Just started playing this and I'm in love. What else can quench this thirst for tactical games...

Just started playing this and I'm in love. What else can quench this thirst for tactical games? Not a fan of weeb storylines, though.

Other urls found in this thread:

steamcommunity.com/groups/v_Advance_Wars
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>Not a fan of weeb storylines, though.

Just play Fire Emblem and use the start button whenever story appears to skip it all. It's what I do every time I replay them.

>Just started playing this and I'm in love. What else
>Just started playing this
>what else
keep playing it you dumb faggot

nigga, no. FE's gameplay is rng and rock paper scissors. Not even close to advance wars.

People will say fire emblem, but its an srpg where you level a handful of units to retarded powerlevels to mindlessly bulldoze entire armies as opposed to a proper tbs

theres 3 other advance wars and theyre all great just keep going faggot

Well I'm almost done with all missions.

well then you clearly didnt just start playing it
also the pic shows the tutorial

Solid non weebified SRPGs are:
Tactics Ogre (Dont use archers)
Ogre Battle 64 (different but good)
Der Langrisser (SNES)
Growlanser 4 (PSP)
Vandal Hearts 1
Shining Force 2
Jagged Alliance 2

Play 2, then ds and finally dor. The last is the best for gameplay

Man that zombie town in vandal hearts grinds my gears every time I get to it.

>Fire Emblem
lowest tier of SRPGs, right next to hoshigami and onimusha tactics for how little legitimate strategy is present

Aw yeah.

Wait until you sink your teeth into 2.

Advance Wars is basically rock paper scissors until you out macro and win for free

Which is why Dual Strike introduced 1000 shitty gimmicks to make it harder

this is so true it hurts. I dont get the games at all. played the gba one with lyn and its just boring. you pussyfoot so ur chars dont die but that leads to unfun gameplay and plenty of restarts when one dude dies

That was taken yesterday

Will do!

Awesome, thank you I'll look into them

...

There are almost no good SRPGs from a purely gameplay standpoint, AW is one of the best.

It's not really rock paper scissors at all Units have certain things they are better against, but with the added layer of CO's things get spun on their head all the time.

The only bad part about advance wars 2 and on is bigger and badder tanks all the time. But that's rebalanced again in DOR and it's much more of a tactical experience where resource management means something.

I couldn´t get into Fire Emblem because every unit you control is a named character, Which limits my possible strategies because I cant let anyone die.

I wish there were more games like this, as well.

Simple, purely tactical games. XCOM is good, but focuses on more small-scale squad tactics, and has an overarching metagame. FE is too RPG-heavy.

My only issue with the AW is the AI is kind of bad. Most missions are designed to make the game interesting and challenging without this, but it's still kind of annoying. I wish someone would make a game with these simple mechanics (maybe through out some of the ridiculous CO powers), and focus on really good AI.

reminder to join the steam group
steamcommunity.com/groups/v_Advance_Wars

I've played 7 of the FE games, and in every one of them, my experience was:
>spend first 5-6 hours identifying units with the best stat growth
>use all other units as pawns and abuse awful chokepoint ridden map-design to forcefeed those 1-2 units until they're overpowered
>proceed to snowball through the entire game, ignoring all semblance of brainpower while your demigod units stand there and act as human blenders

I thought it was just a quirk of the first game I played, but then I realized it's basically a feature. It's actually kind of fun in a super dumb way, but I would never call any of those games strategic by any stretch of the imagination.

>OP would HATE that.
To be perfectly honest, I don't really know how to judge the "weebness" of SRPGs, I just listed the ones that were enjoyable from a gameplay perspective without being NiS tier of blatant anime pandering.

(OP)
Advance Wars DoR is easily the best from a gameplay standpoint, however it tries (and fails) to have a serious storyline so beware.

>Growlanser 4 (PSP)
OP would HATE that.

Have you played Battle for Wesnoth? The RPG elements are very light, the gameplay mechanics are simple yet with a lot of depth, the AI is pretty good, the multiplayer is very well balanced, etc. There's a ton of campaigns and some have really good level design.
I wouldn't recommend it to OP, though.

Growlanser IV is an amazing game and "weeb" is a retarded term so I guess there's no point debating.
The Front Mission series is also really good but wanzers are probably considered "weeb".

>giant robots
>weeb
Anyone who thinks that way is mad gay

>Growlanser 4
>not weeb as fuck

>Have you played Battle for Wesnoth? The RPG elements are very light, the gameplay mechanics are simple yet with a lot of depth, the AI is pretty good, the multiplayer is very well balanced, etc.
I have it installed, been meaning to try it. Is the multiplayer still active? It does seem like a brilliant game.

Wesnoth is literally RNG the game.

I thought that was XCOM.

It's probably dead, I haven't played it in ages myself. I hear they're doing a pointless port with added drm (fuck steam) so maybe it'll get a brief resurgence then.
Also you might want to download a more recent version for single player.

It certainly involves a lot of RNG, but the importance is often overstated. The better player will still win the vast majority of the time. There is a minuscule chance that a player will make every optimal decision and get fucked by the RNG but generally both players need to account for and adapt to unlikely situations and that just makes the game a lot more complex than if it were deterministic.
If you're the type of player to ragequit after an important unit dies to a 30% accurate attack, stay away. If you instead think about what you could have done to avoid that 30% risk and how you can alter your strategy to account for the unit you lost, then you'll have a lot of fun.

>waifu pandering meme games
Fuck off

>dead since february

Have you tried wesnoth?
Have you tried krosmasters arena?

Why is everyone recommending RPG elements when the OP is talking about games similar to Advance Wars? Wouldn't sticking with non-RPG strategy games make much more sense?

Such games basically don't exist.

Such games basically don't exist.

Why don't they exist? Even fucking XCOM and HoMM3 could be said to have RPG elements.

Because it leads to issues such as the lack of progression, making fighting grow stale quickly. There's probably not much of a market for that kind of format since anyone non-autistc would probably quickly grow bored of them.
The alternative is to present those games as being part of the puzzle genre, though.

But all the gimmicks in Dual Strike worked in the player's favor. The AI couldn't access the skill grid, and the flimsy level design usually enabled you to crush them before they got an opportunity to tag.

Funny because the actual combat in those games with RPG mechanics is much inferior to pure strategy games, most people care mostly for the history, maybe if more strategy games had a good story or any story at all they would be more popular.

Did you even read anything I said before replying?

Advance Wars is turn-based tactics, but OP just asked for tactics games. TRPGs are tactics games too,

is the ps1 game any good, the original is kind of too old school for me

Is there even a point to that anymore? I haven't heard anybody mention mednafen in a long time.

Jagged Alliance 2 1.13 is the best tactical game ever made.

We had a couple games a month or two ago. It'll be back sooner or later.

>TRPGs are tactics games too
Fairly rarely. A lot of them have more emphasis on building up your units in whatever way you desire, and so combat generally turns into grinding enemies into a paste or tanking enough hits to survive an onslaught. Front Mission or Tactics Ogre games are fairly good, but I wouldn't consider them to have much relation to an actual turn-based tactics game past the control and movement mechanics.

why not use archers?

Not when APC exist.

>TO
>anything but dogshit
>any tactic at all at any time
Nice meme

Different guy here, but also as much as people praise FFT to hell and back here it is by far THE MOST guilty of everything above user said. Not saying it's bad but when you start positioning your guys to blast them in the face more efficiently with your own magic to grind faster you kinda have to start wondering what you're doing.

>people asking for turn based tactics with no RNG
>no mention of SteamWorld Heist
Unless RNG that's strictly for crit rates and crit damage counts against it, and even then that's just a feature not every gun has.

You are implying that RPG mechanics are necessary to keep an strategy game interesting, but they are not, with a combat system good enough you can create variety without resorting to braindead grinding, also having more developed stories is the main reason for why "strategy" RPGs are more popular compared to pure strategy games.

>you shouldn't have tactics in a tactical game!
>if you're using tactics you have to wonder what you're doing!

No you autist, it's progression.

Fuck, now I feel like playing AW again. Should I bust out Dual Strike or DoR?

OP check out Vantage master, fairly obscure but pretty cool strategy game, the gameplay has similarities to AW but it has a fantasy setting, don't let the anime look scare you away.

Yeah there's a difference between using tactics to gain an advantage over your enemy and having to do something really stupid to save time grinding even though there's really no limit to how much you can grind anyways.

Also, I don't think "hit as many of your dudes as possible with your own attacks" really counts as tactics. I mean it's not like you really have to plan out how you do it, you just shuffle a few guys off to the side and have them beat each other up. No real thought required.

ok go play your """""strategic""""" grinding simulator.

>Because it leads to issues such as the lack of progression, making fighting grow stale quickly.

That's a weird thing to say, when some of the best games of all time are "turn-based-strategy".
FUCKING CHESS, for example.

Well, that would certainly be nice. Might give it another go if I ever see it.
Hopefully it'll run better on my laptop this time around, it's hard to hype up the Flak Attack when you spend a full minute trying to select one unit.

>there hasn't been a Wars game in 8 years

Where did it all go wrong?

Japan stopped caring about the 70% of the market that isn't Japan. Wars doesn't sell over there.

Prpgression should be you becoming better at the game and facing harder challenges, not your runits becoming more overpowered.

I actually read something about this recently, but I can't remember where.

Turns out, it's a LOT harder to develop and balance a game like Advance Wars than it is Fire Emblem.
They don't like players getting frustrated easily. They like it when there's a steady rate of progression, even if the player isn't as skilled. In a game like Advance Wars, without character progression, it's a lot harder to build a proper difficulty curve (which is something you can see in the older Advance Wars games, each of which has at least one map that everyone hates because it's almost unfairly difficult, pic FUCKING related), and something like that can turn a player off of the game entirely, which is bad.
In a game like Fire Emblem, even if the maps and unit difficulty isn't perfectly balanced, the fact that you can grind or change unit composition can mitigate that a lot.

TL;DR: They stopped making Advance Wars because of FUCKING CASUALS.

>In a game like Fire Emblem, even if the maps and unit difficulty isn't perfectly balanced, the fact that you can grind or change unit composition can mitigate that a lot.

How hard would it be to put that in Advance Wars? Give CO's bonuses that can level up through grinding

Make way for best CO

My one map for Days actually isn't that one.
It's the "War Room" map with three players where everybody has no CO and the map is this winding maze of mountains. There's fog and airports and you start in an awkward position against two AIs who barely ever fight each other.

>Give CO's bonuses that can level up through grinding

They did in Advance Wars DS, it completley imbalanced the game along with the Dual Strike Mechanic and didn't increase the appeal. Managing to become the worst selling entry in the series.

They did that in DS.
Nobody liked it.

Why are western SRPGs so uncommon compared to their Japanese brethren? The only notable ones are XCOM, Jagged Alliance, Heroes of Might & Magic, Rebelstar, Temple of Elemental Evil, Silent Storm, and Fallout Tactics. And if you're counting indie/open-source, Battle of Wesnoth.

>Tactics Ogre (Dont use archers)
Why are some classes just shit in that game, speaking of TO
Valkyries are absolutely useless, Berzerkers and Dread Knights get so few turns they might as well not exist. But Archers are almost the fastest unit AND the most accurate AND do good damage. LUCT was a full port and they still didn't fix any of the balance.

Not him but they're OP as fuck. The game even gives you a unique character right at the beginning, who's a fucking beast with bows/crossbows. Some missions consist in simply beating the enemy leader and when they happen to be squishy mage types you'll kill them in one or two arrows.

Xcom:UFO Defense
UFO:AI (free game)
Xenonauts

>Valkyries are absolutely useless
Once you reach endgame they turn into fucking monsters thanks to summons. It just takes three billion years to reach the required level for them and you have to do optional shit to get them. If you're strictly talking about the story mode yeah they're not great.

And at this point it turns into a puzzle game instead of a tactical or strategic game.

To be fair, DS selling the worst has nothing to do with it being the worst game of the four. It's just the timing of its release was awful.

Chess is garbage, unlike e.g. go, and it's still entirely true of board games that they get boring before long and only the most autistic will play them even daily, let alone many hours a day.

You are really dumb.

wew

Completely OP and fuck up the balance. Even 2 archers (25% of your units) can account for >80% of your damage, and if you also bring the Flying dude who can use all the best bows as well, >90%.
By the late game magic and Ninjas can (finally) start to shine, but until then archers is playing the game on easy mode.

>u dum
>i wiiiiin

Invisible Inc is a really good tactical stealth game. The levels are procedurally designed and there is permadeath so it's almost like a roguelike combined with tactical RPGs. The story is also very light.

Because Western devs are more apt to innovate, and Jap devs are more likely to iterate.

In the west, the genre mutated into either Grand Strategy, 4X, or RTS, which is similar, but takes a more top-down approach. Start with the general idea, build the mechanics around it.

In the east, they go more bottom-up, starting with the same general mechanics they've been using since 1994 and building on top of them.

There's no "right" or "wrong" way to do it, it's just different approaches by different cultures.

We don't like Boon of Swiftness?

Does the west have any tactical games that aren't indies?

Yeah I remember getting stuck in the post-game and never even getting to that massive tower that's supposed to be the "true" TO. I was talking about story where they're a really lazy Gish despite looking fucking awesome.

I agree with this. Also, progression could be the game gradually opening up to more and more units. Advance Wars (maybe not DS, as it goes crazy with the CO gimmicks) does this well. Early maps just have a few units, and usually the player doesn't access things like Neo Tanks or Rockets. Later maps introduce air and sea units, and finally, the last maps have elements of everything. This is how to do progression right in a tactics game - not with RPG elements.

>16-bit console game
>too old school

What the fuck is wrong with you?

How is that thing possible old enough to be a Commanding Officer

No game has recreated tactics ogre. Why why why?

But if it's a long campaign units will get better.

That's not abstraction or gamefication, it's literally what happens in real life.

What's wrong with Shining Force 1?

Ask that about Andy. Most of them are kids (like all japanese games), and treat War like it's some high school drama.

I actually like this aspect of the games

disregard literally everything else and listen to me


Super robot wars OG moon dwellers.

Max weeb. Max strategy. Max flashy

IIRC Clerics cast that just fine. During the first 2 turns there's no one for the cleric to heal so fuck it, boon. During the remaining turns, you'd rather have either another cleric or an actual damaging class rather than a Valk.
Again, ignoring end-game content.

>2016
>still no PC advance wars with online multiplayer

Is this the bad future?

>What else can quench this thirst for tactical games?

Nothing so enjoy it while it lasts. Soon you will join the rest of us as we lament that the style of game is dead and we will never have anything like it again.

I'm actually playing the game right now. I still use Valkyries (kept Ravness as one even though I really doubt it's the best option for her) because I like them and I know they end up being good but those first 40 levels before tier 2 summons show up are really painful. Even my shitty terror knight completely outclasses them. I remember it gets a bit better once you get the longer spears, I can't fucking wait for that.