AW5: What do we actually actually want in AW5?

-Design Maps
Show off your creative stuff here. Comics, units, maps, spritework or anything creative to do with Advance Wars.
ThunderWalker
Rank: Elf
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

AW5: What do we actually actually want in AW5?

Postby ThunderWalker » Mon Dec 28, 2009 2:00 am

If you had access to design AW5, and you may do absolutely everything with the game you want, what should you do.

- What should be the main line of the plot?
- Which CO's and other characters should be fit in (and if CO's from the previous games, should their stats be changed and maybe their history explained as well)?
- Should you use AWDoR's basics or AWDS's basics or maybe a certain part from AWDS and another part from AWDoR?
- Which units should be fit in and should some of the existing being rebalanced as well?
My sig is a void.

User avatar
Usthepeople
Rank: FASCINATING
Location: lurking on dor wi-fi

Re: AW5: What do we actually actually want in AW5?

Postby Usthepeople » Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:07 am

what should happen is a fusion of the basics of AW1 and the ideals of AW DoR (4)

instead of increasing the price of inf to 1500 lower it, NOW LISTEN :gecap: with this decrease to price make the unit be easily killed even by recons this will make their use as shielding decrease, since they can be busted through and attack the soft indirect meat inside; the unit of choice for capturing will become bikes make mechs and bikes cost more as to reduce spaming of them

the CO system should stay the way of zone it just need some work to be better balanced what happened in DoR is they developers think that ATT is worth way more than defense and that is not always the case (note tasha vs waylon)

units like gunboat or black boat, black bomb should be rethought
if gunboats are coming back lower their power and movement
blackboat should lose some movement
black bomb should do 4 damage and cut its movement in a 2x2 diamond like a missile silo

:gesalute: thats what i think in a nutshell of course people are going to argue every point i make but i am far from perfect in my thinking
[20:20] [JAM]: damn ie closed on itself
[20:26] =-= [JAM] was booted from amarriner.com by YOU ((GET FF))
[20:26] <Wes> Ha!
[20:26] <Wes> I was about to do that too
------
[15:46] Sneetch: I'm a failure

User avatar
Dragon Fogel
Tri-Star CO
Tri-Star CO
Rank: Destroyer of Spambots

Re: AW5: What do we actually actually want in AW5?

Postby Dragon Fogel » Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:18 am

I think what I want most is for the Power formula to make sense again.

Second biggest point is for perfect scores to be obtainable on all scored maps.

Third - more differences between COs. Maybe having the CO Zone system be on top of a day-to-day. Closely related to this is the ability to select different COs on scored maps.

I don't play much multiplayer, so balance isn't a big deal for me personally - unbalanced COs actually work better for single-player in some ways.
Dragon Fogel,
Marquis Elmdor's Arch-Nemesis

Don't call me "Dragon".

WWN's War Room High Scores: http://www.celestialbridge.net/fogel/aw ... scores.txt
AW1 version: http://www.celestialbridge.net/fogel/aw ... scores.txt

ThunderWalker
Rank: Elf
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Re: AW5: What do we actually actually want in AW5?

Postby ThunderWalker » Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:15 pm

I should take AWDS without SCOP's (&Tags) and the AWDoR unit roster with some changes to fit a rebalanced cheaper Neotank in - the Antitank would turn into a Tank Destroyer (a direct with lots of defense and huge offence vs direct vehicles and ships (not subs, due to their totally different kind of armor) but unable to attack other units). I would also lower damage vs certain units (Flare, Md & Wartank) and rebalance the navy with adding more variety and turn the Battleships into their AWDS self.
I should also fit in a veterancy-system like AWDoR's and an aggressive COP-charging.
Some CO's should need rebalancing however, mainly D2D's and also some powers.
My sig is a void.

UserShadow7989

Re: AW5: What do we actually actually want in AW5?

Postby UserShadow7989 » Thu Jan 14, 2010 10:49 am

I'd build on the strengths and weaknesses of the COs in the Campaign maps. Advance Wars 1 was my favorite campaign due to how they built the maps for the COs, Fog of War against Sonja, tough terrain and choke points against Grit, "A mountain of troops!" for Kanbei, etc. I'd also like to see the reverse, like Tanks!! in AW2 where you're Grit in a choke point filled map, but Adder has a massive number advantage. Black Hole Inventions (like the Factory and Crystals) would be welcome, but only in moderation and with more variation. Dual Strike suffered from being the same objective over and over. I want "Capture X cities", "Hold X location", "Survive X turns", "Escape", "Victory in X turns", and more creative objectives like in that one Days of Ruin map where Greyfield orders you to not use a certain unit for 1 turn, or having to win without a certain unit being destroyed like way back in Advance Wars 1.

On the subject of Campaign Mode, I'd like either a new location or only a loose connection to the previous games. I love the previous settings, but the first has run it's course and would be nothing but 'lol Black Hole' again. Days of Ruin's ending wrapped things up nicely. While Tabitha and possibly Waylon are still around, that's not enough to make a game for. You could have multiple groups of survivors fighting over dwindling resources, but there's nowhere to go with that. I'm not sure if the lighter setting from the first three, the darker tones from Days of Ruin, or a middle ground would be best. Maybe a mixture of both, using contrast and sudden mood changes to enhance the story (lol Advance Wars with story).

I'm split on whether to use Days of Ruin style COs or 'classic' Advance Wars. I like the former for it's strategy, but the latter has more potential for Campaign missions. You could meet half way by having a weak 'global' effect but require putting a character into a vehicle to get the stronger COZone effect and charge the Power (or just charge it faster?), but I wonder if that would be over complicated. Regardless of which, the damage calculation from Days of Ruin will be used. 200 Defense = Invincible doesn't work for me. No Tag Powers. Supers can stay if you go with 'classic' Advance Wars, but I don't think it'd fit with anything else.

The Days of Ruin unit roster is great, though I would drop the prices of Carriers and Air units. The former should get it's ranged anti-air attack from AW3 back, and be 2HKOed by Subs instead of 1HKOed. B. Copters should do some damage to an Anti Air on a first strike (20~30%) but still get demolished. Dusters should do more damage to non-infantry ground units. Sea Planes should be cheaper and do slightly more damage across the board cause if I'm dedicating that much effort I don't want to get slapped in the face with a high price tag and sub-par performance on top of it.

Test out a few more unit ideas (A LOT of testing, don't want anything too unbalanced.) A Plane unit that can carry 1 Ground unit of any type and resupply nearby Air units, but can't attack or take a hit. An Indirect unit that can hit any unit and has long range, but has low damage, ammo, fuel, movement, and a decent sized blind spot. Things like that. Some different terrain (like a fortress with 5 terrain stars) and temporary buildings (like... I can't think of any right this moment). I would pay GipFace and others from the meebo chat metagame to carefully balance the game and suggest/remove units, terrain, and the like.

The Design Map room was beautifully done in Days of Ruin. I'd add in the ability to script some events like "On turn X, a (insert faction) (insert unit) will appear on X## Y##." or "At the beginning of each of (insert faction)'s turns, repair/damage all of (insert faction)'s units in X## Y##, X## Y##, etc. by X amount." A minor touch for those who like to make and/or play Custom Campaigns. Let players pick what units can be produced on the map, as well. This may or may not cause the map to be banned on Wifi.

Speaking of Wifi, you can choose to 'ban' certain maps, COs, and/or units when you search for a match, and specify if you want to fight against someone with a similar win/lose ratio to yours. You can set up a sort of friend/ignore list that lets you send a challenge to a specific person, or block challenges and never select that person as a random Wifi opponent when searching for matches.

Days of Ruin did a lot right. Go back to the War Room system instead of the Trial Maps and refine Wifi and CO/unit balance, you have the perfect AW.

milkytrap

Re: AW5: What do we actually actually want in AW5?

Postby milkytrap » Mon Mar 01, 2010 6:36 pm

Oooooh. I like this, but I'm hardly one to know if something is balanced. Some time ago, I wrote a changelist as an outlet for bits about Advance Wars that bothered me but by no way are bad or not appropriate due to the various themes present in the tactics genre and Advance Wars scene. My efforts in this attempt were to greatly lower the amount of deployable units available, but make each more operationally distinct from the other.

====

Infantry - Vision increases to 5 on mountains, can cross canals and marshes. Infantry cannot cross canals or marshes during heavy rain and cannot traverse mountains during blizzards. Marshes hide infantry where fog of war is applicable. Cannot engage gunships that are situated above ground level.

Mechanized - Vision increases to 5 on mountains, can cross canals and marshes even during heavy rain and traverse mountains during blizzards. Marshes hide mechs where fog of war is applicable. Cannot engage gunships that are situated above ground level.

Infantry and mech units are hidden in marshes and woods where fog of war is applicable. (Other unit types no longer recieve the benefit of requiring an adjacent enemy to be detected.) Place foot soldiers between your visible vehicles in large marshes for ambush opportunities !

Note that in heavy rain or blizzard, it is still possible to unload infantry onto terrain with cost too high for normal travel (canals and mountains), then clear the terrain the following day as the square it is occupied does not impact movement cost.


Reconnoiter - High movement but only on dry, very flat terrain. Cannot traverse marshes. Cannot engage gunships that are situated above ground level.

IFV - Can traverse marshes, but not during heavy rain. Can engage foot soldiers with light machinegun fire. Can resupply ground units, sea units, and gunships only if the receiving gunship is situated at ground level. Cannot engage gunships that are situated above ground level. (Meant to be a more armored, more expensive bike that is also a transport and without capture ability.)

Artillery - Can traverse marshes, but not during heavy rain.

Tank - Can traverse marshes, but not during heavy rain. Cannot engage gunships that are situated above ground level.

Anti-Air Track - Can traverse marshes, but not during heavy rain.

Missile - High movement but only on dry, very flat terrain. Cannot traverse marshes. Can engage gunships situated at any level.

Rocket - High movement but only on dry, very flat terrain. Cannot traverse marshes. Cannot engage gunships.

Medium Tank - Can traverse marshes, but not during heavy rain. Cannot engage gunships that are situated above ground level.

Land Destroyer - High movement but only on dry, very flat terrain. Cannot traverse marshes. (Made to replace the Neotank by being a Neotank with 7 Movement, Tire movement type, and 17000 cost.)


Gunship - Can load one foot unit. By default, a gunship is situated at ground level where it is safe from high altitude fighters, loses a square of vision, and recieves terrain defense but at one star less than is typical. When situated at ground level, enemy ground units cannot pass, but enemy high altitude units can, and vice versa when a gunship's situation is inverted. Changing a gunships situation ends its movement, but ground level targets can be engaged while the gunship is higher, bringing it down and engaging in the same turn. Gunships lose one more movement than other air units during strong winds.
(Made to replace Battle Copters and Transport Copters.)

Fighter - Can engage gunships only if situated above ground level.

Bomber - Cannot engage gunships even if situated at ground level.

Utility Spyplane - High vision pierces woods and marshes in fog of war, but not reefs. Can resupply air units only if the recieving unit is above ground level.

Gunship is the only unit that can change their altitude situation. The altitude element may be difficult to illustrate in traditional orthographic projection unless simply tagged like dived submarines. It would be something to see Advance Wars play out in an isometric setting, my main gripe being the skewing such projection does to the directions of a directional pad but is solved if pointers like a computer mouse or stylus is supported along with easy, one-button filtering of high-altitude and ground-level combat spheres.


Gunboat - Can traverse reefs but not during rough seas. Can load one foot unit and traverse shoals. Can engage any air unit and any sea unit except submerged submarines. Gunboats lose one more movement than other sea units during rough seas. (This was made to be one half of what replaces Cruisers.)

Lander - Can traverse reefs but not during rough seas. Can load any two ground units and traverse shoals. Can engage foot soldiers with light machinegun fire, unfortunately ineffective against even the fragile gunboat.

Anti-sub - Can traverse reefs but not during rough seas. Can only engage submarines.
(This is the other half of Cruisers' replacement.)

Submarine - Can traverse reefs but not during rough seas. High vision pierces reefs but not woods or marshes.

Battleship - Can traverse reefs but not during rough seas.

Naval Tender - Can traverse reefs but not during rough seas. Can load any two air units and resupply sea units.

Place sea units between your visible air units in large reefs for ambush opportunities !


Suspension Bridge - A special type of bridge that can be crossed by any unit. Offers two stars of terrain defense to sea units.

Silo Station - Used once by foot soldiers to fire a single missile with a splash range of zero onto any one target anywhere. 49% damage to Black Hole-type structures, and eight HP damage to anything else.

If Black Bombs are to stay, they need to have their splash removed like silos and built from a special Black Bomb facility. I'd like to see more variety in structures and opportunities for use of terrain as was suggested before.


Rough Seas - Sea units movement is reduced by one square (gunboats by two squares), and consume fuel at double rates. Reefs become impassable.

Strong Winds - Air units movement is reduced by one square (gunships by two squares), and consume fuel at double rates.

Blizzard - All unit movement except by mechs is reduced by one square. Mountains become impassable except by mechs. Vision is reduced by one except by reconnoiters, utility spyplanes, and submarines.

Heavy Rain - Marshes and canals become unpassable except by mechs. Movement on plains and very flat terrain is reduced by one square. Vision for all units is reduced to one square except by reconnoiters, utility spyplanes, and submarines. Properties' vision is restricted to only the square it is on.


Units who have made movement will suffer from a slight firepower and armor drop equivalent to their travel distance.

A target will recieve more damage for each enemy unit in its line of sight.

A unit will recieve less damage for each friendly unit in line of sight with the attacker. Although not a recommended strategy, keeping an eye on a single troublesome unit will even further reduce their danger to important targets already behind cover.

Mind these changes in amounts are not significant, sometimes smaller than 1% in the case of drop per square travelled.


I'd like for any new campaign to offer wildly varying objectives and more unforeseen changes to them mid-battle. On top of the possibility for the course of a campaign to change based on scripted conditions (lab maps in cities, victory / defeat even), maybe the thresholds of sliding scales like total destruction caused, clearing speed, units lost, properties seized etc. can be used to influence things. Something I loved that Days of Ruin did where previous games did not was have two rival air aces ! Gimmicky pre-deploy only units and structures are always welcome in my book because they can be thrown into scenarios to add asymmetrical challenge that couldn't be done if they were balanced for production-based combat. Just be sure to add them to edit mode ! Also a rudimentary programming language for map-settings custom scenarios using conditions / actions and custom-only events like create unit / modify unit statistics / order unit action / change weather / change terrain etc. I think this was mentioned before as well.

No tag power lol. I like the variation that Super CO Power added, but disappointed that a polarity power was not done with it (eg. :smallstar: :smallstar: :smallstar: :smallstar: :bigstar:, :power: is 100/140, :super: is 140/90). I've little experience with the Days of Ruin CO Zone system, although it does sound very interesting and widely praised.

I've not thought too much of a possible story for Advance Wars 5. I figure Nell's hairline will have near completely receded (also it is revealed in the campaign that she actually has no hair due to chemotherapy for an inoperable cancer she's been living with and wearing a wig for some time), Max will have acquired more mass than all the Mr.Universes combined, Sonja, after a decisive victory somewhere in the campaign that Kanbei congratulates makes the confession to her father that she has been steadily losing her vision since years ago and finally lost it completely, Sami will have become an exclusive member of Green Earth to be with Eagle, who both consider defecting from the Allied Nations to help humanitarian efforts around Wars World where the Allied Nations shows no interest to help through a later regretful decision to focus on the larger foe. Oh, and the obligatory larger, more useless land tank called iunno, Ultramega-Bot 2000 ?

Asdfsdsd. I'm yielding now, ok !

ThunderWalker
Rank: Elf
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Re: AW5: What do we actually actually want in AW5?

Postby ThunderWalker » Mon Mar 01, 2010 11:49 pm

Making things extreme isn't way to go, Milkytrap.
Also, don't change the copter system, it is fine now. The navy is fine as well, despite the fact it is powerful and battles are decisive in seconds (which could be fixed with making navy cheaper and turning B-ships in their AWDS selves).

Say, making things too complex (and absolutely unbalanced as well) is absolutely wrong. Many units are moderately well balanced now. Mechs are somewhat OP and the same goes for Artillery. You'd just made several broken and other units useless.
The idea of an altitude system with air & copter units might be good but fails obviously when everythings becomes too complex. AW has a strong point in simplicity to learn it; easy to learn, hard to master.
Like chess, in fact.
Both AWDoR and AW2 Weather were fine. Again; don't mess up the balance with weather. It is just unbalanced what you did; you just didn'd knew what you were doing obviously. It felt like; "This should be fun, so change it", forgetting about game balance. Well, it is the way Lash should think, but it is not way to go.

Some units are underpowered now while navy is dismissed; but what you did, in fact, was making navy suffer even MORE from a slippery slope.

A better gunboat system might be fine. Multiple gunboats with different abilities and the basic gunboat rebalanced with 3 ammo but 55% damage vs eachother. AWDoR Battleship FAIL and the same goes for the Anti-Tank.

So, everything needs to be rebalanced. Well, your story is again... Lash' way of thinking. Lash should think some of those thingies are absolutely fun, but they aren't. I can see where you're going with Eagle and Sami though, but it might bash the relationship apart; Sami would absolutely dominate Eagle within a matter of days. Eagle quits the relationships after. Eagle might know this and keeps the relationship at a distance. To prevent this, Sami needs to take a beating first, maybe being inprisoned by Adder. But Eagle has an ego; it might happen he decides to not save Sami again if she is already captured; especially if that means Sami gets killed. However, Sami will escape with help of a few conscripts (large groups of troops couldn't get in unnoticed; elite troops were killed/captured in combat) which were hiding in the woods after a Black Hole assault. Sami will get a predeployed force and fight her way back to Nell; later accompanied by Flak and/or Eagle (the latter two fighting around Sami (altough this is Lash' fun as well :P )).

AWDoR CO's characters suck, save Greyfield and Tasha. Sturm owns everyone.
My sig is a void.

milkytrap

Re: AW5: What do we actually actually want in AW5?

Postby milkytrap » Wed Mar 03, 2010 12:39 pm

Thank you very much for that further elaboration. In retrospect, I believe I've turned fighters into 20000 cost decoration for skies, and naval battles extremely dependent on anti-subs, among many other things I still have yet to even realize. Maybe in time ?

I do want to say however that the story for AW5 I had shared above is not what I would want to see play out. That last bit makes fun of (although in a stale and pseudo-humorous fashion I regret taking) the amusing trends throughout the first three 'Advanced' games that seem to have manifest : Nell's hairline receding with each game, Max getting more muscle with each game, Eagle and Sami being a fan one-true-pairing I've seen enough to lampoon in a 'official writers give in to fan-pressure' development, a very snaking take on Sonja's glasses being removed where someone who had not realized Sonja originally had glasses and lost them would think that Sonja did recently instead (and is losing vision perhaps; also very very ironic considering her specialty), and, 'a bigger more useless land-tank' referring actually to how each game introduces a battle tank with higher firepower than the last (although many would agree the Neotank is FAR from useless and even the Megatank has very decisive areas of use that couldn't be accomplished with any other command decision.). I thought the remarkably inappropriate name, "Ultramega-Bot 2000" would send this point home. But if it didn't .. I, as the original poster, say its parody exists to do so.

Hauk

Re: AW5: What do we actually actually want in AW5?

Postby Hauk » Sat Mar 06, 2010 5:34 am

I say AWDoR is totally messed up. Only [hard] mission was 26 8) The COs suck in DoR. I would bring back ALL (except for Adder) COs from AW2. < 2 not DS. Also make the missions HARDER than what they were before. (in DoR only challenging missions were 20-23 and 26.) Take out War Tanks. Make Infantry cost 1000 again. Mechs get boosted to 4000 and bikes are out. Recons are 5000 Tanks and AAs are 8000. Missiles are 14000. Rockets 16000. Md.Tanks are 17000. This actually CHALLENGES you. oh yeah, Neotanks. I say bump the price from 22000 to 31000. APCs (Rigs they changed it?? :geshorts: )
should be able to carry 2 Infantry units with lowered movement. (from 6 with 0 to 5 with 2.) Also add more campaign missions. Add say...4 Campaigns with 20-30 missions each. Make :ph43r: & :arrr: campaigns. Keep the AW2 method of super powers. Remove Black Hole. Add another dark force. thats pretty much the only ideas I have.

ThunderWalker
Rank: Elf
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Re: AW5: What do we actually actually want in AW5?

Postby ThunderWalker » Sat Mar 06, 2010 5:52 am

The AWDoR unit balance is actually quite fine, in comparison to AW2.
I agree though that Neotanks should be added again; but only in Campaign.

However, thanks to everyone who posted here :wink: . There are quite a lot of ideas thrown around the table and there is enough to even debate about it altough that wasn't the intention of this thread.

I am going to make a costum campaign soon... and post it once the maps are allright.
Mainly because I am tired of doing nothing and because my English grammar sucks (well, because of that, I will already ask to correct EVERY grammar mistake you'll find, I appreciate it because it might improve my grades next year).
My sig is a void.

User avatar
Gentleman of Dread
Rank: T-Copter Spammer
Location: In a HQ
Contact:

Re: AW5: What do we actually actually want in AW5?

Postby Gentleman of Dread » Tue Mar 09, 2010 4:15 pm

I want decent multiplayer.
Image

User avatar
wiseman
Rank: Hecto-Commander
Location: USA

Re: AW5: What do we actually actually want in AW5?

Postby wiseman » Mon Jun 14, 2010 12:14 am

I think they were on the right track with AW4.

One thing I'd like to see AW do in general is have less kinds of units but more kinds of armaments. Sortof like how infantry can carry a variety of weapons IRL but only 2 here, or how tanks can be explosive, battering rams, riot control, flame thrower, etc.

Also, 2 tanks. 3 is more than enough. 4 is way too many.

FIVE IS RIGHT OUT

Also THE FIGHTER WILL RISE AGAIN... none of this "I can be beaten by a bunch of prop planes with squirt guns" nonsense. Might as well go back to the days where fighter pilots carried handguns to shoot each other with.

That is all
wiseman
Favorite Breakfast-Cereal Themed Battle Games
#1 Advance Wars :yc: :os: :bm: :ge: :bh:
#2 Chex Quest

Kilian18
Location: Bavaria, Germany
Contact:

Re: AW5: What do we actually actually want in AW5?

Postby Kilian18 » Mon Jul 25, 2011 10:28 am

My idea for AW5:
1. I would use all the Cos of AWDS with some little changes:
Andy: Hyper Repair now repairs 3 HPs on all Units
Max: D2D: all direct attack units deal +25% dmg (cop: 155/110; scop: 185/110 +1movement to all directs);indirects:(90/100),-1range;
Sami: Infantry now have D2D 120/110, and capture rate is reduced to +30%, COP: 160/120 infantry and +50% capture rate
Jake: COP: damage done when attacking from plains will be increased by 30% (50% when scop)
Hachi: all units are 100/100 at 100% price; cop: hachi sells maps to his opponent and gains 30% of his opponents next income; scop: all units cost 50% of normal price; powermeter: (3/6)
Olaf: basically the same but weather will have the same effect as in aw1+2(no more fow in rain!)
Grit: distance weapons are 100/100(d2d)with +1 range; Cop: 130/110 +2range; scop: 160/110 +3range
Colin: d2d: units will cost 90% of normal price, stats: 95/100; power: now costs 3 stars, same effect;
Kanbei: 2d2: units are at 120/110, with 120% of normal price, scop: double counter-attackpower removed;
Sensei: infantry will be 120/100; power now costs 3 stars;
Grimm: stats changed to 125/85, power: 160/95, Scop: 175/95 +1 movement (cost: 7 stars);
Eagle: air units stats: 115/110, naval units: 80/100, new powermeter: (4/9)
Drake: naval units stats: 110/110; he is no longer affectet by reefs; air units are at 80/100;
Jess: Vehicles: 115/100, Infantry: 100/100, Rest: 90/100;
Javier: Com-towers will only give him +5% defence instead of 10%
Flak/Jugger: all his units are 105/100 (little balance in comparison to Nell)
Lash: Cop: she gains +1def on each terrain and terrain doesn't affect her movement
Adder: Cop: for each square his units pass, their damage will be increased by 1% (scop: 3%)
Zak: when attacking from roads he will deal +10% dmg(d2d) +30%(cop) +45%(scop)
*all the cos i didn't mention are unchanged(for some i have no idea of how to change them and some cos just fit as they are)

2.I would use the same battle system as in awds but i would just leave out the tag power since it's just too overpowered,
but I would leave the system of 2 co fighting togther.

3. I would add some new units/change/remove old units
Sniper-Infantry: Cost: 4000, Move: Infantry(3) Primary Weapon: Snipergun: Range:2-3, Very effective against Infantry, moderate damage against light vehicles(recons,rockets,missilles) and copters, little damage against tanks; Secondary Weapon: Machie gun: Same as infantry; Can capture Buildings;
Black Bomb: this units will be removed
Piperunner: this unit will be removed
Black Boat: this unit is no longer able to repair other units but will be able to resupply all units around and can still transport 2 infantry units (like an APC for sea)
Megatank: this unit will be removed
Neo-tank: this unit now costs 24000
Missiles: range will be increased from 3-5 to 3-6 and costs 13000 now
Stealth fighter: can now be attacked by any anti-air unit when invisible, Fuel is increased to 80, cost: 22000
Anti-air: will now cost 7000
Artillery: will now cost 7000
Cruiser: will now deal more damage to other ships (around 20-30%)
Tsunami-tank: an amphibic unit that is able to swim over oceans and rivers.(cost 11000, move:6) same stats as tank, when on grond;
on sea: additional weapon: torpedos(5ammo) strong against landers and b-boats,medium strength against submarines and b-ships(35%) low damage against cruisers. Can be deployed on factories and seaports. sea/land can only be entered on beaches or seaports.
Lander: costs reduced to 10000
carmouflage-artillery: a unit that is able to turn invisible when standing on plains or forests(cost:12000; range:2-3; same damage as artillery)
copter-tank: this unit is able to swift between ground and air-mode; (cost: 12000, move: ground:6, air:7); same stats as b-copter(air)/tank(ground) this unit can't attack and change mode in the same turn; can only be deploed in airports.


4. some new buildings would be very fine
Watchtower: able to attack near enemy units(range 2-4)deals 2 damage to a random enemy unit and grants 5 vision in FoW, can be captured as any other building;

*I'm still editing this post^^

ungulateman

Re: AW5: What do we actually actually want in AW5?

Postby ungulateman » Sat Mar 03, 2012 9:45 pm

I'd like something conncetd to AWDS to be honest. Rebalance the COs, revert the stupid charge system to AW2's version, remove force skills, and generally make characters more interesting, varied and fresh.

More COs like Sonja, not like Jake.

GipFace
Rank: Lord of Children Games

Re: AW5: What do we actually actually want in AW5?

Postby GipFace » Thu Aug 23, 2012 5:25 am

lol

The AW2 charge system is the worst system of all the AW games. Yeah let's punish attacking and have games with silly amounts of battle lines.

I want an engineer:

F4000
Soldier (can be loaded into rig/t-copter/gunboat)
Cannot capture
Secondary fire gun = infantry
DEF = infantry
1 material
4 MP infantry, 2 vision, 60 gas

On allied city: UPGRADE (1 material: upgrades city, HP/20 like capturing. Upgraded cities have +500F, +1 repair, and +1 terrain star)
On enemy property: SABOTAGE (income of property reduced by 10% x HP for the next turn)

This would be an awesome tech soldier. And yes I'm bored as hell.

ThunderWalker
Rank: Elf
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Re: AW5: What do we actually actually want in AW5?

Postby ThunderWalker » Tue Apr 09, 2013 8:26 pm

I completely forgot this thread.

That engineer is quite cool tbh. Tech Soldiers/units/structures could be awesome. Upgraded Cities could be great to have in your rear where they can't be captured as easily. Sabotage won't be worth it in many situations but is something useful to do after the Engineer has been done upgrading your own cities.

But unless we make our own AW5 as a community effort (from scratch, obviously), I don't see any new AW coming at this point. And I don't see this happening either.
My sig is a void.

User avatar
DieselPheonix

Postby DieselPheonix » Thu Apr 11, 2013 2:33 pm

That's not going to end well.

Fortunately, Intelligent Systems is at least considering another Advance Wars game. Now if only they had the backing.

ThunderWalker
Rank: Elf
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Re: AW5: What do we actually actually want in AW5?

Postby ThunderWalker » Sat Apr 13, 2013 11:07 pm

Indeed, all current attempts bar AWBW ended in failure.
Then again, no attempt was a good attempt or really thought out. I usually see the attempts that aren't AWBW as "This looks fun, let's do it" without thinking twice. These are obvious recipes for failure you need to avoid. 'Going Lash on it' is not really the way to go.

That does not mean that if I'd make my own attempt it be succesful. That is why I don't attempt it myself. :lol:
My sig is a void.

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

Re: AW5: What do we actually actually want in AW5?

Postby HPD » Thu Apr 18, 2013 6:19 pm

Well, glad to see that IS at least hasn't abandoned AW. Looks like there's still some hope on the horizon.
"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

GipFace
Rank: Lord of Children Games

Re: AW5: What do we actually actually want in AW5?

Postby GipFace » Fri Apr 19, 2013 2:43 pm

I discussed this on IRC.

Hauler
F5000
No attack
DEF: Recon
6 MP Tire A, 1 vision, 50 gas
Built at seaport

TOW (friendly unit): Target vehicle or sea unit is piggybacked. The hauler becomes a copy of that unit and copies all stats except gas. If the hauler is destroyed, the piggybacked unit is also destroyed.
UNTOW: Works just like every other unload. Note that units cannot load into the hauler; the hauler must tow into them.

Sea units are flawed because they don't integrate well with land or air. But what if there was a way to use sea units on land? This unit allows sea units to join the fray! In addition, vehicles can also be towed! Only vehicles with <6 MP would benefit from this, so it can't be abused in the early game. I purposely made it have low gas because hauling requires plenty of muscle!

Along with this unit, I'd give the gunboat and cruiser damage values for land.

ThunderWalker
Rank: Elf
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Re: AW5: What do we actually actually want in AW5?

Postby ThunderWalker » Fri Apr 19, 2013 10:26 pm

Just imagine a 45.000 ton, 900 feet long Battleship on land, being carried by that thing. :mrgreen:
While a COP also is not realistic (though you could say they are all-out charges for quite a few (Will, Tasha (afterburners), Sami, Adder are examples of this logic) or they are using rare, expensive ammo (Gage/Grit/Max, for example)), the creators of the game at least don't have to animate a CO performing a COP...
My sig is a void.

uzernamefail

Re: AW5: What do we actually actually want in AW5?

Postby uzernamefail » Mon Apr 20, 2015 2:07 am

Campaign Concept
----------------------
Prologue: Following the events of AWDS and the disbanding of the Allied Nations, quite a lot has changed for our favorite COs:
-Andy and Lash, bored by the relative peace and wanting to continue the research Lash was working on with Black Hole in a more ethical manner, form the Macro Land-based Allied Engineer Corps., a paramilitary contractor that maintains an advantage through superior technology. Their aptitude on the battlefield and in the lab provide strong direction for the organization.
-Eagle, having heard rumors of a commander in the far frontier of Wars World matching Hawke's description, sets out with Sami to find him and exact revenge for his role in the invasion of Green Earth in AW2. No one else knows where he is.
-Since the collapse of Black Hole as a formal military power, Kindle has taken her remaining resources and formed an organized crime ring under the Black Hole name. Jugger's robotic nature makes him well suited as her right-hand man, and he handles the minutiae with extreme (im)precision.

In the opening scene, a gaunt, purple-haired man in a Black Hole uniform approaches Kindle, and she is taken aback to see such a sight. The man, who reveals himself to be Adder, tells her that Black Hole is on the cusp of a resurgence and would like to formally offer her an invitation to join as a CO. Kindle accepts the offer, and Adder leaves instructions for her to cause chaos in Macro Land while he irons out a few loose ends in the plan.

The first of 3 acts of this campaign follows Andy and Lash as they fight off Kindle and Jugger's forces in Macro Land. Other COs join in as the fighting escalates, culminating in an all-out assault by Kindle's forces on the Allied Engineer Corps. main HQ. With help from Sonja, they figure out that Kindle is headed for Alpha Land, a relatively untamed region of Wars World. With the seeds of a new adventure laid, Andy, Lash, and the others prepare to pursue her.

In the second act, Eagle and Sami are controlling an uprising in Alpha Land while everyone else is fighting Kindle. Clearing through the rebel armies, they eventually find Hawke orchestrating the whole thing. Hawke is completely uninterested in fighting Eagle, and asks him to leave. Eagle refuses, and leads a massive charge on Hawke. Once he finally defeats him, Eagle begins questioning him. Eagle first asks why Hawke ran off after AWDS. Hawke replies that he had to take the chair someplace safe so it would not fall into the wrong hands, so he retreated to a far corner of the world in hopes of hiding the chair. Eagle is about to ask another question when Adder cuts in on the radio, taunting Hawke, Eagle, and Sami. Eagle is at first confused, and Adder thanks him for providing the reinforcements needed to reclaim the chair for Black Hole. Hawke then explains to Eagle and Sami that the chair was originally part of the cloning project used to create the clone Andy from AW1 and the other clones from AWDS. Adder continues taunting the three, claiming that "a powerful storm is on the horizon". Eagle then realizes that Adder used the redirection of Hawke's forces for fighting him to seize the chair while it was unguarded.

In the third act, Eagle, Hawke, and Sami meet up with the COs from act one and explain the situation to them. With everyone filled in on current events, the group presses forward toward the secluded Black Hole HQ. After several battles with Adder and Kindle, Hawke's worst fears are confirmed: Adder used the chair to clone Sturm and create an army of troops. Sturm is predictably angry at Hawke for killing him in AW2, and vows to destroy the world in revenge. Just before reaching neo-Sturm's fortress, the group encounters Adder and Kindle leading a large group of troops. Adder states that he and Kindle have got what they wanted from Sturm, and that neo-Sturm has outlived his usefulness and is being left to his own devices. Hawke tells Adder and Kindle that he will deal with them after Sturm, and the duo leaves. In the finale, Hawke defeats Sturm and kills him again, this time destroying all Black Hole technology in the process. Similar to Rivals! in AW1, there is a postgame mission between Eagle and Hawke.
----------

Man, that sure would be cool, wouldn't it?

uzernamefail

Re: AW5: What do we actually actually want in AW5?

Postby uzernamefail » Sat May 02, 2015 4:05 pm

I also have some ideas as to what to do with some of the old COs to balance them and/or make them more interesting. Starting from AWDS (and assuming the infantry charge rate is toned down b/c everyone hates it):
:os: ORANGE STAR :os:
:tagaffinity: Andy: Andy is built around making his units last longer with his COP and SCOP. However, he is (relatively) mediocre d2d and has a lackluster COP. To fix his d2d, his units should be 100/110 and he repairs 3HP on a property instead of two (He should have that, not Rachel). If that isn't enough, maybe he could get 3 HP from his COP instead of 2, and his powers refuel/rearm all units.
:tagaffinity: Max: He is actually hard to balance because "directs" covers A LOT of units. He is supposed to have strong units but is crippled by choke points. All he needs are his MP bonuses during COP/SCOP from AW2.
:tagaffinity: Sami: Fine as is. Her and AWDS Eagle are about where I want everyone to be.
:tagaffinity: Nell: Fine as is? Luck is hard to balance.
:tagaffinity: Haichi: NERF TIME! He must pay 100% prices d2d, and his powers change the cost to 70% instead of 50%.
:tagaffinity: Jake: While I'd rather remove him from the game (least favorite CO), I think he has room to grow. He's meant to be all-rounded with a focus on ground warfare. His plains bonuses should go from 10/20/40 to 20/40/60. His power gauge goes from :smallstar: :smallstar: :smallstar: :bigstar: :bigstar: :bigstar: to :smallstar: :smallstar: :smallstar: :smallstar: :bigstar: :bigstar: :bigstar: , but he now has +1 MP for ground vehicles during his COP.
:tagaffinity: Rachel: Let's face it: Everyone loves her SCOP more than her COP. If you liked her COP, you would play Nell. She loses the +1 repair and her power gauge goes from :smallstar: :smallstar: :smallstar: :bigstar: :bigstar: :bigstar: to :smallstar: :smallstar: :smallstar: :smallstar: :bigstar: :bigstar: :bigstar: :bigstar: , but her COP now shoots 1 missile instead of the 3 from her COP, which targets by virtue of causing as much monetary damage as possible out of every unit SHE CAN SEE. NO CHEATING IN FOW.

:bm: BLUE MOON :bm:
:tagaffinity: Olaf: I liked how snow worked in AW2 way more than AWDS; it felt like a real blizzard then. I would restore snow to how it was 2, and keep the power's duration and bonus from AWDS.
:tagaffinity: Grit: I really like Grit. With infantry spam nerfed, he would become a bit better since people might actually use more expensive units, which Grit wants so he can focus his fire on them. The range bonuses define him, so I feel he must be balanced around that. I say his d2d/COP/SCOP damage should go from 120/140/160 to 110/120/140, and his non-infantry directs go from 80/100 to 90/90.
:tagaffinity: Colin: Hoooo boy. Colin has been a balance nightmare since his introduction, largely because the money he saves d2d synergizes perfectly with his powers. To fix him, costs go from 80% to 90%, and all units go from 90/100 to 90/90. His COP gives him 1.25 times his current funds instead of 1.5. I can see the argument for changing his SCOP from a damage boost proportional to money into doubling his funds, but I'm not sure how that would end up.
:tagaffinity: Sasha: Sasha's big problem is that she gets bullied by COs with strong d2d or 2/3 star COPs. She gets +200 funds per property, and her units become 110/110 when her current funds exceed the opponent's funds+income, making Sasha players keen on saving up their money. Now about her SCOP... it's useless. If she's fighting someone stronger than her d2d or with good 2/3 star COPs, she's in trouble. To make this a bit easier, her SCOP now increases her property capture rate by 5 (additive, so a 1HP unit takes 6 points while a 10HP unit takes 15), she deals 2HP damage to all enemy units on a property, and gains funds equal to the damage that part deals. This is more in line with her "rich girl" persona, with her SCOP amounting to bribery of city/local officials/businesses.

:yc: YELLOW COMET :yc:
:tagaffinity: Kanbei: I hear a lot of hate for Kanbei's attack and defense bonuses. The question is, how can we balance a guy who pays more for units that are stronger without making his army too dominant? Well, a lot of his issues in AWDS are fixed when the charge rate gets toned down, so he doesn't get to use his crazy 160/160 with double counterattack SCOP units as often. In addition, his COP is toned down to 150/130 from 160/130, and his SCOP is now 150/150.
:tagaffinity: Sonja: Sonja is really hard to balance her vision bonus gimmick in FoW without making her useless in regular play. I would rather she loses all vision bonuses but gets the best of her AW2 and AWDS d2d bonuses. She reduces enemy terrain stars by 1 (applies AFTER CO d2d/power bonuses, not before) and her counterattacks do 150% damage. Her powers let her see into reefs/forests as before (just no range bonus), and her terrain reduction/counterattack bonus powers work as they do in AWDS.
:tagaffinity: Sensei: This cheap old man... First off, Infantry are 110/100, Copters are 130/100, and everything else is 90/90. Transports retain their d2d bonuses, but more on that later. His COP works as before since the infantry charge rate should have already been nerfed, but his SCOP gets a complete rework. Instead of summoning mechs, he summons infantry as normal, but all transports and units adjacent to them can move again ala Eagle. Also, his transports get +1 MP during COP and +2 MP during SCOP. To compensate for these changes, his gauge goes from :smallstar: :smallstar: :bigstar: :bigstar: :bigstar: to :smallstar: :smallstar: :smallstar: :bigstar: :bigstar: :bigstar: :bigstar: .
:tagaffinity: Grimm: Instead of 130/80 units d2d, his units are 120/90 d2d. Powers work as before, but everything gets +1 MP and indirects get +1 range during his SCOP to represents stunts his units perform.

:ge: GREEN EARTH :ge:
:tagaffinity: Eagle: Fine as is.
:tagaffinity: Drake: Drake has the problem of crippling overspecialization. He has a strong navy, but that doesn't mean much in Advance Wars. Especially with the nerf to charge rate, he's going to feel a bit lost. To fix this a bit, his gauge goes from :smallstar: :smallstar: :smallstar: :smallstar: :bigstar: :bigstar: :bigstar: to :smallstar: :smallstar: :smallstar: :bigstar: :bigstar: :bigstar: . More action may be needed, but I have no ideas. His navy is fine, though I won't complain if he gets his AW2 naval stats back.
:tagaffinity: Jess: I don't know what I want for her. I would leave her as is since vehicles are going to be way more important after an infantry nerf, but I would make her air/naval units 80/100.
:tagaffinity: Javier: Javier, much like Sonja and Drake, is hard to balance because he is made to shine in very specific conditions. So I would completely rework him around the whole "chivalrous knight" concept. His units are less handicapped by HP loss than normal, with 10HP units feeling average and 1HP units feeling like 5HP units, and he retains his bonus defense against indirects. His gauge is now :smallstar: :smallstar: :smallstar: :smallstar: :bigstar: :bigstar: :bigstar: , with his COP making all units 120/120, increasing indirect defense to 40%, and his HP scaling makes it so that a 5HP unit feels like using a 100/100 10HP unit. His SCOP goes even farther, making him 120/120 with +60% defense vs indirects and all units hitting like a 120/120 10HP unit regardless of HP. This change is meant to represent the "never retreat or back down" mentality Javier has.

:bh: BLACK HOLE :bh:
:tagaffinity: Flak: Exaggerated a bit now, he now has AWDS Jugger's luck dispersion and powers.
:tagaffinity: Lash: Lash gets her AW2 stats, but her baseline/Road units now start from 100/90. During her powers, Roads offer 1 terrain star when fighting anyone other than Sonja.
:tagaffinity: Adder: How to make him "cooler"... He's fine enough d2d and with his COP (though maybe 110/100 units would be ok), but his SCOP is currently pointless most of the time. Since allowing him to move through enemy units as if they were his own would be really, REALLY broken on chokepoint maps, his SCOP causes a sandstorm, and Adder himself is immune to the effects of sandstorms. So now, when he's bottled up at a chokepoint or navigating a indirect network, he has a new use for his SCOP.
:tagaffinity: Hawke: Units are now 110/100 d2d, and his gauge is now :smallstar: :smallstar: :smallstar: :smallstar: :bigstar: :bigstar: :bigstar: .
:tagaffinity: Jugger: Time for an overhaul! Instead of the random luck, Jugger is a CO that prefers simplicity and large numbers of a given unit. Unit firepower gets a bonus proportional to the percent of his army of that unit. For example, if his entire army is infantry, infantry (and not mechs) are 150/100. If half his army is B-Copters, B-Copters are 125/100. This encourages Jugger to find a unit he likes on a map and play around it. The bonuses may seem large (and indeed they may be), but his overspecialization can lead to him being countered, adding the additional conflict of diversity vs specialization for the Jugger player.
:tagaffinity: Koal: We're going to expand on his road bonuses, since I feel that is horribly underdeveloped and leads to him feeling like a rip-off of Adder. His d2d road units are now 130/100, and his ground units on a road get 1 terrain star. In addition, his road attack bonus applies if he and/or his opponent are on a road instead of just him, allowing him to set up ambushes and play less aggressively as needed. His d2d/COP/SCOP road bonuses are 130/160/190.
:tagaffinity: Kindle: I feel she is going to be ok without any changes. The infantry nerf makes holding properties more important to maintaining an advantage, so she balances out.
:tagaffinity: Sturm: Now for the good part. How can we make Sturm feel like himself without being broken? I mean, if anyone should be broken, it should be him, but I'll play along. Sturm's units are 120/110 and have their movement costs reduced by 1 where applicable (1 stays 1, 2 becomes 1, and 3 becomes 2), so he keeps some of his recon rush and tricks without invalidating Lash's powers. He still doesn't have a COP, but his SCOP costs 9 stars instead of 10. The SCOP now deals 6HP of damage and disables like Von Bolt's SCOP.

In addition, the tag affinity and bonuses are more common and less restrictive. I'm only listing the new ones.
-Adder/Kindle, "Urban Serpent", :tagaffinity:
-Andy/Sonja, "Precocious", :tagaffinity:
-Colin/Haich, "Birds of a Feather", :tagaffinity:
-Drake/Olaf, "Natural Disaster", :tagaffinity:
-Flak/Jugger, "Leigon", :tagaffinity: :tagaffinity:
-Grimm/Javier, "Brave Charge"
-Grit/Nell, "Reunion", :tagaffinity:
-Haichi/Sasha, "Buyout", :tagaffinity:
-Javier/Sasha, "Lord and Lady", :tagaffinity:
-Lash/Andy, "Lab Experiment", :tagaffinity: :tagaffinity:
-Sami/Sensei, "Great March", :tagaffinity:
-Sasha/Sonja, "Wealthy Women", :tagaffinity:

Thoughts/opinions?

User avatar
Ricojeh

Re: AW5: What do we actually actually want in AW5?

Postby Ricojeh » Sun May 03, 2015 2:21 pm

Infantry Fighting Vehicles. They have become a major part of ground warfare since the 80s, so I hope a more modern AW includes them.

Super Famicom Wars had a similar concept with its APC, fitted with a machine gun of Recon-level firepower while transporting troops, while the Supply Truck performed the GBA-DS APC's role. While a regular APC can supply, an IFV can have greater armor?

Drones (like Predators). Could be the cheapest air unit that functions like a Gunboat (no transport). Any other features for UAVs come to mind?

Transport Plane. Can finally move all land units in air, but only land them on open ground (no water, no woods, no mountains).

Destroyer. The tank of the sea, has shorter range (2~4 tiles) and less firepower and armor than a battleship.


Return to “Design Room”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Kim Jong-un [Bot] and 1 guest