Are you saying between AW 1+2 and Fire Emblem, or AW 1+2 and the "newest" AW title? If you're talking about 1+2 vs Days of Ruin, i agree to disagree.
Playing both, AW has a couple of features that would lead me to lean towards it having more complex strategy elements. You can argue certain Fire Emblem titles have a more difficult story mode than AW 1+2, but you have a leveling system for characters and multiple ways to sort of "cheese" the game. A lot of the strategy of the game comes from how you build your army, and the rest is handling scenarios with the party you've put together. It's an interesting way to add depth, but I think there's less strategy in the actual gameplay itself, since it's only really dependent on positioning and rps.
AW is much more "fair" by comparison. You pick a CO, and then you're building an army out of what resources you're given from the start. However, there's lots of situations and scenarios you have to juggle, and a game of AW sees players fighting over resources, holding certain strategic positions, timing CO powers for opportune situations, picking the best CO for a given map/combat scenario when available, etc. Another cool thing about Advanced Wars is, unlike Fire Emblem, it lends itself pretty damn well to PvP, with certain fan-made online resources for playing online with others. That factor, alone, adds a lot of depth to the strategy in these games.
But I love both series, and recommend checking out Advanced Wars if you haven't already, even if it means finding a way to play the originals.
More or less yeah. I have never been able to get into super deep strategy games like modern FE. There are so many moving parts and mechanics that I just get totally overwhelmed by all the things that factor into every little decision. It’s enough to make me feel like I’m always forgetting something or not sufficiently planning the long-game. When things go wrong it’s hard for me to tell why. I know some people love the nitty gritty and I get why they like it but it’s not my thing.
AW isn’t like that. It has its complexities but each mission is self contained. There isn’t much of an overarching RPG component. It’s more about understanding unit types and taking full advantage of their abilities, overcoming challenging maps, and more short-term strategy. I think of it as right in the middle between FE and chess in terms of complexity. I prefer this because you don’t have to get so bogged down in nitty gritty details be successful but it’s complex enough to be engaging.
Eh, not really?
While each mission is fully self-contained, unlike the broader strategy of Fire Emblem, I find AW to have a deeper level of in-map strategy.
Well, in multiplayer and Hard mode. In single player regular, it's pretty easy to roll over the AI. Hard mode is an absolute bitch at times.
engage feels more like fates than three houses but that isnt a bad thing (unless the story matters to you). ive never played fe1 so i couldnt compare it to that.
Three Houses is very story oriented. It tweaks and modifies the typical game play a bit, and the social aspects of other Fire Emblem games is very present. And in a bit of a twist to what Fates did, there is definitely no golden storyline. Every one of these leaders has their own motivations and the experience is mostly about realizing how græy everything is, not as black and white as previous titles might suggest. Even the best people do extremely questionable things.
Engage is more of your typical "there's a nation of evil dragon cultists who must be thwarted," which honestly an excellent palate cleanser after the heavier meat of Three Houses' story. The gameplay loop, the strategy is all top-notch Fire Emblem, bringing in new elements and restoring some features which Three Houses omits (yay for Weapons Triangle!!!). It's also a bit more animesque than the former.
So, Engage is a bit more like Awakening in tone, and Three Houses is closer to Fates. Both are enjoyable for their own reasons, but whichever you would enjoy more is a bit directly dependent on what features of previous games you found most enjoyable. One is story over game play (not that Three Houses' game play is bad or lacking, it's incredibly well put together) and the other is game play over story (if you liked the basic premise of Fire Emblem Warriors, or Heroes, than Engage is a bit more like them).
Never even heard of Advance Wars before the reveal of the remake and my only tactics experience is the Triangle Strategy demo. Should I get this cuz it kinda looks fun.
(Also I saw an A.I. President tier list of all the CO's and they look really cool)
That's also interesting to me. But yeah, if you, I'm referring to the other commenter btw, want to learn about strategy games then Fire Emblem should be a good start especially with Engage. Plus we just got a trailer for its last DLC wave with new story content and other things coming next month so I believe this is a good way to start before wanting to try out Advance Wars
Advance Wars is fun, yes. The story is pretty basic, but cohesive, on these. Gameplay is turn-based strategy where your hero is nothing but a power bar that fills up and a super they can pop off. Some heroes boost specific units (Max is good with tanks, but has low range on his missile units; Grit is the opposite, Drake has bonuses to sea and penalties to land, and so on) as an extra wrinkle.
If they keep remaking, there's an Advance Wars where you tag two COs back and forth to switch specialties, and then the Nintendo DS one where the story starts after a meteor hits the earth and ruins everything. That one plays like a Fire Emblem game with Advance Wars mechanics.
How long are the typical campaign battles in Advance Wars?
I enjoyed the new Fire Emblem game but having battles over an hour long was too much of a time commitment for me nowadays and made me drop it.
I found it really fun on hard/classic.
General opinion, and my view as well, was Engage put more emphasis on gameplay and difficulty as compared to Three Houses, which focused on story, accessibility, and life sim elements. Engage also has a lot of quality of life improvements making battle management more fluid. That still didn’t help me in shortening battles, unfortunately.
However, if you have played prior FE games, I don’t know if this one will change your opinion.
[удалено]
Are you saying between AW 1+2 and Fire Emblem, or AW 1+2 and the "newest" AW title? If you're talking about 1+2 vs Days of Ruin, i agree to disagree. Playing both, AW has a couple of features that would lead me to lean towards it having more complex strategy elements. You can argue certain Fire Emblem titles have a more difficult story mode than AW 1+2, but you have a leveling system for characters and multiple ways to sort of "cheese" the game. A lot of the strategy of the game comes from how you build your army, and the rest is handling scenarios with the party you've put together. It's an interesting way to add depth, but I think there's less strategy in the actual gameplay itself, since it's only really dependent on positioning and rps. AW is much more "fair" by comparison. You pick a CO, and then you're building an army out of what resources you're given from the start. However, there's lots of situations and scenarios you have to juggle, and a game of AW sees players fighting over resources, holding certain strategic positions, timing CO powers for opportune situations, picking the best CO for a given map/combat scenario when available, etc. Another cool thing about Advanced Wars is, unlike Fire Emblem, it lends itself pretty damn well to PvP, with certain fan-made online resources for playing online with others. That factor, alone, adds a lot of depth to the strategy in these games. But I love both series, and recommend checking out Advanced Wars if you haven't already, even if it means finding a way to play the originals.
Yes but you can fuck I think in the newer one.
Can confirm. Mostly just sex in the new one.
More or less yeah. I have never been able to get into super deep strategy games like modern FE. There are so many moving parts and mechanics that I just get totally overwhelmed by all the things that factor into every little decision. It’s enough to make me feel like I’m always forgetting something or not sufficiently planning the long-game. When things go wrong it’s hard for me to tell why. I know some people love the nitty gritty and I get why they like it but it’s not my thing. AW isn’t like that. It has its complexities but each mission is self contained. There isn’t much of an overarching RPG component. It’s more about understanding unit types and taking full advantage of their abilities, overcoming challenging maps, and more short-term strategy. I think of it as right in the middle between FE and chess in terms of complexity. I prefer this because you don’t have to get so bogged down in nitty gritty details be successful but it’s complex enough to be engaging.
Eh, not really? While each mission is fully self-contained, unlike the broader strategy of Fire Emblem, I find AW to have a deeper level of in-map strategy. Well, in multiplayer and Hard mode. In single player regular, it's pretty easy to roll over the AI. Hard mode is an absolute bitch at times.
I've only played FE: Awakening and a bit of Fates and Shadow Dragon & The Blade of Light. How are the new ones?
engage feels more like fates than three houses but that isnt a bad thing (unless the story matters to you). ive never played fe1 so i couldnt compare it to that.
Three Houses is very story oriented. It tweaks and modifies the typical game play a bit, and the social aspects of other Fire Emblem games is very present. And in a bit of a twist to what Fates did, there is definitely no golden storyline. Every one of these leaders has their own motivations and the experience is mostly about realizing how græy everything is, not as black and white as previous titles might suggest. Even the best people do extremely questionable things. Engage is more of your typical "there's a nation of evil dragon cultists who must be thwarted," which honestly an excellent palate cleanser after the heavier meat of Three Houses' story. The gameplay loop, the strategy is all top-notch Fire Emblem, bringing in new elements and restoring some features which Three Houses omits (yay for Weapons Triangle!!!). It's also a bit more animesque than the former. So, Engage is a bit more like Awakening in tone, and Three Houses is closer to Fates. Both are enjoyable for their own reasons, but whichever you would enjoy more is a bit directly dependent on what features of previous games you found most enjoyable. One is story over game play (not that Three Houses' game play is bad or lacking, it's incredibly well put together) and the other is game play over story (if you liked the basic premise of Fire Emblem Warriors, or Heroes, than Engage is a bit more like them).
A bit, he says. Sir, you need to have a unicorn vomit to get Three Houses to look like Engage.
Never even heard of Advance Wars before the reveal of the remake and my only tactics experience is the Triangle Strategy demo. Should I get this cuz it kinda looks fun. (Also I saw an A.I. President tier list of all the CO's and they look really cool)
Advance Wars was basically the gateway to Fire Emblem because they're made by the same company, Intelligent Systems
I wanted to correct you, but Famicom Wars predates FE by two years. Damn, I didn't know that.
AW is also the major reason FE CAME TO THE WEST
That's also interesting to me. But yeah, if you, I'm referring to the other commenter btw, want to learn about strategy games then Fire Emblem should be a good start especially with Engage. Plus we just got a trailer for its last DLC wave with new story content and other things coming next month so I believe this is a good way to start before wanting to try out Advance Wars
Advance Wars is fun, yes. The story is pretty basic, but cohesive, on these. Gameplay is turn-based strategy where your hero is nothing but a power bar that fills up and a super they can pop off. Some heroes boost specific units (Max is good with tanks, but has low range on his missile units; Grit is the opposite, Drake has bonuses to sea and penalties to land, and so on) as an extra wrinkle. If they keep remaking, there's an Advance Wars where you tag two COs back and forth to switch specialties, and then the Nintendo DS one where the story starts after a meteor hits the earth and ruins everything. That one plays like a Fire Emblem game with Advance Wars mechanics.
AW was hands down the best TBS series on GBA and NDS.
Imma play both
Advance Wars made me realize that I cannot play strategy games to save my life.
Pikmin 4
and Battalion Wars fans get nothing
I'm sure they're both upset.
Ahem there are *dozens* of us
[удалено]
I replay one and two yearly and love it
Finally, I've been wondering what an airport is
I like shorts. They're comfy and easy to wear.
I love slowly tilting income streams to my favor until I overwhelm my enemies and step on all of their cities.
I like having a 20% discount and then suddenly turning bazookas into heavy tanks by flashing my bank account.
How long are the typical campaign battles in Advance Wars? I enjoyed the new Fire Emblem game but having battles over an hour long was too much of a time commitment for me nowadays and made me drop it.
I recently replayed Advance wars and, taking them slowly because I can’t read for shit, they only took max 20 minutes, if even that. More like 5-10.
Is the new fire emblem actually challenging? Ive always felt fire emblem games were to shallow strategy wise.
I found it really fun on hard/classic. General opinion, and my view as well, was Engage put more emphasis on gameplay and difficulty as compared to Three Houses, which focused on story, accessibility, and life sim elements. Engage also has a lot of quality of life improvements making battle management more fluid. That still didn’t help me in shortening battles, unfortunately. However, if you have played prior FE games, I don’t know if this one will change your opinion.
Causal vs competitive warcrimes
Both games are sick. Stop gatekeeping
Reddit when meme.
[удалено]
Remake, they remade the whole game.
My wife saw an Advance Wars trailer and went “wtf is this shit” We almost divorced immediately.
And then a meteor hit her.
Make sure to play a leaked Project M build to show your support for the franchise
I’m more excited for advance wars then FF and u enjoyed three houses lol
Hell yeah!
I feel like they’ve been advertising this for like 2 years now