ATTENTION NEWBIES: Read this first (by Castina)

If you're new to the strategy-discussion forum of Advance Wars By Web, let me be the first to welcome you. Before you post anything, you should be made aware of certain pitfalls you can make here. If you've made these pitfalls in the past, please do not take this as rubbing it in your face as you had no way of knowing before it was too late. The point of this post is so future additions to the community do not do repeat the same.


1. Grit, Hachi, and Colin are broken. Period. It's been discussed, sent in triplicate, sent in, sent back, queried, lost, found, subjected to public enquiry, and finally buried in soft peat for three months and recycled as fire lighters. It's been proven. It's practically law. If you want to discuss any of the broken COs please do it in a respectful manner and respect the conclusion the entire Advance Wars community has come to. Do not discuss use of any of the three above in a topic not explicitly about them if you wish to be taken seriously.

2. First turn advantage (FTA) exists. Period. This is another issue that is sometimes opened and reopened by new people, similar to the above. Unlike the above, debate regarding FTA and its implications and severity on different maps is actually encouraged and desired but please recognize that its existence has been proven so attempting to debate that will be treated rather dismissively. For more information on FTA visit the Design Maps forum, as this one is here to help you come up with compensation tactics or discuss theory.

3. Matches against the CPU or "War Room" examples do not count. Sorry to say this, especially if you were under the impression that campaign or War Room modes were preparing you for play against another player. I won't lie -- the CPU does have its place in training, especially in practicing your ability to survive under duress, but data gleaned from fighting the CPU does not count towards strategical data here as the CPU is not only predictable, but cannot learn or adapt based on situational or mid-fight emerging data like a human can. If the CPU is a consistently difficult opponent for you in VS matches (try recreating one of the ones on Nahbien's list on your cart, it won't take as long as you think it might) then you're in no shape to be giving advice on PvP just yet. Be patient, you won't be in that rut forever.

4. Recognize the term "theorycraft". It stems from Warcraft/Starcraft and someone who plays the entire game in theory without actually understanding the flow of the game. It's a very blurry line what constitutes "theorycraft" and what is genuine AW theory, but it's instantly recognizable when a person uses theory and only gives information regarding the theorized situation favorable to their argument and skips all other information (such as daily income, number of footsoldiers on each side, presence of fog of war or unit types able to be built, etc.). If you are going to discuss theory, be sure to give as much data as possible, even if it doesn't immediately support your conclusion. It's even better if you can use shots from an actual game to support your thesis. That brings us to...

5. Neutrality is favorable. You will be much more respected if you don't appear to have emotional stakes in being right. Far too often someone will take someone completely debunking their arguments as a personal attack or somehow worry that the forum will see them as lesser people for being wrong. Believe me, if you're actually fretting about that, it shows -- and it will detract from your image exponentially more than being wrong. It is just a game. Relax. You have nothing to lose by being wrong. If anything, people unafraid and willing to be wrong in order to help find a greater truth are more respectable, not less.

6. Recognize the fact you are probably not as skilled as veterans of this community. Again, this should be no source of shame. This is the only community for Advance Wars online where people across the world can actually sharpen their skills against each other in actual play, and thus have the greatest exposure to the intricacies of the game. If you're new, then please respect the fact you're probably not as skilled as others here and not be surprised if your arguments and positions aren't taken as seriously as someone who has proven their experience. This is a meritocracy. If you recognize your place as a learner first and foremost, you will learn. If you come in, be offended when you're not treated as an immediate peer by the more skilled players, and then promptly have your ass handed to you in a game, you will learn far less than you would have if you deferred to them to begin with.


Finally...


7*. Be not afraid of asking for help. Be it a specific map, strategies for using a specific CO in different conditions, or even something more abstract than that. While it would be helpful to us if you instead browsed the archives to see if your question had already been answered (especially regarding queries regarding the broken COs) you should not hesitate to ask questions. Some of the best strategy discussions in this forum had stemmed from even the most basic questions from people who may have never even posted here before. You will not be looked down on for needing help, if anything the excuse to discuss strategy at length will be embraced.



Thank you for taking the time to read this.

*The original text had 6 listed here for unknown reasons. Some scholars postulate that's it's meant as a juxtaposition between the two paragraphs. The exact reasoning is perhaps forever lost.

Not to be picky, but the numbering system here lists 6 twice.   

Heh, well, I didn't write this - I simply copied it in its original form. I will redact it however since it doesn't take away from the original content, and makes it more understandable.

Yeah I know you just copied it, but I basically thought the same- its a minor correction that makes the intended meaning more clear.

Plus, it partially diminishes the credibility of the source- If "you" can make a simple error like that, how are they supposed to trust all the more detailed information?  

this warning to new players seems curious nowadays . It seems to be from a time when new players were silly and stubborn and needed to be put in their place.
There is much truth but it is a bit lacking in links /citations ... cannot really be considered a reference work. Also there are of course now known to be 5 brokens , kenbei and sensei too.

If you want to discuss any of the broken COs please do it in a respectful manner and respect the conclusion the entire Advance Wars community has come to.

This has not been true for about 4 years, as Wars World News has completely re-tested and re-organized the tier lists for the games since then. Grit is not considered broken in AW2 anymore, although his exact placement is yet to be determined as AW2 is not played in multiplayer that often. He is the weakest CO in AWDS due to changes in the charging system that favor the use of Recons.

Not saying you have to change your own rankings, but a thread entitled "ATTENTION NEWBIES" shouldn't make such a broad, out-dated statement.

This is the only community for Advance Wars online where people across the world can actually sharpen their skills against each other in actual play, and thus have the greatest exposure to the intricacies of the game.

This is also no longer true. Any Advance Wars game can be played online through the use of ROMs and tools like Teamviewer.

I think you guys are forgetting how map dependent COs are, and when this article was written - the maps were much more chocky, and static so of course Grit used to be OP back then.

Simply put: the CO meta is map dependent. The map meta could change into one where Drake could be considered broken tier for example. WWN has reinstated their tier lists because they've been toying with different maps throughout the years. Personally, I think CO meta should be evaluated on a map to map basis, which is one thing better players take into consideration when picking their CO.

This list, and others like it are simply a guide for newbies, and should be taken as a grain of salt beyond that skill level, imo.

Edit: The reason I reposted this was to preserve AWBW knowledge - old knowledge should be reevaluated, and criticized, but it should also be appreciated, and built upon. We're all standing on the shoulders of giants who've paved the way for us in one way, or another.

Iordor wrote:Simply put: the CO meta is map dependent. The map meta could change into one where Drake could be considered broken tier for example.

Not really. Being broken is mostly determined by extreme stats and situations where they are usable. Drake doesn't have extreme stats of any sort; whereas the same cannot be said of someone like Hachi or Sensei. Most COs are not powerful enough to be broken in any map.

Iordor wrote:This list, and others like it are simply a guide for newbies, and should be taken as a grain of salt beyond that skill level, imo.

A guide for newbies should not contain inaccurate information. Simplified, sure, but not inaccurate.

One could create a map that only drake could win in, because of his ability to reduce the fuel of his opponents: a predeployed map with a long twisting maze to the HQs, and forced, though meaningless, battles on the side to boost the power of the COs would be a good example of such a map.

Such maps could be crafted for every single CO in the game except maybe the random COs.

---

The nature of such a list will always be inaccurate because such a list will never be viable over so many different maps. Newbies do not need, or want over the top complexity - they want some quick information to patch up their gameplay that they can comprehend.

Btw, if you feel like you could create a better newbie guide, and you feel the need that there needs to be a new one to reflect the current meta then what's stopping you? This is mostly meant to be a historical piece, not a cutting edge on the current meta, btw...

Iordor wrote:One could create a map that only drake could win in, because of his ability to reduce the fuel of his opponents: a predeployed map with a long twisting maze to the HQs, and forced, though meaningless, battles on the side to boost the power of the COs would be a good example of such a map.

So you play or Tag with Jess and nullify that advantage. Problem solved.

Iordor wrote:The nature of such a list will always be inaccurate because such a list will never be viable over so many different maps. Newbies do not need, or want over the top complexity - they want some quick information to patch up their gameplay that they can comprehend.

I'm not advocating complexity, just accuracy.

Iordor wrote:Btw, if you feel like you could create a better newbie guide, and you feel the need that there needs to be a new one to reflect the current meta then what's stopping you?

Because I don't consider AWBW to be relevant to Advance Wars. This guide crossed my radar because it was one of the topics cited as a rebuttal to my Player's Guide to AWDS. I'm only here to inform you that your guide is misleading people. I have no interest in re-writing it.

This guide was never for AWDS meta which is why it wasn't posted in an AWDS forum, and it certainly wasn't made for Tag games.

I didn't write this guide, btw, I pulled it off of the old AWBW forum before it went offline and reposted it here - this guide was written by an old AWBW member called Castina which is why I put "by Castina" in the title.

I honestly don't see anything that we have to argue about here, because these games have different metas, though I do doubt the accuracy of your tier list. AWBW has over 10 years of statistics played by thousands of different players, and we can view what's going on between the different maps, and COs. While your AWDS community doesn't have any statistics, and has a dead community(3 members on your board).

Are you a dev for custom wars, or something? Because it seems that either you, or another CW dev has it out for AWBW: http://cwtactics.blogspot.com/2014/09/a-rebuttal-to-advance-wars-by-web.html

Edit: Thanks for taking some jabs at me in your article - I thought it was funny.

I don't know which maps you play on, but generally recons are a terrible choice of action on turn two because they don't do anything that early, but drain your resources, put you behind on your city capture, and put you at a tank disadvantage which snowballs the entire game, and causes you to lose.

I did not come here to have a pissing contest with you on irrelevant issues. Your guide is misleading, and you need to change it. If it is an older guide, mark it as such and make an update. Whatever your intention, people seem to think this guide applies to Advance Wars and not just your fan-game.

Did you even read this post? It has one paragraph about AWBW broken COs, and the rest of it is just tips for beginners. If you have something to say about the AWBW tier list then go here: https://isndev.forumotion.co.uk/t514-hellraider-awbw-co-tier-list-06-22-2012

There will be nothing changed to this because it's a guide by, and for the AWBW community, and because it isn't my guide to change in the first place.

I honestly don't see what your problem is. I checked out your website, and you seem to already censor discussion about AWBW there...

Wow some activity in forum.
MaraSargon. didnt you see i was already saying the guide is old and needs changing . Thanks for your support.  Though stuff happens very slowly at awbw these days unfortunately.
However at awbw i d think grit is broken on nearly all maps ive seen. Please explain what is different in your other version of AW to make grit less effective.

Oh i also agree with some parts of what you say in that awbw rebuttal post which is linked above by iordor.
However you speak of "awbw community consensus" a lot.  Actually theres much debate past and present about many of the points you raise. For example we have posts moaning about maps being boring and standoffish in old forum and this new one.  We have had many dissenting voices in our awbw community. Theres little that is beyond debate in practice.

ps..how can we register for that custom site without google account? And hows that site going.. any update can be posted in the special topic we have here.  Many of us at awbw are quite open to other related AW type games. Several of us even ventured to space cows when awbw last crashed and played some games. Any idea of when your custom site can be ready for play?

Iordor wrote:Did you even read this post?

I did, and in my first response I pointed out the exact passages I took issue with. If you can't change it for archival reasons, then archive this thread and just make an updated one. I don't understand why you've made an issue out of this, it wasn't exactly a major request.

Iordor wrote:I checked out your website, and you seem to already censor discussion about AWBW there...

I don't censor anything, except that on the old site (Black Hole HQ) and via email, I have repeatedly had people try to counter AWDS theory with AWBW theory. AWDS and AWBW don't play anything remotely like each other due to the overwhelming amount of incompatible maps and differences in power charging mechanics, and can't really be compared as such. Preventing those streams from crossing is literally the only way in which I "censor" AWBW discussion.

Blanci wrote:However at awbw i d think grit is broken on nearly all maps ive seen. Please explain what is different in your other version of AW to make grit less effective.

If by "other version" you mean AWDS, that's a topic I'll happily discuss. I'm not sure it would be appropriate to hijack this thread for that conversation, though.

I will state briefly that the biggest difference by far is the charging system. It's not merely "faster," that's just a lazy shorthand I use a lot. In the older games, CO Power charging was based on funds, and the funds of damaged units fed that bar. (I.e. Infantry feed 1000g to the bar, Tanks 7000g, etc.) In AWDS, each power star is instead worth 100 "points" to begin with, increasing by +20% with each use until reaching +280% on the 9th use; on the 10th use, it resets to +100 for the rest of the session. Each unit has a set points value in this charging system. Several units share points values: Recons, Tanks, AAs, Arties, T-Copters, and B-Boats all are worth 100 points, which is to say they are worth the exact same to your power bar when killed. This completely changes the rules of cost-effectiveness. In the latter case, 6 dead Recons will charge Andy's SCOP the same as 6 dead Tanks. It makes no sense, therefore, to tech up past Recons until you have a few mixed in with Infantry to charge your bar.

This ties into production slots, maximizing how many units your SCOP affects, etc., but this thread will be hijacked beyond recovery if I go into that.

Blanci wrote:ps..how can we register for that custom site without google account? And hows that site going.. any update can be posted in the special topic we have here.  Many of us at awbw are quite open to other related AW type games. Several of us even ventured to space cows when awbw last crashed and played some games. Any idea of when your custom site can be ready for play?

The site runs on Google, so there's no way to get on without a Google account. That goes for commenting on the blogs as well, since it's all Google. The only way to talk to us without one is via the new Custom Wars forum, which you can find a link to via the blog in my signature.

The game itself is perfectly playable right now, though, and you don't need an account for that. There's no network play or COs yet -network is the next thing being worked on- and the only playable mode right now is AWDS-mode. The soundtrack hasn't been implemented yet either, you still have to go to my YouTube channel if you want to hear all that. All the music in-game right now is just placeholders. Development is a bit slow because Custom Wars is both browser- and client-based, and both need to be developed together for obvious reasons.

MaraSargon wrote:AWDS and AWBW don't play anything remotely like each other due to the overwhelming amount of incompatible maps and differences in power charging mechanics...

This is a thread about AWBW. You are coming into an AWBW thread and telling people that the commanders we have determined to be broken over 10 years of data, again, on specifically AWBW, are wrong, by using AWDS data, which is irrelevant to the thread. Then you are saying that AWBW and AWDS don't play similarly at all, which is true, and invalidates your previous points further. You then talk about censoring people using AWBW data to debate AWDS theory, which is what you are currently doing, just in reverse order.

The tier lists for both games are likely very different. You are welcome to debate AWBW tier list data using your own AWBW tier list data here:
https://isndev.forumotion.co.uk/t514-hellraider-awbw-co-tier-list-06-22-2012

The current ladder maps for AWBW can be found here:
https://isndev.forumotion.co.uk/t520-global-league-map-list
http://awbw.amarriner.com/categories.php?categories_id=26

I will likely be writing another updated Tier List for AWBW, not AWDS, that will be only slight changes, someday in the future. For now, Hellraider's most recent Tier List for AWBW, not AWDS, is very accurate. Coming from someone who has played more, watched more, studied more, and made more maps for AWBW than the majority of the existing community, that is where I stand on the AWBW Tier list. The Broken 5 for AWBW will not change when my updated Tier List is written because they have not changed.

Best Sakuya NA wrote:This is a thread about AWBW. You are coming into an AWBW thread and telling people that the commanders we have determined to be broken over 10 years of data, again, on specifically AWBW, are wrong, by using AWDS data, which is irrelevant to the thread.

I have done no such thing anywhere in this thread. I merely asked that inaccurate information be corrected. I defined precisely which information I was referring to in my first post.

I see your problem is likely the phrasing of "The entire Advance Wars community" and now understand the issue. This article was written years ago. A new article could be written that changes that to say "The entire Advance Wars by Web" community now, yes. I could also change it to say the broken 5 instead of the broken 3, because those 5 are 100% broken in AWBW currently and have been for some time.

I also have a lot of work to do today, in AWBW, and in many other games I work with. If it is that huge of an issue, sure. I can post literally the exact same article, with those tiny edits, and the message would still essentially be the same. Nothing else in this article would be changed but those words.

It was posted in the AWBW section of the forums, within the Strategy subforum, which has the subtitle of "Discuss AWBW strategy here." In one article from years ago from someone that is no longer an active member of the community, they shortened the phrasing of "Advance Wars by Web community" to "Advance Wars community" and it is apparently a very large problem that I was previously not aware of.

Whoops. Let me go find Castina so we can correct this error.

A better solution would be to hire someone who would write a new player guide based on this guide. That would, in theory, please both the entire AWBW community as well as you, and our problems would be solved. As I cannot do that, I will likely change the wording and link back to the original thread myself...because that is a thing I expected to have to do tonight.

Best Sakuya NA wrote:This article was written years ago.

I know, I was present when it was originally authored.

Best Sakuya NA wrote:A new article could be written that changes that to say "The entire Advance Wars by Web" community now, yes.

That would suffice, thank you.

My only reason for coming here in the first place was receiving emails citing this thread and Hellraider's tier list as rebuttals to an AWDS guide. I'm sorry if it appeared that I was trying to use AWDS to rebut AWBW (which I would never do when I already forbid the reverse), it only came up because I was trying to explain the problem.

I honestly think that would just be a waste of time, and money, Mori. This community has pretty much been dead for years now, and the only people who are into AW nowadays are fanatics for it, lol. The only people who'd read it, and talk about it here are the regulars: me, blanci, you, and I guess mara would come around and be irate about it.

Iordor wrote:I honestly think that would just be a waste of time, and money, Mori. This community has pretty much been dead for years now, and the only people who are into AW nowadays are fanatics for it, lol. The only people who'd read it, and talk about it here are the regulars: me, blanci, you, and I guess mara would come around and be irate about it.

Assuming only a select few people are into strategy and ignoring it because of that isn't the best course of action imo... I'm sure there are plenty of others out there who are interested in it but just not vocal enough to actively participate. Narrowing it down to "regulars" doesn't do the rest of the community justice.

actually bamboozle might be correct.
I just noticed this thread anyway isnt so dead its got 250 plus views so far !

Perhaps Iordor can add a small errata preface saying there are 5 brokens, not only the stated 3, and give the link to the update tiers. While i understand the sentiment to save awbw history, I thought it seemed a trifle too sentimental to see old stuff being suddenly given priority and getting stickied especially as it had errors. And really we are here to try to move AW forward not wallow too much in the past.

Also i think there are too many of us regulars criticising poor MaraSargon. Cant we go easy and permit him to let off a bit of steam and then lets all work together to push forward with AW in whatever form. There are so few active debators as it is.

MMmm ..Who are all these other 250 viewers i wonder? Some people are quietely observing us from the sidelines watching the show... maybe government military strategists trying to pick our ideas.

I don't think there is any accident, my forums and site also saw a small surge of viewing growth during this period as well. I am surprised that this discussion didn't arise long ago. As people who generally care about the game, the best course of action is always moving forward and trying to improve on the past.

Bamboozle wrote:I'm sure there are plenty of others out there who are interested in it but just not vocal enough to actively participate. Narrowing it down to "regulars" doesn't do the rest of the community justice.

I'm definitely in this category of "interested, but not always vocal".

Mostly, I find myself technically competent enough to follow, enjoy, and understand the discussion, but not enough so to contribute meaningfully. Often times I'll develop opinions or have ideas based on the discussion, but seeing as I have little other basis for these, I find it either isn't worth bringing up the same point again or, in the case if it being something not yet mentioned, may be the result of me not realizing/considering something obvious (to everyone else) that simply hadn't made it into that discussion. We all know what its like to have the n00b come in and say something like

Noob wrote:I know you guys discussed the map symmetry and terrain/base positioning extensively to make sure it was balanced, but nobody pointed out that BM starts with an infantry and OS doesn't. How is that fair at all?

so I try not to be the n00b. I leave the AW and AWBW strategy talk up to those who actually have something worth saying.