I Want To Create My Own Advance Wars Game 

There are a lot of developers in this community (including myself) who would be interested in working on a project like this, but there are some things you would need to nail down pretty early in the process if you wanted to seriously get people onboard. 1) Definitive requirements and a design document. What platforms does this thing need to run on, what kind of crossplay multiplayer modes will it need to support, and what ultimately are the design goals of this project? This is the kind of stuff that needs to be laid down early and should not be subject to change once development is underway. 2) Code governance. Is this an open source community project? Is this a project that you're commissioning and are attempting to sell and distribute? As a living project, how are things like balance handled and who decides what goes into the balance patches? 3) Financial governance. It sounds like the plan is F2P supported by donations in the model of a project like Dwarf Fortress. That means this project is going to be generating revenue and before you start collecting money you need to be clear about how it will be used and where it will go. Are you planning to compensate devs and artists or are you soliciting volunteer work? Are you planning to compensate your self as the project leader? If there is a surplus in donation money beyond what is required to maintain the servers what will happen to that? Nailing down the goals and limits of your financial governance before there is money in play is important to defusing the near-guaranteed future footgun of contributors disagreeing about how resources should be allocated. I think this project, and the general design goals your proposing sounds like a good idea. Good ideas for games are important, but good ideas are also fairly cheap. Most people have at least 5 great game ideas they've been kicking around. Actually executing on good ideas is the hard part, and there's a lot of documentation and structure you want to lay down early if you're planning to solicit a community to come together and build something. Hopefully you find some of these points helpful.

Re boot camp falls apart Mangs: fine I’ll do it myself….

Apart from a map editor. Why not incorporate a CO maker as well? You can import a PNG as their portrait and freely edit their stats, so you can make them as broken (or jokey) as you want.

To be honest, the changes you proposed are so minimal, I wouldn't see any reason to play your game when AWBW, regardless of how big its existing playerbase is, already exists. This is very similar to all these Quake and Unreal Tournament clones that promised to bring the "old" arena shooter experience back with slight touch-ups. And they're all pretty much dead or have very tiny communities with maybe one or two god-tier players. I say you'd have more luck with creating a completely fresh design. New units, new movements, new supply/funds management, an edgier or cuter story etc. Or just mod the originals, the efforts of many hack creators like Kartal allow for so many possibilities.

As a thought experiment - "how would you make an Advance Wars style game if you could?" - this video is interesting. As a recruiting ad for a co-creator... I'm not sure what would be in it for a developer (other than being able to use your name for publicity). There's no hint of give and take here, of a willingness to explore options or be open to a partner's views. It's "This will be how it works. Copy the rules from this game. Make it do these things. These rule tweaks will be allowed; others won't." If I were a dev this would be raising red flags about future collaboration. On the flipside, once you've said your vision is to copy the Advance Wars 2 rules exactly and create balance-tweaked copies of each AW2 CO - what do you bring to the table? A dev capable enough to deliver everything you want on the programming side could go ahead and implement those rules anyway; and they'd control their game and have the flexibility to collaborate with other people who might be more interested in a two-way exploration of ideas. You asked at the end for advice. Mine would be (1) think about what areas are non-negotiable to you, and what areas you'd be willing to explore and share control in. Also, (2) be clearer about what areas you'd be willing to help deliver yourself. Would you be up for map development, or story development, or story mission scripting? If the answer is "we'd just use the ones from AWBW", that's great, but you aren't needed. As it stands, your vision for the game is so precise that you may be better off paying artists and devs (funded by Patreon + a kickstarter, which would both pull funds from your viewers) rather than looking for someone who's willing to collaborate on your terms.

If there's one thing I would say, I highly suggest the Fog of War mechanic implemented from Days of Ruin. On this, you CAN'T just move your units immediately like the trilogy (although, somehow, you lost fuel XD). You must confirm first and then you are able to move said unit. In addition, the game also takes into account on the vision that unit has. For example, the recon unit has a +5 vision, so anywhere it travels, it'll scout with a +5 vision on the map (save those that are hiding in woods, reefs, and even buildings). Passing by it, say, like a neutral or enemy building, you can still scout there. Just pray that you don't get trapped XD There are also units that can be utilize in a different matter like the Flare unit, which allowed you to scout an area without traveling there to see what's hiding there. This feature is also a toggle on the game, but what about a Veteran upgrade on your units? On Days of Ruin, whenever your unit kills another unit, they get a rank up (3 ranks). This may add a bit of a strategy on the position of the units and who gets to attack. Heck, with the minor plus defense, you can even use that unit as a more effective wall. Of course, if some don't like that, you can simply toggle it off and have it go to the basics as well and not deal with the unit ranks.

I'll be blunt, I feel like this game has a very high chance of becoming "Advance Wars at home", I get wanting to make the absolute best version of AW, but you're pretty much taking everything from the main games, and adding next to nothing new, which is sort of a waste imo when you're making a brand new game, it feels like the creativity department is non-existant. I don't hate the idea, but I think you should prioritize making the game feel different enough, and give it it's own legs to stand on, instead of being just a clone, maybe you can have the online mode be as similar as possible with it's own rules, but the 'main campaign' needs to be it's own thing. Basically, you run into the issue that the game will feel like yet another AW clone, and will be forgotten just as quickly as the Reboot Camp did, I understand that you absolutely love the vanilla AW gameplay, but if you want this game to get as big as you said you want it to be (and not have a dead playerbase), it will need to be different enough, make it so that if someone ask "What does this game has that AW doesn't?" You can list lots of things, instead of just having minimal changes.

The thing that bugs me about this project: who's your target audience and what are you anticipating their relationship with the game will be? What's your competition? Are you aiming for Advance Wars by Web players, with the intention of them playing your game daily, like AWbW? If so, you're going to be fighting AWbW head-on, and it's unlikely many players would log into both daily. You'll need for both the game and your community management team to support a small player base early in the game's lifespan, with a good enough play experience to keep them coming back. Are you aiming for a more general Advance Wars fans? If so, you're going to be competing with the rest of the world of Advance Wars clones, including Wargroove. What sets your game apart from them? Don't say 'online multiplayer', because if they wanted that, they would have gone to AWbW already. I know you have high hopes for the art, music and presentation, but that will only get you so far. Are you aiming for a more general strategy game audience? If so, you're now competing against the rest of the strategy genre, if not the entirety of gaming itself. What is your unique selling point (USP)? Lots of games have online multiplayer and/or colourful art styles, but what does yours bring? I think a key question is what the game will have other than PvP. Answering that question with 'nothing' is not necessarily bad, but it will mean your game's competitiveness will be reduced. If you want to have at least one PvE mode, the scope of the project expands massively, as now you need an AI engine that can play your game at least semi-decently. I bet your opinion of the 'terrible' AW1/AW2 AI will rise significantly. The simplest form of PvE could be something like the war room: release a pack of maps (and/or maybe something like Wargroove 1's puzzles), either once or regularly. This could be one of the game's USPs: episodic challenge/puzzle/etc. maps (weekly, monthly etc.). If your vision is for a community-driven game, beating these PvE maps could give player badges, for them to show off among the community and/or in PvP. If you're going to add a story mode, that's another scope explosion that you need to either commit to and plan in, or commit to avoid and resist temptation. You'll need a cutscene engine, at least one script writer and at least one scenario designer to design the maps. This was something that I noticed when going from Re-boot Camp to Wargroove 2: Wargroove's scenario design was miles better than AW1/AW2, even though Wargroove 2 had other shortcomings (I can give you a diatribe, if you like). In fact, I think Wargroove 1 and 2 (and, I'm sure, the other Advance Wars clones) can teach you a lot about potential challenges, pitfalls and QA problems - the earlier you have sight of them, the easier it will be to solve them. I don't mean to be unkind when I say this, but game ideas and half-baked projects are two a penny. If you have an idea and want to bring it to life, you need a rock-solid plan. A clear objective, a timeline, the right resources.

I have a cool idea for the luck mechanic. So, like in Days of Ruin where your units would gain levels based on how many kills that unit has gotten, make it so in this new game, each level earned increases how much luck damage you can do. It makes sense, since the veterans of a battle would have more experience getting that little bit of extra damage, or a manuever that helps them out of a pinch. This would be in contrast to the fresh units that haven't seen combat yet and are only playing by the book, thus not getting any random luck damage. I would say the luck levels should be 5% extra for level 0 10% for level 1 15% for level 2 20% for level 3 (Veteran) You could also add a small defense buff for the Veteran level like how they did in DoR, inticing players to not throw away their Veteran units that they've had in the beginning of the fight.This would also help counter spam CO's like Colin, Hachi, and Sensei who rely on meat grinder tactics.

While I like how Mangs is incorporating elements from across the series, I’d also love to see some of Mangs’ own ideas! Maybe new units or new terrain types or new COs, be it inspired from old ones or completely original (I’d love to see some modern takes on the Super Famicon Wars COs in particular), as well as possibly reworking Koal and Jugger to be more original, rather than just being Flak and Added again

New game: Take a shot everytime he says "I want"

This is definitely more conservative than I was imagining, this feels more like a more complex balance mode than a new game. Not to understate how much work it will still be, but when you said you wanted to make your own I was expecting Rival of Aether and you're essentially pitching legally distinct Project M? I still loved Project M ofcourse, but I guess I was hoping to see more of your own flare coming into play. It depends on how many adjustments you make, but I struggle to see what makes it a new game, and any less precarious than AWBW or Wars-World since it's mechanically a clone with new art (although Nintendo don't seem to care about clones, so it should be fine I guess). I still wish you best of luck mind, it would be cool to have another way to play AW.

Not sure if you can just copy COs as close as possible. Yes, HoN could port DotA heroes when IceFrog allowed it, even though they had to change appearance to not match the Blizzard characters. However, when Valve acquired DotA, HoN was not allowed anymore to copy heroes straight from DotA, which is why a lot of them ended up not being ported, and they were forced to make new heroes. I don't think the situation is comparable, we all know how protective Nintendo is.

Nintendo lawyers eating good tonight LMAO

Ending that passionate speech with "send an email to mangs memes" is too funny!

When it comes to Co Design I would really like to see each Co fully fleshed out, and stand out from each other. I think it is important each one has it's own Gimmick that doesn't step others territory too much and just bloat up the roster. I would like you to experiment more with them and not just stick to what already exists in Advanced Wars specifically when it comes to the Cos.

I would like a play by mail option where I can do my turn at any time and have several games going at once. That way I can play with people on the opposite side of the world without having to work around their schedule.

Unless you have something to put on the table thats not "ideas or expectations" I dont think this will work out. Just gonna be honest, there has to be something that everyone has to put on the table before something gets done, and unfortunately a name or branding doesnt really do much unless that name or branding is very very big and can supply what everyone needs to get it done (i.e. $$$)

Regarding luck damage, here's my proposal: Make it so that "if a unit is ABLE to kill via luck damage, it WILL kill via luck damage." That way, it's never a roll if a unit actually dies to RNG or not. The RNG factor would only come into play for actually building up damage, not when securing the kill, and it would make units at extremely low HP just *feel* more vulnerable. No more "send 4 infantry at a 1 HP megatank and fail all four RNG checks in a row." Ultimately, I feel like it just *feels* better to secure a kill than it does for the game to randomly let your unit survive longer than it should, so it'll be a net positive. Once upon a time, this was also my proposal for how Flak's Super would work in Wars World, but RU-vid kept marking my massive suggestions essay as spam, lol.

I’m down for this. If this does happen it would most likely be another game to add to my friends game nights after our Magic and D&D games

You know, the map loading gives me a cool idea. In single player, when you start a mission from whatever overworld menu you have, a scroll or blueprint or map should start in the center, rolled up, and zoom toward one side of the screen, and unfurl from right to left, or left to right, with the mission map laid out wherever you want the view to start on.

I once had an idea for an AW spiritual successor. But it's also set in a sci-fantasy setting, you fight on multiple planets and in space and it also has some stuff taken from more traditional turn-based strategies like research and Total War-style empire management. Edit: Not to mention that apart of sci-fi tech, there would be also magic and the commanders you'd choose to play as would have distinct sets of abilities as well as a set of units that are tied to them specifically that work differently from the standard roster that everyone gets or replace certain units in the standard roster due to these units being simply superior versions that reflect their commander's take on warfare.

I like the idea of the COs having low numbers, so they are easier to balance. However, I think the CO powers need to be higher. They would be a bit boring to use otherwise. Also, for one side, I like the vision of "making a game as close as the originals for people to play", but on the other, I think the game still needs more unique aspects. You put games like Warside and Wargroove as examples of games that are just "another Advance Wars game", but at least those games try to go for different aesthetics, different COs, new units... A game that just tries to be as close as the original might not be very interesting to people who don't play Advance Wars, or even people who like AW but aren't in the competitive scene or play AWBW. For the casual player, it might seem like, ironically, just a copy. But regardless, I hope this project gets going in the future. I see a lot of potential, and is something I would definetly be interested in. Good luck on this proyect!

Jokes aside, I hope you add a few truly unique mechanics. I think a day/night cycle could be an interesting thing; like a periodic fog of war mechanic. Purely optional, of course. Certainly some maps could be built around a feature like that, but it would also be a cool one to have as an optional toggle regardless of map, just to spice things up.

It’s been mentioned by a handful of commenters already, and by yourself in the video, but I think seeing your own fresh spin on this game as a whole would be great! Whether it be through a new mechanic, new units, or maybe even never-before-seen map interactions, seeing something new in your game would be a great first start to giving it a bit of its own identity. (Maybe a new unit could blast open a pipeline/boulder that made that terrain previously impassable, or an APC could begin paving roads across the terrain?)

That 10% luck roll in each attack makes the game. Games to work need some degree of randomness and 10% seems to be the bare minimum. My ideal advanced wars would be Days of Ruin with the following changes : -Air units with similar limitations in fuel and ammo to seaplanes, and sea and ground units with similar fuel limitations as subs. -Aircraft carriers with 4 capacity, airports and ports with the ability to repair and restock +1 space (only if is plain or road) -Advanced Wars 2 type COs with their mechanics. -logistics units: Add trains, convoys, oil tankers, (repairs only in ports) no black boats. -Air units are not blocked by ground units and subs can be under surface ships (air and surface and under sea layer) .Subs can still be seen by being over or adjacent to them and trap works the same. -Air units have airborne/ground settings like subs. Air units can be only repaired at airports, airfields but they can be restocked if they land on roads and plains. Jet engines can only land on roads in this scenario. -- more art designs to each type of faction ...more factions

God damn, Maxime and Olga are firing my neurons

I'm 100% on board as long as Maxime stays exactly as she is

I have a few ideas. Not only can units "join" others, now your own like units can "switch" places when they're next to each other. Infantry perched on mountains can turn into sniper units with indirect fire ability. Can't move and attack on same turn. Mechs can each set one mine that does some damage. Can be disarmed when enemy mechs land on them.

Hear me out, UNIT SPECIALIZATION! As someone with a military background, it erks me to see units like fighters be shoehorned into a single role without having the versatile that they have in real life. So my idea would be to incorporate specialized units. Example: Under the fighter units would be different subsections of fighters. Close Air Support- These units would specialize at dealing damage to ground units but wouldn't be able to defend themselves against other fighters. Air Superiority Fighters - These would be your sky clears! Demolishing other air units but the trade off would be limited ammo and fuel. Multi Role Fighters - The Backbone of your air force. An all rounder unit that can do damage to air and ground units, however the damage that they do isn't enough to outclass a CAS or AS Fighter unit. Stealth fighter - Take the Stealth Bomber and turn it into a jet.

Speaking of other Advance Wars-ish games, aside of Wargroove, Tiny Metal and those mentioned, I remember a game know as Battalion Wars. It's a flash strategy game. 4* distinct things: 1) HQ in Battalion Wars is not a property but rather a unit that can move and also act like a factory. Of course, losing that unit would result in losing the game. There are still factory, port and airport depending on which installment of the series you played, a certain property is required in order to build them (e.g. air academy for building air units) 2) New units and balance changes. A destroyer unit from Advance Wars Story made in the game. A unit called Stealth Tank were added with their gimmick being they deal high damage (25% more than tank unit) if they deal the first strike. A unit that I call it as Jammer Truck is an interesting unit. It is basically a counter against stealth units such as Stealth tanks and Submarines and its also have a small radius of tile around it that are inaccessible to enemy air units. In Battalion Wars there are no fuel and ammo which making air units and submarines quite powerful. Units in Battalion Wars no longer heal by waiting on a city property (Oil wells) but rather by commanding them to repair (its somewhat of Black Boat ability but they self-repair instead) Fighter units while highly effective against air units also worked like Dusters in DOR. This make them deadly to infantry, mechs and indirect units. There are no Missile units in the game. Instead, a Rocket units are able to indirect fire the air units. A new tile called Hills that have movement tile work like Wasteland from DOR but give +1 range to indirect units. 3) Water-borne properties. A motorboat unit that act like Mermans in Wargroove. The only water-borne property in the game is Oil Rig (can't remember much) that can generate twice the income than the Oil wells. 4*) Lack of transport units. In Battalion Wars, there are no APCs, Transport copters and Landers but ground units can be transported by turn them into Transport mode by either sea or air (for infantry and mechs only). However, they can't move and untransported in the same turn, making amphibious landings and air assaults much risky.

What i would add or change to advance wars. - maps should feel more diverse. Why do we have to fight always in the same climate zone? Maybe add clones to some terrain types. Why should a forest always look the same on all maps? Maybe add jungle that work the same but it adds something to the game. -not every co should be imported from aw. Javier is too dependent on com towers and you have to this keep in mind by designing a map. Olafs snow powers need every terrain asset twice. One with snow and one without. Cos that constrict the map design or need to many assets may have to be changed. - maybe add weaker versions of cities and factories. Maybe villages that obly produces half as much or factories that can only produce infantery. -revamp the naval war. The problem of naval units is that they don't interact much with land units and feel like a badly implemented dlc. Maybe a special infantery unit that can embark -the terrain bonus of a HQ should only apply to your own units. The 4 defense stars help often the enemy more than yourself.

I think that the main thing that makes advance wars fun is the unit diversity, I had some ideas for units in the past, mainly infantry so here are some suggestions, please take whatever you like from them. First of all, manpads, they work like mechs but deal damage to air units instead of ground vehicles, around 30% or 40% so they aren't meant to replace missiles or regular anti-air. Snipers are a common staple on some AW based games and they tend to work kinda like artillery, dealing heavy damage to infantry while leaving most vehicles unscathed, but what about the true poor man's artillery? the mortar! would work like regular arty but with less range, ammo, mobility and firepower and would do more damage to vehicles than infantry but not as much as regular arty. Thought about some expensive infantry special forces based on real life JSOC units too, you know? SEALS, DELTA, Rangers and The Activity, those would get buffed depending on terrain, SEALS would be good on shoals and rivers, DELTA on roads, plains and properties, Rangers on difficult terrain like mountains, forests, and also on difficult climate like snow and rain, and The Activity would be the stealth of infantry, able to hide and with more vision, you hide it and try to move it as deep into enemy lines as possible to collect intel (would be a cool gimmick for a stealth oriented CO). A dig in function for infantry? if you're expecting to be hit next turn maybe you can "dig in" like in real life and get a bonus terrain star or 2 next turn. In terms of vehicles... I wouldn't make that many changes, maybe divide APCs and supply trucks like in famicom wars, also anti-tank SHOULD die to copters and not the other way around, I would leave the rest mostly the same. Drones?.... I don't think it can work, sounds too cheap to be balanced... an AWACS maybe? a flying recon sounds cool. Hovercraft... Idk, they sound like a cool gimmick but if I had to include them I would give them 1 or 2 missile shots that can hit both ground and air units and that would be it, no tank hovercraft, no anti air hovercraft, a single hovercraft unit. Mines?... maybe? not sure, sounds kinda fun but it could make games to stall more than they should. And that's it, the other ideas I had are too wacky to be considered. Good luck in your project mangs.

Man, if I had to make parodies of all of the characters, the game would be very unserious. Like, Sami would be named Salami and be portrayed by a sentient sausage.

I have a suggestion for the RNG! Tie all RNG mechanics to the terrain! For example, a unit on the road (0 stars) simply takes all incoming damage with no modifiers, they are "sitting ducks" and engaging them should be highly predictable. However, each star of defense a piece of terrain gives you will not just decrease your potential incoming damage, but increase the variance as well. For example, plains (1 star) would reduce incoming damage by 1-10%. Forests (2 stars) would reduce damage by 5-15%. Cities (3 stars) would reduce damage by 15-30%. Mountains (4 stars) would reduce damage by 20-45%. The terrain itself is introducing the uncertain factors in each engagement, the more open the terrain the easier it is to plan your engagements, the more rugged the terrain the more likely you are to fight a guerilla war. Also, I think there should definitely be more variety in terrain.

After finishing all four original Advance Wars games I just fell in love with Days of Ruin game mechanics. It is such a huge improve over the original. Namely, FoW, naval combat and Attack/Defence calculations. No more weird and overpowered units like Neotanks of Stealth fighters. You no longer get both speed and heavy armor - you've got to choose. No longer do your units get invinsible - no matter how huge defence boost might be. Also, new CO system isn't half bad either. One might consider combining it with the old one. Imagine being able to choose on whether your CO oversees the battlefield from HQ or takes part in fighting personally - with CO zone and maybe a completely separate CO power. Tl; dr, if I were to make an Advance Wars clone, I'd look at Days of Ruin rather than AW2, at least game mechanics-wise.

1. Luck should absolutely be in the game. While frustrating in some ways, it keeps games from getting stale. It could be tweaked in different ways, such as lowering maximum luck damage or limit luck damage to certain conditions, but luck is an integral part of Advance Wars and should be kept. Coinflips, on the other hand, should not. Missing the 50/50 to shoot down that Transport Copter or losing your Lander to the same odds does not feel good. 2. Balancing all the COs to be around the same level of power runs the risk of letting them feel very same-ey. Especially with weakened powers and standardized power costs. Also, having COs that are supposed to be better and feel powerful was part of the original game's charm, in my opinion at least - especially if single player will be included. Getting to play as Kanbei in AW2s campagin felt amazing, and no balance patch has been able to keep this feeling alive. Balance-wise, this could be solved by grouping the COs based on their power for multiplayer games, much like AWBWs tiering. This would also aid in the initial design process of the COs, as COs would no longe have to be judged against all other COs, but only against those in the same tier. 3. And lastly, while I understand that the aim of the project is to create the "definitive" Advance Wars experience and to not deviate much from the original formula, some original content should absolutely be added, both to fix some issues the original games had and to add a new spin to it. New, original COs, new unit types, a naval combat expansion (please) and what not. These Features could also be toggleable to give people the option to exclude them and keep to the original feel.

The game should definitely get a new competitive gamemode. Something that makes it a WAR and not a battle. For example a 3v3 in which there are 4-5 maps which represent different regions of the territories fought for. And 2 maps would represent main headquarters of the teams located at opposite ends. Each team shares resources and influence over those maps. So basically teams would engage in battles and deplete their resources to push their forces to enemies’ map and conquer it. Otherwise a team could also stalemate by conquering all neutral maps and holding them for a period of time. This would add depth as some maps would be fought for as 2v2 while others would be small skirmishes to distract enemies and save funds. Mechanically, the starting screen would look like a zoomed out map of all locations to be fought for represented as squares. To begin a battle you would press on a square your forces border with and then specify how many resources(units or whatever) you deploy. At this point a message bubble would emerge atop of the map square and all enemies/allies may choose to join and it would be showcased. This is when you could introduce intel units that find out what enemies deploy with certain accuracy %. Once all players have joined/declined the event, it begins. If the square is not contested then it comes under initiator team’s control. Sorry for a long post but I think this might be THE FUTURE of Advance Wars. I would gladly elaborate if there are any questions.

@Mangs 7:22 Mangs, a 7 HP Tank doesn't have 70 to 79 HP, it has 61 to 70. HP rounds up to the next multiple of 10. How to fix Missiles: Increase move to 5 and add trends (like the Artillery). Make them resist B-Copters attacks to the same level as Anti-Air (25 instead of 65 damage taken). Give them a special ability that adds a percentage of their damage against air units to friendly units when they attack an enemy air unit adjacent to the Missiles. Enemy B-Copters won't try to slip inside a Missiles' minimum range if the nearby infantry (even crippled ones!) can blast off 4 HP (25% of firepower) or 7 HP (50% of firepower) on their own turn! TLDR: Take the Missiles and make it act like a Hawkeye from Military Madness/Nectaris, but with AW AA resistance tossed on top.

On the topic of Luck: You can make it simply a visible factor when entering combat (like Infantry vs. Infantry showing "55% - 64%"), but this would make people expect the higher numbers. Perhaps an idea would be to standardize HP. Instead of it operating on a 100-point scale, reduce it to the 10-point scale that is already used by the game to calculate things. This allows you to have luck be a difference of 1 point and would make it a lot simpler to work with. For example, Infantry vs. Infantry would be 5 damage, with a 50% chance to deal 1 more, at full HP.

The more the merrier. Clones is how genres are created and developed. I'm old enough to remember when FPS games were called "Doom-clones". I had an idea myself, one that would make the game even wackier and less balanced: mix it with Master of Magic. Have powerful spells, racial bonuses and unique units that would throw the game for a loop. Elven snipers almost impossible to dislodge from forests? Check. Big dwarven bombards and tough infantry that ignores mountain movement penalties? Check. Halfling grenadiers being surprisingly good for early rushes? You best believe.

One thing I would like to say is that in multiplayer games, the ability to customize as many aspects of your match as possible is always a welcome addition. If you let people do custom games just between them and their friends (with no impact on their MMR if you do implement that), then let me change all the numbers. If it’s just for shits and giggles, I want to have infantry that can 1 shot tanks, who are now able to drive over mountains and rivers but not roads. I want to be able to customize the luck value for each individual unit, or maybe even each individual matchup (IE 4% luck vs unit A and 17% luck vs unit B). Let me have fog turn off and on mid match, or have events trigger if a unit drives over a certain space. I could go on, but I think I’ve made my point.

Instead of improving luck modify infantry so that they are more versatile like real infantry. To all infantry units add these abilities. (DIG TRENCH) Allows you to replace a plains terrain tile with trenches that provide 2 defense pips and fully block wheeled vehicles' movement. but not tracked vehicles (DIG BUNKER) Replace a trench tile with a BUNKER tile for 3k funds that block all land vehicle movement and provide 5 defense pips. Can be destroyed by artillery fire bombers or a satchel where it will become ruins instead. Can be replaced by a trench. (PLANT SATCHEL) Place a bomb on a tile for 1K funds that will detonate after 2-4 turns set by the player. The satchel has stealth and if a unit is on top of it when it explodes will do heavy tank levels of damage to the above unit if it is tracked or wheeled or stationary(IE pipe walls base runners). Infantry only takes 1 damage from satchels. (PLANT Anti-personnel mine) Place a bomb on an adjacent tile for 200 funds. Any infantry moving over the mine takes 2 to 5 damage. Vehicles passing over the mine cause it to harmlessly detonate. (Spotters nest) This unit must take its turn stationed on a hill or in a city without moving. When the ability is activated the unit will provide 5 visions at the beginning of the next turn and every turn hereafter until it is attacked or attacked moves or is struck by a ranged attack. (Commondeer Transport) If an infantry unit starts its turn on a city it may use this ability to change its sprite to that of a civilian car and travel 1 recon worth of movement. However, on your next turn, you cannot attack or capture with this unit. If attacked in this venerable state it will always suffer 100% casualties. (gernades passive*) when attacking a vehicle, an enemy with 2 or more terrain defense pips (with the exception of attacking an opponent on a mountain while not also stationed on a mountain. Throwing grenades uphill is hard.) The infantry has a 22% chance of throwing a grenade instead. Grenades are better than regular infantry standard attacks but are worse than a mech anti-tank attack. By making infantry units more versatile we can avoid needing the luck stat for allowing infantry to kill vehicles.

Thoughts on a crowdfunding of some sort for supporting the game for dev costs? (Music, art, programmers, etc)

so for the luck rng thing! One idea i wanna toss at the community is the idea of "Per-Day luck" that you know when the turn starts. so each turn does roll 0-9% extra damage when it starts, but its stated on round start, and stays as is for the entire day? this way you you have the full intel to better gauge co power activation with favorable bonus to shatter, or maintain a wall. Call it "Wind" or something as it is a real variable that messes with accuracy. Calm winds = more bullets / shells hit, giving taht variable 0-9% damage bonus. you dont know what each turn will be, so its still random, but you can pick to use a defensive power in choppy wind days (0-3% bonus) to make sure return fire is at its weakest, and offensive powers at calm wind days. what to do with "Nell"? well have her double or triple the damage bonus for there end. No more infantry murking heavy tanks, but still a thing a player can time to gain a single day of +21%-+27% firepower (instead of *0%-9%* )

as a 3d artist, when going for sprites you are saving yourself a ton of headaches. 3d can look really great, but this comes at a hefty cost. being it time wise, as well as logistically. also, i personally would remove ingame luck, or make it optional.

I honestly think for Luck, Every unit at full HP is Guarantee to do 1% Luck damage, Make it so that the first engagement a Unit on Full HP takes Half Max Luck damage (A 10 HP tank attacking a 10 HP Megatank has the Megatank always face 5% Luck damage. If it was a 2H HP tank VS 10 HP megatank, It would guarantee 1% Luck damage to the Megatank). I think Luck should exist, as luck makes a Match very fun and thinking on the fly seperates the pros from the Master planners. I would not mind if there are more features that lowers odds of luck however.

Showing exact HP and damage ranges would make changing luck less necessary.

most fans have such ideas of remaking their favorite games into new ones. i see some pretty solid ideas here, but at the same time, the fact that you want to keep many gameplay elements are they were before, also could lead to legal issues, since assets are not limited to visual assets, if the game is too similar in the gameplay section with some elements being clear copies, you might also find yourself in a legal discuss rather quickly on how your game is actually different. and from past fanmade games we know that it doesn't even matter that the final result is free, purely the existence can spark alot of issues, especially with Nintendo since they are quick to go against releases at times.

Well I Got one Crazy Idea, what about the bar can go up to 200%, and you can activate BOTH, The Utility power, and the ofensive power, in the same turn. So its a "Super CO power" Wytrouth Being a Super CO power

It would be nice the addition of new units. For example: Wall builders (that use funds to build walls with hitpoints). Or Groundmines (similar concept). Also adding nukes (that requires to capture some nuclear facility on the map) A new unit should be nice like a "spy", a unit that are in the color of the enemy at his eyes but they cannot move it or use it and you have to attack it to uncover it. Hmmm and maybe the addition of drones (flying recon without attack).

mangs turning max into muscle mommy like we wouldn't notice

Could you make fog WITH rain be toggled as optional. Sometimes I like to play with rain on but without fog. Make snow in general or the "Olaf" CO power, limit movement range in snow rather than ONLY double fuel costs. That was the main defensive use of having snow as a mechanic. Keep the Kanbei CO defense boosts, both active and passive. There's not enough defense CO's in game, maybe make him more expensive or lower the firepower active boosts to balance him. Have piperunners operate on roads and any building. Make drawbridges or change regular bridges to allow sea units to pass underneath. On the CO menu please post the boosts and reductions for both attack and defense and movement ranges, attack ranges separately, easy to read and understand. AFTER you initially capture a Lab or Comm. Tower, putting Labs or Comm. towers to act as secondary HQ - being captured is game-over would be a fun optional condition too. So you'd have more desire to protect properties or more risky chaos protecting more than just the HQ. Plus a lab could be tied to a unit. Say if an enemy captures a lab, that disables your ability to make Neo Tanks or some other unit you could apply too. If there is a campaign, after beating regular and hard campaigns, perhaps have the campaign playable as black hole trying to invade each country. That's just some ideas from the top of my head.

As someone who enjoys AWBW and TinyWars, I always thought it would be cool to have a best of both worlds when it came to COs - a modestly powerful global day to day ability, plus an enhanced version within the CO zone of deployed COs. (Also, TinyWars already has a simulate turn feature and it is fantastic, as well as exact unit HP). As a DoR fan I'd also like to see units like bikes, flares and anti-tanks make an appearance; the naval balance is really good there too. I think the biggest thing I dislike about competitive advance wars is power management, specifically in matchups like Eagle or Rachel mirrors. Having to break out the spreadsheets to optimally plan and make sure your opponent doesn't get their power first isn't fun, but I'm not sure of a good way to mitigate it. It's why I've preferred to play fog, since you can't plan around it as easily. The DoR system is easier to play with, but it does feel odd gaining the same amount of charge from killing an infantry and a bomber. I think the direction you're going with, having multiple options of more modest powers instead of massive game deciding moves like lightning strike, is a good one. Maybe you could still have things like that in the single player campaign for people who like popping massive SCOPs, then have nerfed balanced versions in multiplayer.

This is like my dream game I would pay 60 dollars or even more for something like this. (If it’s made as you described)

the way you describe it doesnt feel like it has to be its own game outright, all the things can be made in advance wars by web or wars world, that is to get the best advance wars experience possible, if everyone got together on it, advance wars by web could be the faithful experience and wars world the zenith of what advance wars is. The point i want to get to is that the best advance wars experience has to be advance wars, but it wouldnt be the best advance wars experience, from my view, the best advance wars experience would be the one that is, yes, faithful, but most importantly, more complete. There are a lot of things i've seen on these fan games that would be amazing aditions, like an overhaul on all navy related content, railroad mechanichs, and so on. those kind of things, built over what advance wars left us, would make that ideal advance wars experience in my opinion. you did mention one thing that left an impact. Clans. There is this recurrent thought on my head that comes from the idea of making some kind of social advance wars, a social game, kind of like clash of clans, if that makes sense. every time i think about it i think on how it would be, how would the advance wars gameplay adapt. but im not a game designer nor a developer, and ideas are worth nothing on their own, so i want to trhow this out so there might be someone who sees this, someone who is a developer, who knows how to get shit done. i believe that approach could make a better lifespan.

This sounds awesome. Best of luck to you and anyone who joins you in this quest. Personally, the longer I play games, especially strategic ones, the more I loathe luck mechanics with a passion. So right off the bat, I'd personally be voting for damage values to be absolute. 55% means 55%, not 55-64%. (At least you can't roll lower. Unless you're Sonja. Who happens to be my favorite character...) But there's also still a lot to be said for the ability for infantry and such to pick off 1-hp tanks and recons and the like. While knowing the exactly 1-10 health value of a "one hp" unit would already help immensely with that, you might consider some form of finisher mechanic, where a unit at 10/100 or less takes extra damage, maybe even always 10. There'd be some balancing to get the numbers exactly right, but something like....the lower a unit's health, the higher the absolute minimum damage it takes, but if the attacker has low health, it drops back down again? That prevents some of the worst abuses and problems, I feel like. Anyway, take it if you want it, Mangs, the idea's all yours. Go make a gem! :D

4:47 My God that rifle/machinegun on Sam is cursed! The trigger is backwards, there is that hollow square that blocks the rear iron sight, and if that is supposed to be a machinegun without a pistol grip, then the buttstock is well and truly too small and too far from the vicinity of the trigger (which is still reversed! Aaaaaaaaarrrrrrggggggh!!!!)!

About luck, I would suggest to be more dependant of the rank of the unit. Introducing a sistem of ranking like days of ruin (a unit kills an enemy and ranks up gaining bonuses) and adding the luck mechanic. It would apply taking into consideration the remaining health of the unit as usual. Example: Rank 0 -> 0-4 % Rank 1 -> 4-7 % Rank 2 -> 7-10 % This would mantain the random factor but it would be more easy to predict and it would add more importance to reparations.

The core game loop of advanced wars is too good to be changed. The semplicity of the units is very well designed. The one thing i would remake is the map, in more than one point: Onorable mention: 0 - make the map, and more precisely the proprty, procedurarly generated. I play aw by web very rarly for time reasons, and loosing to an opponent that knows the capture sequence from memory in certain map is always a bitter feeling. An other reason is to give every map a little something to keep players on theur toes and something fresh every game. I consider it to be an onorable mentiong because: i know that by becoming actually good at the game, you don't need to memorize the capture chain, and making properties position in the map is incredibly difficult to balance. 1 - Probably the firstmost point i wont to see in the game: interact with the map during the game. My fevourite feature of aw by web are the destructible pipes. Make destructible properties, or that you can shell ruins with artillery and flatten it into a plain, dams that after they are destroied a new river flows in the map. In the opposite direction of destruction you can make so that players can construct terrain features: front line airbases made only for repairs, barricades, spotting towers, deployable bridges, front line barracks to deply infantry only (you can make the cost to deploy infatry here 2k or 3k for balancing if it result too powerfull), barbed wire that slows only infantry and get destroyed by veicles with tracks. To construct this buildings i would use the apc, on the line of days of ruins. Doing so it will give players more options of attack and make the apc an actually viable buy in a lot more games. To select what to construct a wheel menu is the best option in my opinion. 2 - Go ham with custom terrain. As you said having more terrain that map creator can choose to use or not is really nice. Forts that give 4 star defence, dams, highlands that gives 2 stars and +1 range to artillary and +1 vision to everything, teleporters, infantry-helded artillary position (when an infantry is in the terrain, it can fire just like an artillary, maybe a little weaker or with -1 range), mega properties that give 2k income, power plants that when occupied open pipes, underground bunker that function as stationary "transport" for vehicles where you can store and protect troops. 3 - Make small seacraft go on rivers. I am an actuall game designer, but my specilization are rpgs games, and from experience to create a good combact, designing the map and terrain featurs is 70% of the job, to capitalize on the strenght of your units. To RECAP give the map as much thought as the rest of the game, if not more. Make it so that the map changes during a match, rising sea levels, and variaty on terrain feature. Good luck on the project.

To make the most competitive kind of game but keep elements of luck, it needs to be triggerable by players and not something that is present in every attack. Something like luck being tied to terrain stars, weather, or CO powers. If you're game to change up map tiles, I suggest creating more capturable kinds of things like comm and radio towers, perhaps villages that only take 10pts to capture but only provide 500 funds, supply stations that heal units for free in a small radius, and maybe there could be an infantry-like unit with building materials that can build roads. It's like investing in an APC, a small speed boost, where it can build a short section of road that connects a few paths and then there's no renewable source of building, except perhaps a CO power.

i have some suggest 1) for some commander: -falcon : if you commit to just have effect to air unit, at least give her air defend bonus, or you can do that CO power effect all unit except infantry -soren : give him a move bonus, he will okey in Fog game, but in standard game he is not have special value -sam : give him back that instan capture, I know it kinda OP but it will make the game have the high mechanic to calculate, like voice of aksha do for exsample 2) whould you add more infantry unit type, its kinda boring that just have infantry and mech, maybe you can add sniper ,stinger (for anti-air) , mortar (the infantry for rocket), or juggernaut 3) for mechanic, i have suggest for add surrounded bonuses, like you will get +5% damage for each enemy unit that adjacent to. overall i like the balance what you did there

Hey, about the Luck Mechanic: I mean, technically you could make Luck an option that you can switch on/off at the beginning like weather and funds. Then the comp. community can decide for itself.

One thing I would like to see is a multiplayer campaign where your upgrade units In a kind of development, like Stealth jets and bombers operating like subs and water traversing tanks or drones.

I know you have a lot of great ideas and collaboration on your side already, but if you do choose to incorporate a campaign mode you wouldn't have to look far for a plot. I seem to remember you speaking fondly of how you wished there were a prequel in the series (pre-advance wars 1), and this could be your chance. You could design/name the COs similarly enough for fans to recognize but different enough so you wouldn't be stepping on Nintendo's toes. The story would basically write itself... An Olaf led Orange Star along with Nell, Grit, and Max would be your main protagonists. A long-corrupt Blue Moon would finally decide to seek global conquest. This would be your opportunity to invent a host of new COs as your antagonists. Sensei (looking to step down) would be set up with the emotional conflict of handing over Yellow Comet to an immature yet talented Kanbei. A young Eagle would be struggling to protect Green Earth from this threat on his own until he encounters a certain "pirate" in battle. He is then able to see that there is potential in this good-hearted seafarer and forge an alliance in order to protect his country. After the three nations are able to unite and the campaign is over, Olaf would feel obligated to leave and help rebuild the spirit and reputation of his home country. A heartbroken Grit would follow due to the pain of losing his lover (Nell) and learning that his best friend had since developed feelings for her. Nell is then elected to take the helm of Orange Star and your connection is complete. It would also explain the instant feelings of animosity and betrayal when Blue Moon, Yellow Comet, and Green Earth are all attacked by "Orange Star" to kick off the hostilities of the original Advance Wars.

I'll keep an eye out to sending my music portfolio and curriculum whenever the opportunity pops up. Muscle Mommy Maxime sold me on the project. Also, balance could be split between balance rules and solo play rules. These are late enough in development and testing that are actually the least of concerns. Testing, ironing out bugs and making a build that is actually clean and feels good is where projects go to die - I've worked in projects for 3-4 years, both as a student volunteer and paid professional, that takes a lot of work and people think that the project should've been "finished"... Nononono, the work is just starting now. And is usually where the multitude of features start weighing heavily.

The Genderbent got me

5:35 AHOY, Miss! Can’t believe you gave Drake such a huge pair of… buffs!

Three things: Make terrain defense stars into shields to be distinct from CO power meter stars, etc. If you want to sort of keep them as stars make the icon be a shield with a star on it. It's a pointless visual change for any experienced AW player, but would better communicate the concept to any new players. Also, it's more legally distinct. Don't forget your pitched Destroyer naval unit! Buff missiles by letting them attack more than just fliers. Make them weaker than artillery against non-fliers, though but just give them the option at least, could be useful to interrupt captures. It's silly anti-air can attack on land too and missiles can't.

What I would like to see in the game: - Original Commanders I think copy pasting AW CO would be boring. Creating more original CO's would help it's self to be different from AW. Look at mangsvance CO's they are creative and fun to play. It would be amazing to see something similar too that. - Promotion mechanic The return of the promotion mechanic from famicom wars/days of ruin would be amazing to see again and it's rewards you keeping your units alive. - A different theme With advanced wars having a modern warfare theme and Wargroove an fantasy middle ages theme, I think the game should go for a post-apocalyptic or a sci-fi theme it would make the more darker and more "edgy". - Improved naval combat This is pretty self-explanatory, naval combat is so expensive and that sucks - New units I would like to new units like the destroyer in the game. A diversive unit pool with new units would spice up the gameplay and don't forget to rebalance old units *cough cough* missiles. - Time and dedication Making games is already expensive enough. So take your sweet time with the game and most of your ideas are already amazing so I wish you good luck.

Hi ! Nice initiative ! Game designer here, but i won't comment on your choices. Just spend the time that it takes to find your "core game", and polish it. My advice as an gameboy AW player back in the day will be : re-create entirely the CO's that were boring or niche-used (i don't know if it's proper english sorry), and keep and tailor the OG CO's that were interisting to your "forcibly new" game meta, but this advice is just a gut instinct. My real advice is : if you don't want your project to wander aimlessly too long, take a few month (and a few polls ?) to make a CLEAR direction, with your designers. A core game on wich you can fall back if things go awry. Don't try to please EVERYBODY. Then, until the first test that has to be the-sooner-the-better, stick to it like a mussel on its rock. Best of luck, and thank you for your efforts !

I feel like the units fighting part should be done out of in-game gameplay, like u take control of the units whether 1 unit or few in a group of units, instead of just luck or RNG. Pretty much, make the units fighting in the game be done like FPS Chess, where the winner and the loser is decided on the FPS gameplay of chess after meeting 2 chess pieces.

Ok. I just finished watching the entire video. Here's the biggest issue rn: You have *High expectations* And to develop a great game you need a GREAT budget. So ideally you'd have to set the bar lower or find your rich uncle who works at Nintendo and get a loan. The other problem with having high expectations is the time frame needed. The more features and changes you want in it, the more time and resources you have to invest into it. You did not state how fast you want that game to be released. 2 years? 3 years? Depending on how much money you are willing to put into it you can definitely get it faster, but unless you have a huge budget you might expect it to take a while. The reason why people suggest already existing projects like Tiny Wars and Warside has to do with the fact that you can simply extend code. Code is not static like when cooking something, you could just contact the warside devs and pay em an amount they suggest and modify it to fit your needs and desires, that would be less expensive and be out much faster. Personally, given what you have mentioned on your expectations, I do not think it will be out any time soon, but I wish you luck on your endeavours. As for me, I will be working on my own Godot game, as a single developer, but I do not plan to integrate anything for competitive stuff, and no ETA of when I will even finish it.

My idea is that you can add base building to the game to make it a bit different but still fun to play. Instead of a stationary HQ, we can have a mobile HQ. That mobile HQ also responsible for building other structures such as income generator, unit generator, tech building and defensive structures such as wall and turret. We can still keep the vanilla city, factory, airport, etc. Just make the player built structure inferior to those that are captured. Also I think modular weapon could be nice as well. For example, a tank can have a light weapon slot that can fit machine gun and a heavy weapon slot that can fit a cannon/aa cannon/ rocket/ missile/ APC module. While a heavy tank have two heavy weapons slot which could be anything from tank cannon with missile, or tank with two cannons that hit twice as hard. And we can also have mech, which is actual walking robot instead of human with bazooka. So mech will have less movement than vehicles but they move better on rough terrain like forest and mountains with additional fire power and armor of a tank.

luck % should be part of the game because in real life and war things don't always go exactly as planned and you have to deal with some bad luck sometimes

7:03 I think you should keep it as it is, because the problem here its not luck itself, but rather the match-ups If you don't want a match-up to be a coin toss, simply don't make it so (From 95 to 100 or even 110) The reason you probably thought of doing something about it was because of Wargroove 2 (wich removed it completly), but in Wargroove makes sense, because there the damage is based on health(1-100), and not HP(1-10) Edit : I thought my comment was shadowbanned by youtube, but nop, its good

Maxime is like a beef up version of Leona from King of Fighters. XD And boy i love it! XD

I would like to see more variety in infantry; scouts, mortars, and snipers. I think a transport plane for vehicles would be great. Carriers for navy.

Just add an option for "Fixed" luck where rolls are always average i.e.no rng but still retains the ability for e.g. infantry to damage tanks

As someone who is attempting to get into the games industry I would love to actually help the project along, but I lack experience in professional game development. Beyond that the main things I recommend are this. Start with the bare minimum and then work your way up with the project. Those skins you were talking about sound great, but aren't integral to the game. Finish those after you have the important bits working first. Also when thinking of ideas and testing the game, don't make it in game and test it immediately. Make a physical paper prototype and use that first. This way you don't spend 3 hours implementing something that turns out to not be good in gameplay.

Good Luck Mangs, it will be a life project.

I saw one comment mention a fighter change a while back I think would be an improvement: have fighters be immune to anti-air guns. It would give a real boost to the 3 most underused units in the game: fighters, missiles, and cruisers. It makes sense theme wise (bombers have to fly low, fighters should be way above flak ceilings). Balance wise I think it would work, as bombers are already a rare all-in one play push, and fighters being even rarer since you only get them to maybe deal with bombers, but could just fall back on anti-air. I always thought the anti-air unit was a little TOO good. Cheap, fast, no ammo/fuel concerns, decimates infantry, beats light vehicles, and isn't really that bad against tanks. Another possible change to make missiles worth it: massively increase their fog of war vision (like 8 spaces), but ONLY for spotting air units.There would actually be an incentive to get them in response to air so you're not surprised. Thematically just say they come with a supporting network of radar.

4:15 you got me there bro.

I think if possible, a CPU VS with robust AI trained to emulate 1000, 1200, and 1400 MMR play style’s would be huge for training new players in a low pressure environment

While I'm not a lawyer and this is not legal advise, one suggestion that I have is that you should probably deviate further away from Advance Wars to limit the possibility of Nintendo's lawyers coming after your project since currently it sounds a lot like, aside from the online features, Advance Wars 2 with slight modifications and different assets. Even if it's going to be free to play simply having it available on places like Steam, GOG, Google Play Store etc will increase the likelihood of Nintendo becoming aware of it and Nintendo has shut down multiple fan games in the past. While a different comment covered financial governance one thing I would like to add is you should have a plan for what happens with the online servers if the donations aren't enough to sustain them. Basically you need to know if you can cover the server costs by yourself or if the servers will have to be shutdown if donations go below a certain threshold.

Maxime the muscle mommy already has me sold

Developing a game is a big effort. I suggest you to join a gamejam where you create a prototype of a game within 48 hours. not only will you gain experience in making a game but also a better understanding whether you go the open source route and make it free to play approach this as a commercial project with a game to be sold / monetized and devs actually being paid. Personally, working for months or years on a game without being paid doesn't sound compelling, even for a cool game I enjoy a lot.

an idea for Recon type unit that isn't balanced and would probably just be a meme: can attack infantry type units only at 2-3 range, deals only one damage.

as for luck: Make a middle of the road CO that's day to day nullifies luck increases and decreases. or have a no luck ladder/tournament option. meaning you can have a ladder/season etc were it's straight stats no gimmicks. sure nell flak and jugger or their proxies would not be playable but it's a better option than removing or tinkering with luck and potentially making something people dislike.

Seems pointless to recreate the same game. Taking the general mechanics and improving on the ideas would be worthwhile.

I'm just shocked that Nintendo hasn't pulled a Mystery Dungeon / Etrian Odyssey with Advanced Wars. In the same way that Mystery Dungeon got a Pokemon rebrand and Etreian Odyssey did a Persona version, I think it would be cool if Advanced wars would something like an Advanced Wars: Starcraft or Advanced Wars: Age of Empires.

For all design criteria listed, you'd better be ready to pay devs Mangs! Otherwise, you might have to compromise. Colaborative effort and free labor (even labor of love) are conflicting things, especially in lengthy projects.

You know I had this idea of a way that a Campaign might go for an Advance Wars styled game. The idea would be the MC would be able to choose various bonuses and CO Powers to use (With a similar two normal power idea) with how many based on the difficulty level chosen, with bonuses collected over the course of the game. Weaker ones would have no drawback (IE +10% direct ground vehicle attack power) and stronger ones would have some drawback (IE +25% direct ground vehicle attack power but -10% air attack power) while being prevented from gaining a boost that negates a drawback. He'd be part of a US styled force (Blue Eagle, we'll call it) where they're dealing with insurgents (Purple Haze) in a nearby nation which acts as a prologue... Then he's framed, flees with his advisor and becomes a merc. Next part would have him helping rebels of the White Snow against the Red Tide, a very Soviet Union styled force to over throw them. Their leader has backers... that vanish JUST before the final battle, making it a bit harder. Also would have unique winter warfare where rivers can freeze in spots to allow vehicles to cross, infantry takes 1 damage per turn in rivers and if there's a blizzard not only are things slower and -1 vision in FoW but infantry not in a vehicle/on a city, forest or mountain tile takes 1 damage per turn as well to exposure. Next part would be on a Japanese styled spot (Yellow Sun) where a democratically elected leader is facing down the previous emperor (The Silver Army) with a heavy focus on naval combat. All the while there's suggestions said emperor is being funded by someone... Then a European styled theater helping Green Union with an army that's trying to spread freedom... in the form on anarchy; the Crimson Flame (Dark Red as opposed to Red Tide's lighter red). Of course. Back to Blue Eagle where their commander is exposed as an agent of the BBEG and you have to help fight him off. Then seeds about said BBEG and his force, the Black Storm, finally sprout and you have to go into a series of three missions (Selected from a list of four each) to make a beachhead, go through the interior and then reach the last level with the catch being each of the Storm's COs is from the Purple Haze, Red Tide, Silver Army and Crimson Flame, all of whom were stoking conflicts. Each faction would have 2-3 COs each so it'd be a real selection.

After listening the description of what Mangs' Advance wars would be like I began to doubt wether the idea I came up with some time back would fit, but I still choose to take courage to present what I have to offer. When I was coming up with my own Advance wars COs, exploring different skills and abilities not yet utilized, I came up with a demolition/rebuild -mechanic. When footsoldiers have an ability to capture properties, vehicles could have one to damage and demolish them, and for the rebuilding game there would be two option: either a new unit to repair/rebuild, or APC is given a repair/rebuild ability. Latter would make more sense, if the ability to build temporary ports and airports from Dark conflict (Days of ruin) was to be utilized. Demolition game would work the same way as capture game: full HP unit damages a property in two turns, and lower HP means slower destruction speed. Same with the repair game, but the repair with full HP unit would have to take four turns, since repairing property would be another way of capturing it, and destruction would need to be made tactically sensible: demolition is a way to delay enemy from building strong or stronger war economy. It can also disrupt enemy's already existing economy: if full HP tank goes to demolish a city on turn 1 and enemy destroys the tank before turn 2, thus interrupting the demolition, the city is still standing, but it has suffered 50% damage and generates 50% less funds until the city is repaired. In order to balance the game, destruction speed would be 100% for direct units and 50% for indirect units. And of cource the repair mechanic would work only on destroyed properties, not ruins that serve only as a terrain type. And just like there have been COs with special luck mechanics, there would be COs who specialize with demolition/rebuild mechanics. First one I thought would have 150% demolition speed, but 50% capture & rebuild speed. He sounds like an improved Flak, which he can as well be, even though I first thought him as Flak's father who after learning about Flak's handling of the invation of Orange star decided get back on battlefield to teach his disappointment of a son how it's done. Another one would be able to use repair units to build any property he/she wants, while other COs are limited to only bringing back property that already existed there: demolished city is turned into a land base or an airport, land base on coast is turned into a port, et cetera. You can imagine the dynamics this can bring into the gameplay. Then there would also be indirect specialist whose units' demolition speeds are reversed. I also thought of a CO whose repair unit could boost fund generation of already an intact property, but I have a hard time coming up a way to balance that CO in a way I would find satisfying. What do you think of this mechanic? Does it sound doable? Would it make gameplay experience more interesting? When I was rationalizing it I began to suspect that this might make AW gameplay too complicated, or that it would require too much coding. And another question I thought was this: How well this kind of mechanic would fit to a franchise like Advance wars without breaking its tone?

Had some ideas for how to handle an Advance Wars type game myself not too long ago. A major point for me was to take the three different ways of handling powers I've seen and use all three, namely having Field Commanders similar to Wargroove that are deployed directly, Tactical Commanders similar to Days of Ruin where they are deployed into units and charge power from units around them, and others are Strategic Commanders that work like in Advance Wars.This also included corresponding powers where any CO might have two of the three types of powers which are charged in similar ways with the Groove Equivalent being an ability to Commander must use directly, a Tactical Power that can perhaps be deployed on a small area but doesn't usually affect the whole map such as a CO Power that is just to fire a Missile Silo at a spot on the map similar to how Vespar can summon Smoke to literally anywhere on the map in Wargroove 1 and isn't restricted by it having to be near her like other Commanders were in that game, and a Strategic Power that is more akin to Advance Wars where it affects everybody in your army at all times when it's deployed. For the question you directly asked, that being Luck, my solution was to use a deck of cards. I've learned that cards consistently prove to be one of the better ways of handling RNG in games like these because it means you have to cycle through them which causes some level of normalization while still having a bit of randomness to spice things up. For my idea I would have a set of Luck cards you draw from at the start of your turn and you can assign luck cards to a unit during your turn. These would expire after X combats or Y turns, whichever comes first. For many characters it'd be a mix of +0s and +5s with the odd one or two +10 cards. However, in order to cycle the deck you have to actively assign all your Luck Cards to units before you can draw more and you cannot override a Luck Card which means you want to tactically put your 0s on engagements that don't need the extra boost and not just throw it onto units that don't do anything, especially if the amount of turns it has to do nothing for is sufficiently high enough or is outright infinite. Luck COs could even have some major shenanigans such as generating a Luck card that doesn't recycle that's higher than normally such as a +50 Luck Card that lasts a whole turn or 2 to really discourage attacking into it directly, convert all current Luck Cards into positives, or if we really want to be spicy, a CO with negative Luck might even be able to hawk those +0 or -10 Luck Cards onto the opponent to prevent them from adding Luck onto their units or even weaken their counterattacks in the case of the latter. For the Sonja-based character I'd have her setup so that while she's got a persistent problem with having -10s or even -20s and no +0s she'd also have more +10s than normal and to make up for her Bad Luck if you have Line of Sight with enough units it overrides negative Luck with a +10 bonus to show that she has enough intel to account for any scenario her Bad Luck would normally cause. LoS would be drawn with a line from units to show that the LoS bonus is active and in FoW the opponent can calculate how many have LoS from what they see but have to guess if the opponent has enough to trigger the Luck Override. Another idea I had was to bring back the Battle Advisor. Except this time we acknowledge that in a world of magic, some people have limited clairvoyance. So while this person has no idea how to fight the actual CO runs ideas by the person to get insight into how it'd resolve which gives a perfect excuse for a rewind mechanic that this is how many times they can run through a scenario and how it'd resolve before they run out of time and have to commit to a strategy. There's probably other ideas but those are the big ones that come to mind immediately in a short period of time.

he can finally make an impossible mission if he completes this

Whatever you do, be sure to have a solid campaign. I recall before on the RTS scene that it's casuals who buy the campaign that are the backbone of your sales, with competitive players trickling in from that pool. Campaign and an on-ramp for rookies, and may this project, and others like it, please be successful in their own right. This world needs more nice things in it.

Andaron Saga was just step one

As long as you buff HQs to be able to survive being one-shot by "Earth and Sky" style attacks, i'm in 😅

I know an artist who has made pixel art of COs before. And who without the constrains of a GBA ROM's limitations could do even better sprites. He also knows how to animate, and has worked on romhacks and solo games before.