163
Location: 0x020232DD

Re: Advance Wars: Project

Post by Xenesis » Thu Jul 22, 2010 4:02 pm

As always, you're far more eloquent than I am. :P
IST wrote:Even the worst individual needs to discover the joys of a chicken statue that is also a pregnant blonde housewife.

User avatar
Kireato

Re: Advance Wars: Project

Post by Kireato » Thu Jul 22, 2010 8:57 pm

But do be aware I fully intend to make people who love min/maxing slightly uncomfortable.
Complexity is only more space to show off. I welcome it.

You can make the players uncomfortable in all kinds of ways.

It's just that I don't think keeping a calculator around is the right kind of discomfort. (Once you have it out, it's business as usual.)
Players should be free to throw huge armies around willy-nilly if they so desire, the rebuild is simply there to encourage variety within an army.
Well the rebuild is pretty small right now, so it indeed won't really hinder the creation of large armies, but it also won't enforce variety all that much. +4% rebuild cost on the infantry though. It gets hit hard. You'll have like 8 deployed while having paid for 9. And then it'll get worse. The next 3 costing 4.
Image
"Hey, it's the Kir. Wee." - Linkman 145
"I can't help myself sometimes... :cry:" -Help Topic Guest

User avatar
donnytondesterkste
Rank: Platinum Dragon
Location: In your dreams

Re: Advance Wars: Project

Post by donnytondesterkste » Thu Jul 22, 2010 11:59 pm

Terragent wrote:But if the upkeep is an absolute value, rather than a proportion of the player's income, then you can get ridiculous situations where players are losing money day-to-day. While you could argue that yes that is realistic, it's not in the spirit of Advance Wars and most importantly it isn't fun. Players should be free to throw huge armies around willy-nilly if they so desire, the rebuild is simply there to encourage variety within an army.
Like I said, any properly tested mathematical formula for upkeep would necessarily need to achieve the 2 goals--to allow players to expand continuously, AND to encourage smaller/diverse armies. When players throw around huge armies, they're almost always in the form of infantry or artillery. We can look at this mathematically as well, and say that if each property gives 1000, and army size is somewhat porportional to number of properties, then there would be a factor such that you would only see negative income when players are doing heavy repairs as well (and it is possible in AW to deplete your income via repairing).

In either case, you could just as easily discard any negative income and just set the base income at 0. That's what happens if you repair too much, currently.
"I'd sig that, but no room. >_>" -Blame Game

User avatar
Xenesis
Tri-Star CO
Tri-Star CO
Rank: Hydrocarbon Inspector
3DS Code: 2535-4646-7163
Location: 0x020232DD

Re: Advance Wars: Project

Post by Xenesis » Fri Jul 23, 2010 12:25 am

It's just that I don't think keeping a calculator around is the right kind of discomfort. (Once you have it out, it's business as usual.)
...
You're an odd one.
Well the rebuild is pretty small right now, so it indeed won't really hinder the creation of large armies, but it also won't enforce variety all that much. +4% rebuild cost on the infantry though. It gets hit hard. You'll have like 8 deployed while having paid for 9. And then it'll get worse. The next 3 costing 4.
So why would you build more infantry when you get more tanks for your buck, eh?
In either case, you could just as easily discard any negative income and just set the base income at 0. That's what happens if you repair too much, currently.
Actually, it just does repairs until you can't afford it.

If you don't have the money the unit doesn't get repaired. (You don't get something for nothing, basically)
IST wrote:Even the worst individual needs to discover the joys of a chicken statue that is also a pregnant blonde housewife.

Blackbird

Re: Advance Wars: Project

Post by Blackbird » Fri Jul 23, 2010 1:20 am

Transparency is important in gaming. Whatever solution ends up being used, the players must be able to determine how it works. Even better if the UI tracks it for them. This way the players feel that they understand and control the game, which is extremely important for the "fun factor".

User avatar
Kireato

Re: Advance Wars: Project

Post by Kireato » Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:57 am

So why would you build more infantry when you get more tanks for your buck, eh?
Well that depends on the situation. However, considering how low the rebuild cost is, I don't expect much change in the general strategies.

Personally, I've always been unaware of the variety problem. Take a game on awbw and I find that there's usually enough variety.

http://awbw.amarriner.com/game.php?games_id=129403

Of course, the rebuild stat can be used in an interesting way. You could create a cheap but strong unit with a very large rebuild cost.
Image
"Hey, it's the Kir. Wee." - Linkman 145
"I can't help myself sometimes... :cry:" -Help Topic Guest

User avatar
Sniffit II
Rank: TWANG
Location: The Kitchen (of mild peril)

Re: Advance Wars: Project

Post by Sniffit II » Fri Jul 23, 2010 4:27 am

AWBW... With...no...infantry...spam?

What is this blasphemy?
i don't know what a bishop ninja is but if it can still move diagonal without being seen it's got my vote - Pkdragon

FEAR ME, FEAR THE FIRE THAT BURNS IN MY BALLS, VERIDIAN FOREST! - Dragonite

Vote Sniffit for Space Dictator.

User avatar
HPD
Tri-Star CO
Tri-Star CO
Rank: Mentat
Location: The Mountain

Re: Advance Wars: Project

Post by HPD » Fri Jul 23, 2010 8:17 am

Sniffit II wrote:AWBW... With...no...infantry...spam?

What is this blasphemy?
The blasphemy here was the infantry spam to begin with. It's more of a return to the proper faith.
"So when I say the fudge shaman flies he goddamn well flies and that's that." - Narts
"My motto is that there are far too many women in the world to waste time with men." - thefalman
"It's just that I'm not really aware of how a common conversation goes." - Imano Ob, talking on MSN about talking on MSN
"As for FE8, that was IS' variant of Man Spam - Dudes with Swords edition." - Xenesis

User avatar
DieselPheonix

Re: Advance Wars: Project

Post by DieselPheonix » Fri Jul 23, 2010 8:25 am

You make AW sound like a cult.

Xen

Re: Advance Wars: Project

Post by Xen » Fri Jul 23, 2010 10:02 am

All hail high priest Sturm!

User avatar
donnytondesterkste
Rank: Platinum Dragon
Location: In your dreams

Re: Advance Wars: Project

Post by donnytondesterkste » Fri Jul 23, 2010 11:35 am

Xenesis wrote:If you don't have the money the unit doesn't get repaired. (You don't get something for nothing, basically)
I know that, and I know that perhaps capping the income loss at 0 income seems like you're "missing out" on part of the punishment. However, notice that if a player does overproduce to the point where they have no income, then they will also be unable to produce new units, thus seriously endangering their expansion and possibly resulting in an swift loss. But I repeat that this should only be a penalty in extreme cases, such as producing lots of infantry. In reality, most players should be far from hitting this limit. Perhaps instead of trying to restrict unit usage, as we currently are, we should find ways to promote diversity by giving bonuses to diverse armies rather than penalizing unit spam?
"I'd sig that, but no room. >_>" -Blame Game

Xen

Re: Advance Wars: Project

Post by Xen » Fri Jul 23, 2010 11:47 am

Well, I can definitely say one thing - I'm definitely trying to give units unique functions so they all have their own niche to fill. That should hopefully shore up the other side of it.

And yeah, I intentionally left the rebuild very soft numerically - it's a piece of puzzle :)

newperson

Re: Advance Wars: Project

Post by newperson » Fri Jul 23, 2010 6:08 pm

donnyton wrote:
Xenesis wrote:If you don't have the money the unit doesn't get repaired. (You don't get something for nothing, basically)
I know that, and I know that perhaps capping the income loss at 0 income seems like you're "missing out" on part of the punishment. However, notice that if a player does overproduce to the point where they have no income, then they will also be unable to produce new units, thus seriously endangering their expansion and possibly resulting in an swift loss. But I repeat that this should only be a penalty in extreme cases, such as producing lots of infantry. In reality, most players should be far from hitting this limit. Perhaps instead of trying to restrict unit usage, as we currently are, we should find ways to promote diversity by giving bonuses to diverse armies rather than penalizing unit spam?
On a map with average city density (cities / size of map), most people tend to have as many units as they do properties. We should scale any upkeep costs to that (though we could set the default to 1500 funds as well). Personally, if you have a balanced army at that ratio, about 25% your funds should be going each turn to upkeep (or around 250 per unit). If your army is "unbalanced" in favor of what is currently considered efficient (infantry + artillery), you should take a penalty (at least 40% upkeep).

User avatar
Sven

Re: Advance Wars: Project

Post by Sven » Fri Jul 23, 2010 6:39 pm

Kireato wrote:
So why would you build more infantry when you get more tanks for your buck, eh?
Well that depends on the situation. However, considering how low the rebuild cost is, I don't expect much change in the general strategies.

Personally, I've always been unaware of the variety problem. Take a game on awbw and I find that there's usually enough variety.

http://awbw.amarriner.com/game.php?games_id=129403

Of course, the rebuild stat can be used in an interesting way. You could create a cheap but strong unit with a very large rebuild cost.
that game is an anomaly and you know it.

http://awbw.amarriner.com/history.php?u ... Mont-Blanc
http://awbw.amarriner.com/history.php?username=benbever
http://awbw.amarriner.com/history.php?username=kamuscha
http://awbw.amarriner.com/history.php?u ... ra%20storm
http://awbw.amarriner.com/history.php?u ... kmanX_Zero
http://awbw.amarriner.com/history.php?username=japanj
http://awbw.amarriner.com/history.php?username=1000rpm

infantry+arty+tank consistently totals 75-85%. people picked from being at the tops of various AWBW leagues or just people WWN would recognize as AWBWers. infantry are consistently hitting 55-60%.

http://awbw.amarriner.com/game.php?games_id=118429
http://awbw.amarriner.com/game.php?games_id=127645

everyone remembers game 70772.

ah! now i remember the name you personally used.

http://awbw.amarriner.com/history.php?u ... %20kireato

with no offense intended, you are unique as a player due to your abnormally low artillery count. whether due to your prodigious skill or sheer dumb luck to be placed against terrible opponents, I do not know. personally i am leaning towards the first.

User avatar
Kireato

Re: Advance Wars: Project

Post by Kireato » Fri Jul 23, 2010 9:45 pm

Honestly, the game I linked was the first I stumbled upon. I recognized Black Mont Blanc's name and he had a high rating so I took a look.

It's not an anomaly.
http://awbw.amarriner.com/analysis.php?maps_id=28826
http://awbw.amarriner.com/analysis.php?maps_id=39137
Look at the unit data and you'll see that it's not a unit thing it's a map thing.
Some maps choke up. Others don't. Don't play on crumpets maps.

I'm skilled enough. :)
http://www.amarriner.com/awbw_forum/vie ... php?t=8810
I did play against the top players and was a good match. They might still remember me too as I did play long enough to set my rep.

As for my artillery count, it's because I dislike using them. I favour rockets as a range units putting twice as much money in them than artilleries. I never got the artillery spam love. I had a high recon count. Haha, yeah, I put 900000G in them and 600000G in arties. (And I didn't play FoW very much.) It's probably all due to maps we played on. They played longer than me too and maybe used more often the broken COs on different map distribution.

It's really funny looking at those stats. We've all got units we liked. Benbever is into mechs way more than other people. Black Mont-Blanc spams way more infantry but is way less into mechs. Kam was way more into tanks than benbever.
infantry+arty+tank consistently totals 75-85%. people picked from being at the tops of various AWBW leagues or just people WWN would recognize as AWBWers. infantry are consistently hitting 55-60%.
Those three units cover the capturing, direct attack and ranged attack game. Is there anything else in AW? All the other units were still viable and used as seen fit.

As for infantry, they get spammed because:
-at the beginning of the game that's all you can afford, it's what you need
-later on, they start getting used as meatshields, so you keep spamming them in order to maintain their flow to the front

You won't see all that many in the midgame because they also happen to be the units that get destroyed the most. See stats. And so of course, unit composition of a player's current force doesn't usually include all that many infantry, on the right maps.

My maps don't get played. D:
I never did advertise them.

edit:
For more bragging rights, a topic on player tiers where some mention me favorably. I didn't play many games to reach that status and I had already quit then.
http://www.amarriner.com/awbw_forum/vie ... sc&start=0
Image
"Hey, it's the Kir. Wee." - Linkman 145
"I can't help myself sometimes... :cry:" -Help Topic Guest

User avatar
Xenesis
Tri-Star CO
Tri-Star CO
Rank: Hydrocarbon Inspector
3DS Code: 2535-4646-7163
Location: 0x020232DD

Re: Advance Wars: Project

Post by Xenesis » Mon Jul 26, 2010 10:35 pm

Kireato wrote:Those three units cover the capturing, direct attack and ranged attack game. Is there anything else in AW? All the other units were still viable and used as seen fit.
Compare to build percentages in DoR and you'll see that they're basically ridiculously high. DoR in and of itself has a much, much higher percentage of non-Inf/Arty/Tank.

Edit: Gip has kindly given me the latest update for his build stats. Percentage of funding for core units is ~18%/11%/11%/11% for important core units, and the rest is pretty well distributed around the edges. Compare that to the 80-90% funding and yeah....there's a reason it gets that reputation in AWBW.

ANYHOW.

NEW POST GET.
IST wrote:Even the worst individual needs to discover the joys of a chicken statue that is also a pregnant blonde housewife.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Multivac [Bot] and 0 guests