Talk:Advance Wars

message: Anyone who is qualified, might you delete the character list and actually delve into the characters as opposed to how they perform? -- A Link to the Past 16:50, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
:Agh. I knew I should have read the discussion page before giving the CO table a makeover. Your idea is probably a good one; I think something along the lines of "List of COs in the Advance Wars Series" would make for a good article, and keep the articles on the actual games nice and concise. I'd be happy to write it. So, everybody - do you think such an article is in order? — Prizm 20-8-05 18:57 CDT
::Take a look at List of Advance Wars COs, which I'm pretty pleased with. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 04:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: It might be helpful to list the various units, their costs, movement types, etc.  It would really help to illustrate the gameplay.  --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 14:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  More info on units? 

message: Shouldn't there being a section discussing the problems with the  AI? it would show how the series developed (like how it cheats with fog of war of AW1's obsession with APC's 
Romanista 16:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Although [fog of war] should affect all sides, only units hidden in reefs and woods are hidden from computer players. All other locations are plainly visible to the computer players, as their units habitually attack units they shouldn't be able to see."
It was taken out recently, but if someone finds a source it can go back in. Alex9788 10:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: AI

message: and a link to advance wars by web may be interesting, as it allows online play
http://awbw.amarriner.com/ (didn't add it myself because of the earlier link discussion Romanista 16:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: online

message: From the Nintendo Wars article:
Advance Wars, known in Japan as Game Boy Wars Advance, was not released in Japan before the Game Boy Wars Advance 1+2 compilation (consequently, neither was its sequel, Game Boy Wars Advance 2). The English version was released in North America on September 9th, 2001.
Other places seem to verify this.  From IGN:
Game Boy Wars Advance 1+2
Release: 11.25.04
The first two Advance Wars games at last arrive to Japan in one bundle pack.
I know we can generally trust places like GameFAQs for release dates, but it seems to me this one just came out of nowhere, and Advance Wars doesn't seem to exist in Japan outside of the compilation with the second game (find me the box art, I dare you).  Notice how there ISN'T a release date for the second game, and I very much doubt they'd release AW1, then AW1+2.  I think it's safe to say October 10th was just made up.
So if anyone has any objections to me removing this, please voice them :p --Cyberdude93 04:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you're right.  Japan didn't get AW until November 2004, packaged along with AW2.  Pretty amusing considering it wasn't even planned for release outside of Japan at first.Geoff B 05:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese release date October 2001? 

message: There's a list of COs, is it worth creating one of units? I'll do it, just checking it would be supported to avoid an AfD. Comments? Alex9788 10:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a scratchpad Wikia for the Nintendo Wars as well as Nectaris. Go here. It's under construction, but you can help. --Juigi Kario (Charge! * My crusades) 05:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the unit information on there is impressively detailed, but I was thinking of just creating a list of all the units with basic info. When the scratchpad is complete and uploaded onto wikipedia, links from the list page could be made to the individual articles on each unit. What do you reckon? Alex9788 17:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: List of AW units

message: Being an expert on planes, you may recognise that the so-called "fighters" do not resemble real life fighters, and are a much closer match to the A-10 Thunderbolt II. However, please be assured that in this game, that graphic corresponds to a fighter, a unit that fights other air units and is most certainly not "a twin-engine jet aircraft to provide close air support of ground forces by attacking tanks, armored vehicles, and other ground targets". Quite to the contrary, this unit is entirely restricted to attacking other air units. Your attempt to make the article more accurate is appreciated, but please accept that Geoff B, who may or may not have inferior knowledge to you regarding planes, has more experience with the game and is in this particular case correct. Thank you, Alex9788 11:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. It should be noted that they are clearly based off the A-10.  Cheers,JetLover 20:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted your changes because they're not A-10s.  They're fighters.  Their graphical design may very well be based on the A-10 Warthog, but that's got nothing to do with their role in the context of the game.  And you'd probably need a citation to say their design is based on the A-10 anyway, otherwise it owuld be original research.  Geoff B 20:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. If you're really determined to include this in the article, find a source and add a sentence such as "The graphical design of the Orange Star fighter is based on the A-10 Thunderbolt II". If it had a source I suppose I would be ok with leaving that info in the article, but in my personal opinion it's not actually particularly important or relevant so it's not worth looking for a source anyway (if there even is one). If it matters to you, go ahead. Alex9788 21:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text: IIRC, the policy is verifiability, not truth.  Geoff B 00:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But it's so obvious, why have a cite? And besides, I don't see where I'm going to find a cite for such a small piece of information.  Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 00:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Depending on which CO the player chooses, some unit map-sprites and most battle animation sprites will reflect the country that CO represents. A Yellow Comet CO's forces have a WWII-era Japanese feel (down to the use of Zeroes as the fighter design), a Blue Moon CO's forces are vaguely Russian, a Green Earth CO's units have a Germanic design to them, an Orange Star CO's units resemble American forces, and Black Hole COs' units have a distinctly robotic appearance. The designs (but not the colors) are consistent across army assignments: for example, a Blue Moon CO assigned to an Orange Star "slot" in a battle will have orange-colored Blue Moon styled units. These country-specific sprite differences have no effect on unit performance.
There's no source for the bit about Zeroes, and no-one's challenged that, so maybe this could go in unsourced (I'd say this paragraph would be as appropriate a place as any). I'm quite sure JetLover would be in favour of that, interested as to what Geoff B's opinion is? Alex9788 08:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Not really bothered if JetLover wants to include a sentence mentioning the design is A-10 derived. As long as he doesn't try stating that they're A-10s (they're not, they're fighters), there'sno reason not to if similar stuff is already in the article.  Geoff B 11:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I agree. If it were me I would probably comment on the fact that the graphic of OS fighters is based on the A-10, though the A-10 is not actually a fighter. Alex9788 20:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Main reason I killed the picture was because it's really just showing a battle, which is in reality just another screenshot of gameplay. The screen of the field does a better job of that. Ong elvin 14:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I mentioned this in Article Cropping, but I want to make sure you folks get this in case you're not watching that thread.. I'll let the picture stay. If you wanna argue about whether the Fighter sprite is based on the A-10, go ahead. But that minutiae is irrelevant to a an encyclopaedia article, Wiki or printed, so don't put it in the article. If you persist, I'll change the screenshot to one that shows different units in battle. Either way, no A-10 references. Cheers. Ong elvin 13:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: FAO JetLover

message: I've cropped a bunch of information from the article. Sure it's all true and might be considered useful, but Wikipedia is not a game guide. Likewise, it is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and should not include information that is only relevant to gamers. Ong elvin 13:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On another note, I really must commend the brief and to-the-point story section you've got. Gaming articles tend to err on the side of way too long when it comes to the story, taking sometimes three or four pages to say what should only take one page. Ong elvin 13:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I like how you've moved the Story higher. The picture, okay, maybe that can stay, but change the units involved. That argument on whether they're A-10s or whatever is stupid, so if we change the units, there won't be any need for the arguing. Ong elvin 05:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorta changed my mind. The picture can stay, but if someone wants to argue about them being based on A-10s again I'll just change the units being showcased. Ong elvin 13:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you, in fact I thought about taking it out when I put the picture back in anyway, but didn't want to irritate JetLover. But yes, it's not relevant to an encyclopedia article. Change the picture if you want, but I think that that one's ok as long as people agree the caption is sufficient without noting the origin of the graphic. Alex9788 15:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Cropping 

message: Nintendo Wars lists the series as turn-based strategy, as does the Video game genres page, but on all the game pages, they're called turn-based tactics games. Why is this? Is it because of the games' focus solely on combat, despite the economic management component and generation of new units in almost all scenarios (whereas in TBT games "players [...] complete their tasks using only the combat forces provided to them")? 128.54.228.80 06:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That'd be it I think. Strategy is an overarching plan for the entire field of combat. Tactics is the short-term plan you implement to achieve an immediate goal. Strategy is long-term, Tactics is short term. Ong elvin 07:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Genre confusion?

message: :Image:Mak-sturm4a.png 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 ensure 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) 15:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Mak-sturm4a.png

message: Not sure if most game articles cover similar games that they largely copy, it would seem potentially encyclopedic (if it can be sourced of course) although no doubt subjective at times (like say musician genres and influences usually do) so I could see arguments to avoid getting into it. Anyway if it is of interest my immediate impression was this was heavily derived from Battle Isle and the like. --86.164.126.9 (talk) 05:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inspiration/Predecessors 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Advance Wars. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080323101526/http://www.nintendo.co.jp/n10/sw2001/softlist/gba/gbwars/index.html to https://www.nintendo.co.jp/n10/sw2001/softlist/gba/gbwars/index.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gameinformer.com/Games/Review/200109/R03.0805.1236.51504.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified