Should IS Make a Fire Emblem Game based on Advance War Mechanics?

[Shoblongoo]

...something I've been thinking about for a while and would really like to see get made...

Basically--a fire emblem game where your "character units" are like the COs in Advance Wars, with character skills working like CO powers (i.e. a CO like Cordelia would play like Eagle, with passive buffs to all flying units and galeforce working like Eagle's lightning strike)  

No level ups or perma death--you fight with generic units. You use funds to deploy and upgrade units at your forts (i.e. 6.000g to deploy a mage. 7,000g to deploy a cavalier. 9,000g to deploy a peg knight. 16,000g to deploy a great knight. etc., etc.)  

You get funds by capturing forts and villages.

The Castle is your HQ; route the enemy or capture the enemy HQ are the standard win-conditions to clear a map. 

There would be different kind of "forts," needed to deploy different kinds of units, i.e. : 

• capture monasteries to deploy tome users and healers 
• capture knight barracks to deploy armor, and cavalry   
• capture aviaries to deploy peg knights and wyverns

________

IS has indicated that they're interested in revisiting Advance Wars. And Fire Emblem has major franchise power behind it now with the success and popularity of recent games; franchise power that AW doesn't really have.

Is this a good idea for a game?
Would you want to see IS invest time and effort into making it, instead of making a conventional FE title or just straight relaunching the Advance War series with a new conventional AW title?
Would you play it? What other mechanics would you add to it? (i.e. support bonuses for CO tag-teams and super CO power dual-strikes???)
Do you think a Fire Emblem game like this will ever get made?

Intelligence Systems--if you're reading this. Make it happen!!!
 

 

Edited May 2, 2018 by Shoblongoo

[Armagon]

That exists already, it's called Wargroove but it ain't out yet.

As a spin-off, yeah, i'd love to see it. Fire Emblem has a strong emphasis on character units and permadeath (well, permadeath doesn't do a whole lot these days) so i don't see this as a main-series game but it'd totally work as a spin-off.

[Modamy]

I would love to see that, but I think most would rather just see a straight up new Advance Wars game

[Shoblongoo]

6 minutes ago, Armagon said:

That exists already, it's called Wargroove but it ain't out yet.

Yeah, but anyone can take advance war style game play and stick it in a medieval setting with mages and knights replacing artillery and tanks.

The charm of making it a Fire Emblem game is that its Fire Emblem.

Edited May 2, 2018 by Shoblongoo

[De Geso]

It might be neat. I wonder if there will be a disconnect with the lack of permadeath between it and Fire Emblem, but that dissonance doesn't exist with Heroes. Still, like I said, could be cool.

[Shoblongoo]

2 minutes ago, YouSquiddinMe said:

It might be neat. I wonder if there will be a disconnect with the lack of permadeath between it and Fire Emblem, but that dissonance doesn't exist with Heroes. Still, like I said, could be cool.

...I mean you could still have permadeath in the plot for storytelling purposes and dramatic effect, even if the gameplay is purely a generic unit sac-fest. 

Days of Ruin isn't a real Advance Wars game They killed Brenner in Days of Ruin.  

[Chconroy]

It sounds neat, but I'd probably ask for a brand new Advance Wars before a Fire Emblem game in that style. I'd love to see both franchises side-by-side.

11 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

Days of Ruin isn't a real Advance Wars game They killed Brenner in Days of Ruin.  

Legitimate question: How does Days of Ruin compare to the rest of the series? I've only played the first game and I know that DoR has a different setting and art style then the other games, but does it play any worse compared to 1, 2, and Dual Strike?

[Tuvy]

I mean, I understand why people would like it, but as a person who dislikes Advanced wars (a lot), I definitely wouldn't want this.

[Solvaij]

18 minutes ago, Armagon said:

That exists already, it's called Wargroove but it ain't out yet.

I was going to say the same thing

But yeah, I'd definitely play it. I'm just not sure how well it would be able to preserve the Fire Emblem feel... But I'd give it a shot at least. I've only played the first Advance Wars, but I enjoyed it and I think a Fire Emblem twist would be a lot of fun.

[Nym]

I've seen gameplay of Advance Wars and if IS ever choose to use their gameplay for FE, it would be like if they shoot themselves on the foot.

Making and controlling generic units is more fun for games RTS like Starcraft than Turn based gameplay.

[kingddd]

28 minutes ago, Chconroy said:

It sounds neat, but I'd probably ask for a brand new Advance Wars before a Fire Emblem game in that style. I'd love to see both franchises side-by-side.

Legitimate question: How does Days of Ruin compare to the rest of the series? I've only played the first game and I know that DoR has a different setting and art style then the other games, but does it play any worse compared to 1, 2, and Dual Strike?

it's a much more balance game overall and I definitley recommend it over dual strike.  Dual Strike just got ridiculous with the amount of features, overpowered CO systems and too many new units caused the game to be nothing but spam insane units to win the game.

 

16 minutes ago, Nym said:

I've seen gameplay of Advance Wars and if IS ever choose to use their gameplay for FE, it would be like if they shoot themselves on the foot.

Making and controlling generic units is more fun for games RTS like Starcraft than Turn based gameplay.

They did make an advance wars RTS game.  It was called Battalion Wars.  Used to be called Advance Wars Under the Fire.  It was called famicom wars in Japapn just like the original brand name.

It unfortunately didn't do well sales wise but it's my favourite Nintendo game to be released.

 

[Reality]

I think an AW style FE would be too polarizing.

People who don't like AW gameplay will see it as taking the place of a FE-mechanic FE, and people who do like it will probbably commentate on the absense of AW itself (although less so as opposed to DS-Wii era when AW's Battlaion Wars spin offs gave some semblence of hope for the series revival) 

I also don't really want the all commanding officer cast approach that the series would have, even in a medivel context. It either makes it feel like the plot charathers are too removed (most RTS) or in the case of Advance Wars, it is brushed over to the point where most of the cast don't feel like soldiers. 

Personally, I feel like even the worst AW game is better than best FE,  (taken as a a whole, not in specifics) so i don't really want it because of the indirect commentary it would have on mainline games. It's the same too good problem that occasionally bothers me about Heroes (even if the Infenral maps and chain challenges are more puzzle-booxy than strageticgallcy hard, it's more than FE10 and Thracia do) 

[Rapier]

I didn't play Console Wars for more than a few chapters (I think it was the DS one), but I like that idea. The gameplay is fundamentally different from FE's, but if they could make a Warriors game out of it, why not an Advance Wars styled game? It has more in common than the former, at least. It's just not a very popular series and FE isn't quite standing well on its own feet right now.

I think the crossover could have us start with some COs for whom permadeath exists if played on Classic mode. I'd also have the game's Lord be a powerful CO (similar to Langrisser) who can be deployed or be kept guarding the fort (similar to FE4's system), who leads to a game over if you let him die. I'd also like some sort of capture system re-introduced so we can capture enemy COs and eventually have them join the player's group.

alternately, we can just make an entire game with the ballista units from FE3 and call it a day

[Shoblongoo]

1 hour ago, Tuvy said:

I mean, I understand why people would like it, but as a person who dislikes Advanced wars (a lot), I definitely wouldn't want this.

What didn't you like about advance wars? 

 

 

1 hour ago, Chconroy said:

Legitimate question: How does Days of Ruin compare to the rest of the series? I've only played the first game and I know that DoR has a different setting and art style then the other games, but does it play any worse compared to 1, 2, and Dual Strike?

Didn't care for it. Its advance wars, so it isn't THAT bad.

But its a major step backwards from 2 and 3, in terms of the diversity of CO selection and gameplay options and the types of units you can deploy. They got rid of all your investment in the characters and the setting from the prior games by going with a completely new setting, without doing the kind of worldbuilding needed to get you invested in a new one. And there wasn't really even anything wrong with the old one that they had to scrap.

Whereas the earlier games were unabashedly cartoony and didn't really take themselves too seriously, DoR aims for a more gritty and grim-dark feel. But the cookie-cutter story and one-dimensional cliche characters can't really support the more serious tone, so it just comes across as a game that should have been cartoony but takes itself way too seriously.

Which just makes the "dramatic" scenes feel forced and cheesy. The game would have been better served to either stick with the cartoony tone of its predecessors, imo, if the developers weren't prepared to fully commit to the grim-dark theme and do something shocking with it. 

For as few COs as they put in the game--they still managed to completely bungle the power balance, to the point where most of the CO's were never really worth using in PvP. You had one CO (Tabitha) who was absolutely busted on small maps, one CO (Forscythe) who was generally considered the best on large map--and that was about it in terms of the PvP meta. On your standard small-to-midsized groundmap--Tabitha v. Tabitha, everytime. No reason to use anyone else.   

Like I'm convinced this game was made by FE7 romhackers. Because the first several chapters of the main campaign are literally just unskippable tutorial missions, where the enemy commander is a bandit on a motorcycle named "The Beast." (hi Batta)
---------

...there were a few cool things in this game that I thought were neat innovations, and would like to see brought back if they ever make another Advance War game.

-Mobile Infantry on motorbikes with the city capture capabilities of basic foot soldiers but the movement of vehicles was pretty cool.

-Being able to have your CO take the field by boarding one of your units and establishing a "command zone" with special buffs around said unit was really interesting. I would have preferred to see the mechanic implemented alongside the old CO system rather than as a complete substitute for it, but it definitely made for a nice strategy element and its something I wouldn't mind seeing again.

-I really like being able to build and deploy seaplane units from aircraft carriers; having a naval unit that can function as a mobile psuedo-airport and bring air deployment to maps with no airports was a nice touch.

Overall though--not a fan of the DoR style.

If they bring back advance wars, I'd want it to be in the style of the original trilogy.   


 

Edited May 2, 2018 by Shoblongoo

[Shoblongoo]

19 minutes ago, kingddd said:

it's a much more balance game overall and I definitley recommend it over dual strike. 

OBJECTION: 




...Why am I just now noticing that Peri is Tabitha and Tabitha is Peri...

Edited May 2, 2018 by Shoblongoo

[kingddd]

1 minute ago, Shoblongoo said:

OBJECTION: 




 

I said more balanced overall.  It doesn't mean there aren't any of the usual IS bullshit stuff.

[Nym]

4 hours ago, kingddd said:

They did make an advance wars RTS game.  It was called Battalion Wars.  Used to be called Advance Wars Under the Fire.  It was called famicom wars in Japapn just like the original brand name.

It unfortunately didn't do well sales wise but it's my favourite Nintendo game to be released.

 

Um I think you confuse RTS with FPS or TPS because this game is definately not a RTS. This is a TPS (Third person shooter) for what I can see even if you can control different units.

Edited May 2, 2018 by Nym

[kingddd]

2 hours ago, Nym said:

Um I think you confuse RTS with FPS or TPS because this game is definately not a RTS. This is a TPS (Third person shooter) for what I can see even if you can control different units.

It is a real time game because if your enemies are across the battlefield, actions are still happening.  The difference is this game allows you be involved in the battlefield and do third person action at the same time. It's a hybrid but it all in all is still a RTS game.

Edited May 2, 2018 by kingddd

[Emperor Hardin]

Battalion wars was fun, but very hard!

[Nym]

2 minutes ago, kingddd said:

It is a real time strategy because if your enemies are across the battlefield, actions are still happening.  The difference is this game allows you be involved in the battlefield and do third person action at the same time. 

Oh nvm then.

Anyway back to the topic at hand, @Shoblongoo the reason why it would a bad idea is because of the supply mechanic. For what I've seen until you more building than your opponent, it's a very slow and boring battle.

[redtutel]

If they ever do that, then Advanced Wars will have officially gone the way of F-Zero

[Soleater]

I've never played Advanced Wars myself, but it looks really interesting - I think with a gameplay system like Advance Wars', you could convey the idea of a large scale war better than you could with Fire Emblems; Fire Emblem does better with small-to-medium skirmishes imo, while Advance Wars could be full scale conflicts.  I could see Wyvern Knight platoons taking place of large planes, and maybe some new sort of mountable animals as the military boats (like hippocampi?)  Or just...boats you know (idk I think it would be cool to have hippocampi in FE at least...)

But honestly?  As cool as it'd be to see a FE game in the style of Advance Wars, with how popular FE is right now, I could see IS just being able to straight up revive their other big series - the interest is clearly there!  And as long as FE Switch covers most of the damage (if it does well, you know), they wouldn't lose too much in trying to bring the Advance Wars IP back in the spotlight.

...Then again, they may not want to compete with themselves by putting out TWO very similar SRPGs, but who knows?

Edited May 3, 2018 by Soleater

[Sbuscoz]

So langrisser?

[Slumber]

1 hour ago, Sbuscoz said:

So langrisser?

Langrisser is more more like a middle ground between FE and Advance Wars than an FE with Advance Wars mechanics. 

[BrightBow]

Battle for Wesnoth comes to mind to me personally. It does use hexes though.

8 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

OBJECTION: 




...Why am I just now noticing that Peri is Tabitha and Tabitha is Peri...

Well, unlike with Peri her being an unrepentant murderer and sociopath isn't presented as a cute quirk and people who are supposed to have intact morals never associate with her. That's kind of an important distinction, if you ask me.

Anyway, I don't see a problem here. I mean, her CO Zone is literally 0. Unless you actually mean that she is underpowered. I suppose her abilities could be considered overly gimmicky. Like, on the one hand it's nearly impossible for her to build up her CO gauge but if she does pull it off, the match is basically over.

The biggest bullocks in that game is probably Greyfield/Sigismundo on any map with a harbor. +60% defense for all ships with a CO Zone of 3. I don't see how anyone can beat that. And his CO Zone only affects sea units, so it's not like there is a point in deploying him on any other map. So there is just no middle ground with this guy.

Edited May 3, 2018 by BrightBow