I did the final battle with Andy in the middle, Max on the left and Eagle on the right.
Yeah I’ve also had weird behavior with reefs in fog of war too to the extent I don’t trust them :/
I think it's the main reason why this release doesn't have online against randoms. Games just take too much time to complete. Civ 6 doesn't have online on Switch, only on PS and Xbox and that also doesn't have online against randoms.
Wonder what could this means for the chances of a new game. If WF keeps the budget down, Nintendo might be interested in doing another. Hopefully with a new cast of characters, I liked the reset they had with Days of Ruin.
Agreed. I think what games need to do is to encourage a sort of friendly ‘I concede’ communication that’s easier than just a ragequit disconnect. It’s true that in AW, once the enemy has significantly more resources than you and is continually able to pour out more units, and also then has forward unit-production faculties, you’re extremely unlikely to win if the opponent has even a vague idea of what counters what. It might seem like the battle is only 60% over but it’s usually a foregone conclusion at that point, the interesting bit is the stalemate. It’s also a long game, and nobody wants to spend 30 minutes sitting there while their opponent systematically captures all cities and wipes them out. Thing is, it’s not like the winning player has anything they can do to ask the enemy to surrender either. So the only options for the side with the disadvantage are to play on even when it’s clear the winner is just toying with them. I don’t mind playing on for a bit if it’s 60/40, they have a better position and I need them to make a couple of big mistakes. But if the enemy clearly has an overwhelming advantage and is pointlessly dragging it out in order to secure a total victory rather than going for the kill, I’d rather start a fresh game- that kind of play is for the computer.
I'd been thinking this as I moved to the medium sized War Room maps: the endgame can be dragged out by the CPU and any competent human player by churning out units from their base. The CPU doesn't mind grinding on, obviously, but where's the fun in that? The 'yield' option is there against the CPU, so surely that could be added to online battles, too.
Agree, a yield option would be great. If you want to encourage a healthy wargames community around a game that’s largely pretty balanced, people need to be ok with conceding and losing matches rather than worrying about w/l records. The winner also needs to accept that their opponent can’t be arsed to wait while they mess around with surrounding their HQ with 20 damaged units. The game should facilitate that and encourage players to get back into a fresh game quickly.
Yup! One of the reasons I use Andy against Drake; you're usually within a turn or two of activating your own CO power and removing the damage from Squall. Though I'd forgotten Drake gets a 2 star defensive bonus for his naval units; imagine how horrific Eagle would be if he had 2 star defense for his air units!
Not really sure what you mean by this? Yes, no one wants to lose a 1v1 in anything.
I mean that there's losing in 1v1 versus a match dragging on because you're getting destroyed, but your opponent is intent to do as much damage as possible instead of just going for the win when they can.
It’s the difference between going for the kill quickly, and dragging it out while you capture every city while sitting on every base when you’ve got more heavy units arriving each turn then they have units left on the map.
I don't want a perfect decision, I don't want to waste 30-40+ minutes because you need to S Rank missions to get a character. If this was JUST about getting S rank it'd be fine. But no matter how broken Sturm is in multiplayer, being forced to repeat again and again and again and again and again just because you forgot one unit before hitting end turn isn't fun. Playing the last 20 turns 5 times in a row isn't fun. Either give me a way to backtrack or don't hide characters in that requirement.
Oh yeah, this type of BM... Isn't that one of the values of the yield button though? If you've lost but your opponent doesn't want to win, just concede and move on? I just don't see this as any different from a straightforward loss (since you have a mercy button, without one I would feel differently), nor as a reason to discount online play.
Yes, it is a value of the Yield button, but that doesn't make it any more fun to use.
Again, don't see how this is at all a valid reason for a more active multiplayer to not exist. Losing generally isn't fun and hasn't been since games have existed in human history. And yet, games still exist.
While the reset turn option is nice it isn't a replacement for the save function of the originals. I used to able to set up my first few turns the way I wanted to try out a strategy, but now I have to repeat the exact same actions over and over if I don't like how things turn out.
This is something Days of Ruin ran into, but playing Advance Wars online with randoms is at its base level not fun if you're getting stomped. A Yield button doesn't fix that any more than just shutting the game off would.
I still don't see how this is valid at all. All this says to me is any multiplayer game is just not worth creating/playing since a player will lose? The point of a ranked mode would be to prevent one sided stomps. I'm struggling to see what you're actually trying to say past "I don't like it"
It's not that online isn't worth it. It's that random matchmaking in Advance Wars specifically has issues.
This is true of any game with random matchmaking though.
While true, most games with random matchmaking don't feature matches that last the average duration of an Advance Wars map.
I'm no designer (nor am I advocating the game I'm about to use as an example lol...) but Dota matches famously go on for about as long. Plus chess timers would go a long way I think.
It was super fun! Though it probably will only happen once in a blue moon since my best friend has very little free time lol.
