|Bamboozle (06/28/2013 11:54pm):|
My first map of this type, I think it turned out decent :p
|Walker Boh (06/29/2013 03:46am):|
Probably a few too many cities, and a little over-terrained in general, but it doesn't look bad.
It would be better if you started with 2 preowned bases and made the 3rd base neutral, and if
you just generally pulled the wider bases in towards the middle a little. This gives more room for
interesting reinforcement routes and more space for the fronts to develop.
|Bamboozle (06/29/2013 10:55am):|
Moved the bases in and removed a tiny bit of cities and forests. I made the middle base neutral since
there's no chance of the other team getting to it quickly (a mad scramble over a neutral base too
near the enemy wouldn't sound very fun).
Last Edited on 06/29/2013 10:57am
|walkerboh01 (06/29/2013 01:21pm):|
I would pull the preowned bases back even further, and now you can remove the preowned
TG city. In general you want to leave a decently large space between opposing bases. Right
now PC and TG's bases are separated by 9 spaces - this means that units that are built on
those bases (especially tanks) can immediately get into a position to threaten the other base.
This isn't necessarily imbalanced, but I think it leads to poor gameplay. As a general rule, you
should leave at least 13+ spaces between bases. You can do this using rivers and
mountains to create more winding paths, or you can just move the bases back into the sides
more. As the outside of your map is not really doing anything currently, moving them back is
|Bamboozle (06/29/2013 02:50pm):|
Moved them out, and placed the bases near the HQ behind mountain ranges.
|Walker Boh (06/29/2013 04:18pm):|
I approve, this map looks pretty decent now. =)
|airob (06/29/2013 04:31pm):|
Came here to point out this map is pretty good.
One thing, you could remove the farthest mountain (the one on the farthest right and left)
at the middle right where there are 4 diagonal mountains, so the enemy can attack the
airport and the enemy base from two different sides.
|Bamboozle (06/29/2013 04:54pm):|
Edited, was that what you meant?
|airob (06/29/2013 05:12pm):|
yes. Should serve as a standpoint for artillery fire.
|wareagle (06/29/2013 09:58pm):|
I'll give it a 10 to counter the undeserved 1. It looks pretty cool to me.
|Walker Boh (06/30/2013 09:34pm):|
Wareagle! Long time no see, welcome back.
|wareagle (07/01/2013 08:13pm):|
Thanks, Walker :) great to be back here.
|Bamboozle (07/29/2013 10:09pm):|
Changed it up a bit.
|walkerboh01 (02/07/2015 03:01am):|
Don't remember how it was before, but I like the concept here. One thing that could use a
tweak is the mountain range in front of the airport; it makes that base way too defensible and
keeps the enemy from being able to harass copters. When you have very forward airports, it is
often a nice idea to leave the airport semi-vulnerable. I would reduce that mountain chain to 2 at
You should also definitely either unlock the HQ and move it to a more vulnerable location, or
emphasize more of a 2v1 base setup (with the HQ side being the lone base) by tweaking the
terrain in the center or moving the neutral base. I kind of like the dynamic in the center as it is,
so I would recommend just moving the HQ.
This map is decent overall, 7/10 right now. I would definitely bump up to an 8 or even a 9
depending on what changes are made.
Last Edited on 02/07/2015 03:01am
|Bamboozle (02/11/2015 12:19am):|
Lessened the length of the mountain range, made the terrain less clustered and sent the HQs forward. Also
redistributed some properties for a smoother capture phase.
|walkerboh01 (02/12/2015 10:43pm):|
I like the changes. I'll throw some play-tests on it.
|Bamboozle (03/06/2015 11:24pm):|
Loosened the terrain a lot and redistributed a ton of terrain. Feeling a lot happier with this version now.
|walkerboh01 (06/24/2017 02:57am):|
Upped to a 9 and S-Rank'd. This looks really good.