![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I'm not sure if it matters but out of curiosity, is there any reason why the game was released in the US and EU first? It's not listed on the Intelligent Systems website ( http://www.intsys.co.jp/) and there is still no release set for Japan. Being a Japanese developer, why would Intelligent Systems/Nintendo choose to release it outside of Japan first? Falindrith ( talk) 23:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Can anyone get a copy of it when it comes out, as far as I see, it's looking EU only. YdoUask 23:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I don't know exactly what you mean by asking this, but I don't think that the game will be released exclusively in European territories. None of the other Advance Wars games have, and I don't see any reason why they would start now...then again, the game has only been shown in France and has only been listed for European release so far. Still, the game has only made two appearances and one of them was merely announcing its existence. So I think it will release in multiple territories.
Anyway, I don't think this makes too much of a difference for the article at this point.
Erik 02:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
What they mean is that the release date for Australia is unconfirmed, and that the article should be changed to reflect that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.51.83 ( talk) 06:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Well it's confirmed now XD Kiminatheguardian ( talk) 03:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
This is not completely related to the article, but has anyone noticed the change made to the game link template at the bottom of Nintendo Wars game articles? This new one seems much less refined than the previous one, and is even missing some games which were included in the last one. If possible, can anyone revert this to the old template? Comandante42 19:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I have taken care of the problem and restored the original template. In case you want to know, the user who made the changes was Shiggy. Hopefully this won't happen again. 72.49.101.186 20:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't the unit's names include what they previously were, so that, for example, people know that the Bazooka used to be the Mech? Perhaps another category for renamed units? Or something like "Bazooka (Previously known as Mech)" or "Mech (Called Bazooka in AW:DoR)"? Glade 13:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I know what you mean. When I updated and reorganized the returning unit list a while back, I added such details. Apparently they aren't necessary to this article, because someone keeps removing them. I'd leave the issue alone for now, and maybe bring it up again when this article is more fleshed-out and the rename-details might be more important.
72.49.101.186 19:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Except it is necessary, especially to players. If someone who played AW:DS comes in and looks that the list of "Returning Units", they're not going to know that Bazooka means Mech and Mech Gun means Artillery. Glade 19:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and added the old names. I noticed that they were there before, and I also don't know why they were removed. Hopefully they will stay this time. If anyone can organize the way I displayed the info better, feel free to; I couldn't think of a better format but I'm sure there is. For anyone else editing this article, try to leave in the info if you can't improve it. Comandante42 20:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Well as it turns out they're still called Mechs. Kiminatheguardian ( talk) 03:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Comandante42, while I agree with most of your recent edits to the page, I have changed your edit to the Anti-Tank info. The Anti-Tank is indeed a Howitzer-like gun unit with an indirect attack that obviously counters tank units. The Megatank seen in the screenshot going up against a Motorbike is NOT the new Anti-Tank unit, though other screens seemed to support this until recent facts were made known to me. The Anti-Tank is seen at the end of the AW: DoR Trailer video in the Factory unit production list that pops up. It is the third unit from the top of the right column, and costs 11000 G. As for the Megatank, all we have is that one screen of it, and the mini-version seen in the Infantry unit info part of another screen. I guess the details about the Megatank have yet to be revealed, but it is clear that they are two separate units; also the Megatank does not appear in the video in the list with the Anti-Tank, likely because it is unavailable at that point in the Campaign.
72.49.101.186 05:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Oddly enough, I was just about to remove my info on the Anti-Tank, but not because I had learned that I got it wrong. I just thought that it was too hard to see the difference in pixels in the screen shots, and my info may need an explanation. Anyway, I guess we will have to wait and see how the Megatank turns out. I'll try and find some more details about both units, but again, thanks for fixing my mistake. One last thing: I have noticed a tendency for many people to confuse the Flare, Anti-Tank, and Megatank sprites with each other due to the bad image and video quality. Apparently, the Flare is closer to an Artillery unit in design, and if you are right, then the one sprite thought to be the Flare is actually the Anti-Tank. Looks like the Megatank is the only true direct-attacker.
Comandante42
05:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
This is a little soon to broach the subject, but should the new Days of Ruin COs be included in the current Advance Wars CO List at all? As these COs are present in a new plotline, it would be confusing for them to be in the original article, unless the COs were reorganized by plotline. Even this, I fear, may lead to some misunderstandings. I am in favor of a separate article being created at a time when enough info has been made available so that it is clearly understood that one set of COs is unrelated to the other. Since the game release is currently months away, I do not expect a good response at least until early Jan. or the game's release, when more info may have come to light that will be vital in making the final decision.
Comandante42 20:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I think a new page is a good idea, since the other page is crowded already. Perhaps "List of Advance Wars: Days of Ruin COs" or some such. Glade 22:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and made the article and based it as much as possible on the original one. Hopefully more details can be added soon. Comandante42 ( talk) 04:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
This is definitely beyond stub-level, so well done on getting it thus far! Here are some ideas to improve it further:
Otherwise, great work. If you have any questions don't hesitate to ask. Una Laguna Talk 07:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Advance Wars: Dark Conflict goes on sale in the United States on January 21. The Australian release date has yet to be confirmed. This is the quote from: http://www.gameplayer.com.au/Home/PREVIEWS/PREVIEWGAME/tabid/1484/Default.aspx?CID=23b1c420-41b6-458a-921c-88fe2c9a6d99&v7Pager=1
If this is a LOCALISED to Australia only name why would they refer to the US release by its Aussie name? Anyway, worth keeping an I on IMO. KsprayDad ( talk) 04:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
The game is referred to by the Australian name because the site is Australian. Look at it this way: in the US, we don't refer to the Japanese name of a game when we talk about it, but almost always by its US name. Same thing in Australia. Dark Conflict is the Australian name, so it wouldn't make sense to refer to the game as Days of Ruin on an Australian website. This would only confuse Australian gamers, much like us American gamers are now perplexed by this kind of information cross-contamination. I'm sure all that has happened is that an American site saw an Australian one and rashly posted the new info as a name change without considering that the name could only be the Australian localized version. We'll know for sure in a week or so, if the big American gaming sites like IGN bring it up or not. Comandante42 ( talk) 05:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Official Nintendo Power (American) has referred to it as Advance Wars: Days of Ruin YdoUask ( talk) 01:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure Rubinelle is a pun on ruby and Lazuria on lapiz lazuli...should this be put in? 72.80.37.238 ( talk) 03:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
For the record, there will be only four nations in AW: DoR; Red (Rubinelle), Blue (Lazuria), Yellow, and Black. I know that some gaming site, either 1up.com or Gamespot, previously named the Red and Blue nations in their original preview of the game, long before Nintendo Power mentioned it. I came to the same conclusion about the origins of the names, and I've speculated on other game sites about the names of the remaining two unidentified nations. Unfortunately, the origins of the names in this game have no bearing whatsoever in the article. Such trivial info isn't allowed in articles like this unless it directly factors into an aspect of gameplay, which it does not; since the meaning of the names may be completely different in another localized version of the game, it would serve no purpose to add the info. You can post the info on this discussion page, but it can't be placed into the article. Comandante42 ( talk) 01:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Green faction's gray in this game. Kiminatheguardian ( talk) 03:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
This (official) page seems to say that the previous games' COs have been specifically killed off, rather than simply superceded by a new cast. Is it worth slightly altering the wording of the article in light of this? U-Mos ( talk) 15:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
An interview video on the Gamespot page, as well as various preview articles from other sites dated around October, clearly make the point across that the new game is a separte entity in terms of plot. Not only does this explain the absence of the old COs, but it also explains other changes such as scaled back CO powers and that there are only new countries and none of the old ones. As for the European site's credibility, that is only due to localization. As the new game has not been released yet, there is no way to compare the European and American versions for such differences. Comandante42 ( talk) 01:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I believe that the links below prove the European site is inaccurate, but if they don't satisfy you, then we will have to wait until the game is released to resolve this issue. Besides, the plot section cannot be finished until the game's release, so I don't see why we should be in a hurry to add more to it anyway, especially when a new source of info has details that contrast sharply with other sources.
Comandante42 ( talk) 19:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Image:Advance Wars 4 Cover.jpg 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 insure 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) 19:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I have seen the pictures that have been cited in recent changes pertaining to the plot, and know that their credibility has been in doubt since their release some weeks earlier. They appear to be either fakes or as yet improperly translated/localized. Besides this, though, the info added to the article differed greatly from the the content of the pictures themselves, and is thus assumptive speculation. Since the game is only a few weeks away from release, we can wait to see if the speculation is true; we just can't add it in, because it can't be concretely proven or disproven as of yet. Comandante42 ( talk) 20:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
The plot section as it currently stands makes it seem as if the plot ends with Brenner's death, something which I'm sure is not the case.
Having said that, I'm not sure exactly what happens next so I don't know what should be used for a placeholder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.19.18.166 ( talk) 22:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Forgot to mention here earlier that the plot summary now covers the entire campaign. Only vital details have been left in to conform to WP guidelines. Comandante Talk 22:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
In English Speaking Europe, all the CO's and Countries go by different names to the american ones. Could this be highlighted in a "Version differences" subsection at all? Please note this isn't merely a translation issue, given that I'm specifically refering to ENGLISH LANGUAGE PAL region carts.
62.231.137.138 ( talk) 09:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I would much rather see this as being merged and then redirected rather than a simple redirect unfortunately I haven't played the game. If there is no objections or no one actually merges in the info in an adequate amount of time (say a month?) then I am OK with the redirect. -- Sin Harvest ( talk) 02:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
No. The article is there to talk about the game. COs in their own section(article) is fine. DeathMark ( talk) 06:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The redirect alone is fine. Only a short list of the COs would be necessary for the main game article, like the one on
Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, but with fewer details (name and faction affiliation only, perhaps).
Comandante42 (
talk)
21:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I suggest that List of Advance Wars: Days of Ruin COs should be merged with List of Advance Wars COs and Advance Wars: Days of Ruin COs should only merely be mentioned in the DoR ariticle. -- penubag 02:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I suggest otherwise; this article on DoR COs can be left alone so it does not clog the actual DoR page. Per AfD transwiki and delete decision for List of Advance Wars COs, I already foresee a tremendous amount of clutter that will end up in the Advance Wars page, so there is no need for more. (I personally feel that keeping the pages separate can be far more efficient than combining and cluttering everything together - see List of Front Mission characters and Front Mission) Pasonia ( talk) 17:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I suggest, instead of merging this article with Days of Ruin, we merge it into the Advance Wars CO list. I agree that the DoR COs do not really fit into the normal Advance Wars continuum. However, seeing as how they're both technically from the same series, it may be more organized to simply put this list of COs at the bottom of the Advance Wars CO page and having the current DoR CO page redirect to the AW CO page, rather than having another separate entry for the DoR COs. Casull ( talk) 08:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Should this not be archived at the least? Should we not keep the one thread which was home to proper debate? Tim (Xevious) ( talk) 06:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
While this is off-topic, the plot was longer at one point but had to be reduced to meet WP guidelines. As for the strategy/tactics discussion, I would prefer that it be left in the past, but I see nothing wrong with the resumption of honest, constructive debate on the issue (as long as we get it done before another V-Dash shows up, whenever that may be). Comandante Talk 20:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I think it's worth noting that many of the multiplayer maps are highly unbalanced, in particular the ones which are used in random order in World matches on WFC. Many maps are symmetrical, giving the first player a proven advantage (if moving second conferred any sort of advantage, player one could simply not move and gain the second turn advantage along with an extra turn's funding); furthermore, many maps give one player an absolutely overwhelming economic head start that cannot be effectively countered. Lindsay40k ( talk) 01:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I edited the section on online play to mention these issues, however I'm not sure how to link to the section on first turn advantage in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn-based_game - little help, anyone? Lindsay40k ( talk) 02:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure this info should be added, as it seems to be original research. Is there any reliable source that shows that players with a first turn advantage will win outright? Is there proof that the first turn advantage has a greater effect on the gameplay than a player's skill? Comandante Talk 02:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Most of what you listed is all be cited (each paragraph is completely cited by the citations at the very end of them). Anyway, I may not have made the policies, but I follow them; it's just how the cookie crumbles I suppose, stuff like this is why Wikipedia has met with criticism. As for the calculation system determining the scores, quite frankly I just forgot about that. I actually found a source for it a while back, but since it was only a fan site I was planning on removing the statement; somehow it slipped my mind. Comandante Talk 04:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
All right, took care of that little problem. Back to the issue at hand: Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia, and thus maintain an encyclopedic format, prioritize what is included within it, and present quality content. Not everything that can ever be calculated, thought of, inspired, puzzled out, etc. is supposed to be put into WP, and as such, things do get left out. This just appears to be one of those things. If there was almost any source other than an independent fansite, then the statement could be kept; if one can't be found, then it will have to go at some point. Comandante Talk 04:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Well if no "proper" website runs an article mentioning the fact that symmetrical maps have FTA issues, then I suppose we'll just have to ignore it.
However, that is a separate issue to the fact that the maps listed have got massive differences in player starting properties. This is no more original research than the instances too numerous to mention in this article where figures are given about the game with absolutely no supporting evidence. Hell, half of the sources I checked up contained hardly anything relevant to the paragraph that cited them; it's almost as if someone wrote this wiki as they played through the game and added random web articles as sources without checking if they actually supported their original research.
If this article is going to meet the criteria you are setting, it has to have a major overhaul, not just to this section. Lindsay40k ( talk) 15:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, since this has gone on for about a week, I say it's high time that we begin moving to a close. I believe that the material in question should be removed, as it cannot be supported by reliable sources and is mostly game-guide-like. Just because some maps are slanted in favor of one player or the other does not mean they were intended to do so and that everyone should be aware of it. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be something where gamers can warn each other of what parts of a game are difficult or unfair, whether it be part of an FPS level or a multiplayer strategy game map. Game guides have the capacity to do that, as do forums and fansites, but Wikipedia is none of those and doesn't have to go into such specific detail. Comandante Talk 20:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
A great article, no significant flaws present.
It mentions new units but what about units that have been removed from the previous game —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.172.183.147 ( talk) 14:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Just curious, but do you plan on replacing the nominations with other awards that this title's won?
No?
Then stop removing them.
They are notable if there are few to no other awards that the title has won. It's common sense. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I withdraw from the discussion per my comment here. -- Commdor {Talk} 21:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I'm not sure if it matters but out of curiosity, is there any reason why the game was released in the US and EU first? It's not listed on the Intelligent Systems website ( http://www.intsys.co.jp/) and there is still no release set for Japan. Being a Japanese developer, why would Intelligent Systems/Nintendo choose to release it outside of Japan first? Falindrith ( talk) 23:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Can anyone get a copy of it when it comes out, as far as I see, it's looking EU only. YdoUask 23:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I don't know exactly what you mean by asking this, but I don't think that the game will be released exclusively in European territories. None of the other Advance Wars games have, and I don't see any reason why they would start now...then again, the game has only been shown in France and has only been listed for European release so far. Still, the game has only made two appearances and one of them was merely announcing its existence. So I think it will release in multiple territories.
Anyway, I don't think this makes too much of a difference for the article at this point.
Erik 02:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
What they mean is that the release date for Australia is unconfirmed, and that the article should be changed to reflect that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.51.83 ( talk) 06:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Well it's confirmed now XD Kiminatheguardian ( talk) 03:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
This is not completely related to the article, but has anyone noticed the change made to the game link template at the bottom of Nintendo Wars game articles? This new one seems much less refined than the previous one, and is even missing some games which were included in the last one. If possible, can anyone revert this to the old template? Comandante42 19:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I have taken care of the problem and restored the original template. In case you want to know, the user who made the changes was Shiggy. Hopefully this won't happen again. 72.49.101.186 20:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't the unit's names include what they previously were, so that, for example, people know that the Bazooka used to be the Mech? Perhaps another category for renamed units? Or something like "Bazooka (Previously known as Mech)" or "Mech (Called Bazooka in AW:DoR)"? Glade 13:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I know what you mean. When I updated and reorganized the returning unit list a while back, I added such details. Apparently they aren't necessary to this article, because someone keeps removing them. I'd leave the issue alone for now, and maybe bring it up again when this article is more fleshed-out and the rename-details might be more important.
72.49.101.186 19:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Except it is necessary, especially to players. If someone who played AW:DS comes in and looks that the list of "Returning Units", they're not going to know that Bazooka means Mech and Mech Gun means Artillery. Glade 19:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and added the old names. I noticed that they were there before, and I also don't know why they were removed. Hopefully they will stay this time. If anyone can organize the way I displayed the info better, feel free to; I couldn't think of a better format but I'm sure there is. For anyone else editing this article, try to leave in the info if you can't improve it. Comandante42 20:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Well as it turns out they're still called Mechs. Kiminatheguardian ( talk) 03:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Comandante42, while I agree with most of your recent edits to the page, I have changed your edit to the Anti-Tank info. The Anti-Tank is indeed a Howitzer-like gun unit with an indirect attack that obviously counters tank units. The Megatank seen in the screenshot going up against a Motorbike is NOT the new Anti-Tank unit, though other screens seemed to support this until recent facts were made known to me. The Anti-Tank is seen at the end of the AW: DoR Trailer video in the Factory unit production list that pops up. It is the third unit from the top of the right column, and costs 11000 G. As for the Megatank, all we have is that one screen of it, and the mini-version seen in the Infantry unit info part of another screen. I guess the details about the Megatank have yet to be revealed, but it is clear that they are two separate units; also the Megatank does not appear in the video in the list with the Anti-Tank, likely because it is unavailable at that point in the Campaign.
72.49.101.186 05:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Oddly enough, I was just about to remove my info on the Anti-Tank, but not because I had learned that I got it wrong. I just thought that it was too hard to see the difference in pixels in the screen shots, and my info may need an explanation. Anyway, I guess we will have to wait and see how the Megatank turns out. I'll try and find some more details about both units, but again, thanks for fixing my mistake. One last thing: I have noticed a tendency for many people to confuse the Flare, Anti-Tank, and Megatank sprites with each other due to the bad image and video quality. Apparently, the Flare is closer to an Artillery unit in design, and if you are right, then the one sprite thought to be the Flare is actually the Anti-Tank. Looks like the Megatank is the only true direct-attacker.
Comandante42
05:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
This is a little soon to broach the subject, but should the new Days of Ruin COs be included in the current Advance Wars CO List at all? As these COs are present in a new plotline, it would be confusing for them to be in the original article, unless the COs were reorganized by plotline. Even this, I fear, may lead to some misunderstandings. I am in favor of a separate article being created at a time when enough info has been made available so that it is clearly understood that one set of COs is unrelated to the other. Since the game release is currently months away, I do not expect a good response at least until early Jan. or the game's release, when more info may have come to light that will be vital in making the final decision.
Comandante42 20:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I think a new page is a good idea, since the other page is crowded already. Perhaps "List of Advance Wars: Days of Ruin COs" or some such. Glade 22:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and made the article and based it as much as possible on the original one. Hopefully more details can be added soon. Comandante42 ( talk) 04:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
This is definitely beyond stub-level, so well done on getting it thus far! Here are some ideas to improve it further:
Otherwise, great work. If you have any questions don't hesitate to ask. Una Laguna Talk 07:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Advance Wars: Dark Conflict goes on sale in the United States on January 21. The Australian release date has yet to be confirmed. This is the quote from: http://www.gameplayer.com.au/Home/PREVIEWS/PREVIEWGAME/tabid/1484/Default.aspx?CID=23b1c420-41b6-458a-921c-88fe2c9a6d99&v7Pager=1
If this is a LOCALISED to Australia only name why would they refer to the US release by its Aussie name? Anyway, worth keeping an I on IMO. KsprayDad ( talk) 04:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
The game is referred to by the Australian name because the site is Australian. Look at it this way: in the US, we don't refer to the Japanese name of a game when we talk about it, but almost always by its US name. Same thing in Australia. Dark Conflict is the Australian name, so it wouldn't make sense to refer to the game as Days of Ruin on an Australian website. This would only confuse Australian gamers, much like us American gamers are now perplexed by this kind of information cross-contamination. I'm sure all that has happened is that an American site saw an Australian one and rashly posted the new info as a name change without considering that the name could only be the Australian localized version. We'll know for sure in a week or so, if the big American gaming sites like IGN bring it up or not. Comandante42 ( talk) 05:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Official Nintendo Power (American) has referred to it as Advance Wars: Days of Ruin YdoUask ( talk) 01:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure Rubinelle is a pun on ruby and Lazuria on lapiz lazuli...should this be put in? 72.80.37.238 ( talk) 03:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
For the record, there will be only four nations in AW: DoR; Red (Rubinelle), Blue (Lazuria), Yellow, and Black. I know that some gaming site, either 1up.com or Gamespot, previously named the Red and Blue nations in their original preview of the game, long before Nintendo Power mentioned it. I came to the same conclusion about the origins of the names, and I've speculated on other game sites about the names of the remaining two unidentified nations. Unfortunately, the origins of the names in this game have no bearing whatsoever in the article. Such trivial info isn't allowed in articles like this unless it directly factors into an aspect of gameplay, which it does not; since the meaning of the names may be completely different in another localized version of the game, it would serve no purpose to add the info. You can post the info on this discussion page, but it can't be placed into the article. Comandante42 ( talk) 01:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Green faction's gray in this game. Kiminatheguardian ( talk) 03:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
This (official) page seems to say that the previous games' COs have been specifically killed off, rather than simply superceded by a new cast. Is it worth slightly altering the wording of the article in light of this? U-Mos ( talk) 15:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
An interview video on the Gamespot page, as well as various preview articles from other sites dated around October, clearly make the point across that the new game is a separte entity in terms of plot. Not only does this explain the absence of the old COs, but it also explains other changes such as scaled back CO powers and that there are only new countries and none of the old ones. As for the European site's credibility, that is only due to localization. As the new game has not been released yet, there is no way to compare the European and American versions for such differences. Comandante42 ( talk) 01:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I believe that the links below prove the European site is inaccurate, but if they don't satisfy you, then we will have to wait until the game is released to resolve this issue. Besides, the plot section cannot be finished until the game's release, so I don't see why we should be in a hurry to add more to it anyway, especially when a new source of info has details that contrast sharply with other sources.
Comandante42 ( talk) 19:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Image:Advance Wars 4 Cover.jpg 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 insure 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) 19:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I have seen the pictures that have been cited in recent changes pertaining to the plot, and know that their credibility has been in doubt since their release some weeks earlier. They appear to be either fakes or as yet improperly translated/localized. Besides this, though, the info added to the article differed greatly from the the content of the pictures themselves, and is thus assumptive speculation. Since the game is only a few weeks away from release, we can wait to see if the speculation is true; we just can't add it in, because it can't be concretely proven or disproven as of yet. Comandante42 ( talk) 20:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
The plot section as it currently stands makes it seem as if the plot ends with Brenner's death, something which I'm sure is not the case.
Having said that, I'm not sure exactly what happens next so I don't know what should be used for a placeholder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.19.18.166 ( talk) 22:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Forgot to mention here earlier that the plot summary now covers the entire campaign. Only vital details have been left in to conform to WP guidelines. Comandante Talk 22:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
In English Speaking Europe, all the CO's and Countries go by different names to the american ones. Could this be highlighted in a "Version differences" subsection at all? Please note this isn't merely a translation issue, given that I'm specifically refering to ENGLISH LANGUAGE PAL region carts.
62.231.137.138 ( talk) 09:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I would much rather see this as being merged and then redirected rather than a simple redirect unfortunately I haven't played the game. If there is no objections or no one actually merges in the info in an adequate amount of time (say a month?) then I am OK with the redirect. -- Sin Harvest ( talk) 02:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
No. The article is there to talk about the game. COs in their own section(article) is fine. DeathMark ( talk) 06:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The redirect alone is fine. Only a short list of the COs would be necessary for the main game article, like the one on
Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, but with fewer details (name and faction affiliation only, perhaps).
Comandante42 (
talk)
21:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I suggest that List of Advance Wars: Days of Ruin COs should be merged with List of Advance Wars COs and Advance Wars: Days of Ruin COs should only merely be mentioned in the DoR ariticle. -- penubag 02:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I suggest otherwise; this article on DoR COs can be left alone so it does not clog the actual DoR page. Per AfD transwiki and delete decision for List of Advance Wars COs, I already foresee a tremendous amount of clutter that will end up in the Advance Wars page, so there is no need for more. (I personally feel that keeping the pages separate can be far more efficient than combining and cluttering everything together - see List of Front Mission characters and Front Mission) Pasonia ( talk) 17:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I suggest, instead of merging this article with Days of Ruin, we merge it into the Advance Wars CO list. I agree that the DoR COs do not really fit into the normal Advance Wars continuum. However, seeing as how they're both technically from the same series, it may be more organized to simply put this list of COs at the bottom of the Advance Wars CO page and having the current DoR CO page redirect to the AW CO page, rather than having another separate entry for the DoR COs. Casull ( talk) 08:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Should this not be archived at the least? Should we not keep the one thread which was home to proper debate? Tim (Xevious) ( talk) 06:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
While this is off-topic, the plot was longer at one point but had to be reduced to meet WP guidelines. As for the strategy/tactics discussion, I would prefer that it be left in the past, but I see nothing wrong with the resumption of honest, constructive debate on the issue (as long as we get it done before another V-Dash shows up, whenever that may be). Comandante Talk 20:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I think it's worth noting that many of the multiplayer maps are highly unbalanced, in particular the ones which are used in random order in World matches on WFC. Many maps are symmetrical, giving the first player a proven advantage (if moving second conferred any sort of advantage, player one could simply not move and gain the second turn advantage along with an extra turn's funding); furthermore, many maps give one player an absolutely overwhelming economic head start that cannot be effectively countered. Lindsay40k ( talk) 01:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I edited the section on online play to mention these issues, however I'm not sure how to link to the section on first turn advantage in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn-based_game - little help, anyone? Lindsay40k ( talk) 02:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure this info should be added, as it seems to be original research. Is there any reliable source that shows that players with a first turn advantage will win outright? Is there proof that the first turn advantage has a greater effect on the gameplay than a player's skill? Comandante Talk 02:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Most of what you listed is all be cited (each paragraph is completely cited by the citations at the very end of them). Anyway, I may not have made the policies, but I follow them; it's just how the cookie crumbles I suppose, stuff like this is why Wikipedia has met with criticism. As for the calculation system determining the scores, quite frankly I just forgot about that. I actually found a source for it a while back, but since it was only a fan site I was planning on removing the statement; somehow it slipped my mind. Comandante Talk 04:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
All right, took care of that little problem. Back to the issue at hand: Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia, and thus maintain an encyclopedic format, prioritize what is included within it, and present quality content. Not everything that can ever be calculated, thought of, inspired, puzzled out, etc. is supposed to be put into WP, and as such, things do get left out. This just appears to be one of those things. If there was almost any source other than an independent fansite, then the statement could be kept; if one can't be found, then it will have to go at some point. Comandante Talk 04:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Well if no "proper" website runs an article mentioning the fact that symmetrical maps have FTA issues, then I suppose we'll just have to ignore it.
However, that is a separate issue to the fact that the maps listed have got massive differences in player starting properties. This is no more original research than the instances too numerous to mention in this article where figures are given about the game with absolutely no supporting evidence. Hell, half of the sources I checked up contained hardly anything relevant to the paragraph that cited them; it's almost as if someone wrote this wiki as they played through the game and added random web articles as sources without checking if they actually supported their original research.
If this article is going to meet the criteria you are setting, it has to have a major overhaul, not just to this section. Lindsay40k ( talk) 15:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, since this has gone on for about a week, I say it's high time that we begin moving to a close. I believe that the material in question should be removed, as it cannot be supported by reliable sources and is mostly game-guide-like. Just because some maps are slanted in favor of one player or the other does not mean they were intended to do so and that everyone should be aware of it. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be something where gamers can warn each other of what parts of a game are difficult or unfair, whether it be part of an FPS level or a multiplayer strategy game map. Game guides have the capacity to do that, as do forums and fansites, but Wikipedia is none of those and doesn't have to go into such specific detail. Comandante Talk 20:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
A great article, no significant flaws present.
It mentions new units but what about units that have been removed from the previous game —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.172.183.147 ( talk) 14:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Just curious, but do you plan on replacing the nominations with other awards that this title's won?
No?
Then stop removing them.
They are notable if there are few to no other awards that the title has won. It's common sense. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I withdraw from the discussion per my comment here. -- Commdor {Talk} 21:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)