[2.1r] [Home]
Login | Register


Lost Butterfly (Design Map by tst5381)
Categories: A-Rank























[Games on this map]
[Play on this map]
[Map Analysis]
[Check Favorites]
[Export map as text]

Ratings go from 1 (awful) to 10 (near perfect).
Discuss this and other design maps and get tips and
suggestions from other users at the AWBW Design Maps Forum

Rating: 7.00 in 25 ratings
Map Committee Rating: 8.00 in 2 ratings
Comments:
DuelStriker (07/15/2008 12:05pm):
Cool map.
lwhhh (07/15/2008 11:38pm):
Command tower next to the tree lot.Dispute will be Fierce
ESDoc3 (07/18/2009 05:03pm):
hi#
a432 (10/24/2009 12:50pm):
Good map. Not my preferred play style though. Each base has two fronts it wants to produce
units for which makes for some interesting decisions. The HQs seem a little vulnerable to
me and it feels like a rush to capture them. Fog is fun with all the forests.
Tyrantboy (12/04/2009 03:50am):
i would say too much fta counter

not only is there one more infantry, but GE infantry can capture the factory in 2 turns
whereas BM will take 3
Nubelch (12/04/2009 11:50am):
Yes, fta is countered too much. Either give BM 3 infantry as well or place the infantry on the
hq like GE has.

Overall nice map, but the fight will often end soon by one of the hq's being captured.
Especially in fog.
tst5381 (12/24/2009 04:21am):
But, I have to say, in a general map with three bases each side (one is neutral), we tend
to place fta counter on the base which is closer to the third base.
And after a few turns, the second player will get the third base earlier while having one
more unit than the first player.
So, what's the difference between that and the FTA settlement of this map?
tst5381 (04/11/2010 09:48am):
Updated again.
xushu (04/16/2010 02:19pm):
I almost liked how it was before better, but now the HQs can be attacked easier so... I'll
play a game on it and get back for a more complete analysis.
tst5381 (04/16/2010 04:31pm):
Thanks for play-testing it.
I'm observing games played on it to see whether this change are favoured.
xushu (05/19/2010 12:05am):
After playing my game on this version, I am of the opinion that four bases are too many
and encourage lots of infantry spam. I believe I like it better with the three bases, but
you ought not change it solely on my advice. ^_~
walkerboh01 (06/24/2010 02:29am):
I didn't play the original version, but I agree with xushu that the 4 bases tend to produce a lot of infantry and mech
spam. I imagine it would be better with three bases, although I don't know how you'd reposition the bases (maybe
take one of the central ones out for each side?). It's a very good map though, it's certainly fun to play on as is too.
walkerboh01 (06/24/2010 02:30am):
Hooray for accidentally double posting. Warning to all, don't hit back after you post something, it causes a double
post ;-)
Last Edited on 06/24/2010 02:31am
tst5381 (07/18/2010 09:17pm):
Before I edit this map back to three factories per side, I need to find out a way to solve
the HQ-rush problem, which almost happened on every games on this map.
Twelve Boats (07/23/2010 05:56am):
sami is really damn good on this map
walkerboh01 (08/09/2010 10:07pm):
You could just straight move the HQ to somewhere more protected tst...
jhuni (03/20/2011 08:50pm):
This FTA counter looks fine to me.
tst5381 (05/19/2011 02:09pm):
I really want to change the hq position but i never got a chance...
there is always some games played on this map, even if i unpublished it...
walkerboh01 (06/11/2011 01:38pm):
That's because it's on the list of maps for the automated games. Just pm rast if you want
to get it off the list so you can made changes.
tst5384 (10/21/2011 10:43pm):
Big changes are made. I think the gameplay will improve a lot.
Last Edited on 10/21/2011 10:43pm


[Refresh map]



Advance Wars is (c) 1990-2001 Nintendo and (c) 2001 Intelligent Systems
All images are copyright their respective owners
Created using pico
Launched on December 3, 2004
Page execution took 0 seconds