Advance Wars: Under Fire

This topic is based on the following article:

Please take the time to read the article before posting

News articles don't always get the best responses compared to forum threads, so I have decided setting up a thread for each of the games that received a Hands On article could be a good idea. Kicking things off we have the latest installement in the Advance Wars Series, Under Fire.

Discuss away!

[ Edited by spydarlee on 2004/6/28 13:30 ]

ummmm.... COOL!

Has anyone played Advanced Wars?

I played it on the GBA and did not like it all, I found it dragged on too long and just got way too boring for my liking. So the idea of it being completley changed and seeing the videos had me very keen. That said, now Spydar and tempo say it was one of the lesser games on offer, it has me worried.

i havnt had the chance to play advance wars what so ever. I might download a rom to see what its like.

Daone wth happened to your title thingy you kept both lol
if you download a rom just dowload the second one

yeah the thing with Gba advance wars was because of its simplicity It was easy to make strategy, if you catch my drift.
The 3d one could just degenerate into sending wave after wave of soldiers to kill enemies

True, it could turn out like that. The game is very early in development though, so first impressions could lead either way really. The lack of being able to order new units yourself, means you had to be quite strategic with what you used to do what, but in the final version this might not be the case, if all you need is money and biuldings then it could as mentioned turn into a wave after wave of troops afair, rather than a strategic one.

Remember if you have any other questions concerning the game don't hesitate to ask me or Tempo

GR781 wrote:
the gba advance wars games were brilliant imo- consistantly voted as the best games on the gba. It worries me that the game will become a bit mindless, but i still think it should be good, if they manage to still make it strategic.

Now I fail to see why it is that good. I mean I did not stick with it too long to be fair, but I was bored a few levels in and found little to keep me interested, so why was it so damn brillaint?

I really liked Advanced Wars its knida confusing really I didn't buy it thoguh

I found advance wars 1 extremely entertaining, it's one of two games I've played all through the night, (along with FF7)

but after I'd got most the maps, I didn't really have any incentive to keep playing

The demo on show was (IMO) well and truly rank. If the horribly graphics weren't bad enough the whole thing was so badly slapped together and pish-pash it was painful.

The reasons for this are obvious: this game has been in development for no more than a very small amount of months. There is certainly potential here, and the franchise is an excellent one for the guys at Kuju to be working on. It should be looking in much better shape by E3 2005

sorry for the long post, this is mostly because strategy/tactics is my favourite genre, but also bacause advance wars is my favourite game.
[most of this post relies on you guys knowing the difference between tactics and strategy. Strategy is like big picture ideas, and tactics is like specifics-like if I move my tank here, then they attack him, then I can probably finish me off with my rocket because I'm on this square and he's on that square]

the thing which made Advance wars so amazing was that such simple game mechanics could generate such a brilliant tactic/strategy game. Advance wars had so much more tactics than any real time strategy game on the PC in the last 10 years. Because it was turn based, and because there were a very limited number of squares, you had to pay individual attention to each of your troops.

I can only remember about two tactical real time games, and I can't even remember if they were in real time... 'close combat-1998/9' and 'HQ-1995/6'

Real time strategy games can be good, even without much tactical gameplay. Red alert, warcraft, starcraft, age of empires all had little tactical gameplay, but they were good games. they were simple, they had big strategies, which had to be implemented with good timing. You had to decide when to make a new base, when to attack, how many defensive stuctures/mobile units to build (power or flexibility) ect.

The whole thing about strategic games is resource gathering, and making new bases. The whole thing about tactical games is the challenge in arranging your units perfectly, in an undermanned battle, to overcome a stronger enemy.

What I'm saying is I don't love advance wars for its graphics or its units or its COs or its storyline. I loved it for its balanced tactical turn based gameplay. Basically everything I loved about advance wars is going uot the window, so I'm relying on the new developers creating something new to make it fun.

I don't understand yet what Advance wars on GC is meant to be. It sounds like a sort of cross between FPS and turn based and RTS games. Its really confusing me actually. you can run around killing people until you get bored, then you switch to a tank, and blow some things up. then you switch to a bomber, and you blow up the enemy's base, and this is fun why? Or have I just misinterpreted how this game works?

turn based real time strategy game ???!!!
I wholeheartedly agree with duffman i think converting the game to 3d could ruin it even if it does become a free roaming Turnbased thing that will suck (Unless Kuju are really smart) And all the other aspects of the game could fail as well.
Although ive not played it from what i see and what ive been told I really dont have much hope for this game. Its just advance wars without the tactics.