Understanding the Middle Game

[xushu]

Long before I ever heard of AWBW, or Advance Wars for that matter, I played and loved the game of chess. I was one of the stronger players in my elementary school, and I continue to love the game to this day. My caliber was never masterful, but challengingly good.... ah memories...

The reason I bring all this up is primarily this: I have always had a weaker Middle Game. For those who do not know the term, there are three main 'phases' if you will to a chess game ( The Opening, the Middle Game, and the End Game ). My strength has always been in opening and ending and never the transitional middle... and it would appear as my experience with AWBW grows that the same issues are arising. I can start a game strong, and know exactly how to finish a situation, but when confronted with a Middle game situation against competent opponents, I falter more often than not.

I would like this thread to be dedicated to the discussion of the Middle Game of AW and how you deal with it as players. I am very interested in seeing how each of you approach it: when you tier up, when you gamble a build, how you handle a disadvantage, etc.

As a disclaimer, I realize that there are innumerable variables and many answers will be situational; that does not bother me too much if the situation is presented along with your hypothetical action. However, the real purpose of this discussion is to unearth the UNIVERSAL ideas of what works and what does not... and avoid the EXISTENTIAL cases where we can...

That being said, thank you in advance for your input and ideologies. ^_^


xushu's Notes:

Potential "Universals"-

1. Anticipation (provided by ECK)
2. Unit Variety (provided by ECK)
3. Micromanaging (provided by JakeSamiRulz)
4. Property Annexing/Defending (provided by SmackCakes)
5. Tech Responsibly

[Cereal Killer]

Gauge your opponent and assess their strategies. See what their developing and analyze their opening. That's the only universal idea I can think of that is exclusive to the middle game.

[xushu]

Forgive me, but does that not imply that your strategy would be dependent upon your opponent solely, and that your actions in a game would not be something original to you but something relative? Not to say that you are incorrect-I understand what you mean-but it would sound like the universal answer you suggest would be 'know thy enemy' more than you having a particular style of play...

I do like the "anticipation" concept you propose. I agree that ought be a facet of this project. *makes notes*

[Cereal Killer]

Forgive me, but does that not imply that your strategy would be dependent upon your opponent solely, and that your actions in a game would not be something original to you but something relative? Not to say that you are incorrect-I understand what you mean-but it would sound like the universal answer you suggest would be 'know thy enemy' more than you having a particular style of play...

I do like the "anticipation" concept you propose. I agree that ought be a facet of this project. *makes notes*

Well the particular style of play is never universal for the middle phase, its always map and CO dependent. There are certain things like having a mixed army that go in with the middle phase but those always last into the end phase as well. The middle phase is really the point in battle for adaptation and analysis of your opponent(s) more than the others.

[JakeSamiRulz]

The middle game... everyone knows in Chess that a good opening sets the tone of the game. If you start off really well, it sets the tone for the rest of the game. The mental of the middle game... more like the stalemate due to spamming. It is all about micromanaging the infantries, artilleries, and tanks. Just that you have a power you can rely on to pressure your opposition.

Usually, for me... it is never worth it to tier up until you are way past the middle game. It is all about outnumbering your opponent, and forcing him to make mistakes. As long as your unit count is higher, and your units are covered buy artillery or tanks... it doesn't matter about the phase of battle.

The more bases of deployment, the better your odds are. But any steps you take to keep your opponents unit count low and raise yours is the best step in any phase. I don't want to go to deep into strategy... but, I think in AWBW you are always in the "middle game" from the time you build your first unit.

[xushu]

Ah, I see what you are alluding to ECK. Perhaps I am being too exclusive in what I am asking.

I suppose I ought re-evaluate the goal of this discussion. Seeing that there is always going to be relativistic factors to decisions during play, and it is not truly possible to account for all such situations... I wonder if anything can be concluded in the manner of which I desire.

I am adding 'unit variety' to my notes as well.

Edit: Sorry about missing your post there, JakeSamiRulz; thank you for your perspective. ^_^

It is all about micromanaging the infantries, artilleries, and tanks. Just that you have a power you can rely on to pressure your opposition.

I like the term 'Micromanaging', so I'll add it to my notes.

I don't want to go to deep into strategy... but, I think in AWBW you are always in the "middle game" from the time you build your first unit.

Although I see where you are coming from, I cannot quite see the games that way. I mean, Openings come from your captures and early production. The units, after suitable development and fund gathering meet up for the first time. As the front begin to form up, the Middle Game, in my opinion, begins to start. The Endgame comes when one of the fronts/lines are broken or a weakness is exploited and the opponent begins his recoiling.

[excrimophalus 1]

I think it would be easier if you provided a certain game, because i don't think that there really is any universal strategy for the middle game. Or do you not want something that specific?

[xushu]

I think it would be easier if you provided a certain game, because i don't think that there really is any universal strategy for the middle game. Or do you not want something that specific?

Ideally, I would not like an example game but rather have the metaphysical theory discussed. Hence why I used the term universal; I wanted the ideas developed here to be applicable outside of a given circumstance. I do relent that a physical analog would be helpful, but only if it did not become a discussion about the game itself and stayed to Middle Game theory. That being said, would anyone suggest a strong game to use as an example? I would offer one of my games, but one ought study under geniuses more than intermediates. ^_^;;

[Falkenwing]

Well obviously setting up a meatshield with indirects guarding the front. In a Pro game, you would both have anti-airs, tanks, infantries, and artilleries. Usually this becomes a stalemate for a day or more. What you want is unit variety in the middle game, and have air units to break the opponent's ranks. After breaking the ranks, you must use your variety of units to push through as effectively as possible.

Which is basically using your factories right, and building before the opponent does. You must also group your units effectively, such as AA with Tank, or B-Copter and Tank. You will obviously know that if you build a B-Copter the opponent's going to build an anti-air. So just bring a tank escort so you won't have to retreat that copter.

[excrimophalus 1]

A lot of the middle game is your play style. I personally like to tier up as soon as i feel like i have enough smaller units that a big unit won get overwhelmed.

I think some people make the mistake of feeling that they have to make a move as soon as possible. Don't make a move until your ready or see a weakness.

If your at a disadvantage? Hope your opponent screws up, lol.
I guess i would generally be a little bit less agressive, and try to avoid tradeoffs if possible. And dont be afraid to retreat a bit; your units wouldnt have to go as far to get to your lines from your factories.

Also, as eck said, assess your opponents strategy. So much of what you do depends on your opponent.

But of course all of this could change depending on the circumstances. For example, i would be more reluctant to tech up if i was kanbei.

[psycho guy]

pick off units and make sure your opponent can't retaliate or will suffer dire consequences if he decides to retaliate

it's not rocket science


There are also some unconventional strategies one can employ to prevent attack.

Building b-copters, anti-air, t-copters, and mechs for example.

The makes it so that opponent's tanks and b-copters don't have any good targets to attack. You can't do much vs indirects with that kind of force though.

It's easier to just use one support artillery instead of changing your entire game plan though. You only need one at first because it shouldn't die (unless you're doing something incredibly wrong).

[SmackCakes]

The middle game for me begins when you have nowhere else to expand other than into your opponent's territory.

It is important to keep a clear focus on your goal here... which is to increase your property count. I think that is probably the key to understanding middle game.

Having more income than your opponent is your absolute number one priority. You should always be ready to snatch properties at the earliest opportunity. That is one of the main reasons it is so important to have lots of infantry... so there is always one handy to start capturing, and another one handy to join and finish capturing if the first one takes a hit. You should never abandon a capture, and you should never let your opponent take a city without a fight.

Taking properties away from your opponent is how you win the game. If for example you both have 10 properties, and you take 1... now you have 11 and they have 9 which is actually a difference of 2. This means that not only are you stronger, but they are weaker. Next time you fight for a property you will have that slight advantage. The more you take... the easier it will be to take the next one, and the harder it will be for your opponent to scrape together enough recourses to stop you. Games are won one property at a time.

Having said that... your first priority is to hold onto what you already have. If your opponent can't take your properties, then they can't beat you... this is like your safety net. So any and all cities that you have you need to make sure they are well defended. And you need to keep building on your defences for the duration of the game... artillery make good defenders and later rockets make cities almost impossible to get anywhere near.

Your next objective is to take cities away from your opponent. The key here is to identify the cities that are hardest for your opponent to defend. You don't want to get into a full on blood bath over cities at this point... often there are odd cities around the flanks or away on an island somewhere that a lone infantry with a good sense of timing can pick off on his own, if he's sneaky enough... It isn't always obvious which cities they are, that's why it can be helpful to test the map first and see which ones generally fall without a fight and which ones cost their weight in dead bodies.

Once you capture a city you need to go back to point 1 and defend defend defend, so it can't be taken back.

After you have done all this, you can start trying to tackle the more difficult properties, they will fall much easier after you have a fund advantage.

The objectives are simple, but the real art is getting them done fast in one smooth seamless motion. You should also try and make your opponent spread out as much as possible. If they only have infantry on one side of the map, send a recon or a tank there and force them to pay out for a tank of their own... You don't have to attack you can just pull it back and defend again, but it's important to keep the pressure on and keep probing them. The idea is that when you do attack a city all their other units are busy trying to hold down other areas of the map to mount a good defence.

Other little details can help... on maps with little one city islands a lander can be a much better investment than black boats. Often opponents will just build black boats cause they are fast and cheap and allow them to get infantry to the island... take the city and forget about it.

But going back to my point earlier these are the cities you should focus on. Because your opponent can only defend them with infantry... If you were to drop an AA there then it's an easy cap. And it's pretty much impossible to take back unless they build a lander of their own... but then they've wasted money because they already paid $7500 for a black boat.

It's usually about this time I'll start to look for the killing blow. A lot of the time these are ports or airports, that you might be able to lock down (sometimes com towers). But then we start getting into end game, so I'll leave it at that.

Hope thats informative, and helps you win a few more.

[Ultra Storm]

Other little details can help... on maps with little one city islands a lander can be a much better investment than black boats. Often opponents will just build black boats cause they are fast and cheap and allow them to get infantry to the island... take the city and forget about it.

But going back to my point earlier these are the cities you should focus on. Because your opponent can only defend them with infantry... If you were to drop an AA there then it's an easy cap. And it's pretty much impossible to take back unless they build a lander of their own... but then they've wasted money because they already paid $7500 for a black boat.

It's also common to block the shoals with infantry, so you'll probably need indirect support for the lander to be able to drop units. This often demands a battleship, in which case you probably don't need vehicles anyway.

[Hellraider]

I play chess too, and the middle game is the only thing I can play.

Similar to chess, you have basically two goals. Either to gain a material advantage (killing more units than you lose) or a positional advantage (which usually results in more income). Most basic way to gain an advantage is by picking off badly protected infantry. Works wonders even against good players. You can also slowly gain space by superior indirect positioning, for instance by using the terrain efficiently. Once you have enough light vehicles (tank, arty, AA, copter) you should tech up to Stealths, rockets or Bships, simply because the spaces you can attack from are limited. A lot depends on CO choice too, especially deciding whether you want to overwhelm your opponent once given the possibility or simply mass as many units as possible.

All the theorycraft aside, the main part of AW is still calculation. Most of the games aren't won by subtle strategic decisions, but by killing more than your opponent does. Next important issue is to place your units as offensive as possible without giving the opponent an opportunity to own them.
The most basic and simple strategic decision would be deciding on what to build.

[Taz]

Middle game is rather my strong point, so I'd try to help there
There are two ways of winning the game. The first is to win by controlling more ground, the second is to win by destroying more (and better) units.
In mid-game, fronts are still pretty fluid, and you should take advantage of this to create unbalances, meaning trying to concentrate your forces on a point of the front where you can blow up your opponent, while you have just enough forces to hold your front elsewhere. Strategy (building the right unit, sending it at the right place) is essential, especially in high-level game, where you can't expect to see your opponent do a stupid tactical mistake. However, you must also anticipate what your opponent can do, and if necessary, retreat to avoid heavy losses and attack better elsewhere.
The unit you should build is the unit that can give you such a decisive advantage, whithout jeopardizing the other fronts.
If high-tech units are such units, do build them. If they're too easy to counter (Md.Tanks against an infantry line, a rocket you can't defend efficiently), it's better to stick to low-tech units.