Talk:Advance Wars: Days of Ruin

Info

Can anyone get a copy of it when it comes out, as far as I see, it's looking EU only.YdoUask 23:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't know exactly what you mean by asking this, but I don't think that the game will be released exclusively in European territories. None of the other Advance Wars games have, and I don't see any reason why they would start now...then again, the game has only been shown in France and has only been listed for European release so far. Still, the game has only made two appearances and one of them was merely announcing its existence. So I think it will release in multiple territories.

Anyway, I don't think this makes too much of a difference for the article at this point.

Erik 02:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

What they mean is that the release date for Australia is unconfirmed, and that the article should be changed to reflect that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.51.83 (talk) 06:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Nintendo Wars Template

This is not completely related to the article, but has anyone noticed the change made to the game link template at the bottom of Nintendo Wars game articles? This new one seems much less refined than the previous one, and is even missing some games which were included in the last one. If possible, can anyone revert this to the old template? Comandante42 19:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I have taken care of the problem and restored the original template. In case you want to know, the user who made the changes was Shiggy. Hopefully this won't happen again. 72.49.101.186 20:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Previous Unit Names

Shouldn't the unit's names include what they previously were, so that, for example, people know that the Bazooka used to be the Mech? Perhaps another category for renamed units? Or something like "Bazooka (Previously known as Mech)" or "Mech (Called Bazooka in AW:DoR)"? Glade 13:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I know what you mean. When I updated and reorganized the returning unit list a while back, I added such details. Apparently they aren't necessary to this article, because someone keeps removing them. I'd leave the issue alone for now, and maybe bring it up again when this article is more fleshed-out and the rename-details might be more important.

72.49.101.186 19:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Except it is necessary, especially to players. If someone who played AW:DS comes in and looks that the list of "Returning Units", they're not going to know that Bazooka means Mech and Mech Gun means Artillery. Glade 19:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the old names. I noticed that they were there before, and I also don't know why they were removed. Hopefully they will stay this time. If anyone can organize the way I displayed the info better, feel free to; I couldn't think of a better format but I'm sure there is. For anyone else editing this article, try to leave in the info if you can't improve it. Comandante42 20:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Tank/ Megatank

Comandante42, while I agree with most of your recent edits to the page, I have changed your edit to the Anti-Tank info. The Anti-Tank is indeed a Howitzer-like gun unit with an indirect attack that obviously counters tank units. The Megatank seen in the screenshot going up against a Motorbike is NOT the new Anti-Tank unit, though other screens seemed to support this until recent facts were made known to me. The Anti-Tank is seen at the end of the AW: DoR Trailer video in the Factory unit production list that pops up. It is the third unit from the top of the right column, and costs 11000 G. As for the Megatank, all we have is that one screen of it, and the mini-version seen in the Infantry unit info part of another screen. I guess the details about the Megatank have yet to be revealed, but it is clear that they are two separate units; also the Megatank does not appear in the video in the list with the Anti-Tank, likely because it is unavailable at that point in the Campaign.

72.49.101.186 05:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Oddly enough, I was just about to remove my info on the Anti-Tank, but not because I had learned that I got it wrong. I just thought that it was too hard to see the difference in pixels in the screen shots, and my info may need an explanation. Anyway, I guess we will have to wait and see how the Megatank turns out. I'll try and find some more details about both units, but again, thanks for fixing my mistake. One last thing: I have noticed a tendency for many people to confuse the Flare, Anti-Tank, and Megatank sprites with each other due to the bad image and video quality. Apparently, the Flare is closer to an Artillery unit in design, and if you are right, then the one sprite thought to be the Flare is actually the Anti-Tank. Looks like the Megatank is the only true direct-attacker. Comandante42 05:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

New COs

This is a little soon to broach the subject, but should the new Days of Ruin COs be included in the current Advance Wars CO List at all? As these COs are present in a new plotline, it would be confusing for them to be in the original article, unless the COs were reorganized by plotline. Even this, I fear, may lead to some misunderstandings. I am in favor of a separate article being created at a time when enough info has been made available so that it is clearly understood that one set of COs is unrelated to the other. Since the game release is currently months away, I do not expect a good response at least until early Jan. or the game's release, when more info may have come to light that will be vital in making the final decision.

Comandante42 20:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I think a new page is a good idea, since the other page is crowded already. Perhaps "List of Advance Wars: Days of Ruin COs" or some such. Glade 22:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the article and based it as much as possible on the original one. Hopefully more details can be added soon. Comandante42 (talk) 04:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:VG assessment

This is definitely beyond stub-level, so well done on getting it thus far! Here are some ideas to improve it further:

• Sourcing on the whole is good, though you may want to convert the citations not already in the {{cite web}} template to use them.
• You should also have a look at how I've re-done the references - this method means that the ref list isn't clogged up with the same reference over and over again.
• Furthermore, per WP:MOS in-line citation thingies should go after punctuation and not before. I also fixed this.
• The Gameplay section is written with a very good level of detail (not too much, not too little), but I would suggest trying to merge as many of the one- and two-sentence paragraphs, as it makes the prose seem quite choppy to read. The length of these paragraphs (just one sentence in the whole Multiplayer section!) means that the subsections aren't really necessary as yet.
• The Plot section will need to be expanded to give a full overview of the plot once you've got the citations required.
• Currently, this game only has sections dealing with the actual games. Usually video game articles have a section about the development of the game (e.g. when it was announced, which game shows it was on display at), and a Reception section (what reviews of the game said). Given the fact that the game hasn't been finished/released yet, I can understand why the Reception section doesn't exist yet.
• Once the game's released, get some screenshots. A fair use rationale, such as that used on the game's logo, would be necessary.
• The lead section needs to be expanded per WP:LS to summarise the entire article, but as the game isn't released yet a "complete" lead won't be possible.

Otherwise, great work. If you have any questions don't hesitate to ask. Una Laguna^Talk 07:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

New Name?

Advance Wars: Dark Conflict goes on sale in the United States on January 21. The Australian release date has yet to be confirmed. This is the quote from: http://www.gameplayer.com.au/Home/PREVIEWS/PREVIEWGAME/tabid/1484/Default.aspx?CID=23b1c420-41b6-458a-921c-88fe2c9a6d99&v7Pager=1

If this is a LOCALISED to Australia only name why would they refer to the US release by its Aussie name? Anyway, worth keeping an I on IMO. KsprayDad (talk) 04:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The game is referred to by the Australian name because the site is Australian. Look at it this way: in the US, we don't refer to the Japanese name of a game when we talk about it, but almost always by its US name. Same thing in Australia. Dark Conflict is the Australian name, so it wouldn't make sense to refer to the game as Days of Ruin on an Australian website. This would only confuse Australian gamers, much like us American gamers are now perplexed by this kind of information cross-contamination. I'm sure all that has happened is that an American site saw an Australian one and rashly posted the new info as a name change without considering that the name could only be the Australian localized version. We'll know for sure in a week or so, if the big American gaming sites like IGN bring it up or not. Comandante42 (talk) 05:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Official Nintendo Power (American) has referred to it as Advance Wars: Days of Ruin YdoUask (talk) 01:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Naming puns?

I'm sure Rubinelle is a pun on ruby and Lazuria on lapiz lazuli...should this be put in? 72.80.37.238 (talk) 03:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• It definitely is, and I think it should be put in eventually. However, I think we should wait until the names for the green and yellow nations are officially revealed first. 130.18.120.144 (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Green faction is to remain absent in AW:DoR-- Penubag  18:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record, there will be only four nations in AW: DoR; Red (Rubinelle), Blue (Lazuria), Yellow, and Black. I know that some gaming site, either 1up.com or Gamespot, previously named the Red and Blue nations in their original preview of the game, long before Nintendo Power mentioned it. I came to the same conclusion about the origins of the names, and I've speculated on other game sites about the names of the remaining two unidentified nations. Unfortunately, the origins of the names in this game have no bearing whatsoever in the article. Such trivial info isn't allowed in articles like this unless it directly factors into an aspect of gameplay, which it does not; since the meaning of the names may be completely different in another localized version of the game, it would serve no purpose to add the info. You can post the info on this discussion page, but it can't be placed into the article. Comandante42 (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Ah, I see. Thank you. AkvoD3 (talk) 17:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Old COs

This (official) page seems to say that the previous games' COs have been specifically killed off, rather than simply superceded by a new cast. Is it worth slightly altering the wording of the article in light of this? U-Mos (talk) 15:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing should be changed. This appears to be a misunderstanding, as it was clearly stated by developers early on that Days of Ruin would take place in a different storyline than the old one. That means that in the world of DoR, the old COs and nations never existed, and therefore could not have been killed as seemingly implied by your site. The fates of the old COs are not a part of DoR at all. Also, since your site is for the European localized version (Dark Conflict), some details will differ, but I doubt the plot was changed in such a way to make the game a direct sequel to AW: DS. Localization usually doesn't go that far, so again, what you saw is probably just a misunderstanding. Comandante42 (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

But as this is an official page, direct from the publisher which can be referanced and used as a primery source, shouldn't this information be used until otherwise disproved? Also, while we're at it, can a registered user add a redirect for Dark Conflict? - As no other page is using it, I think it's OK if we claim it. 81.137.159.61 (talk) 11:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The info really shouldn't be added since it is contradicted by previously released info, which affirms that the plots of the old games and the new one have nothing to do with each other. Wait until the North American site is up, and if that does not clear it up, then we'll just have to wait for the game; as it is, do not add info from the European site just yet. Comandante42 (talk) 21:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't find a source/referance stating that it's nothing to do with the previous games attached to the article. I'll go along with what you said if one is added. 81.149.182.210 (talk) 02:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why the American site should be considered more reliable than the European one. And all I remember reading is that the COs would all be new, not that there would be no connection whatsoever. Whatever the case, it's a very minor point anyway. U-Mos (talk) 13:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

An interview video on the Gamespot page, as well as various preview articles from other sites dated around October, clearly make the point across that the new game is a separte entity in terms of plot. Not only does this explain the absence of the old COs, but it also explains other changes such as scaled back CO powers and that there are only new countries and none of the old ones. As for the European site's credibility, that is only due to localization. As the new game has not been released yet, there is no way to compare the European and American versions for such differences. Comandante42 (talk) 01:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

In general, European releases are identical to American releases, just with extra languages added on and, in this case, a different name on the title screen. ie plots are identical in the English language at least U-Mos (talk) 14:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the links below prove the European site is inaccurate, but if they don't satisfy you, then we will have to wait until the game is released to resolve this issue. Besides, the plot section cannot be finished until the game's release, so I don't see why we should be in a hurry to add more to it anyway, especially when a new source of info has details that contrast sharply with other sources.

• http://www.gamespot.com/video/943675/6181049/advance-wars-days-of-ruin-interview-1
• http://ds.ign.com/articles/827/827344p1.html

Comandante42 (talk) 19:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Advance Wars 4 Cover.jpg

Image:Advance Wars 4 Cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

fixed-- penubag  00:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Speculation/ original research

I have seen the pictures that have been cited in recent changes pertaining to the plot, and know that their credibility has been in doubt since their release some weeks earlier. They appear to be either fakes or as yet improperly translated/localized. Besides this, though, the info added to the article differed greatly from the the content of the pictures themselves, and is thus assumptive speculation. Since the game is only a few weeks away from release, we can wait to see if the speculation is true; we just can't add it in, because it can't be concretely proven or disproven as of yet. Comandante42 (talk) 20:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how it could be fake or why translation would even matter. The images here, here, and here are all official and all show the owl for the Black army. if you look closer on the scientist's coat you can see the owl emblem with the words Intelligent Research Sy... imprinted on them. The same could be worked out with the Yellow Dragon Ruber Armed Forced along with Grayfield and the other commander with the same emblem, in addition to both their appearences as the yellow army in screenshots. The red army also has a wolf for an icon, coinciding with the name Brenner's Wolves and the icon at the beginning of turns seen in the videos. I'm sorry but I couldn't tell if this is original research or not, so I apologize if it is and we could wait for the game's release. Tsuruya-San (talk) 20:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I have removed my previous responses here, as they bordered on turning this topic into a forum. Summarized, I accept that your view of the plot may be correct in the end, as it seems viable when thought out in context with the confirmed facts. Unfortunately, your sources aren't enough by themselves to prove the theory, and thus the info added to the article falls under original research. Waiting for the game to be released is definitely the best course of action here. Comandante42 (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Trivia

That 10 digit code to open the bunker is 9693872914 86.3.204.7 (talk) 22:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Plot cut off.

The plot section as it currently stands makes it seem as if the plot ends with Brenner's death, something which I'm sure is not the case.

Having said that, I'm not sure exactly what happens next so I don't know what should be used for a placeholder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.19.18.166 (talk) 22:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The plot is unfinished. Currently, it summarizes the major events up to mission 16. I'm updating the section as I play the game, so the plot should be complete in a few days. Keep in mind the game was released only a few days ago, so updates like this do take some time to fully incorporate into the article. I'll add something to the plot section to clarify. Comandante42 (talk) 22:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Ethnocentric Bias?

In English Speaking Europe, all the CO's and Countries go by different names to the american ones. Could this be highlighted in a "Version differences" subsection at all? Please note this isn't merely a translation issue, given that I'm specifically refering to ENGLISH LANGUAGE PAL region carts.

62.231.137.138 (talk) 09:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Varying names are listed in the 'list of COs' article. I don't know if it's important enough to warrant a subsection in this article, and I'm not being dismissive, I'm in the PAL region. God knows why they just don't keep the names the same. Perhaps a very clever editor will come up with a solution, and please, no-one suggest putting the PAL name in brackets after the NA one, that would be terrible. Geoff B (talk) 09:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

What the **** is this?

Turned based tactics? There is no such thing. It's either a Strategy or turn based strategy game as that is what it's called on several gaming sites.DeathMark (talk) 06:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not learn the difference between tactics and strategy? Geoff B (talk) 08:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh YES, such a difference to note, </sarcasm>DeathMark (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Whatever your opinion, there is a difference. The back of the game box even says turn-based tactical warfare, specifically. Comandante42 (talk) 22:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, I have to pull out my sources here. http://ds.kombo.com/article.php?artid=6008 http://ds.ign.com/articles/846/846648p1.html http://www.gamefaqs.com/portable/ds/data/943675.html http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/launchreview.asp?reviewid=910445

Apparently, the sources prove you wrong. They all say either strategy or turn based strategy. So unless you can provide me a source that says DoR is turn based tactics, then consensus is against you.DeathMark (talk) 05:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't edit war, respectively WP:3RR

Just please tone it down a bit before an administrator comes by and blocks you guys. -- penubag  05:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

DeathMark, that's not a consensus. A consensus is when a group/majority of editors decide on a course of action. What you have there are sources. The other Advance Wars pages will need altering as well. Best of luck! Geoff B (talk) 13:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

London Bridge wasn't built in a day. But in this case, consensus sources overrule you.DeathMark (talk) 14:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm requesting the article to be protected

Apparently, someone has been trying to go against the sources and call DoR something it is not.DeathMark (talk) 00:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Deny- You probably don't want this page protected for edit warring, you will be blocked as a result for reverting edits made by 2 other editors. Besides read Wikipedia:Protection policy there is no warrant for protection over such a simple matter. -- penubag  00:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

DeathMark, there are currently two editors calling the game TBT. Not one. However, if you really must request protection for the article and have yourself blocked, I won't stop you. Geoff B (talk) 00:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. Still not my fault if Nintendo's word is more factual than your word.DeathMark (talk) 01:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Go here: [1] This is a scan of the official game box; if you look on the left of the scan, it specifically says turn-based tactics. Note that I'm not sure if uploading the scan directly to WP was the right thing to do, it may be deleted at some point. Comandante42 (talk) 01:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

DeathMark, if you can show us where Nintendo says turn-based strategy consensus will leave it at turn based tactics, per Comandante's image. You constantly say "Nintendo's word is more factual than your word" but I have yet to see a source by Nintendo that says turn-based strategy. Please provide one here. -- penubag  01:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I already did. You sort of went around the bush with that link I provided.DeathMark (talk) 12:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Tactics v strategy

Tactics and Strategy are basically the same thing, Wikipedia is the only place that says they are different. The merger of the articles are being discussed here.-- penubag  02:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

http://www.nintendo.com/whatsnew/detail/ZMgZp55bih7cC-9UG8nnXYT4JNlgLLbW Looks like Nintendo says differently. Nintendo calls it a Strategy game.DeathMark (talk) 02:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

...and also a tactics game -- penubag  02:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, they have promoted it as a STRATEGY game.DeathMark (talk) 12:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I warned you

Now, the word is official. It's a Strategy game. Don't believe me still? Then perhaps you'd like to explain to the developer then.

"Any worries about turning off any fans with the new style?

I don't think so because it's a solid, easy to get into but very deep turn-based strategy game. For the most part the people that are playing Advance Wars religiously and are repeat customers are a little bit older than 8 or 9 year olds. They're buying the game for the solid gameplay and the compelling story." http://www.ugo.com/ugo/html/article/?id=18128&sectionId=43

Now, what were you saying again?DeathMark (talk) 14:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I've already provided proof. Can't you at least wait until we can merge the strategy and tactics articles instead of needlessly changing the genre? By the way, you do realize that the average person, game developers included, does not know the difference between strategy and tactics. You aren't providing proof of your views, you are just showing examples of people who have made the same mistake as yourself. Comandante42 (talk) 16:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

In case you haven't seen it, look here for proof that the game is turn-based tactics: [2] Comandante42 (talk) 16:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you read the article before jumping to conclusions. The so called "average person" is the developer.DeathMark (talk) 18:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and aren't developers people who can make mistakes, and not infallible gods as you continue to assert? Besides, the actual game itself should be held as more dependable than your "sources". Have you even looked at the image, or are you just ignoring my evidence? By the way, since we're in the middle of an edit war, I suggest you stop reverting the article to how you like it and wait until this dispute is settled, otherwise you will only perpetuate the edit war. Just because you think you are right does not mean that you are, and you certainly aren't helping your case by acting so foolishly.Comandante42 (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Since I'm sick and tired of arguing with a wall, I will no longer participate in this dispute. Just know that you, DeathMark, have never once proven yourself right. I go so far as to doubt that you have played an AW game at all, since you obviously can't tell why they are tactics games. You say the same things over and over again, and think you are justified, but you are not. I would say more, but I'm getting close to losing my temper as is; I refuse to lower myself to your level, so I take my leave. Comandante42 (talk) 21:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason for official sources saying different things is because turn-based tactics and turn-based strategy is the same thing, until WP merges its articles, it will remain as Turn-based tactics per consensus. -- penubag  01:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

And you wonder why Wikipedia is a joke on under sites. You guys think that banding together like fanboys will change anything? Not really. AW DoR is a TURN BASED STRATEGY game.DeathMark (talk) 02:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Articles

In my research to uncover the existence of the turn-based tactics genre, I came across a few articles that discuss Advance Wars. Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems clear to me that they're calling Advance Wars a turn-based tactics game.

• GameSpot "Take Advance Wars and meld it with the wargame classic Panzer Generals, and you'll get something that looks quite like Panzer Tactics DS, a simple yet deep game that should appeal to fans of turn-based tactics game, as well as wargamers in general."
• GameSpot "We're very interested to see what the reaction to Shattered Union is, as games such as Advance Wars have definitely shown that there is an audience for turn-based, tactical games out there."
• GameSpot "While big-budget turn-based tactical games aren't often made for consoles or the PC anymore (even the Advance Wars series was morphed into a real-time game when it debuted on the GameCube as Battalion Wars), the genre seems like a natural fit for the casual and handheld markets, as the games like Advance Wars, Fire Emblem, and Band of Bugs demonstrate."
• GameSpot "In fact, this incongruous mixture of happy-go-lucky attitude and large-scale warfare has become Advance Wars' most recognizable hallmark--well, that and the series' exceptionally well-balanced turn-based tactical gameplay."
• GameSpot "The look and feel may be different, and there may be new units on the battlefield, and so on, but the core turn-based tactical combat that has been the heart of the series is still fully in effect."
• Deaf Gamers "The level of popularity enjoyed by its sequel and the GBA Fire Emblem games proved that tactical turn-based games could enjoy great sales figures in the increasingly popular handheld gaming market. In fact the real surprise is that we haven't seen more games in the same vein given the success of Advance Wars."
• GameSpy This interview with Julian Gollop, developer of X-COM and Rebelstar: Tactical Command, says that Advance Wars heavily influenced the development of R:TC. It's pretty clear to me that he places both games in the same genre.
• Games Extreme "I liked Advance Wars on my old Nintendo. I also liked Battle Isle on the PC so I wanted to get this game for the PSP. Field Commander is an Advance Wars turn-based tactical strategy game for Sony’s handheld console and rather than being rubbish it’s actually a good game."
• IGN "The gameplay itself is similar to past tactical turn-based strategy games on the Game Boy Advance. When the original Fire Emblem hit shelves more than a year and a half ago, the game that could be best compared was Advance Wars."
• IGN "Publisher Sierra is planning on waging war on Advance Wars with its own Commanders: Attack!, a turn-based strategy game for the Xbox 360 Live Marketplace (it'll also be released on PC platforms.)Developed by Swedish game creator SouthEnd Interactive, the game is a single- and multi-player, turn-based, tactical strategy game. "
• Eurogamer "Putting aside its presentation, its most recognisable feature is that rather than having its combat in a phase-time system, it in fact plays in a pure tactical turn-based mode. When combat kicks off, you're moved off the main adventure map into a full grid-mode where your skills and spells can come into play in a more leisurely manner than the majority of games. For those fans of Advance Wars, Laser Squad Nemesis and anything with some beautiful squares on, it's a change of pace."
• Electronic Gaming Monthly "Almost visually identical, they share the same friendly setup and solid gameplay—turn-based tactical combat with a rock-paper-scissors-style attack priority system." "Strip away the epic story of good versus evil (I dug it way more than Shawn did) and the dizzying number of characters, and you have very straightforward combat—essentially nothing you haven’t seen before in kindred spirits like Final Fantasy Tactics or Advance Wars. ... It’s definitely one of the GBA’s best tactical games."
• IGN "The best comparison to a popular game I can think of for PopTop's Shattered Union is probably Advance Wars. Don't get me wrong here, there are a lot of differences between the two. That comparison is mainly to get the tactical turn-based nature across."

SharkD (talk) 04:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Pointless. Nintendo says it is a STRATEGY game. It stays as a STRATEGY game. Fanboyism is protected here I see, but no matter.DeathMark (talk) 18:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Deathmark, please, just drop it. Nintendo says, on the boxart, that it is a tactical game. Yes, the developers also say it is a stragic game, but only because the distinction between a tactical game and a statical game are so abstract. The difference between a stragic game and a tactical game is that a tactical game uses resources (like gas, defense, etc.) , a stragic game is like chess, has no resources and only the pieces provided. Hope that helps. -- penubag  22:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you got that backwards. Strategic games have resources, tactical games don't. SharkD (talk) 06:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Not until the proven sources sink in. Nintendo says Strategy, so it is a strategy game. Hell, I'll make a single post everyday until we get this settle.DeathMark (talk) 05:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Make as many posts on as many days as you like. What will that achieve, exactly? Geoff B (talk) 07:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It's completely within the rules :P Advance Wars DoR is a STRATEGY game.DeathMark (talk) 14:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Proof.

http://www.ugo.com/ugo/html/article/?id=18128&sectionId=43

Developer

http://www.gamefaqs.com/portable/ds/data/943675.html

GameFAQs page

http://advancewars.com/

Lol, Official site even calls it a Strategy game

http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3165528

1UP...

http://www.intsys.co.jp/english/game/index.html

Intelligent Systems- Developers

http://www.gameboyadvance.com/advancewars/home.html

Link from Intelligent Systems

http://www.1up.com/do/previewPage?cId=3165258

1UP interview

http://www.gamerankings.com/itemrankings/launchreview.asp?reviewid=815968

Another preview

It's a damn Strategy game.DeathMark (talk) 02:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It's made of people!!!!! SharkD (talk) 03:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank goodness Wikipedia has it's system to keep swear words at bay.DeathMark (talk) 03:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Nintendo calls it a Turn Based Strategy.DeathMark (talk) 19:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

There's no actual real need to create five different sections for the same discussion, and accusations of bias are a bit out of order, quite frankly. You might consider calming down a bit before resuming discussion. Geoff B (talk) 19:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Well until your side stops being biased, I am going to continue making my point even if it becomes repetitive. As for calming down, I am actually more calm than you think ace.DeathMark (talk) 06:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Either improve your argument or back down, because you haven't affected the overall consensus yet. You're going to end up blocked if you're repetitive, because that's simply disruptive. - Zero1328 _Talk? 07:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This discussion seems to get more and more silly and it now looks like an argument between two children. I thought this was a place of discussion for grown-up people or at least young people with grown-up mentality. I see a lot of arguments based only on personal opinion rather than citing a source or using a logic. Anyway, I'd like to present my side of argument here. Anyway, according to the Wikipedia article of Strategy video game, the definition of turn-based strategy states that the resource (thus economy) is a significant part of the game. In AW, capturing cities, earning funds and spending funds on correct unit is crucial part of the game. In the same article, it states that the turn-based tactics solely depends on the pre-deployed units prior to the mission. If we are to remain truthful to this article without any contradiction, the AW genre (not just Days of Ruin) should belong the category of turn-based strategy. I've learned a lot of game reviewers refered AW: DoR as turn-based tactics game, because the AW series does really resemble many turn-based tactics game in the market, but that is to exclude the economic part of the AW games. They are not completely wrong though, because tactics is significant part of the game. But we have to remember the Wikipedia definition of the turn-based strategy, because strategy games include component of resource (economy) to the tactics genre. If you don't like the definition of turn-based strategy(tactics), then you should put up your own arguement in that article of Strategy video game. For now, I think it is a wise decision to follow the wikipedia definition, which is to categorize AW games in general as turn-based strategy.Stevefis (talk) 07:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Well said. Advance Wars does use a system of economics. Of course, the supposed vets have yet to see this because they are using tunnel vision to see only one side of said argument. Many sources have called Advance Wars TBS, sources that I have actually provided. Yet they remain woefully ignorant to said facts.DeathMark (talk) 07:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that many people have told you to stop the personal remarks. Talk about the article, not about other people. Improve or rephrase your argument like what Stevefis did, don't just accuse them of being biased and not add anything new. - Zero1328 _Talk? 07:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

AW does indeed use a resource (money) but its influence is confined to single battles, you start each battle with pre-deployed forces (or just properties), the money/units/properties you have do not carry over to the next battle, or otherwise affect the campaign. Their use is solely tactical, not strategic (you use them to win that battle, not the war). 'Ace', 'supposed vet', 'woefully ignorant', what next? Geoff B (talk) 07:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I can see where the confusion and conflict is coming from. It's how you're looking at the game as a whole. If you look at the skirmishs in the separate maps, it's strategy. Look at the map movement above that, and it's tactics. Let's just strip it away and think of it as two simple questions. Is there resource management or not? and, Where is the majority of the game? - Zero1328 _Talk? 07:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

For many Real Time Strategy games, the money/units/properties do not really pass from battle to battle such as C&C3, Starcraft, Warcrafts, etc. The use of resource within one 'battle' is enough to define the game's genre as 'strategy' games. I know that they are real-time games, but I think this 'strategy' definition would also apply to the turn-based games. Stevefis (talk) 08:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I know that the word choices of 'strategy games' and 'tactics games' is far from perfect as strategy is usually more broader term for tactics. In real life, the difference between 'strategy' and 'tactics' is not just the resources in the battle, because every real life conflicts involve resources and there is not really such thing as pre-deployed situation in real wars. We have to keep in mind that this is the convenient way of distinguishing two different types of strategy games: the one that involves resources as major factor, or the way that only involves maneuvering units in battle. I'm not really happy with the naming, but those terms of 'strategy games' and 'tactics games' were coined for just the sake of conveniences of categorizing. Stevefis (talk) 08:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The contradictory level is high here. People continuously think it's TBT when Nintendo has said point blank that it is TBS. Nintendo and IS have more knowledge of their own franchises than the ones who think it is TBT. Tactics is a very vague term to use for Advance Wars DoR because there's a lot of strategy involved. Like someone else said, economy is also an important factor in AW DoR. The way you spend your money producing more units determines a win or lose in the battle. Case rested.DeathMark (talk) 18:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The turn-based strategy article says that in their pure form turn-based tactics games don't feature resource collection or economic management. There is some variation. What's critical is whether the game's focus is primarily on tactics or strategy. I haven't played the game, personally; but, it seems to me from the game's description and reviews that it's a tactical game. SharkD (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that tactics is critical component of the AW series and their resource system is very basic, but this is the case with many current strategy games in the market. Remember that calling AW series 'strategy games' does not mean tactics is not part of the game. It means that AW series are games that uses concept of 'resource' in addition to the 'tactics' component. Just because the major focus of AW is on 'tactics', then your definitions of 'tactical game' is too vague and subjective and many of the games will belong somewhere in the middle between 'tactics' and 'strategy' games. The presence of concept of 'resource' is a lot easier and more neat way of categorization and this categorization works well on most games as many tactics game without resources tends to heavily focus only on 'tactics' components as units cannot be usually replenshed.Stevefis (talk) 23:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

After looking at the Turn-based tactics article, I have found an important paragraph there.

his contrasts with other current wargame genres: for instance, in large-scale turn-based strategy games battles are generally abstracted and the gameplay close to that of related board games, and real-time strategy games de-emphasize realism and focus on the collection and conversion of resources into production capacities which manufacture combat units thereafter used in generally highly stylised confrontations. In contrast, turn-based tactics games' military tactical and realistic focus, emphasis on executing intricate and well thought through plans and comparatively short risk/reward cycle usually provide a distinctly more immediate, intense, careful and meticulous experience of battlefield tactics and mêlée than strategy games of other genres.

According to the paragraph, It seems pretty clear that AW leans more towards the 'strategy' genre rather than the 'tactics' genre as the almost none of the 'tactics' in AW seems useful nor resemble any of the 'tactics' in any realistic battles. Besides, the concept of 'resource' actually ruins the realism and weakens the emphasis on 'tactics' as it takes very long amount of time to produce units in real life. If you want good example of turn based tactics game, look at combat mission series. The depth of tactics of AW is really nothing compared to that game.Stevefis (talk) 23:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a pretty subjective statement. We could have an endless argument about which game is tactically 'deeper' than another. And just because you consider the tactics in AW to be 'unrealistic' does not mean it isn't a TBT game, realism is not the issue here. Nor is the 'resource' concept really defining as there are quite a few missions in the AW games where you just get handed a set amount of units and that's your lot, you can't produce any more. ...emphasis on executing intricate and well thought through plans and comparatively short risk/reward cycle usually provide a distinctly more immediate, intense, careful and meticulous experience of battlefield tactics and mêlée than strategy games of other genres. - describes AW very well. Geoff B (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe the comments regarding resources are that you don't collect resources using resource units, like in real-time strategy games. I believe that resourcing is suitably abstracted for AW to be considered a TBT game. SharkD (talk) 01:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Btw, shouldn't Age of Empires: The Age of Kings (The DS Game) be also considered Turn-based Tactics if AW series are considered as Turned-based Tactics. (Age of Empires: The Age of Kings is categorized as turn-based strategy) Although there are quite a few differences between these games, the core gameplay is essentially identical. Instead of capturing cities, you build farms and mines over existing resources. (The buildings acts as resource generator, not the villagers as in PC version) It seems that the distinction between 'tactics' and 'strategy' games is too vague. I know that some AW maps rely on pre-deployed units without any assistance from factory, but the number of these maps are very few (3~4 out of 25 mission campaign) and such scenarios already exists in many real-time and turn-based strategy games like Warcraft III, Starcraft, and many others.Stevefis (talk) 06:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

No, they both should be turn based strategy. You guys have to remember that if and IF you're going to quote sources, you need to have the articles correlate with the sources. otherwise, what would be the point in having sources?Axzeuz (talk) 14:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Consensus say Strategy

So that's what the game should be.DeathMark (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus. There was, but you refuse to acknowledge it, so the debate goes on. Comandante42 (talk) 00:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

NOTE) DeathMark is quacking V-Dash (talk · contribs)'s rhetoric a la The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess and Pokémon Diamond and Pearl. Have requested an RFCU - V-Dash is currently blocked indef. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 00:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Quacking? Zelda TP? I haven't made any edits nor have I even visited that page. I have been providing evidence that people here have ignored due to conflicting ideas.DeathMark (talk) 01:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Bullshit. "rv-Nintendo's word > your word" is the same damn thing as the arguments V-Dash made on D/P's and Twilight Princess' page. Further, you have been, as far as I can tell, edit-warring over this (as did V-Dash at Twilight Princess and Diamond and Pearl), and are refusing to show any interest in consensus (again, as V-Dash does). You don't even indent your comments, again like V-Dash. That's enough for a sockblock right there per the duck test - the RFCU on you at this point would be a formality, but I don't want to make a bad block in case you're PolluxFrost impersonating V-Dash. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 02:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You still don't get it? I've told you a couple times, Your current argument isn't working very well and we've been trying another avenue to solve the problem. We're discarding previous discussion entirely and trying to go with definition. Like I implied, and Geoff B outright stated, the problem is that it's very subjective. - Zero1328 _Talk? 02:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you know what a WP:Consensus is? A consensus is a decision decided upon by the majority of the people. -- penubag  02:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

And Deathmark, please, try, try, to be open-minded and not one sided. -- penubag  02:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You're wasting pixels, Penu. V-Dash is closed-minded and disregards everything that does not fit his view of things. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 02:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Penu, I plan on being civil with this matter. No worries. Jeske, indention is not a blockable offense. What is your beef with me? The only time I ever encountered you was on the D/P talk page concerning the glitches section. I do not know what you are talking about on the Twilight Princess ordeal. Go look on the article and its history to see for yourself rather than toss "bullshit" at me.DeathMark (talk) 03:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not stupid, V-Dash, especially since you're repeating your behavior from over there here. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 03:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you keep the whole V-Dash thing away from here? We should concentrate on the Strategy/Tactics problem on this talk page. - Zero1328 _Talk? 03:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no such problem. DeathMark is simply doing as V-Dash did on two other game pages - edit-warring over the genre of the game - and disregarding consensus in an attempt to get the other side to quiet down and accept his version. I would keep it away if he didn't act like V-Dash, but at the current going, he'll end up indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet per the duck test if this keeps going. I am also filing an AN/I thread with regards to this, as V-Dash is blocked indefinitely. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 03:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You sure had me fooled Jeske. But like someone said, refrain from going off the subject as this is about the TBT and TBS debate.DeathMark (talk) 03:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked users do not have any right whatsoever to edit Wikipedia until their block ends, Users acting similar to a blocked user can be blocked on behavior as a sockpuppet, Sockpuppets used to evade a ban or block can be blocked on sight. You aren't even allowed to be editing, V-Dash. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 03:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/V-Dash came back. DeathMark has been blocked as a V-Dash (talk · contribs) sock. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 03:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• sighs from relief* glad this debate's over -- penubag  09:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

So... Do we just ignore this whole mess and go back to the way things were, or what? Does the argument have any validity now that the instigator was found to have never really cared about the effect of his actions? Comandante42 (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

AW:DoR has a variety of scenarios that are characterized as either TBS or TBT. Resource gathering, capturing cities, and buying units fits into the TBS definition pretty well, however more than a handful of maps have no factories or ability to buy new units. This would be better suited under the TBT definition. When playing through the campaign, the first time you are able to create units is in mission number 5 of 26, and only a handful of other missions have no ability to create new units (five others after mission 5). Browsing through the remaining vs and single-player maps, an estimated large majority of maps (about 75%) would best be defined as TBS. The pre-deploy maps, however, are more popular in vs play due to the relatively shorter time of a single match (10-15 turns vs 20-40 turns or longer). What this comes down to, IMO, is that it is both TBS and TBT, but with emphasis and extra game balance and focus put towards TBS. Considering that the Wiki entry for TBS has TBT as a sub-section, I'd consider AW:DoR to be TBS.--65.95.70.55 (talk) 20:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I have unlocked the page. Let's give it another go, shall we? -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Consensus sources have said TBS. Well I don't think they would just throw out a genre for no reason if it is more than one source.Axzeuz (talk) 14:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Tactics or Strategy?

Now that we may be able to bring this debate to close, let's give the question another fair run. Is the game's genre best classified as turn-based tactics or turn-based strategy?

As for my opinion, I would say tactics works best here. The previous AW games have been classified as tactics, and I don't see anything in this latest installment that makes a change necessary. Also, since the game focuses on small-scale battles rather than epic campaigns, the specific, short-term tactics is a likely better description than the general and more long-term strategy; but that's how I see it.  Comandante  Talk  21:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Still not 100% sure, per my reply here. I'll just remain neutral, I'm not good enough at this. (Nice sig, btw)-- penubag  00:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

RIP Deathmark. OK. It's time to have a healthy discussion! Anyway, on the above, I have mentioned the DS version of Age of Empires as an example that is remarkbly similar to AW series, yet it is considered as TBS in the wikipedia article. The only and major difference of the gameplay is the ability to upgrade units and having two types of resources instead of one. Otherwise, the core components of battles between units are virtually identical. Honestly, I haven't played many turned based strategy and tactics games in my life and I want to ask people to give out names of games that are very similar to Advance Wars series. Stevefis (talk) 05:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

AoE being labelled as TBS may be nothing more than a user not actually knowing the difference. Until I came onto this talk page, I certainly didn't. The resource gathering and economic side of AW is pretty minor compared to the actual moving of units and attacking, so I'd say this was much more a tactics game. Tim (Xevious) (talk) 07:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Panzer Tactics DS, Jagged Alliance 2, Silent Storm, Ogre Battle, and a few others - though these are similar to Advance Wars (again, this is my opinion, they do have quite a few differences), they are distinguished by having additional elements (JA2's battles are TBT, but it also has a strategic component, Ogre Battle and Final Fantasy Tactics have TBT battles but the game is overall an RPG, etc. Resource collection/production is basically capturing properties in AW, and nothing else. You don't assign workers to lumber mills/mines, etc. Units/resources don't carry over to the next stage of the 'campaign' (or even to the next battle), you don't get to choose where you fight your battles, you cannot withdraw from/lose a battle and still win the game, and so on. Geoff B (talk) 08:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I presume that was more of a reply to Stevefis ... in any case, I agree. Tim (Xevious) (talk) 09:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Turn based tactics and turn based strategy are interrelated, but TBS is used more as it is a better definition of the genre. Why don't yo start by defining what tactics is? I will say that Advance Wars tends to use strategy from several aspects. One is economy. You need money to replenish troops that are destroyed in battle.Axzeuz (talk) 14:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It's like being back at the start of this discussion again. Right. Yes, you do use money in AW, but you cannot make strategic use of the money. You cannot, say, save up ten grand in one mission and spend it in the next, or store money in any way for use in future battles, to help you win the war. The only use for the money is tactical, repairing and building new units to win the current battle. Yes, there is some overlap between tactics and strategy, but the two are still different. Geoff B (talk) 15:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

No, they are not different. It is YOUR responsibility to use your money sparingly in battle. The game doesn't allow you to keep money after battle, true, BUT the game does require the player to do something called "thinking" before he/she goes out and make moves that could cause the battle to go in the enemy's favor. You're treating tactics and strategy as if one was a pickle and the other was a sponge. No, they go together, but AW DoR is more strategy than it is tactics.Axzeuz (talk) 15:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I would much rather see this as being merged and then redirected rather than a simple redirect unfortunately I haven't played the game. If there is no objections or no one actually merges in the info in an adequate amount of time (say a month?) then I am OK with the redirect. --Sin Harvest (talk) 02:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing to be merged. The necessary information is already covered within the plot section, and people can expand upon that in the CO section if they would like (though that's more about the gameplay side). TTN (talk) 02:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

No. The article is there to talk about the game. COs in their own section(article) is fine.DeathMark (talk) 06:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The redirect alone is fine. Only a short list of the COs would be necessary for the main game article, like the one on Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, but with fewer details (name and faction affiliation only, perhaps). Comandante42 (talk) 21:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that List of Advance Wars: Days of Ruin COs should be merged with List of Advance Wars COs and Advance Wars: Days of Ruin COs should only merely be mentioned in the DoR ariticle. -- penubag  02:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)