Advance Wars by Web Games

[Cheater Hater]

Yeah, I had a couple of annoying 99% full CO meters in my match, though there it only meant one attack had to be done without the power on.

Of course, now that we're getting into it, we're realizing the obvious problems with the interface, it comes back to BRick's original goal--any updates on your clone/prototype?

[Fenn]

GG scooter.

Don't worry too much about making mistakes, I think I've had plenty of my own so far.

[BRickAstley]

Yeah in the FFA I've made a couple of accidental mismoves that made me want to scream. But I'm still enjoying myself enough to keep playing.

[Bobchillingworth]

GG CH, I concede; I thought I had killed enough of your infantry units to mitigate the capturing you could do with your SCOP, but your funding advantage is insurmountable.

[BRickAstley]

GG for the FFA Game, My all-in almost work but it wasn't enough.

[Fenn]

That's GG for me too then.

Well played Bob, I didn't expect you to capture scooter's HQ that fast. I also totally forgot that when you capture somebody's HQ, you get all of their properties. I was planning on grabbing scooter's empty bases and building up units until I could push back against both of you, but of course that plan was doomed by my failure to understand the rules.

[Bobchillingworth]

Yeah, that was a near thing; would have worked, but my COP gave me the edge to break through.


GG guys, that was hard-fought, but I was able to make my assault on scooter right as he & Brick were focusing on then-dominant Fenn.

[Fenn]

It's just like Civ 4 - an early advantage isn't always worth it in free-for-alls if it makes you a target. Going after scooter instead of playing defensively on that front and focusing on Brick was a mistake on my part; with how the HQs and bases are situated, it seems like you want to attack the person counterclockwise of you.

Now that I've only got the 2v2 game going on, any interest in a duel on this map? http://awbw.amarriner.com/prevmaps.php?maps_id=56377
It's designed to be played with ~2500 funds per property, which is why nobody starts with any bases. Could be fun, I haven't had much chance to use even Mid Tanks in the normal games so far.

[Cheater Hater]

GG CH, I concede; I thought I had killed enough of your infantry units to mitigate the capturing you could do with your SCOP, but your funding advantage is insurmountable.

Yeah, you didn't have a good choice on the pre-SCOP turn: you could either kill the Infantry I put in range of your HQ, or use your units to try to mitigate the rest of my army. Of course, leaving multiple B-copters in range of my fresh AAs didn't do you any favors either. There were a lot of misclicks in that game, though--we need to hurry up on that AW clone Brick

I'm wondering if the HQ capture=all properties is a good rule for a FFA multiplayer game--obviously in SP it makes the more-lopsided 2v1 and 3v1 War Room maps easier, but it leads to a snowball in MP. Then again, maybe a "first person to eliminate someone wins" format is overall a better format, as it removes player elimination, though it changes the calculus a bit.

[Bobchillingworth]

The issue with capturing an HQ turning properties neutral is that it creates a sort of reverse prisoner's dilemma. Any player will invest everything they can in protecting their HQ by necessity, even if their most valuable holdings are located some distance away. The advantage would go not necessary to whoever captures the HQ, which then simply becomes another city, but rather who is best positioned to capture the many suddenly neutral (and undefended) properties which result. Therefore players have much less incentive to go for the difficult-to-capture HQ and more to hang back and wait for someone else to do the heavy lifting, which isn't ideal for a game which encourages a quick battle pace.


I think by far the worst thing about AW is the utter lack of an attempt to balance the COs. Far too many of them are either useless in all but niche circumstances or have powers which utterly upend the game in ways few if any maps can truly account for.