Day 59.5: anti air unit countered; target it was meant to destroy is too close, and Everytime we move it just moves into our deadspace and mocks us at night
Easily the greatest weakness is the horrid movement. The main advantage to missiles is shooting areas anti-air can't reach. But a missile is never going to get anywhere not within a few tiles of a factory.
Worse still, its low movement is both mechanically and narratively contrary to the "Tires" movement type. Disclaimer: I'm a bit of a realism whore; So, in our world, wheeled vehicles are generally favored for their superior mobility; especially over roads. Treads are used because they reduce a vehicle's ground pressure and make them more stable on rough terrain at the cost of speed and fuel efficiency. Arguably, this is reflected in some of the advantages of Tanks in game, but aside from Recon, Tired vehicles (basically Rockets and Missiles) end up taking a double whammy by being both needlessly slow and unsuited to rough terrain.
to me while movement is also a problem its range is an issue in itself too for something that is meant to take down the most mobile units, it has terrible range I mean 5 tiles even a copter can go from the outside ring to the inner ring easily, you could say the same for a rocket and a tank you could but unlike Terrain units, an Air unit ignores terrain obstacles and thus you cannot put the missile behind a mountain or anything (besides forest in fog games) to cover fire unlike a rocket being behind a wall of mountain or a river against a tank the Carrier at the very least despite being such a meme with 28k fund cost at least has a slightly more air oppressive range as they should a missile hardly oppress Air combatants
@@blazingkite8983 Missiles are good for one thing, though. They offer a good, cheap way to defend Island bases if you cannot afford a cruiser yet. Not only that, but if you pair them with an AA or two, 9/10 times, nobody will chance trying to attack them with air units. The would be crazy to risk losing two chopper units at 9k each (18k total) to destroy something worth 12k. And like Mangs said in the video, if you can set up one or two around an airport, you have effectively locked it down, and if set up in a known aircraft route, they provide a large area of denial to your enemy. Just be sure to provide 2-3 infantry, mixed with AA support and the occasional tank to provide a shield around it. They are definitely a very niche unit, but they do serve their purpose well. Not as good as they could, but far from horrible.
I'll be guessing Mangs will talk about a Cruiser's removed ability and its animation. In Advance Wars Returns, Missiles is 10k and has the movement of six.
I actually forgot about that ! What i did not forgot on the other hand is battleship being able to shoot after moving in days of ruin/dark conflict. and carrier becoming direct unit.
Literally just said the same thing multiple times 😂 Quite literally, the ONLY time I have ever owned this unit was when it was given to me for free to fight a massive air squad stupid enough to just run into me.
Imo the worst thing about missiles is the fact that the units they're supposed to counter can counter the missile itself. There is no air unit who can't get into a missiles's safespot. I think you should do all the units, from infantry all the way up. There's a lot to talk about, even (or especially) with infantry.
That's just kinda an advantage of most air units, namely the BCopters (except against AA, it can hit Cruisers and Missiles hard) and the Bomber (destroys all 3: AA, Cruisers, and Missiles if it gets the first hit). It's why air units are so good. Fighters, outside of dogfights (in which case, first strike generally wins), are obviously an exception as it can't hit any of those units to begin with (and needless to say but TCopters too but they're not a battle unit). Also yeah, I'd so be down for every single unit, maybe skipping Neo/Megatanks since those were already covered.
Infantry caps and is only effective vs other infantry, not much to talk about tbh. Theres plenty of strategy with how to use infantry but thats a matter of playstyle and skill
The way you built the map so you could do everything in one take was very impressive. Just using the game's own tools and mechanics to demonstrate the points without compromises, well done.
Long story short: tires are garbage. Giving treads to anti-air and artillery instantly makes them preferable over rockets and missiles for getting to engagements.
Decent for punishing anything that wanders into/gets baited into its range. As long as the missiles don't have to move they do their job: threatening air units into not attacking, or forcing a direct push toward it.
@@meathir4921 AA can also fight back against ground troops, copters, and even do some damage to tanks in a pinch. Yeah, missiles kinda suck, but aircraft are also expensive and missiles will cripple or kill without having to move into danger. Map layout matters a lot
One change that would make missiles useful: if they don't fire on their turn, they automatically fire on the first enemy air unit to enter their area of effect.
The Wargroove counterpart to the Missile is interesting, the Ballista. It has more range, greater mobility from what remember, and can also fire on ground units and properties for chip damage. While this damage isn't very high, it adds up. (I've seen Commanders put into kill range by Ballistas before) It covers a wider area for air denial while having secondary utility. It's cheaper than its AW counterpart too.
I think the concept of Missiles is neat. Having a kind of zone of anti air protection. Especially one that can reach into mountains, sea and other places that AA can't go. It's generally horribly overcosted though, and it's abysmal mobility means it can't even get into position to do it's job well. They treated it like a counterpart to rockets, but it's not at all in the same spot. The boosted range from Days of Ruin did a lot to make it actually effective at deterring air power, but the price and mobility still needed improvement for it to be a worthwhile investment.
The biggest issue with them is how while they function like rockets their target units are incredibly mobile and pack a big punch so you have to invest heavily to protect them when you could just use AA guns for half the cost more def and mobility
@@chilwil07 I mean, the main edge that an indirect anti air option has is in heavy terrain. If the air units are able to zip around through mountains, forests and rivers, picking at your forces while your AA gets stuck in the terrain, the missile should be an effective deterrent instead. But missiles are too expensive to get out early and too immobile to actually get into position in a heavy terrain area. The boosted missile range of DoR actually made them pretty intimidating to try and approach if they were in a mix of other ground vehicles. You just only got to see this in effect on predeploy maps since they still weren't worth building.
I think it's beyond worthwhile in Days of Ruin because the AI is smarter. You can use it to keep air units away from your army. And the extra range means that it's much easier to slowly move it forward and eventually block an airport. I'd say they're really worth it in Days of Ruin, specially on maps with a lot of air units (which is like most of them)
@@chilwil07 Just leave it in the middle of your army, bro. Around mid-game in the Days of Ruin campaign you usually have a sizable number of units. If you position them right, you can easily protect the missiles and the air units have no choice but to stay away.
@@gogobrasil7185 Campaign value is fairly different from pvp value, you know? I do think they are drastically better in DoR than other games because of their boosted range, but I'd still rarely build them if I had the option of AA + Fighters/dusters/copter. Pvp wise I would still boost their mobility a fair bit and maybe shave off their price a tad if I wanted to see them have any usage. There are a couple missions in the campaign that kind of demand missiles though. I remember one where you have to slowly crawl though a long line of enemy indirect, heavy terrain impediments and hordes of enemy air units. On that map, missile were worth gold.
"Just do whatever Grit does in fog of war missions: Deploy missiles to help you see better!" -Hachi In all seriousness, I really wish some units had more prevalence, particularly battleships and missiles.
@@mauricesteel4995 The Spotter is only there to see if the rockets/missiles/shells hit I think. Those vehicles should have electronics like radar to "see" what is around them, but it seems like visual confirmation is still necessary. I think.
For some godforsaken reason Missiles are my favorite unit. Something about using them is extremely satisfying. Huge vision, good range, and absolutely obscene power. It's totally garbage in any serious PVP game (usually) but there's something so ridiculously fun about just annihilating everything in one hit. Of course in reality air units just fly around it or get within its minimum range. But still, super cool unit!
Missiles should have the same defense against air units that Anti-air have. If it took a battle copter 3 turns to kill a missile, it might actually become viable to build them.
Well Mags, I won't lie, I remember complaining frequently about the Missiles' lack of mobility since they had both only 4 movement and had the movement type of tires. If I were to buff the missiles, I would do so by either changing the movement type to track (still keeping the 4 movement space) so it can at least be easier to get it into position or by increasing the movement from 4 to 5, while keeping the movement type of tires. If either buff does not seem to work, I would pick one of the buffs previously mentioned and then add in an increase of range of 1 tile (as done in Days of Ruin) to least have the missile be more useful at zoning out the air units because missile units have always been so satisfying to see in action (when it finally hits their targets) in my opinion.
@@mavairick agreed. they did this to the carrier in duel strike at least so it was made a threat to all air units but the stealth fighter. you wouldnt dare approach one with copters or even a bomber because your likely not clearing its high range safely. though 30K is a huge sum lol. shame the carrier didnt exist in black hole rising. wouldve spiced up air to sea battles more. I feel ships were too exposed to air units in this game because the cruiser also doesnt do its job well much like missiles lol. so yeah missiles I think needed like at least 7 max range to keep at least copters staying away from it.
@@Jamieboi1989 problem with carriers is that they are just far to expensive for what? Anti air that can resupply air units? Litteraly a black boat could do that but better In days of ruin the carriers are just so fun to play I like that it can create air units, resupply them and repair them and it also holds 2 With the aded ability that it can protect your planes and make them shoot safely because when you unload an air unit it still gets to attack
@@stevengu1253 Allowing an indirect unit to move and shoot like they did with the battleship is actually a big change. but the thing is, if you move out of cover to attck then you expose yourself, which lesser the effectiveness of mental pressure, knowing they is an indirect threatening you is different from seeing it.
I would prefer if missiles were MUCH cheaper and more mobile, but have somewhat reduced firepower. I think most players would be happy if a full health missile brings down a bomber to 3 HP, but actually gets to shoot bombers.
In Super Famicom Wars there is the Anti Air equivalent of the artillery called the Flak Gun (in the latest fan translation), so cheaper and less range. I found them somewhat useful against the AI especially battle copters.
I literally love this guy. He revived and reviews one of my favorite game of my childhood, which not many people know about. And he is also so accurate about it! Loving it Mangs!
I really like these scripted Advance Wars videos. Keep them coming! Missiles are really good on Days of Ruin. Not only do they have increased range (which makes a lot of difference), the AI also responds to it, so you can use it to keep air units away. So you deploy one in the middle of your army, block its minimum range with units, and now air units aren't a problem anymore. You can protect your valuable units like medium tanks and rockets and you can buy yourself time to build fighters and dusters to counter-attack. So it contributes to what I think is the most enjoyable air combat meta in the series. There's a lot more strategy.
The Missile also got +1 movement in Days of Ruin, while it still didn't make them very mobile by any means any little bit helps to get them into position
If only missiles behave like the patriot missile from Daisenryaku where it will intercept ANY flying unit that flies to it's attack range, it is insane for clearing and protecting airspace. Also in Daisen, vehicle with tire type movement will get movement boost when moving on roads, which make them still useful on map with many roads
Looking at Missile's stats it's no surprise, that it's usfulness mostly grows in FoW scenarios. But let's be thankful that they can actually pass through forest tiles unlike Famicom and Super Famicom Wars.
Honestly, I wouldn't increase their maximum range...But I would make their minimum range better, give them a 2-5 range to make them riskier for air units to attack. There was actually a unit in Super Famicom Wars that got completely removed from future games, the AA Cannon, that was basically just an anti-air artillery unit. It almost never saw play because of how fast Air units are combined with the low-range, even though the price was the lowest of all indirects, so giving modern rockets the singular advantage it had, the 2 minimum range, seems like a good idea. It's not a huge buff, but it would help. Still needs a big buff to movement, though.
Since it's the only one of its kind¹, they should have a closer minimum range, at 2~5. That would make them much more reliable, plus an extra movement is also welcome. 4 movement for an expensive *vehicle* is too little. 5 would be just right. ¹(ground indirects have a short (arty) and long (rockets) ranged units. But surface-to-air only has the missiles)
Going through this series again! Very good guides honestly. With a lot of cool trivia! Mangs you should definitely do more of these, alongside separate guides for DoR. I think that would be cool.
Missiles are extremely hard to get trapped due to their overlapping movement and vision, the only way to trap one in AW is to move it into a forest one tile away from it that is connected by a road tile.
A cool addition to this series would be to, at the end, do a section on how to balance a unit (buffs if unit is bad or nerfs if unit is OP or an assessment of why unit is balanced if it is). I know you touched on it briefly but Id personally like to hear more of what you think. For missiles I think a cost drop plus either improved range (2-6) or improved mobility (5 movement on treads) would help a lot. Tires just suck unless a unit has crazy high movement like recons.
Idea for an Advance Wars trivia video, a lot of the army variants of units and mech weapons are based on real world military hardware often used by the nations they are flavored after. For example the Orange Star Mech heavy weapon is based on the M20A1B1 Super Bazooka the Americans used in WW2 while Blue Moon's is based on the Russian RPG-7 rocket propelled grenade launcher. I think it would be cool if (after doing the research) you could explain the origins of the allied nations variants (Black Hole's are supposed to be high tech and alien looking so there are no real world origins there.
Missiles are a lot more useful in fog of war for surprise attacks from forests. They have a lot of vision range as well. In a normal match they rarely ever get to hit anything because air units can easily skip past their attack range. Unless you group a bunch of them together, they serve as nothing more than a minor deterrent. But by the time you have the money to buy them in bulk you're probably about to win the match anyways.
11:30 the reason is very simple. A missile doesn't require human operator whereas a rocket does. So machine gun hurts rocket more than hurts missile. It kill the people driving and aiming the rocket.
Very specific case for missiles. In 1 vs 10+ players missiles can be better than AAs later on for the team with multiple players for the fact that they are going to have a unit number advantage once the limit is hit on everyone and also because they are going to have less funds per player compared to the solo player so sacking AAs forever to get rid of air units will get expensive compared to setting up some missiles to cover your wall of units. So basically since the multiple player team wants to stall to get better units and unit count you'll be prioritizing infantry, indirect and stealths to stall until funds become a non issue for building units for pushing
Personally, I think they should've thought back to how Super Famicom Wars did it. In that game, you had Anti-Air, Flak Cannons, and Missiles. Each operating as basically an anti-aerial counterpart to Tank, Artillery and Rockets. The Flak Cannon in particular was a wonderful unit, thanks to it being on treads, and since it was indirect/anti-air; it actually fared decently well against Bombers and Copters, since they were easy to position, and strong if positioned well. The Missiles are slow, but they are designed to be, since the general idea, is you would have a few Flaks and Anti-Air on the field to cover them while they move into position. For whatever reason, Advance Wars did away with the Flak Cannon, as I guess they felt it was redundant. But in doing so, it left a massive hole in the Anti-Air counterplay; which is why Air Units in Advance Wars reign supreme so well. Having that extra coverage made it a bit trickier to use Aircraft in Super Famicom Wars; even if you had access to the all around Striker to help out.
Things they could do: 1. increase movement to 6. 2. allow it to shoot on direct units with greatly reduced damage. 3. Keep all the same but allow to shoot during same turn. 4. Don't do anything because it's a good meme.
Wow. As someone who tried creating an AW game many years ago, I had to look at damage charts. And this fact about missiles vs machine guns still completely went over me.
In Day's of Ruin Missile gain's the buff of +1 movement and +1 range, going to 5 movement and a 3-6 range. It still has tire movement, so they still have trouble getting around, but 6 range is pretty big, making it easier to have it hang around in the back and do it's job.
Great idea for a new series, think it would be even better with some graphics like your CO tier videos. Maybe give it a tier for some different stats like Movement, Damage, Versatility, etc? I think that'd really make this series (loved the detail put into preparing the units and map!)
4:15 That comes up more often than you would think. It's been many times where you have an enemy tank be at like 1 or 2 health. Using an AA for that means your normal tanks can attack something else.
On the topic of Missiles camping Airports, especially against the AI: The war room map Dire Range from Dual Strike seems to me to be a great map to try this out. I'd almost go so far as to say the mission was deliberately crafted to highlight this capability of Missiles. Three of the five airports that are easily available to the enemy have neat little nooks, isolated by water or mountain terrain, from which missiles can cover the airport, and the map has enough roads to let them get around. A couple of the sweet spots are even right next to bases. The mountainous terrain limits the utility of your anti-airs, and the AI tends to cover his airports with Anti-Airs to limit the ability of your own fighters to keep his air units suppressed, further spotlighting the niche of the Missile unit.
Yes, Missiles should be buffed. The buff should be to let the missiles move and fire. They would become much more viable against air units and worth the high cost.
Missiles are good if you play grit thanks to the extra range. Also if you are fighting in tigh area and can't get your anti-air on the frontline because it is blocked by other units. I agree that it is very situationnal but having a missile in the middle of your formation give both vision and air security. Also they are pretty good when guarding areas. basically you have to divert à bomber or a battle copter to take care of it, plus It can be hid in forest and you might just lost a bomber to it which is a 10000 credit worth trade + you are now applying mental pressure on your opponent about air unit assault. Most of it can indeed be done with an Anti-air, but you have to put your anti-air at risk to attack and might lose it the next turn, while your missile can stay hidden, you also need vision with the Anti-air while the missile provides himself.
Mangs, the point about missiles taking less MG fire compared to rockets, it doesn't seem like that's a thing on AWBW FOR INFANTRY, at least based on the DMG calculator on the website (in fact, the Missile is actually taking 1% MORE base dmg in most scenarios). It might not even be true for Mechs and Tanks over there, but idt there's currently a feature to test out secondary weapon DMG there. AA units seem to do identical DMG to both units, though that's technically not a machine gun, so it seems recons are the only beneficiary there.
I'll just tack this to a list of reasons I'm not a fan of AWBW. My main complaints initially were the lack of animations, the presence of com towers, bugs (once trapping two units on the same enemy unit) and that the maps are much less Mech friendly that the default VS maps of AW2. But every now and then I find something that makes me realize it's not a replica of my beloved AW2 and my heart sinks just a bit more. Like how you just told me the missiles tank more damage, which is something that isn't too relevant most of the time because you almost never build these things, but it's not making me happy.
The reason for the difference in machine gun damage between missiles and rockets is that rockets require personnel exterior the vehicle for targeting where as missiles are equipped with radar thus requiring no external personnel so all parts of the unit is protected via the armor of the vehicle.
i think the best way to buff missiles is to change their tire type, it would make them a bit easier to move on plains, cause plains are mostly what you're gonna see on maps
Missiles main issue is that it only has one sole function, and cannot really do anything else... If it, for example also could attack tanks or infantry, it definitely would be better, even if the damage would be pitiful otherwise...
That, combined with the fact that despite only being useful against air, it is only a niche use, it will lose outright against a battle copter or bomber 1v1.
Missles could either be cheaper, or get a complete function overhaul. Days of Ruin allowed battleships to move/fire in the same turn. What if missles could do a "Trap!" fire if any air units came into its range? (even if the unit costed $15k+) you would definitely see them a lot more for their threat but they'd run out of ammo quick, and force players to balance mobile AA guns or costly SAM sites. Maybe that's OP, who knows lol
I like this idea, makes it harder for the missile to get killed by the units it's supposed to be good against and justifies the missile's high price. I guess to balance it, you could limit it to certain number of trap fires per turn.
I guess what the developers were trying to do, was to make missiles work as a defense against bombers harassing factories? The low mobility is really weird compared to other units. And it doesn't make sense to say, that they did it to prevent players from locking out AI airports, since some campaign maps feel like they encourage that strategy.
I belive that missles should be buffed in movement rather than range since grit exists possibly with the movement of a recon its min range is already a death sentence and should be more forgiving by being able to move it away from danger
Advance wars randomizer which randomizes cos and their powers along with unit power, movement and movement type along with attack range would be crazy to watch.
So a lot of issues with the Missile is other units doing the same job better. Recons are more mobile and have the same vision, Anti-Air can also kill ground units, Fighters are better anti-aircraft units overall... The thing I wondered is, would the missile be interesting if it worked like some kind of Iron Dome? Imagine if, unlike with the Rocket, you didn't needed to use your turn to shoot with the missile, but instead, it was automatically attacking every enemy air unit entering its range as soon as they do? Maybe even blocking enemy indirects shots (as long as it has ammo to counterfire)? That would be broken, but we're talking about a rarely used unit, and it would remain weak to ground units anyways. I was just thinking to the technology they're using in Israel to destroy incoming rockets in mid-air the moment they're detected.
Add the auto fire (1 shot per turn ) and make the counterattack only work on other missles and that makes them really good during high income matches with lots of airports. Indirects are already a defensive unit type, so why not double down on that. Would add an interesting dynamic to air battles.
One reason that missiles might be less vulnerable to machine gun fire is that, unlike rocket / artillery, guided munitions are often built with some kind of engine involved. This makes them safer to store and handle. Dumbfire rockets, by contrast, are little more than giant fireworks. Once they ignite, that's it; they're going and they're not going to stop until they explode. There's no control mechanism to guide, so it's cost effective (and allows the firing of larger salvos for greater firepower) to build rockets with no off switch. The implication is that by spraying rocket units with machine gun fire, they're sparking the munitions while they're in the tubes to great effect.
Missiles seem overpowered because if you put them within range of an enemy Airport, you've basically closed it. No plane's getting out of that unscathed.
Who said playing Grit ain't viable If anything Missiles are better with Grit than any other CO, while Anti-air is useful, Missiles when overlaying one on top of another are more effective than Anti-air could ever hope to be I dunno, Indirects are fun man
Perhaps making missiles capable of move and shoot? Also, creating a strategic missile, costlier but it does auto attack any air unit that enters it's range
Funny thing is that I'd buff the Missile unit in a unique way if I could make my dream AW game. The Buffs: First off the Range would be increased from 3-5 to 2-5, removing that blind spot. Movement is something that I'd consider buffing as well. However the biggest change would be that it would now be able to target Cloaked air units. You'd still need to spot them, but the thing is that you'd now have a way to counter Stealth Fighters and the other two Stealth Aircraft that I'd introduce (in my dream AW game) without an Airport or Port. In fact it would be one of only two units capable of attacking Cloaked air units at range. The other being the Missile Ship, which would basically be a tankier naval version of it. It's part of the changes that I'd make to nerf the Stealth Fighter due to the lack of counters it has. Even at 12,000 Funds this would be pretty good because the Stealth Fighter costs 24,000 Funds, and the Stealth Bomber would cost 28,000 Funds, what a Battleship used to cost. Trivia: Originally it was going to be not very changed and I'd instead there would have the Anti-Stealth Missile unit, but I figured that was too redundant and merged it into the Missile unit and buffed it as a result. I know that some people won't care, but I've been sorting things out with it to have pretty organized gameplay stuff right now. Hell I have an idea on how I'd completely rework Jugger into something other than a Flack Clone gameplay wise that would still fit the unreliability of Jugger (he'd still be very bad, just in a different way). I've had a lot of fun coming up with ideas and what I'd do to the Missile unit is one of the more interesting ones.
I think their cost and damage is appropriate for its role, it’s the utter lack of flexibility because of bad movement and range against a class of unit that is very flexible by nature (air units) that feels out of whack to me. I wouldn’t take the AWR route of making them cheaper but I would increase their mov to 5/6 and widen their range from 3-5 to 2-6 same as AWDOR Missiles. Having 6 range especially is important so it doesn’t get humiliated by B. Copters that are 25% cheaper and can cross all the way outside its range to inside in a single turn without risking being fired upon.
another overlooked units by IS at the time considering SAM missiles are very effective in recent war. Could have option of increased range but rendering the unit immobile though the metagame will end up to be war of attrition in the end
Rewatching this video I though about something what if missiles could immediately fire on any air units that fly through its attack space. Though to balance this out its damage has to be cut by a third of what its supposed to whenever air units try to fly towards it or across it.
1:38 "... The Missile is a Ground to Air..." The proper terminology is a "Surface-to-Air-Missile", or SAM for short. Just felt that it would be cool to share that bit of info and give a heads up. I used to play a bunch of Ace Combat growing up, and still enjoy playing a few air combat games here and there. I've lost count of the times I've had encounters with SAMs on those, so that acronym has been ingrained into my mind. lol Also, I think I just realized a very tongue in cheek joke with the original Advance Wars games... everybody knows how Sami and Eagle were implied to have a thing for one another, right? I guess you could say Eagle got shot down by a... Sami. ... I'll see myself out for that one. I just couldn't resist. lol
Missiles should be deployed whenever you’re going with mostly artillery, or in locations where there’s a lot of mountains. Because anti air cannot drive on mountains. Also Battle copters are a good choice for countering enemy battle copters as long as you can get the first strike, because they can also take favorable engagements against tanks.
I guess they made recons deal less damage to missiles the same reason missiles have a large vision range: to make them more independent than other indirect units.
Can we have a video about the following topics: 1. Terrain 2. Vehicle types 3. Movement, types of unit movement (e.g tires, tracks etc.) and movement costs 4. Repairs costs and supplying costs for units and how to play economy wise in advance wars. 4.
I really enjoyed this video mr Mangs! Thank you for addressing the many problems I and others are having when playing AW. Thank you for starting this new series of explanation videos. The ‘Warsplained’ series if you will. Having said that, I haven’t played AW in a long while, studies and life have gotten in the way , but I always find the time to watch your AW videos even though I don’t always comment on them. Again, good luck on the new series, can’t wait for more!!! P.S. I don’t have a unit I want to recommend for the next video, do whatever unit you want, just make sure you cover all of them : )
What about just making them range 2-7? The can still be reached by a bomber, but the bc will see an effective counter. Keep the low defenses and the absurd mobility, but just with this increase, they would totally rock. Grit's would be a nightmare to Eagle.
When I made my custom CO with the 10% Firepower D2D bonus to Tires units I think I've been told that I basically picked the 3 worst units in the game to bonus up. Cover Bikes.
Missiles really strike me as "a unit they give the CPU to make you pay for poor positioning" rather than "a unit that's actually good and you should use." It's still slightly useful in Grit's hands, though.
@@EdKolis mechanized infantry, I guess intended to be loaded onto apcs due to their lower movement range. But maybe they do have they own gear to move better through mountains than regular infantry.
I think my balance for them would be to give plus one move and the ability to hit ground units but at a reduced rate from rockets. Something like the AA machine gun levels of damage. Good against infantry and enough to maybe take a hitpoimt or two from a tank.
I think if Missiles and Anti-Air had their cost swapped, they would both be much more spicy. Also, you would not believe how much money I wasted on these, I threw like 3 matches on accident when first getting into AWBW because I didn't know how to use these. Now, I feel like they work as a sort of trap, if you have a strong ground force that your opponent can't push through, positioning a missile to be protected by these troops as a way of saying "Don't send in that battle copter, it'll get wrecked" could be effective.
I feel like if they gave it the same buff they gave to the battleships in days of ruin, (The ability to fire after moving) it would increase the amount of missiles produced.
I just like to here your thoughts. Glad I found you throught the recent influx regarding the AW influx. Have a good time mangs. :) I think, if you like to continue the series in general, you might just go through the unit list from bottom to top and then go into the next building, like barracks - airport - harbor.
Missiles vs AI : *Get free kill every turn it's in range of airport, get 3 air units killed in a row in 1 map it's featured, beat AI's air unit to death if in correct position* Missiles vs Human : *Get oblirated by B-copters, Tank and even cheap & weak Infatry, treated as a joke and never build in most matches seriously unless there's forward airport Anti-Air can't take care of while Missile can*
Needs to be 3-6 range like DoR along with a vision increase of 1, and they could add some unique mechanic, like if the unit has been stationary for 1 whole turn, gains 1 minimum range (making it 2-6). I find the unit decently effective in fog, and can be great for shutting down enemy airports when the airport has surrounding terrain / is defendable by ground units because of the terrain. A good few AW by web maps have this, though actually building a missile in practice and bringing it there is a big investment and I've only done it a few times in my 100s of hours.
The Missile is just a bit too expensive and unwieldy to justify deploying one under most circumstances. For 4000 credits cheaper, you can get an Anti-Air which has far more utilities (even if there is no airborne threat) while being exponentially more versatile.
So would put them on treads but not change their movement range, just to give them that little bit of extra mobility on plains and forests, which I think would balance them out nicely and give you a little bit extra flexibility to get them into position. Also, I would create an anti-air Mech variant, that is an infantry armed with a MANPADS like FIM-92s for Orange Star and SA-25s for Blue Moon. They'd be called MPADS, cost 4000, have only one shot, inflict 100% base damage on copters and 60% base damage on planes, and the same mobility and defense as a Mech: the idea is that you would deploy one of these near your Missile, which would allow you to counter-attack against a Bomber or Helicopter that attacked your Missile unless your opponent invested in extra units to take out the MPADS unit as well. I think giving you a cheap option to defend your Missile that forced your opponent to either sacrifice a unit or invest extra would make Missiles a lot more economic.
Alright, this is my idea for the missile buff. Just make it produce black bombs ez. 🙃 Jokes aside though, the ideas that I have in mind were either to lower its price or increase its utility. If its stats remain the same I'd lower the price to 8000 rather than have it be at 12000. The utility changes I'd make for it to be relevant would be to give it higher speed, DoR Battleship buff, and/or give it a secondary weapon so that it can fight back (to some extent) if it gets hit by a direct unit. I'd honestly give it 2 of the buffs that I listed if this game got a "patch".
What do you guys think about missiles? And what unit would you like to see me cover next?
Building a missile at any point has got to be the biggest mistake of any match
Recons
Pipe runner
Just ppl make anti airs
what about crusiers?
Day 5 : helicopter sighted
Day 59 : missile is in position to counter the copter
The funniest thing is that by then the copter will have crashed from running out of fuel.
@@ZorotheGallade Missile: "Helicopter destroyed, mission accomplished!"
@@michaeledmunds7056 "My job here is done."
"But you didn't do anything."
Day 59.5: anti air unit countered; target it was meant to destroy is too close, and Everytime we move it just moves into our deadspace and mocks us at night
Day 60: Hawke's super is finally ready
Easily the greatest weakness is the horrid movement. The main advantage to missiles is shooting areas anti-air can't reach. But a missile is never going to get anywhere not within a few tiles of a factory.
Laughs in Sturm
Worse still, its low movement is both mechanically and narratively contrary to the "Tires" movement type. Disclaimer: I'm a bit of a realism whore; So, in our world, wheeled vehicles are generally favored for their superior mobility; especially over roads. Treads are used because they reduce a vehicle's ground pressure and make them more stable on rough terrain at the cost of speed and fuel efficiency. Arguably, this is reflected in some of the advantages of Tanks in game, but aside from Recon, Tired vehicles (basically Rockets and Missiles) end up taking a double whammy by being both needlessly slow and unsuited to rough terrain.
to me
while movement is also a problem
its range is an issue in itself too
for something that is meant to take down the most mobile units, it has terrible range
I mean 5 tiles
even a copter can go from the outside ring to the inner ring easily, you could say the same for a rocket and a tank
you could
but unlike Terrain units, an Air unit ignores terrain obstacles and thus you cannot put the missile behind a mountain or anything (besides forest in fog games) to cover fire unlike a rocket being behind a wall of mountain or a river against a tank
the Carrier at the very least despite being such a meme with 28k fund cost
at least has a slightly more air oppressive range as they should
a missile hardly oppress Air combatants
@@blazingkite8983
Missiles are good for one thing, though. They offer a good, cheap way to defend Island bases if you cannot afford a cruiser yet. Not only that, but if you pair them with an AA or two, 9/10 times, nobody will chance trying to attack them with air units. The would be crazy to risk losing two chopper units at 9k each (18k total) to destroy something worth 12k.
And like Mangs said in the video, if you can set up one or two around an airport, you have effectively locked it down, and if set up in a known aircraft route, they provide a large area of denial to your enemy. Just be sure to provide 2-3 infantry, mixed with AA support and the occasional tank to provide a shield around it.
They are definitely a very niche unit, but they do serve their purpose well. Not as good as they could, but far from horrible.
@@blazingkite8983 this is proven by the fact DoR not only gave the missile 5 movement. But also gave it 6 range.
So this is kinda like the "are they worth it?" series but going deeper into the unit itself?
13:12 he said the lines
I'll be guessing Mangs will talk about a Cruiser's removed ability and its animation.
In Advance Wars Returns, Missiles is 10k and has the movement of six.
Fully expect to see him showing off a cruiser carrying two loaded transport helicopters and refueling them.
@@davidmcgill1000 does it resupply the mechs in it as well?
@@SukacitaYeremia Just checked. It will also supply ammo to battle copters but not to transported mechs.
I actually forgot about that !
What i did not forgot on the other hand is battleship being able to shoot after moving in days of ruin/dark conflict. and carrier becoming direct unit.
So what this video taught me was that missile-chan is strong against recon-chan
UwU
Missiles are great, when the Campaign gives them to me for free! :)
Literally just said the same thing multiple times 😂 Quite literally, the ONLY time I have ever owned this unit was when it was given to me for free to fight a massive air squad stupid enough to just run into me.
Imo the worst thing about missiles is the fact that the units they're supposed to counter can counter the missile itself. There is no air unit who can't get into a missiles's safespot.
I think you should do all the units, from infantry all the way up. There's a lot to talk about, even (or especially) with infantry.
You sure you're talking about missile and not about FE archers?
@@joshy541 Hey, at least in some FE game archer are usefull or even broken
That's just kinda an advantage of most air units, namely the BCopters (except against AA, it can hit Cruisers and Missiles hard) and the Bomber (destroys all 3: AA, Cruisers, and Missiles if it gets the first hit). It's why air units are so good. Fighters, outside of dogfights (in which case, first strike generally wins), are obviously an exception as it can't hit any of those units to begin with (and needless to say but TCopters too but they're not a battle unit).
Also yeah, I'd so be down for every single unit, maybe skipping Neo/Megatanks since those were already covered.
Infantry caps and is only effective vs other infantry, not much to talk about tbh. Theres plenty of strategy with how to use infantry but thats a matter of playstyle and skill
@@LopsidedMoz There is a lot to talk about infantry.
Damage it take, how to place them, why they are so important
The way you built the map so you could do everything in one take was very impressive. Just using the game's own tools and mechanics to demonstrate the points without compromises, well done.
I know right?
Long story short: tires are garbage. Giving treads to anti-air and artillery instantly makes them preferable over rockets and missiles for getting to engagements.
Decent for punishing anything that wanders into/gets baited into its range. As long as the missiles don't have to move they do their job: threatening air units into not attacking, or forcing a direct push toward it.
@@kirbyis4ever Two problems. 1 - Anti Air still do that for less money. 2 - Anti Air are faster.
@@meathir4921 AA can also fight back against ground troops, copters, and even do some damage to tanks in a pinch. Yeah, missiles kinda suck, but aircraft are also expensive and missiles will cripple or kill without having to move into danger. Map layout matters a lot
@@kirbyis4ever Yeah, but I feel missiles just suck outright in a PvP map...
@@kirbyis4ever They are slow and expensive though, plus they need protection. Even when playing as Grit I rarely use missiles
One change that would make missiles useful: if they don't fire on their turn, they automatically fire on the first enemy air unit to enter their area of effect.
Sounds like the point defense cannons from Space Empires IV...
Yeah, that's how real life missiles works
@@richard35791But does the missile know where it is because it knows where it isn't?
Wouls they fire if the unit ends its turn in range of the missile or if it just enters the range at all?
Sounds kinda op in fog, specially since air units can't hide on woods and missiles have 5 vision
The Wargroove counterpart to the Missile is interesting, the Ballista. It has more range, greater mobility from what remember, and can also fire on ground units and properties for chip damage. While this damage isn't very high, it adds up. (I've seen Commanders put into kill range by Ballistas before) It covers a wider area for air denial while having secondary utility. It's cheaper than its AW counterpart too.
Yes! the Ballista is certainly a big improvement over the Missile
Sadly, it's still viewed as a waste of money compared to the nerfed trebuchet.
They are also kawaii af, so they are less likely to be targeted by any player with a soul.
Why would you say something so brave but so true.
KILL ALL TROOPS MURDER ALL TROOPS SLAUGHTER ALL TROOPS
Given the fact that this is a game where you have "war for fun", I don't think souls are a commodity here :3
Wild CopperCab appeared!
Ultimate Gamer used Missiles!
It's not very effective...
wtf ur saying these things are soo bloody satisfying to blast out existance and know yours air armada is safe now
This mini-series is like the False Swipe Gaming of Advance Wars, and I love it
How good were Missiles Actually?
I think the concept of Missiles is neat. Having a kind of zone of anti air protection. Especially one that can reach into mountains, sea and other places that AA can't go. It's generally horribly overcosted though, and it's abysmal mobility means it can't even get into position to do it's job well. They treated it like a counterpart to rockets, but it's not at all in the same spot. The boosted range from Days of Ruin did a lot to make it actually effective at deterring air power, but the price and mobility still needed improvement for it to be a worthwhile investment.
The biggest issue with them is how while they function like rockets their target units are incredibly mobile and pack a big punch so you have to invest heavily to protect them when you could just use AA guns for half the cost more def and mobility
@@chilwil07 I mean, the main edge that an indirect anti air option has is in heavy terrain. If the air units are able to zip around through mountains, forests and rivers, picking at your forces while your AA gets stuck in the terrain, the missile should be an effective deterrent instead. But missiles are too expensive to get out early and too immobile to actually get into position in a heavy terrain area. The boosted missile range of DoR actually made them pretty intimidating to try and approach if they were in a mix of other ground vehicles. You just only got to see this in effect on predeploy maps since they still weren't worth building.
I think it's beyond worthwhile in Days of Ruin because the AI is smarter. You can use it to keep air units away from your army. And the extra range means that it's much easier to slowly move it forward and eventually block an airport.
I'd say they're really worth it in Days of Ruin, specially on maps with a lot of air units (which is like most of them)
@@chilwil07 Just leave it in the middle of your army, bro. Around mid-game in the Days of Ruin campaign you usually have a sizable number of units. If you position them right, you can easily protect the missiles and the air units have no choice but to stay away.
@@gogobrasil7185 Campaign value is fairly different from pvp value, you know? I do think they are drastically better in DoR than other games because of their boosted range, but I'd still rarely build them if I had the option of AA + Fighters/dusters/copter. Pvp wise I would still boost their mobility a fair bit and maybe shave off their price a tad if I wanted to see them have any usage.
There are a couple missions in the campaign that kind of demand missiles though. I remember one where you have to slowly crawl though a long line of enemy indirect, heavy terrain impediments and hordes of enemy air units. On that map, missile were worth gold.
"Just do whatever Grit does in fog of war missions: Deploy missiles to help you see better!"
-Hachi
In all seriousness, I really wish some units had more prevalence, particularly battleships and missiles.
Days of ruin is your boy.
So fucking true Days of ruin and the battleship land supremacy
@@thomasquesada7248 also arty and rockets in it having 3 vision
@@caellanmurphy4751 Rockets and Artillery having bad vision makes no sense since the unit has a spotter during their attack animations.
@@mauricesteel4995 The Spotter is only there to see if the rockets/missiles/shells hit I think. Those vehicles should have electronics like radar to "see" what is around them, but it seems like visual confirmation is still necessary. I think.
For some godforsaken reason Missiles are my favorite unit. Something about using them is extremely satisfying. Huge vision, good range, and absolutely obscene power. It's totally garbage in any serious PVP game (usually) but there's something so ridiculously fun about just annihilating everything in one hit.
Of course in reality air units just fly around it or get within its minimum range. But still, super cool unit!
Missiles should have the same defense against air units that Anti-air have. If it took a battle copter 3 turns to kill a missile, it might actually become viable to build them.
That would be pointless, they are already weak enough to tanks
Well Mags, I won't lie, I remember complaining frequently about the Missiles' lack of mobility since they had both only 4 movement and had the movement type of tires. If I were to buff the missiles, I would do so by either changing the movement type to track (still keeping the 4 movement space) so it can at least be easier to get it into position or by increasing the movement from 4 to 5, while keeping the movement type of tires. If either buff does not seem to work, I would pick one of the buffs previously mentioned and then add in an increase of range of 1 tile (as done in Days of Ruin) to least have the missile be more useful at zoning out the air units because missile units have always been so satisfying to see in action (when it finally hits their targets) in my opinion.
Yes, more range is the first thing coming to my mind because air units tend to have a lot of movement, so you need range to counter that.
@@mavairick agreed. they did this to the carrier in duel strike at least so it was made a threat to all air units but the stealth fighter. you wouldnt dare approach one with copters or even a bomber because your likely not clearing its high range safely. though 30K is a huge sum lol. shame the carrier didnt exist in black hole rising. wouldve spiced up air to sea battles more. I feel ships were too exposed to air units in this game because the cruiser also doesnt do its job well much like missiles lol. so yeah missiles I think needed like at least 7 max range to keep at least copters staying away from it.
Or you can keep everything about the missile but change the game completely by allowing missiles to move and shoot.
@@Jamieboi1989 problem with carriers is that they are just far to expensive for what?
Anti air that can resupply air units?
Litteraly a black boat could do that but better
In days of ruin the carriers are just so fun to play
I like that it can create air units, resupply them and repair them and it also holds 2
With the aded ability that it can protect your planes and make them shoot safely because when you unload an air unit it still gets to attack
@@stevengu1253 Allowing an indirect unit to move and shoot like they did with the battleship is actually a big change. but the thing is, if you move out of cover to attck then you expose yourself, which lesser the effectiveness of mental pressure, knowing they is an indirect threatening you is different from seeing it.
I would prefer if missiles were MUCH cheaper and more mobile, but have somewhat reduced firepower. I think most players would be happy if a full health missile brings down a bomber to 3 HP, but actually gets to shoot bombers.
Maybe a cost of 10,000
nah, days of ruin missiles are enough TBH.
1 increased range are enough to make missiles viable
In Super Famicom Wars there is the Anti Air equivalent of the artillery called the Flak Gun (in the latest fan translation), so cheaper and less range. I found them somewhat useful against the AI especially battle copters.
@@estepeadr12345 DOR also increased the mobility to 5.
As someone who loves strategy games but just found out about this game from the Direct announcement, I'm all for this series!
More, please ^_^
I literally love this guy. He revived and reviews one of my favorite game of my childhood, which not many people know about. And he is also so accurate about it! Loving it Mangs!
I really like these scripted Advance Wars videos. Keep them coming!
Missiles are really good on Days of Ruin. Not only do they have increased range (which makes a lot of difference), the AI also responds to it, so you can use it to keep air units away. So you deploy one in the middle of your army, block its minimum range with units, and now air units aren't a problem anymore. You can protect your valuable units like medium tanks and rockets and you can buy yourself time to build fighters and dusters to counter-attack.
So it contributes to what I think is the most enjoyable air combat meta in the series. There's a lot more strategy.
The Missile also got +1 movement in Days of Ruin, while it still didn't make them very mobile by any means any little bit helps to get them into position
It justified more its price in Days of Ruin. For the reboot, if they don't want to change missiles, they should at least make them cheaper, like 10K.
If only missiles behave like the patriot missile from Daisenryaku where it will intercept ANY flying unit that flies to it's attack range, it is insane for clearing and protecting airspace.
Also in Daisen, vehicle with tire type movement will get movement boost when moving on roads, which make them still useful on map with many roads
Looking at Missile's stats it's no surprise, that it's usfulness mostly grows in FoW scenarios. But let's be thankful that they can actually pass through forest tiles unlike Famicom and Super Famicom Wars.
The only buff the missiles need is better mobility. Either 8 move or treads at 5 move. Tires at 4 for a dedicated AA unit is bonkers
Dor gave them +1 range.
Honestly, I wouldn't increase their maximum range...But I would make their minimum range better, give them a 2-5 range to make them riskier for air units to attack.
There was actually a unit in Super Famicom Wars that got completely removed from future games, the AA Cannon, that was basically just an anti-air artillery unit. It almost never saw play because of how fast Air units are combined with the low-range, even though the price was the lowest of all indirects, so giving modern rockets the singular advantage it had, the 2 minimum range, seems like a good idea. It's not a huge buff, but it would help.
Still needs a big buff to movement, though.
@@shiftfire4511 Sounds sorta like the Anti-tank from DoR, except the AT is fairly versatile.
@@shiftfire4511 You have to be careful cutting down the minimum range. You don''t want missiles to invincible to air or some maps become unplayable
Since it's the only one of its kind¹, they should have a closer minimum range, at 2~5. That would make them much more reliable, plus an extra movement is also welcome. 4 movement for an expensive *vehicle* is too little. 5 would be just right.
¹(ground indirects have a short (arty) and long (rockets) ranged units. But surface-to-air only has the missiles)
Days of Ruins' version would be what you're looking for; it has 2~6 range, and 5 movement like the Rocket.
@@LeoMidori days is 3-6 but yeah that 1 move helps alot
funfact in super famicom wars theres a UNIT called FLAK which is basically a ARTY VERSION of the missiles
Going through this series again! Very good guides honestly. With a lot of cool trivia!
Mangs you should definitely do more of these, alongside separate guides for DoR. I think that would be cool.
Missiles are extremely hard to get trapped due to their overlapping movement and vision, the only way to trap one in AW is to move it into a forest one tile away from it that is connected by a road tile.
A cool addition to this series would be to, at the end, do a section on how to balance a unit (buffs if unit is bad or nerfs if unit is OP or an assessment of why unit is balanced if it is). I know you touched on it briefly but Id personally like to hear more of what you think.
For missiles I think a cost drop plus either improved range (2-6) or improved mobility (5 movement on treads) would help a lot. Tires just suck unless a unit has crazy high movement like recons.
Idea for an Advance Wars trivia video, a lot of the army variants of units and mech weapons are based on real world military hardware often used by the nations they are flavored after. For example the Orange Star Mech heavy weapon is based on the M20A1B1 Super Bazooka the Americans used in WW2 while Blue Moon's is based on the Russian RPG-7 rocket propelled grenade launcher. I think it would be cool if (after doing the research) you could explain the origins of the allied nations variants (Black Hole's are supposed to be high tech and alien looking so there are no real world origins there.
Missiles are a lot more useful in fog of war for surprise attacks from forests. They have a lot of vision range as well. In a normal match they rarely ever get to hit anything because air units can easily skip past their attack range. Unless you group a bunch of them together, they serve as nothing more than a minor deterrent. But by the time you have the money to buy them in bulk you're probably about to win the match anyways.
11:30 the reason is very simple. A missile doesn't require human operator whereas a rocket does. So machine gun hurts rocket more than hurts missile. It kill the people driving and aiming the rocket.
Very specific case for missiles. In 1 vs 10+ players missiles can be better than AAs later on for the team with multiple players for the fact that they are going to have a unit number advantage once the limit is hit on everyone and also because they are going to have less funds per player compared to the solo player so sacking AAs forever to get rid of air units will get expensive compared to setting up some missiles to cover your wall of units. So basically since the multiple player team wants to stall to get better units and unit count you'll be prioritizing infantry, indirect and stealths to stall until funds become a non issue for building units for pushing
Mangs weeks later:
"I've come to appreciate the missiles."
It wasn't actually biggest mistake of the match.
I love the thumbnails for this series
Personally, I think they should've thought back to how Super Famicom Wars did it. In that game, you had Anti-Air, Flak Cannons, and Missiles. Each operating as basically an anti-aerial counterpart to Tank, Artillery and Rockets. The Flak Cannon in particular was a wonderful unit, thanks to it being on treads, and since it was indirect/anti-air; it actually fared decently well against Bombers and Copters, since they were easy to position, and strong if positioned well. The Missiles are slow, but they are designed to be, since the general idea, is you would have a few Flaks and Anti-Air on the field to cover them while they move into position.
For whatever reason, Advance Wars did away with the Flak Cannon, as I guess they felt it was redundant. But in doing so, it left a massive hole in the Anti-Air counterplay; which is why Air Units in Advance Wars reign supreme so well. Having that extra coverage made it a bit trickier to use Aircraft in Super Famicom Wars; even if you had access to the all around Striker to help out.
The machine gun resistance may be because the missile base vehicle looks like some kind of APC but the rockets looks like it's just a flatbed truck
Things they could do:
1. increase movement to 6.
2. allow it to shoot on direct units with greatly reduced damage.
3. Keep all the same but allow to shoot during same turn.
4. Don't do anything because it's a good meme.
Title should be:
Unit Review:~Missile Chan~
Missiles should have 5 movement and treads. That would allow them to get into position and fire away behind your wall of units
Wow. As someone who tried creating an AW game many years ago, I had to look at damage charts. And this fact about missiles vs machine guns still completely went over me.
In Day's of Ruin Missile gain's the buff of +1 movement and +1 range, going to 5 movement and a 3-6 range. It still has tire movement, so they still have trouble getting around, but 6 range is pretty big, making it easier to have it hang around in the back and do it's job.
Great idea for a new series, think it would be even better with some graphics like your CO tier videos. Maybe give it a tier for some different stats like Movement, Damage, Versatility, etc? I think that'd really make this series (loved the detail put into preparing the units and map!)
4:15
That comes up more often than you would think. It's been many times where you have an enemy tank be at like 1 or 2 health. Using an AA for that means your normal tanks can attack something else.
On the topic of Missiles camping Airports, especially against the AI: The war room map Dire Range from Dual Strike seems to me to be a great map to try this out. I'd almost go so far as to say the mission was deliberately crafted to highlight this capability of Missiles. Three of the five airports that are easily available to the enemy have neat little nooks, isolated by water or mountain terrain, from which missiles can cover the airport, and the map has enough roads to let them get around. A couple of the sweet spots are even right next to bases. The mountainous terrain limits the utility of your anti-airs, and the AI tends to cover his airports with Anti-Airs to limit the ability of your own fighters to keep his air units suppressed, further spotlighting the niche of the Missile unit.
Reasons missiles are worth it:
1. You don't need to Gacha for them
2. They cute
3. 0:55-0:57
Yes, Missiles should be buffed. The buff should be to let the missiles move and fire. They would become much more viable against air units and worth the high cost.
Missiles are good if you play grit thanks to the extra range.
Also if you are fighting in tigh area and can't get your anti-air on the frontline because it is blocked by other units.
I agree that it is very situationnal but having a missile in the middle of your formation give both vision and air security.
Also they are pretty good when guarding areas. basically you have to divert à bomber or a battle copter to take care of it, plus It can be hid in forest and you might just lost a bomber to it which is a 10000 credit worth trade + you are now applying mental pressure on your opponent about air unit assault. Most of it can indeed be done with an Anti-air, but you have to put your anti-air at risk to attack and might lose it the next turn, while your missile can stay hidden, you also need vision with the Anti-air while the missile provides himself.
Mangs, the point about missiles taking less MG fire compared to rockets, it doesn't seem like that's a thing on AWBW FOR INFANTRY, at least based on the DMG calculator on the website (in fact, the Missile is actually taking 1% MORE base dmg in most scenarios).
It might not even be true for Mechs and Tanks over there, but idt there's currently a feature to test out secondary weapon DMG there.
AA units seem to do identical DMG to both units, though that's technically not a machine gun, so it seems recons are the only beneficiary there.
I'll just tack this to a list of reasons I'm not a fan of AWBW. My main complaints initially were the lack of animations, the presence of com towers, bugs (once trapping two units on the same enemy unit) and that the maps are much less Mech friendly that the default VS maps of AW2. But every now and then I find something that makes me realize it's not a replica of my beloved AW2 and my heart sinks just a bit more. Like how you just told me the missiles tank more damage, which is something that isn't too relevant most of the time because you almost never build these things, but it's not making me happy.
The reason for the difference in machine gun damage between missiles and rockets is that rockets require personnel exterior the vehicle for targeting where as missiles are equipped with radar thus requiring no external personnel so all parts of the unit is protected via the armor of the vehicle.
I thought missiles were much better in Days of Ruin, because they had extra max range as well as a lot more places to hide your units in.
Hi Steve!
i think the best way to buff missiles is to change their tire type, it would make them a bit easier to move on plains, cause plains are mostly what you're gonna see on maps
Missiles main issue is that it only has one sole function, and cannot really do anything else... If it, for example also could attack tanks or infantry, it definitely would be better, even if the damage would be pitiful otherwise...
That, combined with the fact that despite only being useful against air, it is only a niche use, it will lose outright against a battle copter or bomber 1v1.
Missles could either be cheaper, or get a complete function overhaul. Days of Ruin allowed battleships to move/fire in the same turn. What if missles could do a "Trap!" fire if any air units came into its range? (even if the unit costed $15k+) you would definitely see them a lot more for their threat but they'd run out of ammo quick, and force players to balance mobile AA guns or costly SAM sites. Maybe that's OP, who knows lol
I like this idea, makes it harder for the missile to get killed by the units it's supposed to be good against and justifies the missile's high price. I guess to balance it, you could limit it to certain number of trap fires per turn.
I guess what the developers were trying to do, was to make missiles work as a defense against bombers harassing factories? The low mobility is really weird compared to other units. And it doesn't make sense to say, that they did it to prevent players from locking out AI airports, since some campaign maps feel like they encourage that strategy.
I would enjoy a CO with a passive that lets missiles attack ground targets at reduced damage. Or rhe reduced cost to 10k would be nice.
Pretty sure we got several of those in the custom CO contest!
@@Mangs1337 that sounds awesome!
@@Mangs1337 oh boy cant wait to see those next stream. Weve been spoon fed like five at a time to prevent burnout but now im itching for more XD
It's funny how in real life that missiles are crazy strong AA compared to other types of AA.
I belive that missles should be buffed in movement rather than range since grit exists possibly with the movement of a recon its min range is already a death sentence and should be more forgiving by being able to move it away from danger
days of ruin gave it 1 extra movement
Advance wars randomizer which randomizes cos and their powers along with unit power, movement and movement type along with attack range would be crazy to watch.
So a lot of issues with the Missile is other units doing the same job better. Recons are more mobile and have the same vision, Anti-Air can also kill ground units, Fighters are better anti-aircraft units overall...
The thing I wondered is, would the missile be interesting if it worked like some kind of Iron Dome? Imagine if, unlike with the Rocket, you didn't needed to use your turn to shoot with the missile, but instead, it was automatically attacking every enemy air unit entering its range as soon as they do? Maybe even blocking enemy indirects shots (as long as it has ammo to counterfire)? That would be broken, but we're talking about a rarely used unit, and it would remain weak to ground units anyways. I was just thinking to the technology they're using in Israel to destroy incoming rockets in mid-air the moment they're detected.
Add the auto fire (1 shot per turn ) and make the counterattack only work on other missles and that makes them really good during high income matches with lots of airports. Indirects are already a defensive unit type, so why not double down on that. Would add an interesting dynamic to air battles.
One reason that missiles might be less vulnerable to machine gun fire is that, unlike rocket / artillery, guided munitions are often built with some kind of engine involved. This makes them safer to store and handle. Dumbfire rockets, by contrast, are little more than giant fireworks. Once they ignite, that's it; they're going and they're not going to stop until they explode. There's no control mechanism to guide, so it's cost effective (and allows the firing of larger salvos for greater firepower) to build rockets with no off switch.
The implication is that by spraying rocket units with machine gun fire, they're sparking the munitions while they're in the tubes to great effect.
Missiles seem overpowered because if you put them within range of an enemy Airport, you've basically closed it.
No plane's getting out of that unscathed.
if
New series moment
Who said playing Grit ain't viable
If anything Missiles are better with Grit than any other CO, while Anti-air is useful, Missiles when overlaying one on top of another are more effective than Anti-air could ever hope to be
I dunno, Indirects are fun man
Perhaps making missiles capable of move and shoot?
Also, creating a strategic missile, costlier but it does auto attack any air unit that enters it's range
Funny thing is that I'd buff the Missile unit in a unique way if I could make my dream AW game.
The Buffs:
First off the Range would be increased from 3-5 to 2-5, removing that blind spot.
Movement is something that I'd consider buffing as well.
However the biggest change would be that it would now be able to target Cloaked air units.
You'd still need to spot them, but the thing is that you'd now have a way to counter Stealth Fighters and the other two Stealth Aircraft that I'd introduce (in my dream AW game) without an Airport or Port. In fact it would be one of only two units capable of attacking Cloaked air units at range. The other being the Missile Ship, which would basically be a tankier naval version of it. It's part of the changes that I'd make to nerf the Stealth Fighter due to the lack of counters it has.
Even at 12,000 Funds this would be pretty good because the Stealth Fighter costs 24,000 Funds, and the Stealth Bomber would cost 28,000 Funds, what a Battleship used to cost.
Trivia:
Originally it was going to be not very changed and I'd instead there would have the Anti-Stealth Missile unit, but I figured that was too redundant and merged it into the Missile unit and buffed it as a result.
I know that some people won't care, but I've been sorting things out with it to have pretty organized gameplay stuff right now. Hell I have an idea on how I'd completely rework Jugger into something other than a Flack Clone gameplay wise that would still fit the unreliability of Jugger (he'd still be very bad, just in a different way).
I've had a lot of fun coming up with ideas and what I'd do to the Missile unit is one of the more interesting ones.
I think their cost and damage is appropriate for its role, it’s the utter lack of flexibility because of bad movement and range against a class of unit that is very flexible by nature (air units) that feels out of whack to me. I wouldn’t take the AWR route of making them cheaper but I would increase their mov to 5/6 and widen their range from 3-5 to 2-6 same as AWDOR Missiles.
Having 6 range especially is important so it doesn’t get humiliated by B. Copters that are 25% cheaper and can cross all the way outside its range to inside in a single turn without risking being fired upon.
another overlooked units by IS at the time considering SAM missiles are very effective in recent war. Could have option of increased range but rendering the unit immobile though the metagame will end up to be war of attrition in the end
Rewatching this video I though about something what if missiles could immediately fire on any air units that fly through its attack space. Though to balance this out its damage has to be cut by a third of what its supposed to whenever air units try to fly towards it or across it.
Perhaps a small buff like +1 move would be justified but I actually kinda prefer it being an obscure weird unit that shows up only sometimes.
1:38
"... The Missile is a Ground to Air..."
The proper terminology is a "Surface-to-Air-Missile", or SAM for short.
Just felt that it would be cool to share that bit of info and give a heads up. I used to play a bunch of Ace Combat growing up, and still enjoy playing a few air combat games here and there. I've lost count of the times I've had encounters with SAMs on those, so that acronym has been ingrained into my mind. lol
Also, I think I just realized a very tongue in cheek joke with the original Advance Wars games... everybody knows how Sami and Eagle were implied to have a thing for one another, right? I guess you could say Eagle got shot down by a... Sami.
... I'll see myself out for that one. I just couldn't resist. lol
All of this analysis is wrong... because Missiles are hecking cute and valid.
My base for this is Missile Chan. She's cute & valid.
Missiles should be deployed whenever you’re going with mostly artillery, or in locations where there’s a lot of mountains. Because anti air cannot drive on mountains. Also Battle copters are a good choice for countering enemy battle copters as long as you can get the first strike, because they can also take favorable engagements against tanks.
I would love to hear mangs thoughts on the aircraft carrier unit
Someday we’ll get to infantry and you’ll tell us they’re trash. 10/10, will build again.
oh boy i cant wait to see every unit until reboot camp releases
I guess they made recons deal less damage to missiles the same reason missiles have a large vision range: to make them more independent than other indirect units.
Wish we had the source code for these old games, who knows what we'd find.
Where we have it for Pokémon red & blue, there is a chance.
if I were to rebalance missile, price is fine but get movespeed to 6 and get 3-6 range would be better
Can we have a video about the following topics:
1. Terrain
2. Vehicle types
3. Movement, types of unit movement (e.g tires, tracks etc.) and movement costs
4. Repairs costs and supplying costs for units and how to play economy wise in advance wars.
4.
I really enjoyed this video mr Mangs! Thank you for addressing the many problems I and others are having when playing AW. Thank you for starting this new series of explanation videos. The ‘Warsplained’ series if you will.
Having said that, I haven’t played AW in a long while, studies and life have gotten in the way , but I always find the time to watch your AW videos even though I don’t always comment on them.
Again, good luck on the new series, can’t wait for more!!!
P.S. I don’t have a unit I want to recommend for the next video, do whatever unit you want, just make sure you cover all of them : )
What about just making them range 2-7? The can still be reached by a bomber, but the bc will see an effective counter. Keep the low defenses and the absurd mobility, but just with this increase, they would totally rock.
Grit's would be a nightmare to Eagle.
When I made my custom CO with the 10% Firepower D2D bonus to Tires units I think I've been told that I basically picked the 3 worst units in the game to bonus up.
Cover Bikes.
I’m looking forward to this new series where Mangs educates everyone while Nell’s Theme is playing basically doing her job for her lol.
mangs for orange stars new intel based CO lol 🤣
@@Jamieboi1989
Y E S
Missiles really strike me as "a unit they give the CPU to make you pay for poor positioning" rather than "a unit that's actually good and you should use."
It's still slightly useful in Grit's hands, though.
OMG I remember making a comment about this! I’m glad I contributed to making a new series!
Mech are always known to be underrated, it'd be nice to see why but in more depth.
I just want to know why they're called mechs when they aren't robots and don't have vehicles...
@@EdKolis mechanized infantry, I guess intended to be loaded onto apcs due to their lower movement range. But maybe they do have they own gear to move better through mountains than regular infantry.
I would definitely lower their cost. Then give them 1 more move and improve their minimum range.
I think my balance for them would be to give plus one move and the ability to hit ground units but at a reduced rate from rockets. Something like the AA machine gun levels of damage. Good against infantry and enough to maybe take a hitpoimt or two from a tank.
I think if Missiles and Anti-Air had their cost swapped, they would both be much more spicy.
Also, you would not believe how much money I wasted on these, I threw like 3 matches on accident when first getting into AWBW because I didn't know how to use these. Now, I feel like they work as a sort of trap, if you have a strong ground force that your opponent can't push through, positioning a missile to be protected by these troops as a way of saying "Don't send in that battle copter, it'll get wrecked" could be effective.
I feel like if they gave it the same buff they gave to the battleships in days of ruin, (The ability to fire after moving) it would increase the amount of missiles produced.
I just like to here your thoughts. Glad I found you throught the recent influx regarding the AW influx.
Have a good time mangs. :)
I think, if you like to continue the series in general, you might just go through the unit list from bottom to top and then go into the next building, like barracks - airport - harbor.
Missiles vs AI : *Get free kill every turn it's in range of airport, get 3 air units killed in a row in 1 map it's featured, beat AI's air unit to death if in correct position*
Missiles vs Human : *Get oblirated by B-copters, Tank and even cheap & weak Infatry, treated as a joke and never build in most matches seriously unless there's forward airport Anti-Air can't take care of while Missile can*
Needs to be 3-6 range like DoR along with a vision increase of 1, and they could add some unique mechanic, like if the unit has been stationary for 1 whole turn, gains 1 minimum range (making it 2-6).
I find the unit decently effective in fog, and can be great for shutting down enemy airports when the airport has surrounding terrain / is defendable by ground units because of the terrain. A good few AW by web maps have this, though actually building a missile in practice and bringing it there is a big investment and I've only done it a few times in my 100s of hours.
The Missile is just a bit too expensive and unwieldy to justify deploying one under most circumstances. For 4000 credits cheaper, you can get an Anti-Air which has far more utilities (even if there is no airborne threat) while being exponentially more versatile.
So would put them on treads but not change their movement range, just to give them that little bit of extra mobility on plains and forests, which I think would balance them out nicely and give you a little bit extra flexibility to get them into position. Also, I would create an anti-air Mech variant, that is an infantry armed with a MANPADS like FIM-92s for Orange Star and SA-25s for Blue Moon. They'd be called MPADS, cost 4000, have only one shot, inflict 100% base damage on copters and 60% base damage on planes, and the same mobility and defense as a Mech: the idea is that you would deploy one of these near your Missile, which would allow you to counter-attack against a Bomber or Helicopter that attacked your Missile unless your opponent invested in extra units to take out the MPADS unit as well. I think giving you a cheap option to defend your Missile that forced your opponent to either sacrifice a unit or invest extra would make Missiles a lot more economic.
The “is it Worth it?” Squad, WHERE U AT?
Alright, this is my idea for the missile buff.
Just make it produce black bombs ez.
🙃
Jokes aside though, the ideas that I have in mind were either to lower its price or increase its utility.
If its stats remain the same I'd lower the price to 8000 rather than have it be at 12000.
The utility changes I'd make for it to be relevant would be to give it higher speed, DoR Battleship buff, and/or give it a secondary weapon so that it can fight back (to some extent) if it gets hit by a direct unit. I'd honestly give it 2 of the buffs that I listed if this game got a "patch".