Forum Link

[Jackie Milton]

Is there any possibility that the forum link on AWBW redirects here? As I understand it, the old forum isn't coming back up any time soon and it just makes AWBW seem more like a ghost town. I believe it may be helpful in retaining new users if this resource is at least readily available to new players and the community in general.

Of course, the OG forum would still need to be available for access, so I'm not saying erase it from existence. Another option would be to link the old forum as "[Old Forum]" or something of the like. (similar to "Maps [Categories]").

I know this is your forum, Mori, so it would obviously be up to you whether or not you want to; then, whoever has power to edit the site (I'm assuming senior map committee). But I think it would give newcomers the idea that we have a (somewhat) active community, as opposed to freelancers, holdouts, and old goats.

Anyway, just a thought.

[start]

Strongly agreed.

Also, we should fix the descriptions for both Sami and Rachel.

Sami's description doesn't mention her weaker direct units:

Footsoldiers have +30% firepower and capture buildings 50% more quickly (rounded up); Transports gain +1 Movement

Rachel's Super CO Power description ends mid-sentence:

Super: Covering Fire -- Three 2 Range missiles strike the opponent's most accumulate

[Xmo5]

Sami's also should say rounded down, not up, because, in my experience, that's how it is on AWBW.

I don't believe Rachel's ends mid-sentence, but I think it's vague and grammatically incorrect. It's using "accumulate" as a noun (or maybe an adjective with an implied noun: "units"), as far as I can tell. In that case I would pronounce it like accumu-let instead of accumu-late, similar to the word "congregate" or "conglomerate" which can be verbs and a adjectives (and a noun as well, in the case of the latter), and pronounced in much the same way. My problem is that I'm pretty certain that accumulate (n.) is not a legitimately recognized word in English, though I could be incorrect. Regardless, I think it's sloppy grammar at best and it certainly doesn't explain anything about how her power actually works, which is all that really matters. I know I've looked it up multiple times on other online sources, and nothing really gives a full picture.

To make matters worse, there's also the AWBW factor to take into account. For example, Rachel's missiles target based on certain criteria, but in some cases the AWBW target selection hierarchy may not be the same as the AW-designed hierarchy. I know that on AWBW, mechs are not included in targeting considerations for the missile that targets infantry, capturing infantry count for double, and a complete absence of infantry defaults the missile to targeting the top left tile of the map. Any of those could be slightly different in the actual game, but I've never really done the research. What this means is that other sources may be accurate to the AW game(s), but not to AWBW, especially considering that many COs were featured in multiple games and some had their powers modified a bit in each one.

Moral of the story here is that I agree and I think a lot could be done to improve these resources at our disposal.

[start]

Sami's also should say rounded down, not up, because, in my experience, that's how it is on AWBW.

I don't believe Rachel's ends mid-sentence, but I think it's vague and grammatically incorrect. It's using "accumulate" as a noun (or maybe an adjective with an implied noun: "units"), as far as I can tell. In that case I would pronounce it like accumu-let instead of accumu-late, similar to the word "congregate" or "conglomerate" which can be verbs and a adjectives (and a noun as well, in the case of the latter), and pronounced in much the same way. My problem is that I'm pretty certain that accumulate (n.) is not a legitimately recognized word in English, though I could be incorrect. Regardless, I think it's sloppy grammar at best and it certainly doesn't explain anything about how her power actually works, which is all that really matters. I know I've looked it up multiple times on other online sources, and nothing really gives a full picture.

To make matters worse, there's also the AWBW factor to take into account. For example, Rachel's missiles target based on certain criteria, but in some cases the AWBW target selection hierarchy may not be the same as the AW-designed hierarchy. I know that on AWBW, mechs are not included in targeting considerations for the missile that targets infantry, capturing infantry count for double, and a complete absence of infantry defaults the missile to targeting the top left tile of the map. Any of those could be slightly different in the actual game, but I've never really done the research. What this means is that other sources may be accurate to the AW game(s), but not to AWBW, especially considering that many COs were featured in multiple games and some had their powers modified a bit in each one.

Moral of the story here is that I agree and I think a lot could be done to improve these resources at our disposal.

Great point about Sami's infantry rounding down, not up. I'm also suspicious of Sonja—I don't think her counterattacks always do 50% more damage.

I  mentioned Rachel's Super CO Power description ending mid-sentence because it looks like an incomplete copy-and-paste job. It's missing its final period, and it's missing any mention of this (which you reference in your post):

• The first missile targets the largest group of Infantry it can find, with priority given to capturing Infantry.
  
• The second missile does as much damage in funds as it can. The value of Rachel's own troops is subtracted from this calculation.
  
• The third and final missile does as much HP damage as it possibly can, but will do the most damage in funds if there is a tie (i.e. if there are four Recon units and four Neotank units, the missile will hit the four Neotanks). The HP Rachel's own troops would lose is subtracted from this calculation.
  

(From http://advancewars.wikia.com/wiki/Rachel)

[Xmo5]

Indeed- that's the best source I've found so far on Rachel's SCOP, but it technically doesn't spell out every detail, which I why I brought up some of the things I did (mechs, how much it prioritizes capturing inf, what happens when there are none).

The reason I'm not certain about it being an incomplete copy-paste job is because I can't think of how it would make much more grammatical sense to add to what's already there. The best I can come up with is "most accumulate[d group of units, based on the following criteria: ...]" but the phrasing is awkward at best. Either way the conclusion is the same: It needs to be fixed.

[Jackie Milton]

Who has that power?

Also, the wiki is a little sketchy, but I've made a few pages fairly decent. I haven't done much with COs, But it might also be wise to have the wiki reflect the chart, or at least give the chart much more explanation.

[Xmo5]

The wiki is a huge resource at our disposal here so we certainly appreciate any and all contributions. In the past I've noted discrepancies between the chart and the wiki (I think the ones I was aware of have been resolved, such as Kanbei's stats) and it was unclear which was correct. I'm not sure if any other discrepancies exist, but obviously those should be fixed. The chart on AWBW could probably be a bit more informative, but honestly it's probably just best to provide a wiki link for the COs wiki page as a further reference.

I don't have the power to edit the site, but I can (probably) get in contact with someone(s) who can, though whatever changes we make should be specific and well-thought-out by then. (That's definitely part of my job description, so I can handle that per your ideas/suggestions)

[Sponsored content]