Advance Wars 1 or 2?

[tbeeghly]

I want to start picking up my GBA in my free time, and I've never played Advance Wars. I loved FF Tactics Advance, so I know the strategy aspect of the games, but which one is better? Or do I need to play them in order?

[RadarScope1]

No need to play them in order at all. The story means basically nothing, and you won't be lost on the gameplay by jumping into either one. I have spent a lot of time playing the DS version which is great, but am not as familiar with the GBA ones. I think they get better as they go, so I'd say just jump into 2.

[equalsign]

I'm of a different view entirely. In my opinion, every Advance Wars game since the first has had unit balance issues.

Originally, there was a Tank and a better Tank (aka Midtank), an Artillery and a better Artillery (aka Rockets), ect. In general, upgraded units

-cost more
-hit harder
-had less ammo
-could not move as far, especially over non-normal terrain types
-hit from a greater distance (in the case of long-range units)
-had less vision in fog of war

Three or so tanks could hold their own against a Midtank, or choose to outrun it. Every unit had a purpose, and could be useful at any point in the battle (beginning, middle, end). With the addition of Neotanks in the second game, things just got iffy. As soon as your opponent started building Neotanks you had to match him. They could hit harder than Midtanks and could move as far as a standard tank with just as many rounds. A fully powered Neotank could obliterate almost any land unit with a first strike, as you see here-

Infantry : 125%
Mech : 115%
Recon : 125% (65% without Cannon)
APC : 125% (45% without Cannon)
Anti-Air : 115% (17% without Cannon)
Tank : 105% (10% without Cannon)
Md Tank : 75% ( 1% without Cannon)
Neotank : 55% ( 1% without Cannon)
Artillery : 115% (65% without Cannon)
Rocket : 125% (75% without Cannon)
Missile : 125% (55% without Cannon)

While the Midtanks have similar attack percentages, sometimes (especially in fog of war) the fact that one of your units was left with at least a tiny bit of health (preserving its vision) could be a godsend. Playing the games, you'll soon learn that there is a huge difference in an attack that deals 105% base to your unit and an attack that deals 125% base to your unit. That latter means that a Neotank can likely still one-shot your Rockets at 7 HP. Also, bombers could often take out a fully powered Midtank in one hit, making the indirect combat (aka long range) and air defense quite formidable against a tactless direct combat "brute force" strategy (not that I have anything against direct attack units [they are my preference]). In the second game, an army of Neotanks and cheap-as-hell Anti-Air units could virtually defeat anyone.

(Note that I believe and have found that Naval units are often not enough of a factor (especially on large, land-based maps), or too expensive to make and maintain to build a proper defense around. They can only heal on a port, which is also necessary for building them. Generally there are very few of these on a map as it is. I see Navy, at best, as an accessory strategy. While this was partially addressed in Dual Strike, the addition of black bombers [especially when coupled with that bastard Eagle's Super CO power] made the game near impossible for me to play. As soon as you began to close in on your opponent, a couple Black Bombers could instantly ward off an invader and needlessly prolong the match another hour. They also further diminished the role of Naval units because Black Bombers could instantly half their much harder to heal health.)

I also felt that the campaign was better in the first. It was simply more satisfying. In the first you had to either capture the enemy base or destroy every unit to beat a level. In the second it is often objective based (destroy this, destroy that, ect) and it just didn't feel as fun. Too often it was simply a game of defending your base until you could build enough bombers to fly in and take something out in 1-2 turns with your CO power.

While the first game did have some slight CO balance issues, I feel that they are much less of a factor than the later games' unit balance issues. In versus with the later games someone often comes away from the battle feeling cheap shot and upset. At the end of a versus match with the original, you can't wait to play it again. Nuff' said.

[Lanfear]

Advance Wars 1 was better.
nuff said. Not that two was anything bad mind you. Two was quite good . Advance Wars is awesome.

[MrPopo]

I'd be interested in your thoughts on Days of Ruin in the DS. They got the tank balance more in line with the original (cheaper ones are faster and more shots but hit softer), and it feels like they made the navy's role a bit better as well.

[Beak]

Greatly enjoyed Advanced Wars 1. Advanced Wars 2 is definitely good too, but I don't think you'd ever regret getting AW1 first.

[tbeeghly]

I started playing Advance Wars 1 today. I'm on the third Field Training mission right now. I like it a lot so far, its fast and easy. Is there a campaign after the Field Training I'm assuming?

[Pullmyfinger]

Yeah, field training is just a few missions long but you'll get messages and instructions when you get new units later on.

Does anyone here play days of ruin online? It would be nice to set up a few matches

[corn619]

I would have to say 2. More units, better maps and great story.

[t0yrobo]

From what I've played 1 is easily the best, the others just add unnecessary fluff that makes the game worse. i haven't played the most recent game yet though.