Support NeoGAF

[Stopdoor]

So I just got together some DS to play Advance Wars with people and the only one I've had for awhile is Days of Ruin. I'll probably pick of some of the others soon, I'm generally aware of the pros/cons of each, I know Days of Ruin is kind of slow due to weaker CO powers?

So like, the game provides these gigantic maps you could possibly play with up to 4 people - how does that even work? You'd have to dedicate literally an entire day to play through that, it'd be like Risk, and you can't even pause and come back right?

Do you watch other people's turns? With 4 people that would be ultra slow, but if you don't you'd have a hard time to catch up on strategy right? And if each person took their agonizing time scanning the battlefield for optimal strategy and all that, man that would suck, but then otherwise you're not really having a 'real' battle? Is this a party game then? How much strategy is taking it seriously? I dunno.

Should I play with a 'Days' limit? Otherwise you only win by destroying the entire enemy or capturing their HQ, but let's be honest, you're rarely catching their HQ unless they're a dumb CPU or are already near-death. It's a heck of a war of attrition.

Should I up the funds people get each turn so it's easier to build units to cross the giant maps? But then you get to the point where everyone is farting out Bombers and Battleships and it's no big deal anymore, and then by Turn 20 everyone would be moving 30 units a turn and it would take even longer.

I feel like people might say this is a Days of Ruin problem because it doesn't have crazy CO powers or something, but is it really? Do 4 player Advance Wars games work ever? Has anyone on NeoGAF ever completed one and can brag to me about how amazing it was and how many hours they devoted to this?

 

[SixMachine]

I never got to play Days of Ruin multiplayer, because my cousin had my copy stolen from his car when it was broken into. But I have played multiplayer in all the other Advance War games. You just take turns in order and watch other people take their turn when it is their time. I played locally with my brother and cousins. The other Advance War games were fun but they did have really big balance issues (Colin just gets absolutely ridiculous, since his whole schtick is having weak units that get stronger with more money. Grit is also a solid choice since you can set up formations protecting your indirect fire units and Max always seemed to be pretty subpar in most games he is in.), especially Dual Strike, since the tag mechanic was really strong in certain combinations. The games do go for a while depending on a map, some maps are small enough that the other person may get rushed down pretty quick depending on matchup. Battle animation is also usually turned off for things to go by faster. If you are playing against or as Sami, the opponent also has to be careful against her since her super power allows her infantry to capture in 1 day, so you have to proactively prevent her from moving in position for powerplays.

But Days of Ruin is quite different. Since the CO is not like a battlewide entity that gives buffs to everyone, since they have to be loaded into a unit, and only effects units in a certain radius. I would assume it's more balanced since the powers are more dialed down than the other games.

 

[Stopdoor]

I never got to play Days of Ruin multiplayer, because my cousin had my copy stolen from his car when it was broken into. But I have played multiplayer in all the other Advance War games. You just take turns in order and watch other people take their turn when it is their time. I played locally with my brother and cousins. The other Advance War games were fun but they did have really big balance issues (Colin just gets absolutely ridiculous, since his whole schtick is having weak units that get stronger with more money. Grit is also a solid choice since you can set up formations protecting your indirect fire units and Max always seemed to be pretty subpar in most games he is in.), especially Dual Strike, since the tag mechanic was really strong in certain combinations. The games do go for a while depending on a map, some maps are small enough that the other person may get rushed down pretty quick depending on matchup. Battle animation is also usually turned off for things to go by faster. If you are playing against or as Sami, the opponent also has to be careful against her since her super power allows her infantry to capture in 1 day, so you have to proactively prevent her from moving in position for powerplays.

But Days of Ruin is quite different. Since the CO is not like a battlewide entity that gives buffs to everyone, since they have to be loaded into a unit, and only effects units in a certain radius. I would assume it's more balanced since the powers are more dialed down than the other games.

Hmm, it seems like the CO power thing might make a large difference especially because it's ultra easy to forget about the whole system in Days of Ruin, way too many times I've thought "yeah I'll put my CO in the unit next turn" and then immediately forgot, not really a great system.

 

[Stopdoor]

Curious if I can get any more thoughts or experiences on this

 

[Nocturnowl]

I've played a few three to four player Days of Ruin matches.
It's an unholy slog of attrition, small victories that lead to an eventual inevitable defeat for the opposing player that takes waaay tooo long to finally come around.
So just like actual war!

Really though while it has its moments it's just way too long in the tooth. That and fuuuuck the artillery.

 

[Dimitri LH]

Its fun, but admit-tingly it is a hassle to get a group to play a full match sometimes. I never found a problem with the Days of Ruin CO. powers, it felt more balanced sort to speak?

Man I miss the series....might do a advance wars run once of these days.

 

[psyfi]

I adore AW and play its multiplayer with friends every so often, and yeah, it's slow. We just hang out and drink beer and pass the GBA around (we usually play AW2). You gotta make an evening of it, and sometimes if a game can be called before its over, it's better to just cut it short and start a new one.

 

[Harlock]

For multiplayer they should do more like Military Madness, without unlimited new units.

 

[Lumination]

1v1 can go pretty fast if both players know what they're doing.

3-4 player games can be a beast because of the local stalemates that can take many turns to resolve. Maybe try Dual Strike instead? It's less balanced, but those blowout double turns may be what you need to break the long battles of attrition that can occur. Disclaimer: may also give every other player an incentive to blow you up before you can use your dual strike.

 

[Boney]

You gotta do it passing the system so you just gotta take a small turn every couple of minutes. While something else can occupy everyone else.

But yeah it's kind of unfeaseble considering a long map in single player can take hours.

 

[Stopdoor]

For multiplayer they should do more like Military Madness, without unlimited new units.

Never heard of this, I looked it up, is it any good? Looks like there's a sketchy looking remake on XBLA/PSN?

 

[Smasher89]

I really like the amount of content in AWDS, days of ruin had online battles, but on very basic maps with restricted unitcount or something like that if i recall, so the one attacking basicly lost.

Multiplayer can be played passing around the DS, and is like mario party in the way that new players will play the game really slow, but more exp gets way faster.

Sam+Hawke was a fun combo, basicly 3 turns in 1, where the last turn had infantrys take over a building, meaning you got some insane reach to take over the HQ.

 

[Firemind]

I feel like people might say this is a Days of Ruin problem because it doesn't have crazy CO powers or something, but is it really? Do 4 player Advance Wars games work ever? Has anyone on NeoGAF ever completed one and can brag to me about how amazing it was and how many hours they devoted to this?

4 player games work if you use online chess rules. I've completed many 4p free for all and 2v2 games with a little browser game called Advance Wars By Web. Not sure how active it is today, but in its heydays you could find games every day with balanced maps against skilled players. Sometimes it doesn't work out and they concede for inactivity, but since it's a small community (it even has a reputation system I believe), you generally get awesome games. Just remember to check the banned COs for each map.

But, yeah, Days of Ruin is definitely a slog to play through because it misses super CO powers to turn the tides of war. I remember an epic 1v1 game with me being Sami and my opponent being Lash. It was a FoW map with no airports. It went back and forth capturing cities since Sami and Lash are both great at urban warfare. What eventually led to my victory was using my SCOP to get incrementally more income than my opponent (smart players don't fall for HQ captures if you're Sami.) One day he conceded because he saw the futility of playing catch up every time I sniped a few of his cities.

I miss Advance Wars.

 

[Stopdoor]

I really like the amount of content in AWDS, days of ruin had online battles, but on very basic maps with restricted unitcount or something like that if i recall, so the one attacking basicly lost.

Multiplayer can be played passing around the DS, and is like mario party in the way that new players will play the game really slow, but more exp gets way faster.

Sam+Hawke was a fun combo, basicly 3 turns in 1, where the last turn had infantrys take over a building, meaning you got some insane reach to take over the HQ.

Yeah, I actually have a few copies to do multi-card play so I'm not restricted, I guess people would tell me passing the system around works fine but I thought maybe everyone having a view of the battle might be fun? I recently thought about how it would work pretty well on Game Boy Player or Wii U VC where you pass the controller around but can still pay attention to the battle.

But then I guess people suggest not paying attention, lol.

4 player games work if you use online chess rules. I've completed many 4p free for all and 2v2 games with a little browser game called Advance Wars By Web. Not sure how active it is today, but in its heydays you could find games every day with balanced maps against skilled players. Sometimes it doesn't work out and they concede for inactivity, but since it's a small community (it even has a reputation system I believe), you generally get awesome games. Just remember to check the banned COs for each map.

But, yeah, Days of Ruin is definitely a slog to play through because it misses super CO powers to turn the tides of war. I remember an epic 1v1 game with me being Sami and my opponent being Lash. It was a FoW map with no airports. It went back and forth capturing cities since Sami and Lash are both great at urban warfare. What eventually led to my victory was using my SCOP to get incrementally more income than my opponent (smart players don't fall for HQ captures if you're Sami.) One day he conceded because he saw the futility of playing catch up every time I sniped a few of his cities.

I miss Advance Wars.

The web version looks cool, but it seems like it would definitely miss out on even the moving animations? I guess I'm torn between wanting to speed up the game but not wanting a pure utilitarian experience, heh.

Do you think changing the income or day limit settings are a good idea to speed up games at all?

 

[RedToad64]

If you want to play Advance Wars multiplayer, I suggest the Wii U VC games. Having the TV to watch everything and passing the GamePad around works flawlessly. You can even use multiple controllers if you don't want to mess with passing anything around.

 

[Pamplemousse]

You could always do a pre-deployed map for a quicker match.

 

[Starviper]

If you want to play Advance Wars multiplayer, I suggest the Wii U VC games. Having the TV to watch everything and passing the GamePad around works flawlessly. You can even use multiple controllers if you don't want to mess with passing anything around.

That's actually a neat idea

 

[Mephala]

I played a few matches of 3 player mp. We had a time limit of about 1 1/2 hours so we used timers to push us to play quickly.
We eventually brought in another DS and passed the device around each turn meaning there was an extra layer of chaos and confusion due to fighting two wars on at the same but still within the same time limit. It was actually a lot of fun.

 

[Firemind]

Do you think changing the income or day limit settings are a good idea to speed up games at all?

Property ratio is definitely important to prevent it from being an infantry/artillery spamming fest. For speedy, balanced games I would consider creating your own maps. Oftentimes the 4p maps in the games are either symmetrical, giving advantage to the player starting first, or have too many factories. What I like is giving the third and fourth starting player faster access to properties. For example, the first and second player take two turns to reach the first city while the third and fourth player only take one turn.

HQ placement is also important. You don't want the HQ to be a fortified stronghold to promote offensive play. Most 4p maps have HQs at the very corner of the map, which makes game take longer since it takes longer to supplement troops to the frontline. One of the most enjoyable games I had was four HQs right next to each other in the middle of the map. Generally, you don't want HQs to be accessible from only one side but from multiple sides. Use the terrain or airports to make it easier to reach them.

I also found long open maps promote speedy games. Grit is really the sort of guy who starts stalemates. You want open roads so that he can't block them with his infantry. It also promotes tanks and anti-airs to try to blitzkrieg your opponent. You can maybe check the web version for well designed maps. They use a rating system I believe.

 

[RiggyRob]

That's actually a neat idea

Only problem is Days of Ruin isn't on the Wii U VC, but it is an elegant solution for local play for AW1/2/Dual Strike.

 

[Stopdoor]

Property ratio is definitely important to prevent it from being an infantry/artillery spamming fest. For speedy, balanced games I would consider creating your own maps. Oftentimes the 4p maps in the games are either symmetrical, giving advantage to the player starting first, or have too many factories. What I like is giving the third and fourth starting player faster access to properties. For example, the first and second player take two turns to reach the first city while the third and fourth player only take one turn.

HQ placement is also important. You don't want the HQ to be a fortified stronghold to promote offensive play. Most 4p maps have HQs at the very corner of the map, which makes game take longer since it takes longer to supplement troops to the frontline. One of the most enjoyable games I had was four HQs right next to each other in the middle of the map. Generally, you don't want HQs to be accessible from only one side but from multiple sides. Use the terrain or airports to make it easier to reach them.

I also found long open maps promote speedy games. Grit is really the sort of guy who starts stalemates. You want open roads so that he can't block them with his infantry. It also promotes tanks and anti-airs to try to blitzkrieg your opponent. You can maybe check the web version for well designed maps. They use a rating system I believe.

These are great tips, thank you! The HQ one especially makes a lot of sense, it seems way too easy to fortify HQs in a lot of maps.