I Want To Create My Own Advance Wars Game
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 3 окт 2024
- ▶️ Watch More • High Quality Advance W...
🎥 Join Me: / @mangs1337
🎮 Twitch: tinyurl.com/ha7...
💰 Patreon: tinyurl.com/m23...
----
⏰Timestamps⏰
I Want To Create My Own Advance Wars Game
#switch #advancewars #nintendo
There are a lot of developers in this community (including myself) who would be interested in working on a project like this, but there are some things you would need to nail down pretty early in the process if you wanted to seriously get people onboard.
1) Definitive requirements and a design document. What platforms does this thing need to run on, what kind of crossplay multiplayer modes will it need to support, and what ultimately are the design goals of this project? This is the kind of stuff that needs to be laid down early and should not be subject to change once development is underway.
2) Code governance. Is this an open source community project? Is this a project that you're commissioning and are attempting to sell and distribute? As a living project, how are things like balance handled and who decides what goes into the balance patches?
3) Financial governance. It sounds like the plan is F2P supported by donations in the model of a project like Dwarf Fortress. That means this project is going to be generating revenue and before you start collecting money you need to be clear about how it will be used and where it will go. Are you planning to compensate devs and artists or are you soliciting volunteer work? Are you planning to compensate your self as the project leader? If there is a surplus in donation money beyond what is required to maintain the servers what will happen to that? Nailing down the goals and limits of your financial governance before there is money in play is important to defusing the near-guaranteed future footgun of contributors disagreeing about how resources should be allocated.
I think this project, and the general design goals your proposing sounds like a good idea. Good ideas for games are important, but good ideas are also fairly cheap. Most people have at least 5 great game ideas they've been kicking around. Actually executing on good ideas is the hard part, and there's a lot of documentation and structure you want to lay down early if you're planning to solicit a community to come together and build something. Hopefully you find some of these points helpful.
Preach 🙏
Everything you say is indeed very important things to clarify before starting project like that with various contributors
Solid advice!
Seconded (Thirded?), this is very important!
This is great advice! One thing to have, believe it or not, is leadership that can help with the planning. With that person coordinating, they’ll make sure that the other groups and teams are kept to speed.
I view luck the same as critical chance and playing Flak is basically using a devil axe from fire emblem. Definitely should be added.
Apart from a map editor. Why not incorporate a CO maker as well?
You can import a PNG as their portrait and freely edit their stats, so you can make them as broken (or jokey) as you want.
Sounds good, but probably a bad idea for online ranked play. Could be a lot of fun in singleplayer or in unranked play.
@@jojothehamster Yeah, custom cos should probably be restricted to casual play.
CO maker would be amazing. Map maker + campaign maker + CO maker would most likely result in a lot of fun. CO maker can also have a score system, like in Daggerfall character creator, that shows the sum of all the stats and powers, counting advantages and disadvantages. This way it might even be possible to play custom COs online fairly, since you'll be able to see how balanced your opponents are relatively to your char.
Will be fantastic, but should be banned in competitive play... unless the CO is balanced enough to participate in it and has no copyright problems - then it may.
@@gannaeissa9320 Someone would need to check those CO's. Easier to just not allow it in ranked, or online play at all.
I'll be blunt, I feel like this game has a very high chance of becoming "Advance Wars at home", I get wanting to make the absolute best version of AW, but you're pretty much taking everything from the main games, and adding next to nothing new, which is sort of a waste imo when you're making a brand new game, it feels like the creativity department is non-existant.
I don't hate the idea, but I think you should prioritize making the game feel different enough, and give it it's own legs to stand on, instead of being just a clone, maybe you can have the online mode be as similar as possible with it's own rules, but the 'main campaign' needs to be it's own thing.
Basically, you run into the issue that the game will feel like yet another AW clone, and will be forgotten just as quickly as the Reboot Camp did, I understand that you absolutely love the vanilla AW gameplay, but if you want this game to get as big as you said you want it to be (and not have a dead playerbase), it will need to be different enough, make it so that if someone ask "What does this game has that AW doesn't?" You can list lots of things, instead of just having minimal changes.
That 10% luck roll in each attack makes the game. Games to work need some degree of randomness and 10% seems to be the bare minimum.
My ideal advanced wars would be Days of Ruin with the following changes :
-Air units with similar limitations in fuel and ammo to seaplanes, and sea and ground units with similar fuel limitations as subs.
-Aircraft carriers with 4 capacity, airports and ports with the ability to repair and restock +1 space (only if is plain or road)
-Advanced Wars 2 type COs with their mechanics.
-logistics units: Add trains, convoys, oil tankers, (repairs only in ports) no black boats.
-Air units are not blocked by ground units and subs can be under surface ships (air and surface and under sea layer) .Subs can still be seen by being over or adjacent to them and trap works the same.
-Air units have airborne/ground settings like subs. Air units can be only repaired at airports, airfields but they can be restocked if they land on roads and plains. Jet engines can only land on roads in this scenario.
-- more art designs to each type of faction ...more factions
As a thought experiment - "how would you make an Advance Wars style game if you could?" - this video is interesting. As a recruiting ad for a co-creator... I'm not sure what would be in it for a developer (other than being able to use your name for publicity).
There's no hint of give and take here, of a willingness to explore options or be open to a partner's views. It's "This will be how it works. Copy the rules from this game. Make it do these things. These rule tweaks will be allowed; others won't." If I were a dev this would be raising red flags about future collaboration.
On the flipside, once you've said your vision is to copy the Advance Wars 2 rules exactly and create balance-tweaked copies of each AW2 CO - what do you bring to the table? A dev capable enough to deliver everything you want on the programming side could go ahead and implement those rules anyway; and they'd control their game and have the flexibility to collaborate with other people who might be more interested in a two-way exploration of ideas.
You asked at the end for advice. Mine would be (1) think about what areas are non-negotiable to you, and what areas you'd be willing to explore and share control in. Also, (2) be clearer about what areas you'd be willing to help deliver yourself. Would you be up for map development, or story development, or story mission scripting? If the answer is "we'd just use the ones from AWBW", that's great, but you aren't needed.
As it stands, your vision for the game is so precise that you may be better off paying artists and devs (funded by Patreon + a kickstarter, which would both pull funds from your viewers) rather than looking for someone who's willing to collaborate on your terms.
This reminds me of a wincing story from my game dev journey. During a meet for collaborations this one fella posted, on a brand new account, that he wanted to announce Pokemon Black & White 3. He had a bloated paragraph of ideas and said He would handle all the story, because it was already ready in his head, he just needed someone to do the sprite work and the audio design and the programming and the UI and level design. But other than that it was all set.
If you have a vision for a game you need to provide either payment or a skillset, that's just how it works.
To be honest, the changes you proposed are so minimal, I wouldn't see any reason to play your game when AWBW, regardless of how big its existing playerbase is, already exists. This is very similar to all these Quake and Unreal Tournament clones that promised to bring the "old" arena shooter experience back with slight touch-ups. And they're all pretty much dead or have very tiny communities with maybe one or two god-tier players.
I say you'd have more luck with creating a completely fresh design. New units, new movements, new supply/funds management, an edgier or cuter story etc. Or just mod the originals, the efforts of many hack creators like Kartal allow for so many possibilities.
100% agree and this is how I felt about it too. Just way too similar sounding to AW2
Very well said, I fully agree
agreed, creating essentially awbw 2.0 from scratch seems like a waste of time(no offense)
Since porting maps from awbw is a feature that requires their cooperation anyway, wouldn't it make more sense to assist awbw with whatever ressources you can muster, under the condition to be allowed to design and implement an alternative "rebalanced" mode with the suggested changes to cos and naval?
Most of these improvements are general qol which would benefit awbw, and i'd assume another gamemode wouldn't be too big a problem for awbw.
I agree with this so the main thing he should focus on is the art. If he can find someone who can nail the CO art and sprites, he can focus on changing up the gameplay AFTER. Focusing on just programming the same game first with no art will be a HUGE waste of time.
fellow dinosaur
Instead of improving luck modify infantry so that they are more versatile like real infantry. To all infantry units add these abilities.
(DIG TRENCH) Allows you to replace a plains terrain tile with trenches that provide 2 defense pips and fully block wheeled vehicles' movement. but not tracked vehicles
(DIG BUNKER) Replace a trench tile with a BUNKER tile for 3k funds that block all land vehicle movement and provide 5 defense pips. Can be destroyed by artillery fire bombers or a satchel where it will become ruins instead. Can be replaced by a trench.
(PLANT SATCHEL) Place a bomb on a tile for 1K funds that will detonate after 2-4 turns set by the player. The satchel has stealth and if a unit is on top of it when it explodes will do heavy tank levels of damage to the above unit if it is tracked or wheeled or stationary(IE pipe walls base runners). Infantry only takes 1 damage from satchels.
(PLANT Anti-personnel mine) Place a bomb on an adjacent tile for 200 funds. Any infantry moving over the mine takes 2 to 5 damage. Vehicles passing over the mine cause it to harmlessly detonate.
(Spotters nest) This unit must take its turn stationed on a hill or in a city without moving. When the ability is activated the unit will provide 5 visions at the beginning of the next turn and every turn hereafter until it is attacked or attacked moves or is struck by a ranged attack.
(Commondeer Transport) If an infantry unit starts its turn on a city it may use this ability to change its sprite to that of a civilian car and travel 1 recon worth of movement. However, on your next turn, you cannot attack or capture with this unit. If attacked in this venerable state it will always suffer 100% casualties.
(gernades passive*) when attacking a vehicle, an enemy with 2 or more terrain defense pips (with the exception of attacking an opponent on a mountain while not also stationed on a mountain. Throwing grenades uphill is hard.) The infantry has a 22% chance of throwing a grenade instead. Grenades are better than regular infantry standard attacks but are worse than a mech anti-tank attack.
By making infantry units more versatile we can avoid needing the luck stat for allowing infantry to kill vehicles.
The more the merrier. Clones is how genres are created and developed. I'm old enough to remember when FPS games were called "Doom-clones".
I had an idea myself, one that would make the game even wackier and less balanced: mix it with Master of Magic. Have powerful spells, racial bonuses and unique units that would throw the game for a loop. Elven snipers almost impossible to dislodge from forests? Check. Big dwarven bombards and tough infantry that ignores mountain movement penalties? Check. Halfling grenadiers being surprisingly good for early rushes? You best believe.
If there's one thing I would say, I highly suggest the Fog of War mechanic implemented from Days of Ruin. On this, you CAN'T just move your units immediately like the trilogy (although, somehow, you lost fuel XD). You must confirm first and then you are able to move said unit. In addition, the game also takes into account on the vision that unit has. For example, the recon unit has a +5 vision, so anywhere it travels, it'll scout with a +5 vision on the map (save those that are hiding in woods, reefs, and even buildings). Passing by it, say, like a neutral or enemy building, you can still scout there. Just pray that you don't get trapped XD There are also units that can be utilize in a different matter like the Flare unit, which allowed you to scout an area without traveling there to see what's hiding there.
This feature is also a toggle on the game, but what about a Veteran upgrade on your units? On Days of Ruin, whenever your unit kills another unit, they get a rank up (3 ranks). This may add a bit of a strategy on the position of the units and who gets to attack. Heck, with the minor plus defense, you can even use that unit as a more effective wall. Of course, if some don't like that, you can simply toggle it off and have it go to the basics as well and not deal with the unit ranks.
I would add my suggestion, that you can store up to 220% power, at which point it would be possible to activate both normals simultaneously. This would work as a wallbreaker mechanic.
Regarding luck... show a possible damage range and real hp
@@FiresdaleOr, if anything, I would say, again, Days of Ruin XD Even though there’s a small chance a luck being involved, I think the game does a really nice job since it rounds up or down, not have like a percentage boundary. Leave majority to skill :P
Regarding vision, you should be able to see air units above terrain like forests and mountains, as it does not make much sense that a fighter could hide in a forest
or give missles a 8 tile radar mechanic@@vikingsundlof9040
Absolutely yes on veterancy upgrades. That was a fantastic addition in DoR, that would slot in wonderfully in the environment of the older games. Though just like it was in DoR, it should be something that you can turn on or off in the rules settings before the match (default on).
On the matter of the DoR fog mechanics, I would say remove some of the vision from allied cities that it had. Keep it for the tile of the city itself, but the whole thing with your cities giving another 2 tiles of vision beyond themselves should be removed or at least toned down to 1 tile. DoR was my jam, but 2 tiles of vision was a bit much.
I just want an Advance Wars that also has a Risk twist. Give me a World Map where I can delegate my territory, build funds, keep the public happy, etc. and move units to different parts of the territory to defend my borders. Basically a game inside of a game. I could have a group of COs that i can eecruit and use in battles but will need recovery after each battle so they arent overused. If you did, they would lose some kind of efficiency. I can think of so many more ideas and would make it but i have literally no c ev experience
The core game loop of advanced wars is too good to be changed. The semplicity of the units is very well designed. The one thing i would remake is the map, in more than one point:
Onorable mention: 0 - make the map, and more precisely the proprty, procedurarly generated. I play aw by web very rarly for time reasons, and loosing to an opponent that knows the capture sequence from memory in certain map is always a bitter feeling. An other reason is to give every map a little something to keep players on theur toes and something fresh every game. I consider it to be an onorable mentiong because: i know that by becoming actually good at the game, you don't need to memorize the capture chain, and making properties position in the map is incredibly difficult to balance.
1 - Probably the firstmost point i wont to see in the game: interact with the map during the game. My fevourite feature of aw by web are the destructible pipes. Make destructible properties, or that you can shell ruins with artillery and flatten it into a plain, dams that after they are destroied a new river flows in the map. In the opposite direction of destruction you can make so that players can construct terrain features: front line airbases made only for repairs, barricades, spotting towers, deployable bridges, front line barracks to deply infantry only (you can make the cost to deploy infatry here 2k or 3k for balancing if it result too powerfull), barbed wire that slows only infantry and get destroyed by veicles with tracks. To construct this buildings i would use the apc, on the line of days of ruins. Doing so it will give players more options of attack and make the apc an actually viable buy in a lot more games. To select what to construct a wheel menu is the best option in my opinion.
2 - Go ham with custom terrain. As you said having more terrain that map creator can choose to use or not is really nice. Forts that give 4 star defence, dams, highlands that gives 2 stars and +1 range to artillary and +1 vision to everything, teleporters, infantry-helded artillary position (when an infantry is in the terrain, it can fire just like an artillary, maybe a little weaker or with -1 range), mega properties that give 2k income, power plants that when occupied open pipes, underground bunker that function as stationary "transport" for vehicles where you can store and protect troops.
3 - Make small seacraft go on rivers.
I am an actuall game designer, but my specilization are rpgs games, and from experience to create a good combact, designing the map and terrain featurs is 70% of the job, to capitalize on the strenght of your units.
To RECAP give the map as much thought as the rest of the game, if not more. Make it so that the map changes during a match, rising sea levels, and variaty on terrain feature.
Good luck on the project.
5:35 AHOY, Miss!
Can’t believe you gave Drake such a huge pair of… buffs!
What I would like to see in the game:
- Original Commanders
I think copy pasting AW CO would be boring. Creating more original CO's would help it's self to be different from AW. Look at mangsvance CO's they are creative and fun to play. It would be amazing to see something similar too that.
- Promotion mechanic
The return of the promotion mechanic from famicom wars/days of ruin would be amazing to see again and it's rewards you keeping your units alive.
- A different theme
With advanced wars having a modern warfare theme and Wargroove an fantasy middle ages theme, I think the game should go for a post-apocalyptic or a sci-fi theme it would make the more darker and more "edgy".
- Improved naval combat
This is pretty self-explanatory, naval combat is so expensive and that sucks
- New units
I would like to new units like the destroyer in the game. A diversive unit pool with new units would spice up the gameplay and don't forget to rebalance old units *cough cough* missiles.
- Time and dedication
Making games is already expensive enough. So take your sweet time with the game and most of your ideas are already amazing so I wish you good luck.
I know you have a lot of great ideas and collaboration on your side already, but if you do choose to incorporate a campaign mode you wouldn't have to look far for a plot. I seem to remember you speaking fondly of how you wished there were a prequel in the series (pre-advance wars 1), and this could be your chance. You could design/name the COs similarly enough for fans to recognize but different enough so you wouldn't be stepping on Nintendo's toes. The story would basically write itself...
An Olaf led Orange Star along with Nell, Grit, and Max would be your main protagonists.
A long-corrupt Blue Moon would finally decide to seek global conquest. This would be your opportunity to invent a host of new COs as your antagonists.
Sensei (looking to step down) would be set up with the emotional conflict of handing over Yellow Comet to an immature yet talented Kanbei.
A young Eagle would be struggling to protect Green Earth from this threat on his own until he encounters a certain "pirate" in battle. He is then able to see that there is potential in this good-hearted seafarer and forge an alliance in order to protect his country.
After the three nations are able to unite and the campaign is over, Olaf would feel obligated to leave and help rebuild the spirit and reputation of his home country. A heartbroken Grit would follow due to the pain of losing his lover (Nell) and learning that his best friend had since developed feelings for her. Nell is then elected to take the helm of Orange Star and your connection is complete. It would also explain the instant feelings of animosity and betrayal when Blue Moon, Yellow Comet, and Green Earth are all attacked by "Orange Star" to kick off the hostilities of the original Advance Wars.
Add an engineering vehicle that can destroy itself to change a 1 wide river into a bridge tile for about 5000 funds. But if the bridge tile is attacked by artillery or satchel it becomes a river again. Let the engineering vehicle place detect and clear anti-infantry and anti-tank mines trenches and the like.
Add a drone vehicle that is basically a transport truck that acts as a land-based aircraft carrier. But instead of building Aircraft, it builds drones.
Drones are significantly cheaper and Significantly worse than their aircraft counterparts. Drones that operate autonomously can survive without the vehicle or if the vehicle is destroyed, but in order to command your drone units you need to have at least 1 living drone vehicle on the field.
If you lose all your drone vehicles all currently flying non-autonomous drones will die. The drone vehicle can produce the following.
(Loitering Drone) 600Funds When built select a destination square and the drone will use the game's pathfinding to navigate to that square moving 3 tiles a turn. it will do this until it reaches its destination where it will remain there until it runs out of fuel. If any valid enemy unit is within 3 movements during any point it will navigate to that enemy unit and attack them. the defender shoots first trying to shoot down the drone. If the defender fails the drone is destroyed and the unit takes 3 damage and 1 damage if it's an infantry. Can only attack land sea and air but not winged aircraft. This is interesting because it's a unit you task to a location and then it operates by itself.
(Copter drone (bomber-like)) Can be commanded normally 1900 funds Flying Mechanised infantry like drone helicopter swarm capable of engaging infantry or vehicles.
(Kite drone(scout)) no weapons provides vision commandable or set to a tile to fly there till it runs out of fuel.
(Falcon Drone(fighter aircraft like)) A drone that's good for shooting down other drones and harassing helicopters.
For flavor, I'd make the duster aircraft from days of ruin inflict bonus damage on drones.
luck % should be part of the game because in real life and war things don't always go exactly as planned and you have to deal with some bad luck sometimes
The Genderbent got me
4:15 you got me there bro.
Three things:
Make terrain defense stars into shields to be distinct from CO power meter stars, etc. If you want to sort of keep them as stars make the icon be a shield with a star on it. It's a pointless visual change for any experienced AW player, but would better communicate the concept to any new players. Also, it's more legally distinct.
Don't forget your pitched Destroyer naval unit!
Buff missiles by letting them attack more than just fliers. Make them weaker than artillery against non-fliers, though but just give them the option at least, could be useful to interrupt captures. It's silly anti-air can attack on land too and missiles can't.
It would be nice the addition of new units.
For example: Wall builders (that use funds to build walls with hitpoints).
Or Groundmines (similar concept).
Also adding nukes (that requires to capture some nuclear facility on the map)
A new unit should be nice like a "spy", a unit that are in the color of the enemy at his eyes but they cannot move it or use it and you have to attack it to uncover it.
Hmmm and maybe the addition of drones (flying recon without attack).
Personally I love Into the Breach's push mechanics. I'd love units that can do stuff like that in the game.
Could you make fog WITH rain be toggled as optional. Sometimes I like to play with rain on but without fog.
Make snow in general or the "Olaf" CO power, limit movement range in snow rather than ONLY double fuel costs. That was the main defensive use of having snow as a mechanic.
Keep the Kanbei CO defense boosts, both active and passive. There's not enough defense CO's in game, maybe make him more expensive or lower the firepower active boosts to balance him.
Have piperunners operate on roads and any building.
Make drawbridges or change regular bridges to allow sea units to pass underneath.
On the CO menu please post the boosts and reductions for both attack and defense and movement ranges, attack ranges separately, easy to read and understand.
AFTER you initially capture a Lab or Comm. Tower, putting Labs or Comm. towers to act as secondary HQ - being captured is game-over would be a fun optional condition too. So you'd have more desire to protect properties or more risky chaos protecting more than just the HQ. Plus a lab could be tied to a unit. Say if an enemy captures a lab, that disables your ability to make Neo Tanks or some other unit you could apply too.
If there is a campaign, after beating regular and hard campaigns, perhaps have the campaign playable as black hole trying to invade each country.
That's just some ideas from the top of my head.
The guessing game of HP is one of the important part of the game, hearing you opponent shouting 'AAAAA… it doesn't die!' and your unit gets out 1 HP is just funny. That's the fun of the game so leave the HP as it is
I would like to see more variety in infantry; scouts, mortars, and snipers. I think a transport plane for vehicles would be great. Carriers for navy.
I have a cool idea for the luck mechanic.
So, like in Days of Ruin where your units would gain levels based on how many kills that unit has gotten, make it so in this new game, each level earned increases how much luck damage you can do. It makes sense, since the veterans of a battle would have more experience getting that little bit of extra damage, or a manuever that helps them out of a pinch. This would be in contrast to the fresh units that haven't seen combat yet and are only playing by the book, thus not getting any random luck damage. I would say the luck levels should be
5% extra for level 0
10% for level 1
15% for level 2
20% for level 3 (Veteran)
You could also add a small defense buff for the Veteran level like how they did in DoR, inticing players to not throw away their Veteran units that they've had in the beginning of the fight.This would also help counter spam CO's like Colin, Hachi, and Sensei who rely on meat grinder tactics.
I like the sound of that idea and I did really like that mechanic in Days of Ruin since it rewarded keeping your units alive and added another layer of strategy when choosing who to attack with
Only thing I'd add to that is that Colin isn't really a meat grinder CO, he's more of a tech rush CO, but this is still a very solid idea you got here.
Bro's cooking. This sounds like the perfect sweet spot between there always being luck which can constantly throw wrenches in your plans, or simply shelving the idea altogether. They could also give them a new look, like basic infantry having ammo bandoliers and shit and one of them with a cigar or something in their mouths when they rank up. I think it'd be good for immersion. Thinking back to games like battle of wesnoth, sure, you have a horde of faceless fodder to throw at the enemy, but out of the horde some of them rise up and become legends. Like in my first game with my friend where a single archer fought off a horde of bats and wraiths, upgrading into an longbowmen, and holding the line until I could cook up a counterattack. He led the charge and cut down the lich commander himself, was fucking amazing. I think giving units just that *little* bit of uniqueness to them could make it easier to personify them and get more into the game. Kind of like mixing fire emblem and advance wars, which was exactly what Wesnoth was supposed to be, lol.
Would love to see this and have C&C flare to it where CO's have unique units, changing the game dynamically purely cause of who you pick and not just their power. Think Infantry specialist? gets Snipers and Mortars. Airforce CO gets AC-Gunship. Naval CO gets extra Armored ship that is nuclear powered requiring no refuel. A Tank CO gets a armored Tank that is allowed to shoot 1 square further making it a pseudo ranged Unit like an actual modern Tank with a price-tag
advance wars if it was soulless
As someone who is attempting to get into the games industry I would love to actually help the project along, but I lack experience in professional game development. Beyond that the main things I recommend are this. Start with the bare minimum and then work your way up with the project. Those skins you were talking about sound great, but aren't integral to the game. Finish those after you have the important bits working first. Also when thinking of ideas and testing the game, don't make it in game and test it immediately. Make a physical paper prototype and use that first. This way you don't spend 3 hours implementing something that turns out to not be good in gameplay.
Luck is important. Don’t fix what ain’t broke after all
as for luck: Make a middle of the road CO that's day to day nullifies luck increases and decreases.
or have a no luck ladder/tournament option. meaning you can have a ladder/season etc were it's straight stats no gimmicks. sure nell flak and jugger or their proxies would not be playable but it's a better option than removing or tinkering with luck and potentially making something people dislike.
Vital advice that is very important: All the characters should be variations of Colleen.
While I like how Mangs is incorporating elements from across the series, I’d also love to see some of Mangs’ own ideas! Maybe new units or new terrain types or new COs, be it inspired from old ones or completely original (I’d love to see some modern takes on the Super Famicon Wars COs in particular), as well as possibly reworking Koal and Jugger to be more original, rather than just being Flak and Added again
I'd love to have each army with a slightly different unit lineup / choosing which one to make a custom army
One thing I would like to see is a multiplayer campaign where your upgrade units In a kind of development, like Stealth jets and bombers operating like subs and water traversing tanks or drones.
The only advice I can give you is "Do it."
Just add an option for "Fixed" luck where rolls are always average i.e.no rng but still retains the ability for e.g. infantry to damage tanks
Hi ! Nice initiative ! Game designer here, but i won't comment on your choices. Just spend the time that it takes to find your "core game", and polish it. My advice as an gameboy AW player back in the day will be : re-create entirely the CO's that were boring or niche-used (i don't know if it's proper english sorry), and keep and tailor the OG CO's that were interisting to your "forcibly new" game meta, but this advice is just a gut instinct. My real advice is : if you don't want your project to wander aimlessly too long, take a few month (and a few polls ?) to make a CLEAR direction, with your designers. A core game on wich you can fall back if things go awry. Don't try to please EVERYBODY. Then, until the first test that has to be the-sooner-the-better, stick to it like a mussel on its rock.
Best of luck, and thank you for your efforts !
Re boot camp falls apart Mangs: fine I’ll do it myself….
Wargroove 2
Based honestly
Lerroy!!!!!!! Jenkins
Please don't shit on Re:Boot Camp, I literally bought it yesterday because this is the first time I'll be able to play it since it came out... :,(
@@DieuDeMortAlso bought it yesterday 😭
You know, the map loading gives me a cool idea.
In single player, when you start a mission from whatever overworld menu you have, a scroll or blueprint or map should start in the center, rolled up, and zoom toward one side of the screen, and unfurl from right to left, or left to right, with the mission map laid out wherever you want the view to start on.
I'm 100% on board as long as Maxime stays exactly as she is
My idea is that you can add base building to the game to make it a bit different but still fun to play.
Instead of a stationary HQ, we can have a mobile HQ. That mobile HQ also responsible for building other structures such as income generator, unit generator, tech building and defensive structures such as wall and turret.
We can still keep the vanilla city, factory, airport, etc. Just make the player built structure inferior to those that are captured.
Also I think modular weapon could be nice as well. For example, a tank can have a light weapon slot that can fit machine gun and a heavy weapon slot that can fit a cannon/aa cannon/ rocket/ missile/ APC module. While a heavy tank have two heavy weapons slot which could be anything from tank cannon with missile, or tank with two cannons that hit twice as hard.
And we can also have mech, which is actual walking robot instead of human with bazooka. So mech will have less movement than vehicles but they move better on rough terrain like forest and mountains with additional fire power and armor of a tank.
I feel like the units fighting part should be done out of in-game gameplay, like u take control of the units whether 1 unit or few in a group of units, instead of just luck or RNG. Pretty much, make the units fighting in the game be done like FPS Chess, where the winner and the loser is decided on the FPS gameplay of chess after meeting 2 chess pieces.
Well, best of luck, if you're really sure about this. As someone who frequents the Advance Wars By Web Discord, however, I do feel the need to speak up about my own inputs on the matter, though I'll skip the concerns since you've made it clear that such in question won't be of much matter here.
Instead, I mentioned in the video regarding Re-Boot Camp that I've had my own idea for a fan game, simply as a template, not as a fleshed out game, which comes with some balance changes. Since you've taken the route of AWR, CO balancing won't really factor here, but I have my own notes towards UNIT balancing, which I feel should be taken into consideration:
- For the sake of naval combat improvements, Carriers have their price reduced from that ridiculous 30000G to 25000G, Battleships from 28000G to 25000G, Cruisers from 18000G to 16000G, and Landers from 12000G to 10000G. Damage tables should also be updated for Ships to mostly have reduced damage taken across the board from non-naval units by roughly 5-10%. Additionally, Ships/Landers are able to access Bridges, though a Sub that has submerged will not be allowed on such tiles. Oh, and reduce Carrier Range to 2-7 rather than 3-8 as such a massive area of influence just feels like it needs to be brought down a peg, though should still deny copters from getting too close.
- Black Bomb is nerfed by 2 Move, 1 Radius, and 15 Fuel, should make it a bit less of a busted threat.
- Stealth Ammo reduced by 1, Stealth Movement increased by 1, and Stealths take about 10% more damage than prior.
- Carriers and Missiles given the ability to fire upon Hiding Stealths if revealed by adjacent units.
- Missiles Movement increased to 5 to reflect that of Rockets.
- Artillery, Battleships, and Rockets given the ability to fire upon Submerged Submarines for half damage if revealed by adjacent units.
Bear in mind that this is just my take on what could be done, though that's mostly if you plan to go as close as you say you plan to, such as with keeping as many units from the varying Advance Wars versions as possible, even if that includes the dreaded Black Bomb (albeit that saw the heaviest nerfs if you read that part already) and potentially the Oozium, though that can of worms is one I will not be opening personally.
as a 3d artist, when going for sprites you are saving yourself a ton of headaches.
3d can look really great, but this comes at a hefty cost. being it time wise, as well as logistically.
also, i personally would remove ingame luck, or make it optional.
Honestly always hoped to see a modern FE style game with AW visual language
Ok. I just finished watching the entire video. Here's the biggest issue rn: You have *High expectations* And to develop a great game you need a GREAT budget. So ideally you'd have to set the bar lower or find your rich uncle who works at Nintendo and get a loan. The other problem with having high expectations is the time frame needed. The more features and changes you want in it, the more time and resources you have to invest into it. You did not state how fast you want that game to be released. 2 years? 3 years? Depending on how much money you are willing to put into it you can definitely get it faster, but unless you have a huge budget you might expect it to take a while.
The reason why people suggest already existing projects like Tiny Wars and Warside has to do with the fact that you can simply extend code. Code is not static like when cooking something, you could just contact the warside devs and pay em an amount they suggest and modify it to fit your needs and desires, that would be less expensive and be out much faster.
Personally, given what you have mentioned on your expectations, I do not think it will be out any time soon, but I wish you luck on your endeavours. As for me, I will be working on my own Godot game, as a single developer, but I do not plan to integrate anything for competitive stuff, and no ETA of when I will even finish it.
While I'm not a lawyer and this is not legal advise, one suggestion that I have is that you should probably deviate further away from Advance Wars to limit the possibility of Nintendo's lawyers coming after your project since currently it sounds a lot like, aside from the online features, Advance Wars 2 with slight modifications and different assets. Even if it's going to be free to play simply having it available on places like Steam, GOG, Google Play Store etc will increase the likelihood of Nintendo becoming aware of it and Nintendo has shut down multiple fan games in the past. While a different comment covered financial governance one thing I would like to add is you should have a plan for what happens with the online servers if the donations aren't enough to sustain them. Basically you need to know if you can cover the server costs by yourself or if the servers will have to be shutdown if donations go below a certain threshold.
New game: Take a shot everytime he says "I want"
I have a suggestion for the RNG!
Tie all RNG mechanics to the terrain!
For example, a unit on the road (0 stars) simply takes all incoming damage with no modifiers, they are "sitting ducks" and engaging them should be highly predictable. However, each star of defense a piece of terrain gives you will not just decrease your potential incoming damage, but increase the variance as well. For example, plains (1 star) would reduce incoming damage by 1-10%. Forests (2 stars) would reduce damage by 5-15%. Cities (3 stars) would reduce damage by 15-30%. Mountains (4 stars) would reduce damage by 20-45%. The terrain itself is introducing the uncertain factors in each engagement, the more open the terrain the easier it is to plan your engagements, the more rugged the terrain the more likely you are to fight a guerilla war.
Also, I think there should definitely be more variety in terrain.
I like the idea of tying luck to terrain but rather than give percentage based damage reduction, I'd rather have it reduce the actual ranges of luck damage. So in my example, roads would be have the most variance and mountains the least.
There need to be more foot soldiers, like Scouts and Snipers.
I'm just shocked that Nintendo hasn't pulled a Mystery Dungeon / Etrian Odyssey with Advanced Wars. In the same way that Mystery Dungeon got a Pokemon rebrand and Etreian Odyssey did a Persona version, I think it would be cool if Advanced wars would something like an Advanced Wars: Starcraft or Advanced Wars: Age of Empires.
Advance Wars: Starcraft. Imagine every faction has different units and yet has that Blizzard balance.
What a dream..
Not sure if Mangs will read this, but I would love:
- Medics to support infantry in some way
- Captured cities to be able to defend themselves (at a cost, maybe even an extra cost each turn)
- No Com towers at all. Yes you read that right. I never understood why people liked them in the first place. What's the point of having +10% firepower on both sides??
- Make mechs better, they almost *always* suck
Hey, about the Luck Mechanic: I mean, technically you could make Luck an option that you can switch on/off at the beginning like weather and funds. Then the comp. community can decide for itself.
Hear me out, UNIT SPECIALIZATION!
As someone with a military background, it erks me to see units like fighters be shoehorned into a single role without having the versatile that they have in real life. So my idea would be to incorporate specialized units.
Example:
Under the fighter units would be different subsections of fighters.
Close Air Support- These units would specialize at dealing damage to ground units but wouldn't be able to defend themselves against other fighters.
Air Superiority Fighters - These would be your sky clears! Demolishing other air units but the trade off would be limited ammo and fuel.
Multi Role Fighters - The Backbone of your air force. An all rounder unit that can do damage to air and ground units, however the damage that they do isn't enough to outclass a CAS or AS Fighter unit.
Stealth fighter - Take the Stealth Bomber and turn it into a jet.
so... bombers, jets and helicopters? You know they are already a thing.
Dont get me wrong but i dont see the special in this special units if other units do the job already.
@@HungryHunter think deeper. Bombers and Choppers don't really offer the mobility of a CAS fighter. It's why the Air Force just doesn't use bombers for everything. It's about having a specific tool for a specific job.
@@HungryHunter to go even deeper you can do the same thing with infantry by adding mortar troops, TACPs, and PJ
@@CODYoungGunna from a gameplay standpoint i dont see why we need 3 jets that are just faster version of the things we already have.
Bomber is for ground. the jet is already a fighter and the heli does everything a bit.
Adding morta troops and other infrantry is a different story. We have only two type of foodman and heaving a tank counterparts could be something fun.
Come to think of it. heaving a light aircraft (flying scaut car), fuel/transport plane (flying APC) or a longrange air unit (tactical missile bomber) can mix the gameplay up a bit but this isnt what you wanted. But this isnt you asked for. You wanted jet+ that can do everything better then the vanilla units do you?
@@HungryHunter because bombers are slow glass cannons that cost an arm and leg to deploy and need constant protection. Once you build a bomber or chopper, you are building a jet in order to protect them. With this idea you aren't shoehorned into just having 3 incredible neich air units fill very specific roles. It's about having options.
Maxime the muscle mommy already has me sold
I like see more units in your own advance war based game.
Here my ideas
Engineer:expensive infranty that ignore terrain defense as it attack with a flamethrower and whose can act as a ponton bridge for move vehicular units throught rivers(medium and mega tank are excluded duo weight and balance)
Tankette:like light tank with half the ammo and the same armour as a recon but cheaper and capable be trasported inside T copters and apc for surprise effect
Pack artillery:a cheaper weaker artillery capable move on infranty only terrain and capable of direct fire aswell it can be trasported by T copters and apc.
One change that I would like is if APCs, landers, and transport copters were given a weak weapon to defend themselves with. For example, the APC might be able to do 10% damage against an infantry, and only 5% against a mech.
I want to bring Team Fortress 2 characters into advance wars and have it's own campaign, though I don't know how.
Regarding luck damage, here's my proposal:
Make it so that "if a unit is ABLE to kill via luck damage, it WILL kill via luck damage." That way, it's never a roll if a unit actually dies to RNG or not. The RNG factor would only come into play for actually building up damage, not when securing the kill, and it would make units at extremely low HP just *feel* more vulnerable. No more "send 4 infantry at a 1 HP megatank and fail all four RNG checks in a row." Ultimately, I feel like it just *feels* better to secure a kill than it does for the game to randomly let your unit survive longer than it should, so it'll be a net positive.
Once upon a time, this was also my proposal for how Flak's Super would work in Wars World, but RUclips kept marking my massive suggestions essay as spam, lol.
How would this interact with powers like Nell's? Would you just nerf their luck rate or do something else? A 30 luck swing with this mechanic would mean infantry can suddenly consistently wipe out 3-4 hp vehicles.
@@andrewlesniak8018 Pretty simple, really. You'd just make it so that the minimum value of Nell's luck roll is clamped to 10% instead of 0% during her power. Grants functionally the same "bonus" that all other COs would get, and if you CHOSE to play in a match with Nell, you signed up for getting screwed over by RNG anyway; what is otherwise the point of a luck CO, if not to ride the highs and lows of RNG? Might need minor tweaks to values, but that's how you'd do it.
This is like my dream game I would pay 60 dollars or even more for something like this. (If it’s made as you described)
A ticker to pick whether to enable luck or not for competitive multiplayer.
Developing a game is a big effort. I suggest you to join a gamejam where you create a prototype of a game within 48 hours. not only will you gain experience in making a game but also a better understanding whether you go the open source route and make it free to play approach this as a commercial project with a game to be sold / monetized and devs actually being paid. Personally, working for months or years on a game without being paid doesn't sound compelling, even for a cool game I enjoy a lot.
Can you join gamejams without knowing how to code a single line?
@@alexk9295 depends. you may use unreal engine with its blueprint node system to design behavior on a drag and drop editor. perhaps there are other engines where you can define behavior without writing a line of code. perhaps you know how to draw. game jams in general aren't about being already bieng skilled at something I joined once as complete beginner and contributed as much as I could to the group I joined. yes, you often form groups. some game jams are solo runs as well. there are all sorts of flavors. of course, knowing how to program is an advantage
2:25 THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT!
DoR mechanics are great, and I love naval combat mechanics there, especially the aircraft carriers.
Battleships, Aircraft carriers and antitanks are my favourites.
4:44 Oh no, they're hot.
Whatever you do, don't lock COs behind specific campaign mode paths that you have to go through AND finish the final mission to unlock
Agreed. All CO's should be available, but campaign can unlock skins.
Advanced wars + muscle mommy’s? Where do I put my money?
I saw one comment mention a fighter change a while back I think would be an improvement: have fighters be immune to anti-air guns. It would give a real boost to the 3 most underused units in the game: fighters, missiles, and cruisers. It makes sense theme wise (bombers have to fly low, fighters should be way above flak ceilings). Balance wise I think it would work, as bombers are already a rare all-in one play push, and fighters being even rarer since you only get them to maybe deal with bombers, but could just fall back on anti-air. I always thought the anti-air unit was a little TOO good. Cheap, fast, no ammo/fuel concerns, decimates infantry, beats light vehicles, and isn't really that bad against tanks.
Another possible change to make missiles worth it: massively increase their fog of war vision (like 8 spaces), but ONLY for spotting air units.There would actually be an incentive to get them in response to air so you're not surprised. Thematically just say they come with a supporting network of radar.
Whatever you do, be sure to have a solid campaign. I recall before on the RTS scene that it's casuals who buy the campaign that are the backbone of your sales, with competitive players trickling in from that pool. Campaign and an on-ramp for rookies, and may this project, and others like it, please be successful in their own right. This world needs more nice things in it.
I think luck is good with the exception of the 95% coin flips
I would like to see you take a more Wargroove route and make your own iteration of Advance Wars mechanics instead of just apeing the original.
Or you can even borrow design details from other games, such as Fire Emblem. From Fire Emblem you can borrow things such as ability to select different weapons for units to fight with, a rock-paper-scissors design for balancing, and whatnot. There is also Yggdra Union, from which you can borrow the concept of units being led by a character with their own capabilities and story importance (like Days of Ruin COs) instead of units being just nameless bands of flunkies.
5:03 Olga. 🧡
About the luck system, maybe just have a system where units of a lower rank/power will deal at least 1 damage to a unit significantly higher in rank than it, provided the defending unit is at 20 or 19 HP? When the unit's stats (base stats, no luck, along with terrain and CO modifiers) wouldn't normally allow it, I mean. Like, an infantry unit will always deal 1 damage to a tank unit at 20 or less HP. Oh, and the attacking unit's HP could also be considered. An infantry unit at 80+ HP has the definite chance, but this starts getting somewhat RNG-based once the unit goes below that, incrementally so based on every 10 HP it has/lacks. Heck, maybe make it so that the wider the difference in HP is, it will go from a chance to deal 1 damage to a chance to deal extra damage (a 100 HP infantry unit will always deal 1-3, maybe 2-3, damage to a tank, at 90 HP it deals 1-2 damage, at 80 HP it deals 1 damage, at 70 HP it has a 75% / 80% chance to deal 1 damage, at 60 HP it has a 50% / 60% to deal 1 damage, etc. - all so long as the tank has 20 HP or less; these numbers shift along the list when the tank has higher HP as well, closing the difference in health, and thus widening the difference in power). Hmmm, so maybe at a difference of 80 HP or more, it's 1-3 damage, 70-79 HP it's 1-2 damage, 60-69 HP it's 1 damage... oh, maybe it's 2-3 damage at a 90+ HP difference... but would that be too much of a difference to expect? Hmmmmmmm....
Please forgive my lack of understanding of how HP works (you just blew my mind in this very video about how it's 100 HP, not 10 HP). Though I watch you a lot, I don't completely understand the game. Just the basics from when I played the original on GBA, and then the tips I've picked up from watching you.
OH, and the CO Power Meters! Maybe keep it at 150% held, unless you think that allowing the CO to activate either power two turns in a row (easily) is a good idea.
One last thing, though it's just a personal thought, maybe take the light-medium-heavy tank naming scheme from Super Famicom Wars? I never really liked the Advance Wars naming system, that being simple tank, then medium, then neo. I feel like you could change the naming scheme while still having the same stats for the respective rank of tank (and then the "neotank" would be the megatank, or just keep the megatank's name the same, OR maybe you have a cool new name in mind). But again, this is just a personal nitpick; the names were always unintuitive to me.
Anywhoo, sorry for how long this got. I hope that one day you get the chance to make this game. It sounds like a dream project!
For luck mechanics, we can erase it all together and just give every units guarantee 0.5 damage on enemy.
This is less a suggestion, but more of a piece of advice from someone who developed a renowned mod using Nintendo IP (Project M).
When it comes to referrences to other characters, you are more likely to get away with it if the reference is subtle. Sadly, even when they are in the wrong, Nintendo has been known to cease and desist projects just because they knew the people they rargetted wouldn't have the funds to take it to court.
For mechanics, I know you'd like to keep them very faithful to Advance Wars, but there's a few things to keep in mind to keep you safe. The more similar your game is to its inspiration, the more likely they will hit the trigger. This is usually why indies don't redo those 1:1. One way to get around it is to not copy the source code and to make ot from scratch. I know this is more work and may create minute differences, but it's much harder for someone to prove that you copied their work if you make it yourself. I'm saying this because I have seen horror stories of people taking shortcuts and having their lives ruined. Take more time, but keep yourself safe. Furthermore, I would look maybe into altering mechanics a little here and there. Either adding a few new ones, or altering those that are there. It doesn't have to be much, but just to make it less derivative.
This is just my two cents. I understand it seems serious, but I prefer being as real as I can with you. You absolutely can do this, just be mindful.
God damn, Maxime and Olga are firing my neurons
I have a few ideas. Not only can units "join" others, now your own like units can "switch" places when they're next to each other. Infantry perched on mountains can turn into sniper units with indirect fire ability. Can't move and attack on same turn. Mechs can each set one mine that does some damage. Can be disarmed when enemy mechs land on them.
@Mangs 7:22 Mangs, a 7 HP Tank doesn't have 70 to 79 HP, it has 61 to 70. HP rounds up to the next multiple of 10.
How to fix Missiles:
Increase move to 5 and add trends (like the Artillery).
Make them resist B-Copters attacks to the same level as Anti-Air (25 instead of 65 damage taken).
Give them a special ability that adds a percentage of their damage against air units to friendly units when they attack an enemy air unit adjacent to the Missiles. Enemy B-Copters won't try to slip inside a Missiles' minimum range if the nearby infantry (even crippled ones!) can blast off 4 HP (25% of firepower) or 7 HP (50% of firepower) on their own turn!
TLDR: Take the Missiles and make it act like a Hawkeye from Military Madness/Nectaris, but with AW AA resistance tossed on top.
Reboot camp would’ve gotten so much more love if, like in Diablo 2 resurrected, you could press a couple buttons and swap back to OG graphics just upscaled a bit.
As long as you buff HQs to be able to survive being one-shot by "Earth and Sky" style attacks, i'm in 😅
Ending that passionate speech with "send an email to mangs memes" is too funny!
Make one without White-erasure, and I'll buy it.
4:47 My God that rifle/machinegun on Sam is cursed! The trigger is backwards, there is that hollow square that blocks the rear iron sight, and if that is supposed to be a machinegun without a pistol grip, then the buttstock is well and truly too small and too far from the vicinity of the trigger (which is still reversed! Aaaaaaaaarrrrrrggggggh!!!!)!
Well they were generated using AI (which is stated in the video), and is a perfect example of while using AI to "draw" art is terrible. They always seem to have trouble drawing hands.
Although I think Mangs would hire and pay actual artists to draw the COs and not result to using AI.
@RadioTails Well I dunno how much I can add since I am not professional but I do have a basic grasp in anatomy and can learn relatively quickly via reference. I could help with concept art of characters and even some units given some research on various military gear. I just want to get some exposure and build a portfolio. So yeah. I would love to help if possible.
Next Mangs video uplaod: i have been sued by nintendo
Ways to deal with luck
I will caviot this by saying I don't know exactly how luck is rolled in advanced wars, and that is important for 1 option.
One fairly boring way would be have luck rolled before an attack, and have its value added to displayed damage number. That way luck is still in the game, but when you go to make an attack you know exactly how much damage you will deal, you just don't know exactly how much your next attack will. This does add a bit of strategy in trying to have engagements you can tale to reroll luck for a cruical wallbreak, but again, it's boring.
Another option is to have luck done as a bell curve, so the vast majority of the time (50-75%) your luck will be 4, 5, or 6 HP. Combining this with being able to view units exact HP (probably displayed as a decimal, so 5.6), players still get to pray to RNGesus, but can make far more informed decisions.
Another, incredibly spicy option, is to give every CO a custom luck range. That way, even if luck is entirely random, players can actively chose COs that have a small luck range for consistencys sake, but all the flack mains can chose a CO with a giant luck range.
Branching off from that, you might remove luck from the game for most COs, but for people like Nell clone and Flack clone, you give them luck. People who want luck can have it, but competitive matches can ban the Luck COs if they don't want to deal with randomness.
Final option which isn't banning luck is making it a toggle (that may or may not affect luck COs). In normal campagin, luck is disabled. In hard campagin, luck in enabled. In competitive matches, luck can be enabled or disabled at the push of a button (when creating the matche, obviously not when its already started).
Sorry for text wall. TLDR, make luck more predicatable/optionable. Keep the mechanic in game, at the very least so modders can use it without having to jump through programming hoops.
I'd like to recommend a stretch goal that's a strategy mega mode. Basically giant maps with emphasis on positioning units, logistics, long term plans, air and sea power. It would function exactly the same as any AW game, just you have to pick where you want a battle to go down ahead of time and prepare. This means, like real war, maybe the enemy is aggressive and catches you with your pants down and you have to shift to a different battlefield. Also, recon is very important. Obviously there would be a massive fog of war. Finally, there are supply lines where you have to move units over multiple turns to get to the battlefield where they'll be massed together, which gives the opponent opportunities for interdiction. I think you get the idea.
I was in the Air Force so a mode with more emphasis on the air order of battle appeals to me.
Here are a couple of unit and gameplay changes that would work with this mode:
1) Greatly increase the range of AA missiles but in a fog of war paradigm.
2) Infantry on mountain tops have greater air line of sight than ground, making them a critical part of air defense
3) New lab-like building: the radar facility. This removes fog of war for air units for either 1/4-100% of the map depending on map size.
4) Perhaps having the air layer superimposed over the ground layer, but each fades to barely visible depending on which is in focus. Meaning air units don't take up ground space except when resupplying or landing troops. (so a resupplying air unit is more vulnerable to ground damage)
5) The recon drone. This is a new air unit that is very weak but has a very long range. It has the special ability to see through fog of war while flying to its destination, so good players have to watch carefully as the ground picture is briefly revealed. The other ability of this unit is an anti-infantry missile, which might work against recon units and other drones, but will barely nick a basic tank or artillery. The purpose obviously is to take out mountain top infantry who essentially provide line of sight for AA missile attacks.
6) The fighter-bomber. This is an air interdiction unit. Its more resilient against fighters than the bomber would be, and has better range, so it can go "alone and unafraid" into enemy territory. It should also have an air artillery mode so it can snipe supply lanes. It's like a FLIR system if you will. This unit is meant to be survivable so it will obviously be just as expensive maybe more than a bomber. It is extremely vulnerable to the newly expanded AA missile range, so there's that. It is meant to pick at the edges.
7) The bomber should now bomb perhaps 3-4 squares in a line with less damage, in a pathway that continues until the end of turn square. This makes bombers more survivable and worth spending money on. It can also go right next to a unit and end turn there for the conventional high powered bomber attack (perhaps it circles the target we can imagine).
8) Remove stealth and cruise missile
9) Transport plane. This will carry two units like a lander, and has very long range, much more than a battle copter. Very expensive. Only has any purpose in the larger maps, and should be kept away from all hostilities. Used to build new fronts quickly. Taking one out would be a coup. A risky player would use them in battle to build a line of battle past the front to surround the enemy.
There are other things I have considered like an air gunship but it becomes redundant at some point. I think the above would interface perfectly into the existing AW unit structure, assuming very large maps. As you have said, these units can be turned off and the large map mode does not need to be used by traditional players. It might be fun to see larger maps though, where match-deciding choices determine the outcome early as battlefields form in places one player may not have intended. Where deceit and long term planning, recon and so for all really matter.
Good luck on the game.
One more thing about this. It would be a lot to ask players to remember everything they reconnoiter, so any units seen by recon will appear as ghost units within the dark fog of war as a reminder of what was seen. Perhaps the units can fade each turn to indicate how long ago they were seen there, maybe their info boxes can simply contain the number of days since reconnoitered as a value. Finally, they fade to the lightest fade possible and remain that way until the player meets that unit again, and the faded ghost unit will be removed. This is doing a lot of work for the player, but I think given the map size and emphasis on fog of war, it would be a necessary feature to make this mode bearable.
Okay I'm a nut. I have thought this through a little bit more. Two more changes
1) Mech units now are thought to have "stinger" missiles. This will give them anti air ability a little less than halfway to what AA can do. Slightly more than regular infantry.
2) There should be a special forces infantry. Same firepower as mechs, but rather expensive 6-10k range. They have the ability to act like submarines in mountains and forests. It's automatic. Invisible unless you're right next to them. They also have Sami-like movement range in mountains. I say like submarines because if they "peek" to do recon, they're exposed like a normal infantry for that turn. No extra fuel cost for operating stealth though.
Darnit a final wrinkle to iron out on this.
1) Battle copters can fly in the air layer, but must occupy a ground space to attack, and at that point are vulnerable to ground units that would normally have next to no power against air units (like fighters). The AA should be equally effective against copters whether they're in the ground or air layer.
2) Flak canons. Hmm. In principle this is an important unit. Missiles with expanded range becomes a strategy god unit around which a lot of the play will focus (special forces rush, bomber rush to clear the space). Missiles snipe powerful units on at a time. AA protects units as an escort and is mostly to counter battle copters. So there's room for a third unit which has an area attack. That is, it can function like artillery, but has the effect like an ICBM on the air layer with minor damage spread out over a few units (probably 5 squares). This certainly does fill a gap in the air defense structure. However, flak canons will be redundant depending on just how much range is given to missiles and what the appropriate cost for a missile unit ends up being. The more nerfed the missile unit, the less it should cost, and so there is less need for flak canons. If expensive turbo-ranged missiles are the right balance, then there needs to be a stop gap unit to control large air unit rushes. Ideally it's very weak, like 1-2 damage per square but over five squares, so you have to stack for effect. Meaning they should cost about the same as artillery.
3) Air resupply. Air units, as I said, should have to enter the ground layer to resupply from an APC. In theory they have landed. Thus, this is no problem on roads, however landing to resupply on a plains square should actually roll damage for the unit. 0-2. You can't resupply over a mountain at all, or river for that matter. Doing it on a forest should roll 3-6 damage.
an idea for Recon type unit that isn't balanced and would probably just be a meme:
can attack infantry type units only at 2-3 range, deals only one damage.
Not sure if you can just copy COs as close as possible. Yes, HoN could port DotA heroes when IceFrog allowed it, even though they had to change appearance to not match the Blizzard characters. However, when Valve acquired DotA, HoN was not allowed anymore to copy heroes straight from DotA, which is why a lot of them ended up not being ported, and they were forced to make new heroes. I don't think the situation is comparable, we all know how protective Nintendo is.
1. Luck should absolutely be in the game. While frustrating in some ways, it keeps games from getting stale. It could be tweaked in different ways, such as lowering maximum luck damage or limit luck damage to certain conditions, but luck is an integral part of Advance Wars and should be kept.
Coinflips, on the other hand, should not. Missing the 50/50 to shoot down that Transport Copter or losing your Lander to the same odds does not feel good.
2. Balancing all the COs to be around the same level of power runs the risk of letting them feel very same-ey. Especially with weakened powers and standardized power costs. Also, having COs that are supposed to be better and feel powerful was part of the original game's charm, in my opinion at least - especially if single player will be included. Getting to play as Kanbei in AW2s campagin felt amazing, and no balance patch has been able to keep this feeling alive.
Balance-wise, this could be solved by grouping the COs based on their power for multiplayer games, much like AWBWs tiering. This would also aid in the initial design process of the COs, as COs would no longe have to be judged against all other COs, but only against those in the same tier.
3. And lastly, while I understand that the aim of the project is to create the "definitive" Advance Wars experience and to not deviate much from the original formula, some original content should absolutely be added, both to fix some issues the original games had and to add a new spin to it. New, original COs, new unit types, a naval combat expansion (please) and what not. These Features could also be toggleable to give people the option to exclude them and keep to the original feel.
It would be a totally different game, but I think a 1HP Infantry blocking a a flying Bomber is a bit ridiculous, so;
I would probably make "higher tier" movement be able to move through "lower tier" ones, i.e. Foot < Tires < Treads < Air
For all design criteria listed, you'd better be ready to pay devs Mangs! Otherwise, you might have to compromise. Colaborative effort and free labor (even labor of love) are conflicting things, especially in lengthy projects.
Nintendo lawyers eating good tonight LMAO
Yeah, also this idea, even with the best intention and good will, will not happen because the lawyers unless it's very different (like Wargroove and it's sequel) so much that it doesn't feel like Advance Wars which the main reason why Mangs bring this idea and make a whole video about it. It's about been 3 months since this video posted, and the game doesn't even have prototype yet.
I wish you luck on your mission
here is my CO Idea (Samurai John will be my base but change however you want)
Samurai John (Kanbei replacement)
Passive Power, Honorbound All units have +20% firepower and defense but -1 move when not at 10 (91-100 HP, the idea behind this is a no retreat playstyle requiring good timing to use)
Utility Power: Conch of War
Heals units 2 HP and gain +1 Move
This would hep counter the downsides of the CO
Combat Power: Samurai's Might
Units gain +20% Firepower and Défense (including the +10 passive)
This help bolsters John's strengths yet still has weaknesses
I feel like a CO that focuses more on precise attacks and timing can raise the skill and make it more fun and satisfying to land those powerful strikes destroying an enemy's plans however even with all these immense strengths still major weakness
Anyway this was my CO idea, the only skill I have is playtesting but if you ever want someone to try a game out from a casual perspective then let me know
P.S If you actually decide to go through with your game and make John a CO then his personality would be a mix of Kanbei's care for Sonja and focusing on how the civilians are effected by the war, cares for civilians yet worries for them
I've kind of thought about something similar...despite having not even played yet.
Something that I think would be worthwhile taking from RTS games would be having units equipped with single-use unique abilities or weapons, especially with Infantry it could make for unique mid stakes objectives, if for example they were pickups on the map such as a javalin system or an empty heavy tank that's out of fuel. Also if you wanted to go for a bit of a grittier vibe you could have the commanders actually on the field(indicated with a star next to their health?) and taking them out could be an additional win condition. I'm just brainstorming different ideas for directing board state that's more intricate within the same matchups. I like the idea of being able to rapidly transport units along Rail lines similar to the pipe guns but have the rails be both destructible (by certain units like bombers artillary or mechs), traversable and potentially buildable(maybe limiting it to a faction or CO if its op or too much to manage most games). The idea with these is adding Intuitive Intricacy And variation Without stacking on too much complexity to maximizing player freedom. Strategy games often fall off once the meta has been established and giving players more impactful choices end strategies worth hard committing to especially early game sets the pace for the rest of the match independent of just the map and co choice. It's part of the reason why Rogue likes maintain so much replayability; you finish at the same functionally overpowered status most runs just as a lot of matches will still end with a murderer ball or impactful snipe but getting there is most of the fun. Rewatching one of your matches against Javier made me appreciate how much high priority secondary objectives add to the game and I feel it would be a missed opportunity not to introduce more beyond "go here capture X building".
Also, drawbridges maybe? It'd add variable impedance to land and water units requiring coordination of each wild potentially offering up strategies to protect or block Naval units. Bridging Vehicles might also make for an interesting support unit for allowing others to cross one wide tiles of water
If you do anything with one of these developers make an infantry unit that can take down helicopters. Kind of like a mech that can shoot down helicopters. Also add bunkers as a terrain tile. It would be like a mountain in terms of how many terrain stars it grants, but those stars are only accessible to infantry units. So if you were to park a tank or rocket on it they wouldn’t get the terrain bonus. Also I think luck should only come into play when your terrain stars are greater than or equal to the enemy unit that is being attacked (doesn’t effect indirects) also take a page out of deep rock galactic’s book and do the game how they’ve been running things.
I would like a play by mail option where I can do my turn at any time and have several games going at once. That way I can play with people on the opposite side of the world without having to work around their schedule.
Interesting. I've always wanted to make my own advance wars style game someday. Even have it mapped out. I'm really glad to see all these projects similar to it pop up now.
a couple points that I thought of after watching.
1) About the luck. You will never eliminate luck from a game. People get this weird obsession with it and act like if there was no luck things will always be peachy. In turn based there will be luck especially if fog of war is on. There is always the luck of the enemy built X instead of Y and and I was trying to bait out Y. In RTS games there is always luck of I was looking over here and I missed this on the minimap or in first person maybe He went the long way instead of the short way and got lucky with a sneak attack. So I think it's healthy for a game to have some luck in. Even in real life you don't completely eliminate luck. Even in sports you get lucky sometimes because a guy trips and doesn't get the tackle off in football. I think advance wars handles luck relaly well. It gives you a slight chance for extra damage that helps with things like finishing off units or sometimes keeping units alive (such as transports) and letting you land next turn. It does add so some excitement. You never want to fully predicts something because then it's not as exciting. I don't think luck needs to be eliminated, but you could do something like have a level up mechanic such as days of ruin and call it like combat experience. So a new unit built will not have any luck, but if they kill a unit they level up and get a 0 -5% luck chance and then a level 2 is like 0-10% chance. Then you can encourage unit retention as well as have which units have a chance for luck being telegraphed to the enemy. So luck is still a thing, but you have to work for it a bit and it's clear which units will be affected by it when making decisions.
2) As for the CO powers. I know people like having multiple powers, but I feel like it gets convoluted. It's more interested so simply, for examample have Andy be able to recover 3HP for all units and have a certain play style to keep him unique than it is for a) have a weak power and a strong power go for in the middle and 2) have 2 powers that are different such as 1 is a recovery and 2 is an attack and movement boost. because then you run into issues of him overlapping with other co's and being less unique because 3 other co's also have a similar movement and attack bonus but they are better numbers or they are better because their day to day also grants a firepower increase. I think it's better to stick with 1 power and a day to day that captures the fantasy of each co. More isn't always better.
Good luck though. I really hope this becomes a thing.
Luck: 0-9% but have it display the extra damage visible, even if it is 0%. That way, combined with seeing the enemies' HP you can more accurately gamble hits.
Since all CO powers will be roughly equal, make it so the offensive option raises luck to 0-12, the higher damage plus a small 3% bonus universally could make high tension wall breaks more engaging.
Also, for those who simply care about tactics and positioning exclusively, add an option to disable luck all together. Make it OBVIOUS that the match would have luck disabled (Std, No Luck [map name])
And, Kanbei's day-to-day seems very, steep. 20% more cost for 10% better is...rough. Colin became 10% worse offense for 10% cost which makes sense. Maybe make it 12% both so there is some benefit to choosing Kanbei. 10% attack and defense is good, but NOT 20% more expensive good. You will be out-teched and unable to repair, replace or retaliate unless you already are just a better player.
I could suggest more ideas but don't let me influence you too greatly, I see the potential and the passionate drive. If I could code I would offer my hand.
To any who read, thank you for letting a dyslexic have the mic. You all stay awesome and take it easy!
Speaking of numbers not going too high, maybe divide all money by 100, so a building produces 10 and a tank costs 70?
Sounds cool.
I think AW4 balance is better, where copters, AA, and tanks deal high damage to each other, and each tank feels really different and powerful for its price, but that's just my opinion. I still love AW2.
Please, no weird gimmicky COs. I tried some AW-like games, and some of them have super weird COs, which was a real turnoff. In my opinion, there are already so many things to do with the core mechanics that it's not necessary to create strange COs. I think COs should help you learn how the game works and can be interesting with simple abilities. For example, Andy can heal his units, and just this makes him easy to play for casual players, but it also adds depth when you want to master the art of not losing units to gain maximum value from his S/COP.
I really like the way power works in AW Returns. I think it's both different and familiar compared to AW.
I wish you the best of luck for this project!
Please give Jessie a big yellow pencil to write with as a reference to the big pencil-like shell.
A yellow highlighter marker is also acceptable.
I really want to see a AW style game that treats Fog of War as the default game mode rather than the occasional exception.
I once had an idea for an AW spiritual successor. But it's also set in a sci-fantasy setting, you fight on multiple planets and in space and it also has some stuff taken from more traditional turn-based strategies like research and Total War-style empire management.
Edit: Not to mention that apart of sci-fi tech, there would be also magic and the commanders you'd choose to play as would have distinct sets of abilities as well as a set of units that are tied to them specifically that work differently from the standard roster that everyone gets or replace certain units in the standard roster due to these units being simply superior versions that reflect their commander's take on warfare.
honestly while unrelated id recomend the nectaris series thats got some intresting mechanics