Advance Wars Question

[itobandito]

Ok, I just started getting in to the Advance Wars series and have a question. I know that advance wars was announced to be coming out of the Nintendo Gamecube but late in the development they changed the name to Battalion Wars. Read that on IGN some where. So Battalion Wars is already out and stuff but while browising through Gamestop.com I noticed this posting http://www.gamestop.com/product.asp?product%5Fid=T000036 As you can see the release date is 1/06 and the pictures look like screen shots from battalion wars. Is this the same game??? Just found it weird because of the 01/06 date. Anyone know if they are indeed making an Advance Wars for gamcube?

[Oobgarm]

They're the same game. GameStop is just slow at taking it out of the system. Under Fire was the name of Batallion Wars originally, I remember seeing it at E3 2004. The logos are very similar, too. In addition, GameStop uses special SKU numbers to denote games, both upcoming and released. You'll notice in the url that Batallion Wars has a '220546' number('22xxxx' is their code for GameCube). Advance Wars doesn't. That tells me that something's amiss.

Also, for a laugh, check Gamestop.com's descriptions of each title:

Advance Wars (http://www.gamestop.com/product.asp?product%5Fid=T000036):

Batallion Wars (http://www.gamestop.com/product.asp?product%5Fid=220546):

[Jagasian]

Did you know that the first game in the "Nintendo Wars" series was "Famicom Wars"? There were also releases in the "Nintendo Wars" series for Game Boy, Super Famicom, and Game Boy Color. Even though the series started on the Famicom, the Game Boy has seen the largest number of entries in the series. Check out this page for a great overview of one of the best video game franchises ever:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_Wars

[NE146]

Speaking of which I just got back into playing Military Madness again.. and holy crap... I forget how much better it is than Advance Wars. I mean, I really like Advance Wars and have been playing all the games heavily these past couple of years. But now that I tried MM again, it really is a lot more fun in my humble opinion. If you haven't tried it... try it :) (and dont play the lousy PSX version)

[mr_pollock]

Super Conflict: The Mideast for the win.

[Slimedog]

Speaking of which I just got back into playing Military Madness again.. and holy crap... I forget how much better it is than Advance Wars. I mean, I really like Advance Wars and have been playing all the games heavily these past couple of years. But now that I tried MM again, it really is a lot more fun in my humble opinion. If you haven't tried it... try it :) (and dont play the lousy PSX version)

I just recently played Military Madness for the first time. While I truly believe that it was an amazing game, I personally think Advance Wars edges it out. I don't like how there is no way to manufacture units in MM and it lacks a lot of the extras like a map editor and the scads of maps and unlockables that AW has. However, I do prefer the hexes in MM over the squares in AW. Also, I agree that the PSX version is a very poor substitute for the TG version.

[NE146]

I just recently played Military Madness for the first time. While I truly believe that it was an amazing game, I personally think Advance Wars edges it out. I don't like how there is no way to manufacture units in MM and it lacks a lot of the extras like a map editor and the scads of maps and unlockables that AW has. However, I do prefer the hexes in MM over the squares in AW. Also, I agree that the PSX version is a very poor substitute for the TG version.

Did you finish the game? :) Yeah it doesn't have the user creation stuff and the hidden items.. and not even a story really. But what I like about MM over AW is how there's a bit of an RPG-ish aspect in that the units gain experience in battle. So the more you use a unit, the better it gets until it's an "expert" :) So your large tanks can become godlike in a battle! That's one thing AW doesn't have.

Also in MM, the positional placement accounts for more. So if an enemy unit is surrounded on both sides, their defense goes down considerably while your offense goes up. This brings up another layer of positional strategy whereas AW has more of a rock/paper/scissors type of play.

There's a couple of other things as well that don't really come out until you get into the game in depth. :) But yeah, I dig Advance Wars.. a lot. But I've played that a little too much as of late. Now, I'm definitely on the MM kick :D

[kentuckyfried]

I have to agree with NE146, I first got into AW (early November 11, 2001 of all ironic days) because I loved Military Madness so much. And though I've played (and enjoyed) every released AW game since, the series doesn't really hold a candle strategy-wise to the Genius of Military Madness.
AW seems like an arcade game next to MM, really.

[Slimedog]

Did you finish the game? :) Yeah it doesn't have the user creation stuff and the hidden items.. and not even a story really. But what I like about MM over AW is how there's a bit of an RPG-ish aspect in that the units gain experience in battle. So the more you use a unit, the better it gets until it's an "expert" :) So your large tanks can become godlike in a battle! That's one thing AW doesn't have.

Also in MM, the positional placement accounts for more. So if an enemy unit is surrounded on both sides, their defense goes down considerably while your offense goes up. This brings up another layer of positional strategy whereas AW has more of a rock/paper/scissors type of play.

There's a couple of other things as well that don't really come out until you get into the game in depth. :) But yeah, I dig Advance Wars.. a lot. But I've played that a little too much as of late. Now, I'm definitely on the MM kick :D

I do agree that the positional strategy element really added alot to MM. Also, I like how MM gave more importance to ranged attacks, since one well position cannon could make or break a battle.

Its funny though, I actually thought the lack of unit experience was one reason why I liked AW better. I found it really refreshing that the units I used were totally disposable. It gave me more freedom to sacrifice units. I realize this is more of a personal preference thing and probably just a reaction to the Fire Emblem type of game where losing any unit necessitates a reset. I do realize that MM units don't roll over from one battle to the next and that part of the strategy was managing your (an more importantly, the enemies) experience, I just prefer to look at the units as faceless pawns.

Also, it seems like luck was a bigger factor in MM. Sometimes, really weak units just refused to die no matter what you hit them with. It tended to throw a wrench in plans.

Keep in mind, I tend to gush praises on MM in general. I would say its only surpased by AW in turn based strategy games and it easily surpasses the IMHO good but overrated FFT games.

What we need is a MM update for the DS. I think the touch screen could really help the interface. If ever there was a game that should have been a franchise, it was MM.